Another Brick in the Wall
Gosh, who could have predicted that something like this could happen?
High school senior Allen Lee sat down with his creative writing classon Monday and penned an essay that so disturbed his teacher, school administrators and police that he was charged with disorderly conduct.
...
Allen Lee, an 18-year-old straight-A student at Cary-Grove High School, was arrested Tuesday near his home and charged with disorderly conduct for an essay police described as violently disturbing but not directed toward any specific person or location.
This is what happens when you institute retarded "zero tolerance" policies. This is what happens when you have a society that lives in a constant state of fear. This is what happens when you turn over the expectation for "safety" to an institution instead of maintaining your own individual level of responsibility.
In short, this is what happens when people stop thinking for themselves.
And by the way - even if this kid isn't dangerous in the least, there are kids all over the country who will see this story and applaud his actions and add this little incident to their mental file of how society is trying to slowly kill them.
Oh - and one more thing? He's ASIAN!! *gasp*
The whole store is here.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
"Oh, I know Quakers..."
This morning I was at a non-profit networking function and ended up talking to a nice lady sitting next to me. We chatted about the usual - kids, their foibles, the challenges, the quirks. Through various statements, it became clear that she is a Christian lady who goes to church regularly, and I think she figured she was in the company of all Christians because she didn't avoid the topic of religion as one would expect in a social/business setting with people you've just met. Still, it was all very light and harmless.
And then the conversation turned ...
I won't bore you with how we got to this point, but I said, "Well, my dad's side of the family is Quaker. I guess I identify with that more than any other Christian faith, but there aren't many Quaker meeting houses in Colorado, so we don't attend anywhere. " (Note - I did Google and found 12 in Colorado, the closest being about 30 miles away. I was surprised that there were 12, I figured less than a handful. Learn something new every day.)
Anyway, she immediately responded, "Oh, *I know* Quakers." Her expression and tone seemed kind of disparaging so I asked her (very nicely, with a smile) what she meant.
"Well, I'm from Philly! Of course I know Quakers, they're all over the place. There's a Quaker community not far from where I used to live, actually."
Hmm. "Oh? Now, just making sure here, but the Quakers aren't Amish - are you sure you're thinking of a Quaker community?"
"Oh no, it's not Amish, it's Quaker. I just love the town. The horse drawn buggies are so cute."
OK, I figured I would just move on - for all I know, there is a Quaker community in Pennsylvania and maybe they have some horse drawn buggies. Whatever. I tried to draw the conversation back to center a little.
"From what I've seen in the genealogy, my dad's side of the family way back immigrated with Penn in the 1600's, but they kept going and settled in Ohio. It's just a very simple faith. I like it, and I would have a difficult time going to a 'traditional' Christian church regularly. I couldn't do it." I ended with a shrug, figuring that since she knew about Quakers, she would understand.
At this point, the lady on her other side chimed in. I'd been kind of watching her out of the corner of my eye, since I'm always a little leery of religious discussions in public and especially in business settings, but she had been nodding in all of the right places. She had also been open about being a churchgoer and quite active in her congregation, but seemed more accepting of what I was saying.
"It's too ritualistic for you, isn't it?"
Right on! I was surprised, but pleasantly. Now, though, the lady next to me looked really baffled, so I explained that things like communion, baptism, confirmation, marriage ceremony ... none of that. No altars, no statues of the Virgin Mary. I told her that I was baptized and confirmed on the same day, and that I really resisted it and didn't want to do it but at the time, we had moved west and were going to a Methodist church, which was more my mother's side of the family.
She was shocked. "But - why don't Quakers baptize their babies?"
"Because they are not born in sin and it's an unnecessary ritual for a relationship that exists only between the person and God."
She appeared seriously shaken by now, and I decided to have a little fun.
"You know, the Catholic Church even abolished limbo this week, so all of those unbaptized folks who have been languishing for eons are good to go now."
"What's limbo?"
Argh.
"And another thing - back in the day and probably now among the more traditional Quakers, Christmas wasn't celebrated."
"Oh yes, I knew that - Quakers don't care about Jesus, it's not part of the faith."
Splutter ... "What?? No!! That's not why. Quakers are Christians, as in 'Christ.' They don't celebrate Christmas because God gave us every glorious day and there's no need to raise one day above another. "
I told her that the Puritans didn't celebrate Christmas either, that it was flat outlawed, and that nobody thought THEY weren't Christians. Besides, December 25th is an arbitrary "birthday."
It was still a pretty friendly tone, but in an attempt to keep it that way, I joked that the dangly earrings I was wearing would have also been frowned upon, at which point the other lady said, "Yes, they would have been considered frivolous adornment, right?" Two points for her.
We wrapped up around then because thankfully we had another speaker coming up, but it just stuck in my head all day. I really don't have a problem with the fact that this lady clearly has her own beliefs and if that's what brings her comfort, so be it. But beyond obvious disagreement with the Quaker beliefs, which is also fine as long as I don't end up with a hole poked in my tongue, I was really bothered by the lack of knowledge of other sects of Christianity. It doesn't really surprise me when people don't know much about Quakers, but it's also an ignorance American history. William Penn was a key figure in colonial history, and he is who most people think of as a famous Quaker, moreso than the founder George Fox.
There was also the confusion about limbo, which indicates both a lack of knowledge regarding Catholicism and literature. I just don't get it. How can you be comfortable in your own beliefs if you haven't taken the least interest in learning about others?
To me, Quaker beliefs make sense, and they have for as long as I can remember, even though I don't think I've ever been to a Quaker meeting and don't recall my father or grandmother ever talking to me about the Quaker beliefs as a child. I learned about "church" from friends, from going to a Christmas service occasionally, from going to a Methodist church when we moved to Illinois, and from school. I never thought baptism made sense for babies - what could they possibly have done that was so bad that God would send them to Hell if they didn't get some water splashed on them? Communion seemed a little silly, but at least it was a chance to walk around during church and have some grape juice and a cracker. Confession? Right out of the question. I didn't see why anyone put up with that nonsense but since we weren't Catholic, it wasn't my problem. And although I love beautiful cathedrals, I like the idea of a simple Quaker meeting house better, and not being inside at all would be ideal. Actually, I remember one time as a late teen (after my family had resettled again in East Texas), my mother tried to get me to go to an Easter service and I finally just said no, that she could go sit in her boring little manmade church, I would prefer to sit on the front porch and look at God's creation directly, including that bird right over there.
Don't get me wrong, I am not mocking my mother or the Methodist church. It's just not for me. Her desire for me to go to church was rooted in love and I understood that, but after a while I think she realized it was a losing battle to try to get me to go to a traditional church and she let it go. Later in life, she and my dad moved to Vermont and attended a very simple Quaker meeting regularly, and just recently they moved back to East Texas and attend a very nontraditional church (not Quaker) that holds services outside. I think, though, that she's a Quaker at heart and it just took her a while to break away from her idea from childhood of what church should look like.
Anyway, it was just an odd conversation and a part of me wants to say a little prayer for her, even though she probably wouldn't appreciate it or think it's necessary. But still, maybe I'll just say one for us all.
This morning I was at a non-profit networking function and ended up talking to a nice lady sitting next to me. We chatted about the usual - kids, their foibles, the challenges, the quirks. Through various statements, it became clear that she is a Christian lady who goes to church regularly, and I think she figured she was in the company of all Christians because she didn't avoid the topic of religion as one would expect in a social/business setting with people you've just met. Still, it was all very light and harmless.
And then the conversation turned ...
I won't bore you with how we got to this point, but I said, "Well, my dad's side of the family is Quaker. I guess I identify with that more than any other Christian faith, but there aren't many Quaker meeting houses in Colorado, so we don't attend anywhere. " (Note - I did Google and found 12 in Colorado, the closest being about 30 miles away. I was surprised that there were 12, I figured less than a handful. Learn something new every day.)
Anyway, she immediately responded, "Oh, *I know* Quakers." Her expression and tone seemed kind of disparaging so I asked her (very nicely, with a smile) what she meant.
"Well, I'm from Philly! Of course I know Quakers, they're all over the place. There's a Quaker community not far from where I used to live, actually."
Hmm. "Oh? Now, just making sure here, but the Quakers aren't Amish - are you sure you're thinking of a Quaker community?"
"Oh no, it's not Amish, it's Quaker. I just love the town. The horse drawn buggies are so cute."
OK, I figured I would just move on - for all I know, there is a Quaker community in Pennsylvania and maybe they have some horse drawn buggies. Whatever. I tried to draw the conversation back to center a little.
"From what I've seen in the genealogy, my dad's side of the family way back immigrated with Penn in the 1600's, but they kept going and settled in Ohio. It's just a very simple faith. I like it, and I would have a difficult time going to a 'traditional' Christian church regularly. I couldn't do it." I ended with a shrug, figuring that since she knew about Quakers, she would understand.
At this point, the lady on her other side chimed in. I'd been kind of watching her out of the corner of my eye, since I'm always a little leery of religious discussions in public and especially in business settings, but she had been nodding in all of the right places. She had also been open about being a churchgoer and quite active in her congregation, but seemed more accepting of what I was saying.
"It's too ritualistic for you, isn't it?"
Right on! I was surprised, but pleasantly. Now, though, the lady next to me looked really baffled, so I explained that things like communion, baptism, confirmation, marriage ceremony ... none of that. No altars, no statues of the Virgin Mary. I told her that I was baptized and confirmed on the same day, and that I really resisted it and didn't want to do it but at the time, we had moved west and were going to a Methodist church, which was more my mother's side of the family.
She was shocked. "But - why don't Quakers baptize their babies?"
"Because they are not born in sin and it's an unnecessary ritual for a relationship that exists only between the person and God."
She appeared seriously shaken by now, and I decided to have a little fun.
"You know, the Catholic Church even abolished limbo this week, so all of those unbaptized folks who have been languishing for eons are good to go now."
"What's limbo?"
Argh.
"And another thing - back in the day and probably now among the more traditional Quakers, Christmas wasn't celebrated."
"Oh yes, I knew that - Quakers don't care about Jesus, it's not part of the faith."
Splutter ... "What?? No!! That's not why. Quakers are Christians, as in 'Christ.' They don't celebrate Christmas because God gave us every glorious day and there's no need to raise one day above another. "
I told her that the Puritans didn't celebrate Christmas either, that it was flat outlawed, and that nobody thought THEY weren't Christians. Besides, December 25th is an arbitrary "birthday."
It was still a pretty friendly tone, but in an attempt to keep it that way, I joked that the dangly earrings I was wearing would have also been frowned upon, at which point the other lady said, "Yes, they would have been considered frivolous adornment, right?" Two points for her.
We wrapped up around then because thankfully we had another speaker coming up, but it just stuck in my head all day. I really don't have a problem with the fact that this lady clearly has her own beliefs and if that's what brings her comfort, so be it. But beyond obvious disagreement with the Quaker beliefs, which is also fine as long as I don't end up with a hole poked in my tongue, I was really bothered by the lack of knowledge of other sects of Christianity. It doesn't really surprise me when people don't know much about Quakers, but it's also an ignorance American history. William Penn was a key figure in colonial history, and he is who most people think of as a famous Quaker, moreso than the founder George Fox.
There was also the confusion about limbo, which indicates both a lack of knowledge regarding Catholicism and literature. I just don't get it. How can you be comfortable in your own beliefs if you haven't taken the least interest in learning about others?
To me, Quaker beliefs make sense, and they have for as long as I can remember, even though I don't think I've ever been to a Quaker meeting and don't recall my father or grandmother ever talking to me about the Quaker beliefs as a child. I learned about "church" from friends, from going to a Christmas service occasionally, from going to a Methodist church when we moved to Illinois, and from school. I never thought baptism made sense for babies - what could they possibly have done that was so bad that God would send them to Hell if they didn't get some water splashed on them? Communion seemed a little silly, but at least it was a chance to walk around during church and have some grape juice and a cracker. Confession? Right out of the question. I didn't see why anyone put up with that nonsense but since we weren't Catholic, it wasn't my problem. And although I love beautiful cathedrals, I like the idea of a simple Quaker meeting house better, and not being inside at all would be ideal. Actually, I remember one time as a late teen (after my family had resettled again in East Texas), my mother tried to get me to go to an Easter service and I finally just said no, that she could go sit in her boring little manmade church, I would prefer to sit on the front porch and look at God's creation directly, including that bird right over there.
Don't get me wrong, I am not mocking my mother or the Methodist church. It's just not for me. Her desire for me to go to church was rooted in love and I understood that, but after a while I think she realized it was a losing battle to try to get me to go to a traditional church and she let it go. Later in life, she and my dad moved to Vermont and attended a very simple Quaker meeting regularly, and just recently they moved back to East Texas and attend a very nontraditional church (not Quaker) that holds services outside. I think, though, that she's a Quaker at heart and it just took her a while to break away from her idea from childhood of what church should look like.
Anyway, it was just an odd conversation and a part of me wants to say a little prayer for her, even though she probably wouldn't appreciate it or think it's necessary. But still, maybe I'll just say one for us all.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Come ON, folks!
Don't you hate all of the junk mail you get, the mortgage offers, the credit card deals, the credit protection, the convenience checks, and so on? I do, and am seriously considering signing up with Green Dimes at some point, but I have to admit that a part of me will miss getting all of this garbage. Why? Because I get some kind of perverse amusement out of seeing the many creative ways that business - mostly lenders - try to separate you from your money.
Yesterday I went through my pile and sorted out the usual crud, and two pieces caught my eye. One was a batch of convenience checks - those are the checks you can write to anyone and the lender will consider it a cash advance. Most of the time they offer a lower rate either as a limited time teaser or until the balance is paid off, but this one didn't so I set it aside to read further. It was a doozy, too. The letter attached to the checks was all of the usual cheery drivel about how they were kindly offering you the ability to consolidate debt, pay for that much deserved vacation, finish the basement, or whatever you wanted to do.
The first thing I looked for was the transfer fee. In the past, transfer fees have run about 3% but had a maximum of $60-75, regardless of how much you took as an advance. I've been waiting for those maximums to go away and sure enough, this one did not have one. In the past, if you wanted to use a low rate offer and take a cash advance of $5000 to pay off a balance with a higher card, you would paid a maximum of $75 (1.5%), but this advance was $150 (3%). Since transfer/cash advance fees should be considered when figuring out whether to move debt or leave it where it is, an offer without a maximum definitely changes the equation.
In this case, though, it didn't matter because there was no low teaser rate. This cash advance was going to get smacked directly at almost 24% interest from day one. 24%!!! Oh my dear heavens! If your lender charged a 4% minimum payment (hitting you with $200/month more in monthly bills), it would take you 15 years to pay off a $5000 cash advance at 24%, and you'd pay almost another $5000 in interest.
Meanwhile, if you could control yourself for a little while and just set aside $200 in a a puny 2% interest bearing account, you'll have $5000 in a little over two years. Keep going and in that same 15 years that you would have been paying off your silly cash advance debt, you would have a little over $40,000.
Maybe you don't need that vacation so much, and maybe the basement can wait a little bit, eh?
Don't you hate all of the junk mail you get, the mortgage offers, the credit card deals, the credit protection, the convenience checks, and so on? I do, and am seriously considering signing up with Green Dimes at some point, but I have to admit that a part of me will miss getting all of this garbage. Why? Because I get some kind of perverse amusement out of seeing the many creative ways that business - mostly lenders - try to separate you from your money.
Yesterday I went through my pile and sorted out the usual crud, and two pieces caught my eye. One was a batch of convenience checks - those are the checks you can write to anyone and the lender will consider it a cash advance. Most of the time they offer a lower rate either as a limited time teaser or until the balance is paid off, but this one didn't so I set it aside to read further. It was a doozy, too. The letter attached to the checks was all of the usual cheery drivel about how they were kindly offering you the ability to consolidate debt, pay for that much deserved vacation, finish the basement, or whatever you wanted to do.
The first thing I looked for was the transfer fee. In the past, transfer fees have run about 3% but had a maximum of $60-75, regardless of how much you took as an advance. I've been waiting for those maximums to go away and sure enough, this one did not have one. In the past, if you wanted to use a low rate offer and take a cash advance of $5000 to pay off a balance with a higher card, you would paid a maximum of $75 (1.5%), but this advance was $150 (3%). Since transfer/cash advance fees should be considered when figuring out whether to move debt or leave it where it is, an offer without a maximum definitely changes the equation.
In this case, though, it didn't matter because there was no low teaser rate. This cash advance was going to get smacked directly at almost 24% interest from day one. 24%!!! Oh my dear heavens! If your lender charged a 4% minimum payment (hitting you with $200/month more in monthly bills), it would take you 15 years to pay off a $5000 cash advance at 24%, and you'd pay almost another $5000 in interest.
Meanwhile, if you could control yourself for a little while and just set aside $200 in a a puny 2% interest bearing account, you'll have $5000 in a little over two years. Keep going and in that same 15 years that you would have been paying off your silly cash advance debt, you would have a little over $40,000.
Maybe you don't need that vacation so much, and maybe the basement can wait a little bit, eh?
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Old School Phones
My eight year old, Jake, just informed me that he knows how to work "old school" phones.
"You put your finger in the hole and rotate it clockwise all the way around until it stops, and then you put your finger in the hole with the next number and do the same thing, over and over."
Wow, do I feel old.
My eight year old, Jake, just informed me that he knows how to work "old school" phones.
"You put your finger in the hole and rotate it clockwise all the way around until it stops, and then you put your finger in the hole with the next number and do the same thing, over and over."
Wow, do I feel old.
Sunday, February 04, 2007
What I've learned...
A few things that I've learned (or been reminded of) over the last seven weeks since I've been home with a new baby ...
1. Daytime TV will kill your brain. Even the History Channel - a shining beacon in a sea of courtroom TV shows and repeats of "I know I've had 47 men take a DNA test but I'm one thousand and infinity sure that THIS one is the daddy of my baby" Maury - gets a little repetitive. I know more about cults than I ever thought I would, and did you know that the first and last people who died during the construction of the Hoover Dam were father and son?
2. Babies prefer to poop in freshly changed diapers.
3. We are a incredibly malnourished and unhealthy nation, judging by all of the commercials for "healthy" food and medications. The next time you watch the national news, count how many of the commercials are for something that claims to prevent illness or treat a symptom of an illness. That includes food and vitamins.
4. Anything can be bought for "pennies a day," and you DESERVE it. All of it.
5. Germs are bad. You should buy any product that promises to kill them on every surface of your home, including your air.
6. Erica Kane still looks the same, but Tad and Dixie do not (although I just read that Dixie died on January 30th).
7. If the baby falls asleep, you should try to fall asleep. And eat. Definitely eat.
8. Don't give away the coffee maker because you never drink coffee ... right before you have a baby.
9. Breast milk IS better, especially if you want to cut down on spit up.
10. There really is a difference when it comes to cheap diapers.
11. I have a lot more patience than I thought.
A few things that I've learned (or been reminded of) over the last seven weeks since I've been home with a new baby ...
1. Daytime TV will kill your brain. Even the History Channel - a shining beacon in a sea of courtroom TV shows and repeats of "I know I've had 47 men take a DNA test but I'm one thousand and infinity sure that THIS one is the daddy of my baby" Maury - gets a little repetitive. I know more about cults than I ever thought I would, and did you know that the first and last people who died during the construction of the Hoover Dam were father and son?
2. Babies prefer to poop in freshly changed diapers.
3. We are a incredibly malnourished and unhealthy nation, judging by all of the commercials for "healthy" food and medications. The next time you watch the national news, count how many of the commercials are for something that claims to prevent illness or treat a symptom of an illness. That includes food and vitamins.
4. Anything can be bought for "pennies a day," and you DESERVE it. All of it.
5. Germs are bad. You should buy any product that promises to kill them on every surface of your home, including your air.
6. Erica Kane still looks the same, but Tad and Dixie do not (although I just read that Dixie died on January 30th).
7. If the baby falls asleep, you should try to fall asleep. And eat. Definitely eat.
8. Don't give away the coffee maker because you never drink coffee ... right before you have a baby.
9. Breast milk IS better, especially if you want to cut down on spit up.
10. There really is a difference when it comes to cheap diapers.
11. I have a lot more patience than I thought.
Saturday, January 06, 2007
New Baby
I imagine the focus of this blog will shift now that we have a new baby in the family, Mr. Baby Bennett. I should make a real effort to keep up with his developments, as well as those of my other two boys. I take them all for granted way too much - or maybe I just have way too much faith in my memory.
I imagine the focus of this blog will shift now that we have a new baby in the family, Mr. Baby Bennett. I should make a real effort to keep up with his developments, as well as those of my other two boys. I take them all for granted way too much - or maybe I just have way too much faith in my memory.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Damned Doctors
Warning - pregnant stuff. Feel free to call me hormonal. You're all out of arms reach.
OK, so babies get bigger in the bellies and they start smooshing things around, down and up. The problem with "down" is that you have to go to the bathroom a lot, which interferes with sleep but is otherwise not a big deal. The problem with "up" is that your stomach gets pressured and forces stuff back up. Hormones that loosen ligaments up (that's why women's feet get bigger during pregnancy, I think) don't help with the reflux either, because there are ligaments in your esophagus. This is particularly unpleasant in the middle of the night when you wake up in a panic because you just threw up in your mouth a little bit, and it wasn't because you were having a bad dream about George Bush.
So. To stop the reflux, you can avoid certain foods - a LOT of "certain foods" - but after a while, that stops working. And besides, who knows what foods to really avoid - I saw a chart that said to avoid mashed potatoes but baked potatoes are OK. Whatever.
You can drink more water - but not too much. Avoid coffee/soda - not too much of a problem. Don't drink alcohol - also not a problem. Sleep with your head elevated - no problem, we have an adjustable bed. All of that works for a while, and then ... it doesn't.
Next? Take Tums. Lots and lots of Tums. That helps, until it doesn't anymore. Then it's time to take Zantac 150 twice a day, plus Tums. That appears to work. Yay!
Next problem. Pregnant women can get anemic. In particular, women already prone to low blood iron can get really anemic. About a month ago my nurse took blood for a glucose test (cuz pregnant women can also get diabetes), took one look at it and said, "your iron is too low." Didn't even test it.
Great. Have to take an iron supplement. Iron supplements are not great, because they have a tendency to cause ... um ... stuck-up-ed-ness, which is something ELSE that is not uncommon for pregnant women in the first place, so nobody wants to exascerbate the problem. BUT ... it's better than being anemic, because that makes you even more tired than you already are.
So, we take the iron supplement. We take our prenatals. We take our whole food supplements that should have plenty of iron in them as well. We take our softeners to counter the effects of the iron supplement. We take our Zantac and keep popping our Tums. We go back to the doctor and find out that our iron is STILL DROPPING, but hey, it's OK, because hopefully we won't need a transfusion at the hospital and everything will be fine. Seriously, she said that.
And then what do WE do? We decide that there has to be a reason why our iron is still dropping, so we look on handy dandy Google and guess what we find out is a very effective blocker of iron absorption?
TUMS! Antacids block iron absorption. Took all of two minutes to find.
Now, I know doctors have to know a lot of stuff and they can't possibly know everything, but shouldn't an OB/GYN know that two incredibly common pregnancy related issues have "treatments" that would interact like this? Or rather, that one treatment would have a pretty whopping effect on the other?
@$%&^#%$&. Gah.
Warning - pregnant stuff. Feel free to call me hormonal. You're all out of arms reach.
OK, so babies get bigger in the bellies and they start smooshing things around, down and up. The problem with "down" is that you have to go to the bathroom a lot, which interferes with sleep but is otherwise not a big deal. The problem with "up" is that your stomach gets pressured and forces stuff back up. Hormones that loosen ligaments up (that's why women's feet get bigger during pregnancy, I think) don't help with the reflux either, because there are ligaments in your esophagus. This is particularly unpleasant in the middle of the night when you wake up in a panic because you just threw up in your mouth a little bit, and it wasn't because you were having a bad dream about George Bush.
So. To stop the reflux, you can avoid certain foods - a LOT of "certain foods" - but after a while, that stops working. And besides, who knows what foods to really avoid - I saw a chart that said to avoid mashed potatoes but baked potatoes are OK. Whatever.
You can drink more water - but not too much. Avoid coffee/soda - not too much of a problem. Don't drink alcohol - also not a problem. Sleep with your head elevated - no problem, we have an adjustable bed. All of that works for a while, and then ... it doesn't.
Next? Take Tums. Lots and lots of Tums. That helps, until it doesn't anymore. Then it's time to take Zantac 150 twice a day, plus Tums. That appears to work. Yay!
Next problem. Pregnant women can get anemic. In particular, women already prone to low blood iron can get really anemic. About a month ago my nurse took blood for a glucose test (cuz pregnant women can also get diabetes), took one look at it and said, "your iron is too low." Didn't even test it.
Great. Have to take an iron supplement. Iron supplements are not great, because they have a tendency to cause ... um ... stuck-up-ed-ness, which is something ELSE that is not uncommon for pregnant women in the first place, so nobody wants to exascerbate the problem. BUT ... it's better than being anemic, because that makes you even more tired than you already are.
So, we take the iron supplement. We take our prenatals. We take our whole food supplements that should have plenty of iron in them as well. We take our softeners to counter the effects of the iron supplement. We take our Zantac and keep popping our Tums. We go back to the doctor and find out that our iron is STILL DROPPING, but hey, it's OK, because hopefully we won't need a transfusion at the hospital and everything will be fine. Seriously, she said that.
And then what do WE do? We decide that there has to be a reason why our iron is still dropping, so we look on handy dandy Google and guess what we find out is a very effective blocker of iron absorption?
TUMS! Antacids block iron absorption. Took all of two minutes to find.
Now, I know doctors have to know a lot of stuff and they can't possibly know everything, but shouldn't an OB/GYN know that two incredibly common pregnancy related issues have "treatments" that would interact like this? Or rather, that one treatment would have a pretty whopping effect on the other?
@$%&^#%$&. Gah.
Sunday, October 22, 2006
NFL Terrorism Hoaxter Arrested, George W Bush Still Walking Free...
When I first saw the news about a terrorist threat posted on the internet, my thought was, "duh." They're obvious targets, after all, and I'm sure they've been on the terrorist planning table for a long time.
But as it turns out, this particular threat was all a joke.
Milwaukee, WI (AHN) - Jake Brahm, 20, a grocery store clerk was arrested Friday in charge of posting threats on the Internet to set off dirty bombs at NFL games.
According to authorities, he also admitted posting the same threat about 40 times on various Web sites in September.
U.S. Atty. Christopher Christie in Newark, where Brahm was charged in a sealed complaint Thursday, said: "We cannot tolerate this Internet version of yelling fire in a crowded theater in the post-9/11 era."
Jake Brahm faces up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine if convicted of the charges, news report said.
Now, I'm not defending this guy - it was a stupid prank by a stupid kid. But really, what was the harm here? Who was killed? Who was put in danger? The only way I can see that there was any damage done was if DHS resources were diverted away from real threats to investigate this. But folks, listen really carefully: If this lame, slow, and way too public response typical of DHS skill levels, we're all screwed anyway. The guy started posting these things in September, after all, and he was just arrested Friday. I suppose if we consider that we're dealing with a bunch of old farts like Foley who are too technologically archaic to worry about chat sex IM's being saved, it makes sense - but doesn't make us any more safe. But really, I'd have to hope that DHS is at least smart enough to hire some youngsters who had the skillz to track down a 20 year old grocery clerk's IP address and show up at his house weeks ago to have a little chat.
But besides all of that, why was this guy arrested but George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld are walking free?
Some quotes -
March 18th, 2003 - Bush: "Intelligence leaves no doubt that Iraq continues to possess and conceal lethal weapons"
August 26th, 2002 - Cheney: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
September 12th, 2002 - Bush: "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
February 8th, 2003 - Bush: "We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
March 17th, 2003 - Bush: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
March 30th, 2003 - Rumsfeld: "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
Do a little Google searching for yourself. It's not hard to find plenty of statements that yell "fire" in our big old theater. Their yelling has sent thousands of our soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens to the grave, spawned a civil war, decimated our reputation on the global political stage, drained much needed capital from domestic needs to crony corporate troughs, and left us more vulnerable to real threats at home and abroad.
So tell me - when will Bush be arrested? I'm waiting...
When I first saw the news about a terrorist threat posted on the internet, my thought was, "duh." They're obvious targets, after all, and I'm sure they've been on the terrorist planning table for a long time.
But as it turns out, this particular threat was all a joke.
Milwaukee, WI (AHN) - Jake Brahm, 20, a grocery store clerk was arrested Friday in charge of posting threats on the Internet to set off dirty bombs at NFL games.
According to authorities, he also admitted posting the same threat about 40 times on various Web sites in September.
U.S. Atty. Christopher Christie in Newark, where Brahm was charged in a sealed complaint Thursday, said: "We cannot tolerate this Internet version of yelling fire in a crowded theater in the post-9/11 era."
Jake Brahm faces up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine if convicted of the charges, news report said.
Now, I'm not defending this guy - it was a stupid prank by a stupid kid. But really, what was the harm here? Who was killed? Who was put in danger? The only way I can see that there was any damage done was if DHS resources were diverted away from real threats to investigate this. But folks, listen really carefully: If this lame, slow, and way too public response typical of DHS skill levels, we're all screwed anyway. The guy started posting these things in September, after all, and he was just arrested Friday. I suppose if we consider that we're dealing with a bunch of old farts like Foley who are too technologically archaic to worry about chat sex IM's being saved, it makes sense - but doesn't make us any more safe. But really, I'd have to hope that DHS is at least smart enough to hire some youngsters who had the skillz to track down a 20 year old grocery clerk's IP address and show up at his house weeks ago to have a little chat.
But besides all of that, why was this guy arrested but George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld are walking free?
Some quotes -
March 18th, 2003 - Bush: "Intelligence leaves no doubt that Iraq continues to possess and conceal lethal weapons"
August 26th, 2002 - Cheney: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
September 12th, 2002 - Bush: "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
February 8th, 2003 - Bush: "We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
March 17th, 2003 - Bush: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
March 30th, 2003 - Rumsfeld: "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
Do a little Google searching for yourself. It's not hard to find plenty of statements that yell "fire" in our big old theater. Their yelling has sent thousands of our soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens to the grave, spawned a civil war, decimated our reputation on the global political stage, drained much needed capital from domestic needs to crony corporate troughs, and left us more vulnerable to real threats at home and abroad.
So tell me - when will Bush be arrested? I'm waiting...
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
TSA
Going on an airplane anytime soon? Be prepared to take a trip down the rabbit hole first. The definition of "security" and the process of achieving it has reached a level of absurdity that would make Lewis Carroll weep with envy, and it may make you weep with frustration.
My hometown is Denver, so I use Denver International Airport for most of my travel. There is another option - Colorado Springs - but overall I like the Denver airport. DIA is not a bad place to get stuck in this lunacy, if you must. The security agents keep the lines moving, the service is (in my experience) consistently polite, and I just like the place. I did, however, notice something on this trip. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm remembering incorrectly, but it seems to me that the screening operators have never been so uniformly old and white. The folks checking ID's and boarding passes are mostly of the same pretty African genetic heritage (I'm not sure what region) that I've gotten used to seeing at DIA, but the actual x-ray operators and searchers are all white. Period. I don' t know what to make of it, just something I noticed.
Anyhoo - to the ridiculousness at hand.
Before I went on my trip, I actually behaved like a responsible, law abiding citizen and checked the TSA websiteto make sure I wasn't bringing anything illegal in my carry-on luggage. Actually, it wasn't good citizenship as much as not wanting to see things get tossed out and really not wanting to check bags for a flight that included a very tight layover/plane change, but whatever. Point is, I ended up on the site, OK, and what I saw made it clear to me that our terrorist priorities have shifted. Although box cutters are still not allowed - and really, I don't think anyone will ever expect box cutters to be OK again - sharp objects are maybe not so bad anymore. Maybe the feeling is that in a post 9/11 world, a plane full of folks aren't going to allow a hijacking with small pointy objects. I understand that, even as I think to myself that the lingering box cutter ban is therefore useless as anything other than a political statement. Among other things, the following are allowed:
What's not allowed on carry-on luggage, providing extra room in your bag for the above items? Any liquid or gels. That effectively knocks out all carry-on luggage for an overnight or even two night business trip unless you don't mind picking up at least some toothpaste on your arrival - which is wasteful for a short trip, since you can't bring it back either - or happen to have a supply of powdered toothpaste. It also makes carry-on travel for for most women particularly challenging, given all of our lotions, gels, mousses, sprays and makeup.
I actually went shopping for some foundation in compact form because I couldn't bring my liquid stuff. I skipped all lotions since I was going to a humid climate anyway, and figured my hair would survive a couple of days of hotel product (although hair spray was sorely missed in a sea level 250% humidity environment). Other than all of that, I managed to put together the rest of my toiletries with only one TSA violation - mascara. I had tried to find old fashioned cake mascara in town but was unsuccessful, and so I decided to take a chance that a sympathetic screener would accidentally on purpose overlook it.
No such luck. My makeup shunning, pale-lashed x-ray machine operator had my bag plucked right out of the line, and the next thing I knew, a kindly old (white) gentleman was removing my clothes and undergarments from suitcase and going through every item one at a time, looking for a liquid. I tried to direct him away from the mascara but he finally spotted it. Busted. THE MAN had found my contraband, and the mascara went into the trash. I was sent on my way. After I put my shoes back on.
I got off easy, though. The woman being searched next to me lost half of her overnight back to the TSA and she was none too happy about it.
What I sincerely want to know now is ... how many hijackings have been launched from a tube of mascara? Is there some excised bit from the 9/11 Commission report that talked about how the bad guys on United 93 subdued the passengers with a particularly scary shade of nude beige oil based foundation?
"Don't be a smartass, it's about explosives," you say. Yeah well, bullshit. Saline is allowed, and so is baby formula, juice or blood sugar liquids/gels (if you're diabetic) and KY Jelly. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad those items are allowed. I used to wear contacts, have traveled with babies, don't think people should have to worry about vital medication being lost with luggage or too far away to use, and think that everyone has a right to lubrication, but the allowance of these items underscores what crap the restrictions are. Dangerous substances could be put in any of those containers, and if someone wants to blow up a plane, THAT IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN. So how are we any safer if all someone has to say is, "I need my lubricant." How are we safer if medication bottles can be brought on board? Are we really to believe that there is no possibility that a medicine will be replaced with an explosive?
And besides, it's all pointless. The next airline terrorist attack will be a chemical or bioligical agent. Mark my words. I have no doubt that the bad guys are smart enough to put a chemical or biological agent in a powder form (and remember - powdered makeup is fine, and nobody batted an eye at my baggie full of unmarked multi-colored supplement capsules), and they will just release it on the plane. The aircraft will then become a flying coffin that crashes unpiloted into a city, or everyone will get off the plane in seemingly perfect health but a few days later we'll have an epidemic. Personally, I think the former scenario is more likely because a Captain Trips "Stand" type of event doesn't distinguish between the faithful and the heathens, but you get the point. If the bad guys want to do bad things, they will simply find a way to do them within the parameters of allowable items set by the TSA.
Look, I have nothing against the folks who work at our airports. They are just doing their jobs and I'm sure they would be devastated if a harmful substance or object got past them and was used to kill innocent people. Unfortunately these poor people have been set up for failure. Try as they might, the TSA screening process is not going to be where we catch the bad guys. They're part of the chain, no doubt, and I don't want the general screening process to go away, but the imposition of these absurd rules makes it look like they're the primary responders, and they just can't be. Airport security screening wouldn't have stopped 9/11 - enforcement of INS regulations and a little more attention paid to and by our intelligence agencies and leaders perhaps, but not the screening at Logan. These new rules are an affront to common sense, and frankly, I give up. If at all possible, I'll just not fly. Not because I'm scared, but because I'm tired of it. There's no way that I can see to get out of the rabbit hole, no way to wake up. Say hi to the Cheshire Cat and the Red Queen - they're in charge now. Get used to it.
Going on an airplane anytime soon? Be prepared to take a trip down the rabbit hole first. The definition of "security" and the process of achieving it has reached a level of absurdity that would make Lewis Carroll weep with envy, and it may make you weep with frustration.
My hometown is Denver, so I use Denver International Airport for most of my travel. There is another option - Colorado Springs - but overall I like the Denver airport. DIA is not a bad place to get stuck in this lunacy, if you must. The security agents keep the lines moving, the service is (in my experience) consistently polite, and I just like the place. I did, however, notice something on this trip. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm remembering incorrectly, but it seems to me that the screening operators have never been so uniformly old and white. The folks checking ID's and boarding passes are mostly of the same pretty African genetic heritage (I'm not sure what region) that I've gotten used to seeing at DIA, but the actual x-ray operators and searchers are all white. Period. I don' t know what to make of it, just something I noticed.
Anyhoo - to the ridiculousness at hand.
Before I went on my trip, I actually behaved like a responsible, law abiding citizen and checked the TSA websiteto make sure I wasn't bringing anything illegal in my carry-on luggage. Actually, it wasn't good citizenship as much as not wanting to see things get tossed out and really not wanting to check bags for a flight that included a very tight layover/plane change, but whatever. Point is, I ended up on the site, OK, and what I saw made it clear to me that our terrorist priorities have shifted. Although box cutters are still not allowed - and really, I don't think anyone will ever expect box cutters to be OK again - sharp objects are maybe not so bad anymore. Maybe the feeling is that in a post 9/11 world, a plane full of folks aren't going to allow a hijacking with small pointy objects. I understand that, even as I think to myself that the lingering box cutter ban is therefore useless as anything other than a political statement. Among other things, the following are allowed:
- Knitting needles
- scissors
- screwdrivers
- wrenches
- cigar cutters
- corkscrews
What's not allowed on carry-on luggage, providing extra room in your bag for the above items? Any liquid or gels. That effectively knocks out all carry-on luggage for an overnight or even two night business trip unless you don't mind picking up at least some toothpaste on your arrival - which is wasteful for a short trip, since you can't bring it back either - or happen to have a supply of powdered toothpaste. It also makes carry-on travel for for most women particularly challenging, given all of our lotions, gels, mousses, sprays and makeup.
I actually went shopping for some foundation in compact form because I couldn't bring my liquid stuff. I skipped all lotions since I was going to a humid climate anyway, and figured my hair would survive a couple of days of hotel product (although hair spray was sorely missed in a sea level 250% humidity environment). Other than all of that, I managed to put together the rest of my toiletries with only one TSA violation - mascara. I had tried to find old fashioned cake mascara in town but was unsuccessful, and so I decided to take a chance that a sympathetic screener would accidentally on purpose overlook it.
No such luck. My makeup shunning, pale-lashed x-ray machine operator had my bag plucked right out of the line, and the next thing I knew, a kindly old (white) gentleman was removing my clothes and undergarments from suitcase and going through every item one at a time, looking for a liquid. I tried to direct him away from the mascara but he finally spotted it. Busted. THE MAN had found my contraband, and the mascara went into the trash. I was sent on my way. After I put my shoes back on.
I got off easy, though. The woman being searched next to me lost half of her overnight back to the TSA and she was none too happy about it.
What I sincerely want to know now is ... how many hijackings have been launched from a tube of mascara? Is there some excised bit from the 9/11 Commission report that talked about how the bad guys on United 93 subdued the passengers with a particularly scary shade of nude beige oil based foundation?
"Don't be a smartass, it's about explosives," you say. Yeah well, bullshit. Saline is allowed, and so is baby formula, juice or blood sugar liquids/gels (if you're diabetic) and KY Jelly. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad those items are allowed. I used to wear contacts, have traveled with babies, don't think people should have to worry about vital medication being lost with luggage or too far away to use, and think that everyone has a right to lubrication, but the allowance of these items underscores what crap the restrictions are. Dangerous substances could be put in any of those containers, and if someone wants to blow up a plane, THAT IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN. So how are we any safer if all someone has to say is, "I need my lubricant." How are we safer if medication bottles can be brought on board? Are we really to believe that there is no possibility that a medicine will be replaced with an explosive?
And besides, it's all pointless. The next airline terrorist attack will be a chemical or bioligical agent. Mark my words. I have no doubt that the bad guys are smart enough to put a chemical or biological agent in a powder form (and remember - powdered makeup is fine, and nobody batted an eye at my baggie full of unmarked multi-colored supplement capsules), and they will just release it on the plane. The aircraft will then become a flying coffin that crashes unpiloted into a city, or everyone will get off the plane in seemingly perfect health but a few days later we'll have an epidemic. Personally, I think the former scenario is more likely because a Captain Trips "Stand" type of event doesn't distinguish between the faithful and the heathens, but you get the point. If the bad guys want to do bad things, they will simply find a way to do them within the parameters of allowable items set by the TSA.
Look, I have nothing against the folks who work at our airports. They are just doing their jobs and I'm sure they would be devastated if a harmful substance or object got past them and was used to kill innocent people. Unfortunately these poor people have been set up for failure. Try as they might, the TSA screening process is not going to be where we catch the bad guys. They're part of the chain, no doubt, and I don't want the general screening process to go away, but the imposition of these absurd rules makes it look like they're the primary responders, and they just can't be. Airport security screening wouldn't have stopped 9/11 - enforcement of INS regulations and a little more attention paid to and by our intelligence agencies and leaders perhaps, but not the screening at Logan. These new rules are an affront to common sense, and frankly, I give up. If at all possible, I'll just not fly. Not because I'm scared, but because I'm tired of it. There's no way that I can see to get out of the rabbit hole, no way to wake up. Say hi to the Cheshire Cat and the Red Queen - they're in charge now. Get used to it.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
48 Pencils
I just got the list of school supplies for my sons' next school year, which actually begins on July 5th (year round track school). As usual, I cannot resist the urge to think something along the lines of "what the hell is happening to my $2000/year property tax money anyway?" because this list is so far beyond anything I remember my parents having to put together when I was a kid. We showed up with a new pencil box, some crayons, maybe a compass (when we got older and the adults were relatively certain we wouldn't poke our eyes out), a squeaky clean new protractor, and a cool notebook -- maybe with Shaun Cassidy on the cover. All of this was our own personal stuff, we got to pick it, we had some say in how we expressed our school supply style.
Those days are gone. These days, at least in suburban Colorado, school supply shopping is a big deal, and you don't buy your own stuff - you buy classroom stuff. Everyone brings everything on the list and it gets put in a big communal pile. The only items you really get to use to express yourself are maybe one notebook, and a binder.
Here's the fifth grade list, just to give you an idea of how this works ... pretty much double it, because I have a second grader too:
48 #2 pencils - no mechanical
4 red pens
2 glue sticks
4 packages wide ruled notebook paper
2 composition books
5 post-it note pads - 2" square
1 5 subject spiral notebook
2 boxes of tissues
2 rolls paper towels
A-L (as in, your last name begins with A-L) - 1 box gallon sized Ziploc bags
M-Z - 1 box sandwich sized Ziploc bags (I can only assume generic is acceptable)
2 pencil sharpeners
1 pencil bag (no boxes)
1 24 count colored pencils
1 pair scissors
3 highlighters (pink, yellow, green)
1 box crayons (how big .. HOW BIG ... for the love of God, what if I get the wrong size??)
1 box markers - classic colors (product placement "classic colors" means CRAYOLA)
1 clipboard
1 package thick tip dry erase markers
1 package notebook dividers (8 tabs) 1 3-ring zippered binder
Doesn't this seem ... excessive? I mean, 48 pencils? The kids are in class for maybe 40 weeks of the year, so we're talking about these kids going through more than one pencil per week. Think about it, there are maybe 25 kids in the class, so one day one of fifth grade, that class has ONE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED pencils showing up for duty. I think there is a serious need for pencil care and maintenance instruction if the kids are going through that many pencils every year, don't you?
And post-its? Tissue? Paper towels? THIS isn't covered in the school budget? We don't have PE and music every day in schools these days and we still can't afford paper goods? Ziploc bags?
I just don't get it, and this isn't even the end of the expense. Once they actually get back for class, I'll have to pony up more money for books and for their assignment notebook, which is a really nice and heavily spattered with advertisements thing that helps the kids record their homework, like a primary school daytimer. Shouldn't the advertisements be paying for this? It's like going to the movies nowadays and being subjected to 15 minutes of commercials, paying $7 plus snacks to be captive to the same damned commercials I see on TV (did you know Verizon VCast is $15.99/month? Who's buying this?).
And before anyone starts on the yada yada about how if the kids didn't bring these supplies, the teachers would have to buy them because the school budgets have been cut and yaaaaaaawn and on - I get that. I don't think teachers make nearly enough either and I sure don't think they should have to buy supplies out of their own pockets ... and I know they do because they believe in what they do. All of my irritation rests firmly with administrations, government, politics, and society in general for doing even more to homogenize our children's educational experience, taking away creativity so they can teach to the test and making sure that every child knows that everyone is exactly the same while at the same time trying to tell them that they're all different.
Forty eight freaking pencils? I refuse. I'm taking a stand.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Chip Them Like the Dogs That They Are
It's time to get honest about immigration. We don't care that immigrants are here mowing our lawns and cleaning our homes, picking our produce and hammering together our McMansion frames. We want them here because without our quiet, unrepresented class, we'd have to pay more for stuff or do manual labor ourselves and that would suck. We need them to shut up and do the work and never make any other blip on the radar. We want them to speak English for our convenience but not aspire to any other learning because that might make them testy and all demanding and stuff, and we want them to stop with their irritating cultural traditions because ... well, because they're different and we don't like different, all protestations about being a welcoming melting pot aside.
In a nutshell, we want a slave class. We want the subhumans to accept the subminimum wage (we have to pay SOMETHING because otherwise we'd have to do the whole room and board thing and then it would really REALLY look like slavery), and along that line, we need to track what the subhumans are doing because they are different and scary.
Thank goodness we have the technology to do that now, and that the general population has become sufficiently numbed to the horrors of our nation's deterioration. We have now reached a point where it's OK for someone to go on a main stream media outlet and say to the world that what we should do is implant chips in immigrants and visiting workers.
"Then they came for me..."
It's time to get honest about immigration. We don't care that immigrants are here mowing our lawns and cleaning our homes, picking our produce and hammering together our McMansion frames. We want them here because without our quiet, unrepresented class, we'd have to pay more for stuff or do manual labor ourselves and that would suck. We need them to shut up and do the work and never make any other blip on the radar. We want them to speak English for our convenience but not aspire to any other learning because that might make them testy and all demanding and stuff, and we want them to stop with their irritating cultural traditions because ... well, because they're different and we don't like different, all protestations about being a welcoming melting pot aside.
In a nutshell, we want a slave class. We want the subhumans to accept the subminimum wage (we have to pay SOMETHING because otherwise we'd have to do the whole room and board thing and then it would really REALLY look like slavery), and along that line, we need to track what the subhumans are doing because they are different and scary.
Thank goodness we have the technology to do that now, and that the general population has become sufficiently numbed to the horrors of our nation's deterioration. We have now reached a point where it's OK for someone to go on a main stream media outlet and say to the world that what we should do is implant chips in immigrants and visiting workers.
"Then they came for me..."
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
Mr. Jefferson & Mr. Frist
William Jefferson, Jr, you got cold busted. Resign.
But Mr. Frist, what's your beef here? Does it bother you that the FBI taped Mr. Jefferson's activities? They had an informant, and Mr. Jefferson was under investigation. If they had probable cause, why get upset about a raid on his office? Sure, we don't want the Executive Branch intimidating Congress Critters and all - yada yada yada. Like THAT doesn't happen every hour of every day. But using surveillance equipment to gather evidence for an investigation that leads to probable cause for a warrant? You're upset about THAT but you're OK with collecting phone records of millions upon millions of Americans who are NOT under investigation for doing anything to subvert the United States of America? How do you look at yourself in the mirror? What is it about this Jefferson case that has you nervous, Bill?
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Or maybe he's just dumb.
In my previous post, I suggested that maybe Bush just doesn't understand that the Presidential oath is a bit more than a literal instruction to not let the dog eat the Constitution or something like that.
I take any benefit of the doubt back. He's just stupid.
At a naturalization ceremony yesterday - a handy venue to discuss immigration issues, I suppose - Mr. Bush said, "Our Constitution does not limit citizenship by background or birth. Instead, our nation is bound together by shared love of liberty and a conviction that all people are created with dignity and value."
Well, President Idjit, it kind of does. Maybe Bush's speechwriters were trying to say that ultimately, once you get through the naturalization process, your country of origin does not matter - you are American. Idealistic, definitely, and not true hardly at all, but OK. The problem, though, is that you can't give this halfwit sentences like "Our Constitution does not limit citizenship by background or birth" and not expect people like me to point out the obvious fact that our Constitution does indeed limit citizenship by background or birth.
The 14th Amendment says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
It even has the word "born" right there in it - citizenship is defined by birth first. DUH. Gah, why do his handlers let him read this stuff out loud?
Why why why why why why why...
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
I’m beginning to wonder if what we have here is a failure to communicate. Perhaps Mr. Bush is unclear on the specifics of this oath. Maybe he thinks that it is a literal instruction. Is it possible that he’s gotten it in his head that as long as the actual document remains intact while he’s in office, he’s done his duty? Could it be that this is all just a simple reading comprehension issue?
Here’s where part of my confusion comes from, and I’m so stymied that I can’t get past this first section of the Constitution:
Article. I.
Section. 1.
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Really? President Bush has made a game of signing legislation and then adding signing statements that basically equate to a big “neener neener, I won’t follow this if I don’t want to.” In regards to the recent Patriot Act reauthorization and its information disclosure requirements, Mr. Bush said that ''The executive branch shall construe the provisions . . . that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch . . . in a manner consistent with the president's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information . . . " He has said repeatedly that he doesn’t have to follow warrant laws for wiretapping because we’re at “war,” and in response to Congressional passage of an anti-torture law applying to US detainees, Mr. Bush basically said that he’ll follow the law … unless he thinks it’s really really important that a prisoner be tortured.
I guess if you want to (again) be literal, Mr. Bush isn’t taking away the ability of Congress to pass legislation. He’s just openly saying that he’s going to ignore it. Nice spin, that.
Obviously he’s getting away with this, and I’m really baffled as to why. There are certainly those who say that we should do whatever King George says right now because we’re at war, but the dolts who say that are also more likely to believe that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11 and aren’t going to ever understand that we can’t destroy and defend the Constitution at the same time. There are others who let him slide because he’s a good Christian man, defending us from those radical Muslims, but they’ve got their eyes so firmly on the Rapture prize that they don’t understand that the violence arising from radical fundamentalists in the Middle East is no different than the medieval environment they’d like to create here.
I think there are also many who just don’t want to admit that they made a horrible mistake in voting for this mouth breathing, pretzel choking, nucular pronouncing, strategerizing moron, so they publicly (though more and more often now – quietly) support him with a resigned, “well, we may as well play this out” kind of attitude, but have stopped with the strident defenses of his moral character and strength of resolve in the face of those lily livered un-patriots who have pointed out repeatedly that Bush has destroyed almost global good will towards the US, spent more than anyone … EVER … on whims of war fancy based on fluffy intelligence, has made sure that his inner circle of good ole rich boys have profited mightily from his shoot ‘em up playtime, has openly weakened us in the name of national security (do you feel safer?),
has cut programs for the poorer and weaker in our society, has attempted repeatedly to undermine our environmental safety and sell off our national resources …
Shall I go on? Is there anything that this President has done that has been a net positive for the nation? Can you really think of one single thing that has made America better in the last six years? Safer? Stronger? More admirable? Honorable?
Thursday, March 23, 2006
What would you think of your company if ...
- Even though five of the top ten richest people in the country worked for your firm, you and most of your co-workers were expected and encouraged to utilize public assistance for things like healthcare and food assistance because the average wage for employees is below the poverty level?
- Your company was the subject of the largest class action suit ever for gender discrimination?
- Your company served largely as a distribution center for imported goods produced in hellish sweatshops overseas?
- Your company forced American companies out of business and American workers out of jobs - that is, unless they want to come and work for your company for much, much less?
- You had to work overnights and your company actually locked you in the building without a manager to let you out in case of a fire, heart attack, accident, or any such emergency?
- Your company generally finds it less expensive to violate whatever laws it pleases and pay the fines rather than comply with the law?
Would you be proud to work at a place like this? Should any of us support a business like this?
Stupid Science
I saw a short blurb on the news this morning regarding a change in the eating habits of Americans. Apparently, we are eating fewer "risky foods" than we have in the past.
The risky foods covered in the study include the following:
* Pink hamburgers
* Pink ground beef
* Raw fresh fish
* Raw oysters
* Raw/unpasteurized milk
* Runny eggs
* Alfalfa sprouts
Apparently, 31% of us ate one or more of the above in any given work as of 1998, but by 2002 that percentage had dropped to 21%. Good news, right? Not really.
I'm not going to get into a debate about a vegan vs meat-eating diet, because that's not really what this is about. In my opinion, this is just stupid science, completely missing the point of what is "risky" or not.
This study was looking at the risk of food-borne infection, and there really isn't any arguing that the above foods run a higher risk of outbreaks than others. But the real question should be WHY the risk is greater in these foods. Should we be looking at reducing our consumption of them, or should we be demanding higher safety standards in our processing centers?
Should cattle be raised in filthy conditions, fed ground up animals as feed, dunked in pesticides, pumped full of steroids and antibiotics, and run through slaughterhouses at an impossible pace that makes sanitary conditions impossible? Should a pound of ground beef contain meat from possibly 100 different animals coming from several different farms, sometimes even from different countries? "Diversity" is not a good thing when you're trying to track the source of an outbreak and your hamburger has bits in it from Kansas, Colorado, South America, and who knows where else.
WHY are these other foods dangerous? Are our food production industries looking out for the health of the consumers, or are they looking towards their bottom lines? Do they care? Do you?
Are these foods any less risky than Cheetos? Kraft Mac & Cheese? "Juice cocktail" boxes? Spaghettio's? Super chocolate chip peanut butter caramel "granola" bars? Most cereals?
McDonald's cooks their food enough to kill any bacteria, I'd almost surely guarantee, since they don't want a lawsuit. So, if you eat a Quarter Pounder, are you making a healthy choice? Healthier than if you had a patty made from some beef from an organic, local rancher - even if it's still pink in the middle?
Who funds these stupid, stupid studies?
I saw a short blurb on the news this morning regarding a change in the eating habits of Americans. Apparently, we are eating fewer "risky foods" than we have in the past.
The risky foods covered in the study include the following:
* Pink hamburgers
* Pink ground beef
* Raw fresh fish
* Raw oysters
* Raw/unpasteurized milk
* Runny eggs
* Alfalfa sprouts
Apparently, 31% of us ate one or more of the above in any given work as of 1998, but by 2002 that percentage had dropped to 21%. Good news, right? Not really.
I'm not going to get into a debate about a vegan vs meat-eating diet, because that's not really what this is about. In my opinion, this is just stupid science, completely missing the point of what is "risky" or not.
This study was looking at the risk of food-borne infection, and there really isn't any arguing that the above foods run a higher risk of outbreaks than others. But the real question should be WHY the risk is greater in these foods. Should we be looking at reducing our consumption of them, or should we be demanding higher safety standards in our processing centers?
Should cattle be raised in filthy conditions, fed ground up animals as feed, dunked in pesticides, pumped full of steroids and antibiotics, and run through slaughterhouses at an impossible pace that makes sanitary conditions impossible? Should a pound of ground beef contain meat from possibly 100 different animals coming from several different farms, sometimes even from different countries? "Diversity" is not a good thing when you're trying to track the source of an outbreak and your hamburger has bits in it from Kansas, Colorado, South America, and who knows where else.
WHY are these other foods dangerous? Are our food production industries looking out for the health of the consumers, or are they looking towards their bottom lines? Do they care? Do you?
Are these foods any less risky than Cheetos? Kraft Mac & Cheese? "Juice cocktail" boxes? Spaghettio's? Super chocolate chip peanut butter caramel "granola" bars? Most cereals?
McDonald's cooks their food enough to kill any bacteria, I'd almost surely guarantee, since they don't want a lawsuit. So, if you eat a Quarter Pounder, are you making a healthy choice? Healthier than if you had a patty made from some beef from an organic, local rancher - even if it's still pink in the middle?
Who funds these stupid, stupid studies?
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Things just aren't going right ...
Ever have those times, maybe a week or two at a punch, when things just don't flow? Your brain feels froggy, your thoughts don't synch, your memory is flickery, and important details of your every day responsibilities just slide away like bits of California during the rainy season?
I'm having one of those spells. It's not pleasant.
Ever have those times, maybe a week or two at a punch, when things just don't flow? Your brain feels froggy, your thoughts don't synch, your memory is flickery, and important details of your every day responsibilities just slide away like bits of California during the rainy season?
I'm having one of those spells. It's not pleasant.
Friday, February 24, 2006
What Does My Cat Think of Me?
From his perspective,
- I get to choose from lots of foods, but only give him one option.
- I leave the house when I want, but deny him exit.
- I snuggle with other creatures in the house, but kick him away sometimes.
- I don't drink water out of toilet - why? WHY?
- I go pee & poo in his preferred water dish - why? WHY?
- I don't sleep nearly enough.
- I give way too much attention to that other four legged awkward lump of a creature named Buddy the Bulldog and really - what does he do to deserve it?
- I don't SEE nearly as much as I could, if I would just chill the fuck out.
From his perspective,
- I get to choose from lots of foods, but only give him one option.
- I leave the house when I want, but deny him exit.
- I snuggle with other creatures in the house, but kick him away sometimes.
- I don't drink water out of toilet - why? WHY?
- I go pee & poo in his preferred water dish - why? WHY?
- I don't sleep nearly enough.
- I give way too much attention to that other four legged awkward lump of a creature named Buddy the Bulldog and really - what does he do to deserve it?
- I don't SEE nearly as much as I could, if I would just chill the fuck out.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
This is going to be disjointed .. fair warning. I'm still trying to put a lot of things together in my mind.
I went over to a friend's house this past weekend. She's one of those friends that I hold dear but don't see often. I'm somewhat ashamed to say that I haven't talked to her as much lately because she is full of drama, and the reason I was there today was because of all of that. You see, she was taken to the hospital on December 23rd because her ex-husband found her with a gun in her mouth. She spent a couple of days in the hospital. I didn't know about any of this until I called to say "hey" a couple of weeks ago. That very scary and sad conversation had me on the phone with county agencies and suicide hotlines ("no really, it's not me, I'm calling for a friend") and trying to figure out what I can do for her.
In a nutshell, she lost her job about 10 years ago and hasn't had a steady job since. Her marriage went to hell (although she'd been talking about leaving him since I first met her 11 years ago), she was in a bad motorcycle accident that I think caused some brain damage, and she is now divorced and living on $300/month in child support. She is still in her home but it is on the market as part of her divorce settlement - for now, her ex is paying the mortgage and utilities, so she won't get any of the proceeds. When it sells, I don't know where she is going to live. Or how. She is on anti-depressants, is maybe 100 pounds overweight (and on blood pressure medication as well), and has bill collectors calling about her $50,000 or so in debt that she has racked up in order to support herself and in part because of just plain stupid purchases. Her car has been repossessed, her only transportation is a van her brother has lent her, and her sister - who is married to a man who molested my friend as a child - takes her to the military commissary for food.
Her son is having trouble in school, having issues with the divorce, and is going through puberty to boot. Her ex-husband (who really has been quite generous, all things considered) is living with a woman whose ex-husband is in prison for molestation and whose daughter is up on charges for a drive-by shooting.
There isn't much I can do for her except offer advice, but she is hung up on being the victim. On one hand, she knows that she has brought a lot of this on herself, but at the same time I think she needs to find something or someone to blame because she is incredibly proud and doesn't want to deal with her personal shame in bringing about her circumstances.
Since the scary call a couple of weeks ago when she hung up on me because she said I hadn't been there for her and she knows I don't like to hear personal problems - guilty as charged, to an extent, since I am always willing to listen until it becomes clear that the person with the issues is doing nothing to rectify their own situation - she has improved dramatically. Having a friend has made all the difference, since she has no other support group. Her brother's van is as far as he is willing to go, he doesn't know how to deal with her. Her sister doesn't know about her husband molesting my friend and is (I think) slightly "slow." Her parents are dead. Her other friends have deserted her.
I went over to help her go through a box of past due and collection notices. She's simply stopped opening her mail. Her credit cards are all at around 30% interest now because of late payments. Her phone rang twice while I was there - bill collectors. She looks like hell. She used to be quite proud of her appearance and has let it all go.
But - she was chipper. I went through everything, ultimately reducing the box to about an inch of the most recent bills and threats. It's now kind of in her court - she needs to call these companies and try to reduce her balances (often a credit card company will erase portions of your debt if they know you can't pay - you just have to ask, tell them that there's no getting blood from a stone) but I don't think that's going to be enough. She's going to have to file for bankruptcy, it is absolutely the best thing she could do. That and get a job. Unfortunately, I think her appearance might be a hindrance in that regard - fair or not, employers do look at appearance and being overweight indicates a lack of control. Don't blame me, the studies are out there.
I can't lend her money. I have my own obligations, debt from a messy divorce that I am still paying off. Besides, I have a feeling that she would use it to do something stupid like reinstate her full cable package, go buy a sports car, give a go at doubling it with online poker ... something. Frankly that would be an end to our friendship, and I don't want that. I also can't have her move in here - I can't have a near suicidal person in my home with my kids and besides, she's a "small doses" person. I couldn't listen to her go on about how unfairly her ex treated her for very long before I'd lose it.
I just don't know what else to do for her.
I guess all of this leads me here - "There but for the grace of God go I."
I went over to a friend's house this past weekend. She's one of those friends that I hold dear but don't see often. I'm somewhat ashamed to say that I haven't talked to her as much lately because she is full of drama, and the reason I was there today was because of all of that. You see, she was taken to the hospital on December 23rd because her ex-husband found her with a gun in her mouth. She spent a couple of days in the hospital. I didn't know about any of this until I called to say "hey" a couple of weeks ago. That very scary and sad conversation had me on the phone with county agencies and suicide hotlines ("no really, it's not me, I'm calling for a friend") and trying to figure out what I can do for her.
In a nutshell, she lost her job about 10 years ago and hasn't had a steady job since. Her marriage went to hell (although she'd been talking about leaving him since I first met her 11 years ago), she was in a bad motorcycle accident that I think caused some brain damage, and she is now divorced and living on $300/month in child support. She is still in her home but it is on the market as part of her divorce settlement - for now, her ex is paying the mortgage and utilities, so she won't get any of the proceeds. When it sells, I don't know where she is going to live. Or how. She is on anti-depressants, is maybe 100 pounds overweight (and on blood pressure medication as well), and has bill collectors calling about her $50,000 or so in debt that she has racked up in order to support herself and in part because of just plain stupid purchases. Her car has been repossessed, her only transportation is a van her brother has lent her, and her sister - who is married to a man who molested my friend as a child - takes her to the military commissary for food.
Her son is having trouble in school, having issues with the divorce, and is going through puberty to boot. Her ex-husband (who really has been quite generous, all things considered) is living with a woman whose ex-husband is in prison for molestation and whose daughter is up on charges for a drive-by shooting.
There isn't much I can do for her except offer advice, but she is hung up on being the victim. On one hand, she knows that she has brought a lot of this on herself, but at the same time I think she needs to find something or someone to blame because she is incredibly proud and doesn't want to deal with her personal shame in bringing about her circumstances.
Since the scary call a couple of weeks ago when she hung up on me because she said I hadn't been there for her and she knows I don't like to hear personal problems - guilty as charged, to an extent, since I am always willing to listen until it becomes clear that the person with the issues is doing nothing to rectify their own situation - she has improved dramatically. Having a friend has made all the difference, since she has no other support group. Her brother's van is as far as he is willing to go, he doesn't know how to deal with her. Her sister doesn't know about her husband molesting my friend and is (I think) slightly "slow." Her parents are dead. Her other friends have deserted her.
I went over to help her go through a box of past due and collection notices. She's simply stopped opening her mail. Her credit cards are all at around 30% interest now because of late payments. Her phone rang twice while I was there - bill collectors. She looks like hell. She used to be quite proud of her appearance and has let it all go.
But - she was chipper. I went through everything, ultimately reducing the box to about an inch of the most recent bills and threats. It's now kind of in her court - she needs to call these companies and try to reduce her balances (often a credit card company will erase portions of your debt if they know you can't pay - you just have to ask, tell them that there's no getting blood from a stone) but I don't think that's going to be enough. She's going to have to file for bankruptcy, it is absolutely the best thing she could do. That and get a job. Unfortunately, I think her appearance might be a hindrance in that regard - fair or not, employers do look at appearance and being overweight indicates a lack of control. Don't blame me, the studies are out there.
I can't lend her money. I have my own obligations, debt from a messy divorce that I am still paying off. Besides, I have a feeling that she would use it to do something stupid like reinstate her full cable package, go buy a sports car, give a go at doubling it with online poker ... something. Frankly that would be an end to our friendship, and I don't want that. I also can't have her move in here - I can't have a near suicidal person in my home with my kids and besides, she's a "small doses" person. I couldn't listen to her go on about how unfairly her ex treated her for very long before I'd lose it.
I just don't know what else to do for her.
I guess all of this leads me here - "There but for the grace of God go I."
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Theater Etiquette
To honor the great Dr. Martin Luther King Jr (or, as my 6 year old calls him, "Dr. King Luther ... uh ... Martin ... Jr?" with a look of utter confusion as to why someone would have quite so many names), my family went to the movies on Monday. Our small town theater is rarely crowded, but since it was a holiday and a kid movie, we weren't surprised to find that in order to get four seats together, some folks who were already there were going to have to squish a little. Fortunately, a man almost all the way in the back saw me doing a seating scan and beckoned us up, doing that total-strangers-sign-language thing that we all recognize to let us know that his family would move down one and we were welcome to come sit by them.
I mention him because I really appreciated that little courtesy, as it seems that people are really concerned about their movie buffer zone. I don't mind buffer zones when the theater is relatively empty, but I think if you go to a showing that you know is going to be crowded, you should gracefully accept the situation and be prepared to share an arm rest. Buying a ticket to the theater does not entitle you to an extra seat that you need in order to pile all of your coats or to just not have to touch another icky human. If it works out that way, great, but if you can't handle it, get a Netflix subscription or pick your showtimes wisely.
I also mention him because his courtesy was in stark contrast to several people who were sitting right behind us. Keep in mind that we're at Hoodwinked and being a parent, I expect a little amount of random noise from children. I'm definitely not of the expectation that children should be completely silent during movies - indeed, the sound of a kid laughing is one of my favorite noises, but throughout the movie, the people behind us - the ADULTS - spoke at normal conversational volumes. Discussions about the movie, the animation, the story line, the plot holes (it's HOODWINKED, for crying out loud), the music - it was like watching a DVD with director's commentary. There was also the seat kicking, my own personal super ultra extreme pet peeve. That came mostly from a couple of kids that looked to be perhaps 11 or 12, so way too old to not know better, but at least it wasn't the adults.
So, in light of the apparent fact that there are people out there who don't get how rude, crude and socially unacceptable our current slate of "acceptable" theater behaviors are, let me lay it out - and if you recognize yourself in any of these statements, then all I have to say is "you're welcome" because I'm sure you'll make an effort to do better in the future.
1. You're not in your living room, so be quiet. This seems so obvious, but perhaps as we progress through generations of on-demand and DVR viewing options it's gotten more conf. If you're confused on this point, I would offer this little test - if you had to pay money to go into a big dark room full of chairs, you don't have a remote control in your hand, and you didn't get your popcorn for free, it's not your house. You are in a movie theater, and you are in there with a lot of other people who did not pay to hear your comments. A few years ago my theater viewing of Fellowship of the Ring was practically ruined by a guy one row back who felt a need to explain every difference between book and film to his daughter. Just shut up. Talk later, after you've left the movie. If you can't remember what you wanted to say, that's just extra proof that your ramblings were unnecessary.
2. The seat in front of you is not an ottoman. This is an ottoman. If that's not a pretty reasonable facsimile of the fabric covered piece of furniture in front of you, don't put your feet on it. It's also not a wall, so when you need to adjust yourself, don't push against it with your feet. It should go without saying that you shouldn't be kicking it, but damn - DON'T KICK IT.
3. Movie theaters are not big trash cans. If you brought a big-o-tub of popcorn into the theater, surely you can haul the empty back out, and ditto with your soda kegs. Maybe you get a thrill out of making people clean up after you - or maybe you're just a big rude slob. Those are really the only two possibilities, so you decide.
4. If you know you have a bladder the size of a Tic Tac and have some control over your seat choice (I do realize this is sometimes difficult), please sit near an aisle. I promise the picture is not THAT much better if you sit in the middle of the theater and besides, the movie probably isn't that great anyway. Your enjoyment is not going to be ruined by sitting off to one side and the people you would otherwise have to crawl over will mentally thank you as they watch you head off for your fifth bathroom break.
Only four major rules. It's really not that difficult, right?
By the way - about Hoodwinked. Unless you have a Red Riding Hood fanatic in your house, my suggestion is to wait for the DVD. I've seen Shrek, I know Shrek by heart - this is no Shrek. It's not even a Shrek 2. The animation is amateurish, the humor is spotty, and it just doesn't have the wit of other recent animated offerings. It also has way too many musical numbers for my tastes. I'm sure my kids enjoyed it, but they didn't shell out the almost $50 for tickets and treats, know what I mean?
To honor the great Dr. Martin Luther King Jr (or, as my 6 year old calls him, "Dr. King Luther ... uh ... Martin ... Jr?" with a look of utter confusion as to why someone would have quite so many names), my family went to the movies on Monday. Our small town theater is rarely crowded, but since it was a holiday and a kid movie, we weren't surprised to find that in order to get four seats together, some folks who were already there were going to have to squish a little. Fortunately, a man almost all the way in the back saw me doing a seating scan and beckoned us up, doing that total-strangers-sign-language thing that we all recognize to let us know that his family would move down one and we were welcome to come sit by them.
I mention him because I really appreciated that little courtesy, as it seems that people are really concerned about their movie buffer zone. I don't mind buffer zones when the theater is relatively empty, but I think if you go to a showing that you know is going to be crowded, you should gracefully accept the situation and be prepared to share an arm rest. Buying a ticket to the theater does not entitle you to an extra seat that you need in order to pile all of your coats or to just not have to touch another icky human. If it works out that way, great, but if you can't handle it, get a Netflix subscription or pick your showtimes wisely.
I also mention him because his courtesy was in stark contrast to several people who were sitting right behind us. Keep in mind that we're at Hoodwinked and being a parent, I expect a little amount of random noise from children. I'm definitely not of the expectation that children should be completely silent during movies - indeed, the sound of a kid laughing is one of my favorite noises, but throughout the movie, the people behind us - the ADULTS - spoke at normal conversational volumes. Discussions about the movie, the animation, the story line, the plot holes (it's HOODWINKED, for crying out loud), the music - it was like watching a DVD with director's commentary. There was also the seat kicking, my own personal super ultra extreme pet peeve. That came mostly from a couple of kids that looked to be perhaps 11 or 12, so way too old to not know better, but at least it wasn't the adults.
So, in light of the apparent fact that there are people out there who don't get how rude, crude and socially unacceptable our current slate of "acceptable" theater behaviors are, let me lay it out - and if you recognize yourself in any of these statements, then all I have to say is "you're welcome" because I'm sure you'll make an effort to do better in the future.
1. You're not in your living room, so be quiet. This seems so obvious, but perhaps as we progress through generations of on-demand and DVR viewing options it's gotten more conf. If you're confused on this point, I would offer this little test - if you had to pay money to go into a big dark room full of chairs, you don't have a remote control in your hand, and you didn't get your popcorn for free, it's not your house. You are in a movie theater, and you are in there with a lot of other people who did not pay to hear your comments. A few years ago my theater viewing of Fellowship of the Ring was practically ruined by a guy one row back who felt a need to explain every difference between book and film to his daughter. Just shut up. Talk later, after you've left the movie. If you can't remember what you wanted to say, that's just extra proof that your ramblings were unnecessary.
2. The seat in front of you is not an ottoman. This is an ottoman. If that's not a pretty reasonable facsimile of the fabric covered piece of furniture in front of you, don't put your feet on it. It's also not a wall, so when you need to adjust yourself, don't push against it with your feet. It should go without saying that you shouldn't be kicking it, but damn - DON'T KICK IT.
3. Movie theaters are not big trash cans. If you brought a big-o-tub of popcorn into the theater, surely you can haul the empty back out, and ditto with your soda kegs. Maybe you get a thrill out of making people clean up after you - or maybe you're just a big rude slob. Those are really the only two possibilities, so you decide.
4. If you know you have a bladder the size of a Tic Tac and have some control over your seat choice (I do realize this is sometimes difficult), please sit near an aisle. I promise the picture is not THAT much better if you sit in the middle of the theater and besides, the movie probably isn't that great anyway. Your enjoyment is not going to be ruined by sitting off to one side and the people you would otherwise have to crawl over will mentally thank you as they watch you head off for your fifth bathroom break.
Only four major rules. It's really not that difficult, right?
By the way - about Hoodwinked. Unless you have a Red Riding Hood fanatic in your house, my suggestion is to wait for the DVD. I've seen Shrek, I know Shrek by heart - this is no Shrek. It's not even a Shrek 2. The animation is amateurish, the humor is spotty, and it just doesn't have the wit of other recent animated offerings. It also has way too many musical numbers for my tastes. I'm sure my kids enjoyed it, but they didn't shell out the almost $50 for tickets and treats, know what I mean?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
