Charlotte Mayor won't apologize for telling the truth
Pat McCrory, Mayor of Charlotte NC tells it like it is:
The NAACP wants Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory to apologize for remarks he made about African American youth after last week's arrests during Fourth of July festivities in uptown.
Ken White, president of the Charlotte Branch of the NAACP, on Wednesday called the mayor's comments "insensitive" and said he's concerned they painted "African American youth with a broad swath that cuts deep in many of our communities."
McCrory's comments came July 5 in a letter to the city manager congratulating police on their efforts the night before, when 169 people were arrested in uptown. McCrory also wrote that "too many of our youth, primarily African American, are imitating and/or participating in a gangster type of dress, attitude, behavior and action."
Later Wednesday, McCrory said he won't apologize.
Why not?
"Because my comments were accurate. Period."
Mayor McCrory's comments, as discussed above, were in regards to many arrests at the city's 4th of July celebration. From the Charlotte Observer:
The uptown crowd was primarily African American, as were most of those arrested: Of 143 adults arrested, 122 were black. Police later noted that those arrested comprised fewer than 1 percent of the uptown revelers.
Mayor McCrory went on to explain both his statements, and why he refuses to apologize:
McCrory ... cited statistics showing more than 60 percent of Charlotte's gang members are African American. And, he said, the victims of gang violence also tend to be black.
"One thing we agree on is that it is a horrible stereotype," McCrory said, "but it's being perpetuated by those who continue to dress like, behave like and act like gang members. It's not productive to our community, our neighborhoods, our schools, or to those individuals who are doing it."
Kudos for Mayor McCrory for saying the truth, and refusing to back down from it. Too often in this society our leaders back down from a stand because powerful opposition groups (in this case the NAACP) start threatening them.
But I must echo LaShawn Barber and ask: When did it become more of a crime in this country to SAY that something is wrong, than to do the wrong thing?
LaShawn goes on:
Too many black “youth” eschew education and decent living, while embracing a lifestyle that glorifies criminal activity, triflingness (yes, there’s such a word), and having illicit and zero-responsibility sex with as many women as possible. The resultant children are sentenced to fatherless homes and instability. That, too, makes me sick to my stomach.
...
Blacks cannot complain about what white people may or may not be doing to them when they don’t even care about their own children. I’ve lost patience with it, and I advise everybody — no matter what color you are — to stop being afraid of the truth or of black people making demands. Take it from an insider: the bark, as loud and annoying as it is, is much worse than the bite.
It's my hope that more of our leaders, of ALL colors, stand up and ask the tough questions and give the tough answers about what's wrong in our communities, following Pat McCrory's example.
1
Hey, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's gotta be a duck, right?
Posted by: Michele at July 14, 2007 10:47 AM (EVoot)
2
Thanks for the post...if you blame all your problems on someone else but don't DO anything FOR yourself, you'll have exactly nothing. (LaShawn Barber is one amazing woman!)
Posted by: Mrs. Who at July 15, 2007 10:47 AM (9FXen)
3
No doubt that there is still a lot of prejudice in the USA..and throughout the world. But denying the short comings of a particular race or creed is not gonna solve a damn thing. When was the last time you heard about the white race defending white trash just because they were white?
Moonbattery, Hypocrisy, Idiocy: Three of a kind
The "crack young staff" of the Hatemonger's Quarterly is on to something:
It's funny how people who claim to care so much about the Bush administration's supposed assault on the proper functioning of our representative democracy seem to care so little about ensuring the proper functioning of our representative democracy.
Reading this, I was reminded of a day, back in 2004, just before President Bush was reelected. It was summer, probably August or September, after the national conventions. The time when the partisanship really started to get out of hand, and bitter.
My own office was on the 7th floor, and it just so happened that there was a lovely, big Wendy's on the second floor. Every day around 11:30 I would head down in the elevator to beat the crowd for my grilled chicken sandwich, baked potato (no sour cream, but lots of chives please!), and Diet Coke.
On the day in question I entered the restaurant to find a girl in line in front of me wearing a white doctor's coat tied about her waist, green scrub pants, and a t-shirt emblazoned with "Fuck the Electoral College".
I was so disgusted, I lost my appetite and went back up to my office. Honestly, the bit that bothered me the LEAST was the fact that she was clearly an intern or resident, and she thought it was proper to dress like that in front of patients. I mean., she probably wore her coat buttoned.... What chapped my ass was the 100% ignorance of what the Electoral College is all about, and why we have it in the first place. That she would proclaim publicly (in effect) "our system is broken because the wrong guy won, so let's trash it and keep changing it until the right guy wins."
But getting back to the HMQ piece, which is about the "Impeach Bush" movement. Answer me this: What kind of "high crimes and misdemeanors" is he guilty of? What laws did he break?
I can't hear you. Maybe because you can't answer.
The truth is that the Moonbat brigade are vindictive bitter losers who CAN NOT accept the fact that (1) the majority of Americans disagree with them and (2) Their poster boy was impeached for cause. He lied to Federal investigators.
It's clear to me that this impeachment nonsense is no more than a tired game of tit-for-tat. You impeached our boy, we'll impeach yours. Except it isn't anywhere NEAR that simple. You can't impeach someone because you think he's stupid or you disagree with him or (OMG!) he's a Christian. (Which BTW, Bill Clinton claims to be too!). He has to commit a crime, which Clinton did, and Bush has not.
1
Absolutely! It is so much a tit-for-tat thing. People like your t-shirt wearing gal drive me bonkers too for the same reasons I imagine. They don't understand the history and are unclear on the concept.
I would posit that the Electoral College is even more important today because we are now entering, in my opinion, the age of the Super-Cities. Cities that have expanded into far-spreading suburbs, where the large majority of the population all resides.
It should never be possible for the electorate of 5 or 6 states to determine our highest office. The little people in flyover country matter too, even if some of do shop at Walmart and Target. But, many don't see it that way.
And, frankly, people who are constantly calling for impeachment look like fools because impeachment is only the first step. You still have to have a trial and find the official guilty. Another pesky detail, I know.
What I'd like to know is, what do they think they gain by impeaching Bush? That just makes Cheney President (if they succeed).
Furthermore, have you seen the tshirt that Cindy Sheehan is wearing lately? "Arrest Cheney First". What the heck is that supposed to mean?
I guess I'm just an ignorant neocon witch/redneck living in flyover country, because I can't figure out what he's supposed to be arrested for...
Sorry for the long comment...
Posted by: Phoenix at July 11, 2007 11:25 AM (4N2f4)
3
Excellent post! I've never understood liberals turning bitterly hateful and wanting to throw everything out because they can't control it...
It's just an odd state of mind.
4
CalTechGirl,
You appear confused.
What about my post
a) Gave the impression I did not read the Babalu website?
b) And where do I give the impression I agree with Cuba in any way?
Please be specific
Posted by: FightClub™ at July 12, 2007 09:23 AM (1SN4m)
5
1) You implied that someone on Babalu was praising the castro regime
2) I never implied that you supported the regime. In fact, I suggested you share your stories.
Posted by: caltechgirl at July 12, 2007 09:31 AM (qPLLC)
7
When a person goes off half-cocked as you just did, it give us conservatives a bad rap.
Let me educate you on where you went wrong.
"There is an eMail I recently received from a friend. It contained a link to the Babalublog about someone who was waxing philosophic about the greatness that is the worker's paradise known as Cuba. I had something to say right away, but I held off for a few dasy in order to take care of some other things, and get a few minutes set aside to write about Cuba."
What other people understood quite clearly, as this "someone" was a TROLL on that website, and was ARGUING with the good people at Babalublog.
Maybe you just had too much caffeine today, or you just like slapping innocent people around because you feel superior?
Tell you what, in case you still "think" you know more than I do about Cuba, or you think you still know more about the "intent" or "moral" of my story, or God forbid, my intentions than I do...
Take a moment and following this link.
So, tell me, you still think I was trying to say that the people at Babalublog are Pro-Cuba, or did your brain short circuit?
Posted by: FightClub™ at July 12, 2007 10:28 AM (1SN4m)
8
Thanks for clarifying your position, I'm glad you really aren't saying terrible things about my friends and, again, I invite you to share your firsthand experiences with the crew at Babalu.
As for half-cocked and short-circuited, I'd say there's more than enough of that to go around.
Posted by: caltechgirl at July 12, 2007 11:02 AM (qPLLC)
9
Perhaps it's because I've been done with the Bushies for about five years now, but there are plenty of examples of possible high crimes and misdemeanors, I think...
As a couple examples - authorization to commit torture (violations of the US Code and several treaties that we are parties to - and treaties made pursuant to the Constitution are "the Supreme law of the land); use of signing statements to circumvent the intent of Congress (questionable, but could work); unilateral, unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus (only Congress can suspend habeas corpus and only in certain circumstances); one could also probably make an argument for war crimes...
I'm not saying that he should be impeached, but I do think there is as good a case against Bush as there was against Clinton.
And before you ask, no, I haven't gone soft in the head or all liberal. I just call it as I see it.
As far as the Electoral College anecdote, I find the greatest failure of our education system to be the complete lack of education in civics/government. I remember having to explain simple points of our constitutional system to people in law school.
10
Confront such ignorance. Don't lose your appetite and go back up to your office. It's up to people like us to confront these people. Don't let these idiots win simply as a result of our sense of disgust.
Posted by: zonker at July 21, 2007 12:06 AM (PrUNH)
Posted by: Aaron at July 10, 2007 08:17 PM (x57wb)
2
Wow. that is complete. I still think Potter dies, he is an egotistical teenager who thinks he can do it all... snapes lives and marries Draco's mother because draco's father dies. Ta da.
Posted by: vw bug at July 11, 2007 05:45 AM (FPOeI)
3
Clueless Geek Alert: I thought "More On HP7" was in reference to some new Hewlett-Packard toy or upgrade or something, so I was really befuddled when I clicked through.
Posted by: dogette at July 11, 2007 07:29 AM (q/UVc)
4
I actually thought the same as Dogette for a split second, then got my bearings and clicked on the excellenet timesink link, with which I can find a lot to agree.
Unfortunately, I haven't read the series repeatedly trying to garner every detail and clue, so I find myself being surprised at mention of this or that happening, as I don't remember it all.
The Wheel of Time, on the other hand...
Well, and even that I haven't read the most recent few in most cases more than once each, whereas I've read the first six as many as four or five times each.
Clearly you have learned nothing, either from your master's thesis at Columbia, or about your own children.
But that's not surprising, given that you would publicly insult your own son. Calling him a pawn is pretty low. As if he can't think for himself. I don't know whether that says more about his shallowness, or YOUR inability to mold him into a self-reliant and thoughtful young man if you think so poorly of his ability to make decisions about his life.
You say your life is surrounded by signs and symbols of the military. Perhaps you should take advantage of your unique situation and learn about that which you seem to loathe without understanding.
Oh, and one more thing. You say you are worried about how the experience will affect your son. You worry he will be seriously harmed. But did you ever think that maybe he might be changed for the better? That perhaps the "horrors" he sees over there will spur him on to great things? That he might dedicate himself to removing the suffering of others.
I wish you luck in dealing with your issues, and I thank your son for the choice he made to serve our country.
1
She is an idiot... says a mom whose son is set to deploy to Iraq in short order.
Posted by: Teresa at July 11, 2007 05:44 PM (gsbs5)
2
Do you think with an article like that her son will feel inspired to come home???!!!! Maybe he's trying to just get away from her...kind of sounds like Cindy Sheehan's son.
I'm putting Mary Jo's son in my prayers.
Posted by: Mrs. Who at July 12, 2007 08:05 AM (9FXen)
3
Amen, CTG. Couldn't have said it better than you already have but I suppose that's par for the course. 'Twas good to talk to you this evening. Let me know if you ever lack for depraved text messages. I'm here for you. W00t!
Posted by: zonker at July 20, 2007 11:54 PM (PrUNH)
We're having an unnecessary (and broken) wall heater ripped out of our front room to make way for my walnut sideboard. YAY! And that gas valve at the bottom will come out too so the floor will be flush.
Yes, that is the neighbor's fence you can see through the hole.
Yay! I'm defective!
At least according to Benny 16:
Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were not true churches.
Here we go again. Watch the idiots erupt in 3.... 2..... 1......
1
Heh... Everyone says that their religion is the one true faith... I am Catholic, but I've heard this stuff from the heads of other organizations as well.
Even Scientologists think their 'religion' is the only way to go...
2
Hi CalTechGirl!
I would note a few things:
1. Merely on branding purposes, what else would the CEO of the RCC say? "Eh, join, don't join, all churches are pretty much the same, Ned."
2. The Nicene Creed says "one holy catholic and apostolic church;" thus, there is one church. We Christians have been haggling over the meaning of that ever since.
3. Actually, the RCC says it knows where the church definitely is, but it doesn't know where it's not.
4. Technically, the RCC says it's the Church (as well as the Eastern Orthodox, but I've never met any Eastern Orthodox and I think someone made them up), and the Protestant churches are "ecclesial bodies" made up of Christians who don't "have the fullness of the faith."
Does that help?
Posted by: IB Bill at July 10, 2007 12:58 PM (3Vvjw)
Ex-Fresno State coach wins multi-million $$ lawsuit against the school!
I hate to say it, but Fresno State has a history of robbing the poor (women's sports programs) to feed the rich (men's football and basketball). Volleyball coach Lindy Vivas was fired for standing up to them, so she took them to court.
And won. $5.85 MILLION. And guess what? She's not the only one. There are two more lawsuits pending, including one from the former women's basketball coach that ought to blow the doors off the good ol' boys club that is the FSU athletic office.
A jury on Monday awarded a former Fresno State volleyball coach $5.85 million in damages, ruling that the school discriminated against her for speaking up on behalf of female athletes.
Lindy Vivas, 50, was fired in 2004, two years after coaching her team to its best season in history. University officials said Vivas was let go because she did not meet performance goals and ran a program that often played in empty arenas.
Vivas sued in civil court, saying her contract was not renewed because she raised her voice to advocate for equal treatment of women athletes and access to facilities at Fresno State, a Division I school with a sprawling central California campus.
The jury award, which took into account Vivas' back wages, future lost pay and emotional distress, is likely the largest ever granted to a coach suing for retaliation under Title IX, a landmark federal law requiring gender equity in scholastic athletics, said the coach's lawyer, Dan Siegel.
"Fresno State wants to be a big-time athletic power, but it has to start acting like one. That means treating men and women the same," Siegel said. "This is a complete vindication of her and who Lindy is as a person, as a coach, and what she had to live with as a result of their actions."
The university, of course, released a statement whining about pretrial publicity influencing the jury. Umm? Dude. You're FRESNO STATE. Get a few male football fans on that jury, you shouldn't have had to worry, but you STILL LOST. Get over yourselves. The athletic office has screwed women's sports programs six ways from Sunday. It's time you were held accountable for it.
Read the whole thing here, or the local article here.
1
"The athletic office has screwed women's sports programs six ways from Sunday. It's time you were held accountable for it."
How does making the taxpayers (i.e., you) shell out for a jury award hold anyone responsible? That's the problem in suing a public school.
Posted by: Dave J at July 14, 2007 09:04 AM (PEbS4)
Yummy!
More recipe blogging. Puke's had a good special on corn last week, so we roasted a bunch tonight, using this recipe:
Aw Shucks Grilled Corn (originally from Rick Browne's Barbecue America TV Cookbook, found here)
6 ears fresh corn, with shucks on 1 cup mayonnaise 1/4 cup softened butter 1 teaspoon brown sugar 2 tablespoons fresh lime juice 2 tablespoons dried ancho chile powder 1/2 teaspoon garlic powder fresh ground pepper
1. Soak the corn in salt water for several hours to get the shucks moist. (Add 2 Tbs. salt to 1 gallon of water). 2. In a medium bowl combine mayonnaise, butter, sugar, lime juice, chili, garlic and pepper until the ingredients are well mixed. 3. Grill the corn, with the shucks intact, over hot coals or high gas burners on the grill, turning frequently, until done, about 30 minutes. The shucks will often turn dark/black but will protect the corn. 4. Peel the shucks back, one at a time, until most of the corn is exposed and then remove the silk. With a pastry brush lavishly coat the corn with the spiced mayonnaise-butter mixture. 5. Serve with shucks tied together like a handle.
We used regular dark chili powder, and no brown sugar or lime juice (I was out of limes), and I added Pappy's and onion powder to the mix. Yummy!
Step right up, folks! It's a contest, well, sorta....
It's time to make your "official" predictions for who lives and dies in Harry Potter 7. No major prizes, just brownie points and maybe gratutious linky love. Your prediction should have two parts: 1) Does Harry make it, or not? 2) Who else did she kill off?
Even if you've only seen the movies, I'm interested in other people's takes on it. Especially if you disagree radically, or if you agree, but for different reasons. Post your predictions in the comments. Contest ends July 20, 2007. Void where prohibited. Do not fold, spindle, or multilate.
I'll start: My own "official" prediction is Snape and Hagrid. Maybe Draco Malfoy. Snape is a good guy and proves it via his death. Similarly I suspect Malfoy bites it to prove his own "redemption". And poor Hagrid is the "Innocent" of the stereotypical hero myth, so I suspect he gets caught in the crossfire and his senseless death serves as a spur to Harry's ultimate action against He Who Shall Not Be Named. I think Harry lives too. He almost MUST. And if Harry lives, Ginny probably does too. Remember, Harry WILL end up with Ginny. Hermione is in love with Weasley. Speaking of, if she kills off either Ron or Hermione before they get a happily ever after I will hurl the book at whatever is close and cry for a while. Profanity will be uttered, too. Deep, dark profanity, of the sort that forms the proverbial cloud over Lake Michigan...
2
I'm thinking Snape and Neville for sure will die. Snape either because he's proving he's good like you posit or because he's unable to do so. I lean slightly on the Snape is bad side of things though - Dumbledore wasn't completely unfoolable. I kind of wonder if she's going to kill off Ginny though - it adds to the tragic hero bit for Harry (everyone who loves him dies - reference his parents, Dumbledore, and now Ginny) plus it has potential to cause a rift between him and Ron, which she seems to delight in doing.
I don't think she'll kill of Harry simply because she's a business woman and knows that doing that really kills off the franchise, no matter how many spinoffs might come from side characters, without Harry she loses a lot of her audience.
3
I can buy the Snape dying. I believe that Rowling has tried to make this character as misunderstood and at times, ambivalent as possible to later "reveal" that he was working on the good side afterall. Maybe that's wishful thinking. Along with wishful thinking, I hope Draco has some sort of redemption. Rowling again has set that up by showing him as fearful and hesistant during the sixth book. I hope that leads to him to the good side. But I don't want him to die. But that could be poetic at the end if he dies in an attempt to save Harry. I think a Weasley *MUST* die. I don't hate saying that too much either. I don't want it to be one of the twins but I would not be surprised if it were Ginny or Ron. Better Ron than Ginny, I say. And the foreshadowing of Ron sacrificing for the good of the mission has already occurred as witnessed in the chamber of secrets.
As for Harry dying? No way. Not in a million years. If she kills off Harry, she'll alienate her younger fans who won't understand his death and that could be tragic for the entire "Harry Potter" enterprise (ie. the theme parks, merchandising, movies, tv specials, possible sequals)...As Beth said, it'd be a bad business decision. Although the Christ allegory that some claim that the Harry Potter series references would be better served if he *did* die (...and maybe somehow was revived/resurrected?) -- but Rowling can still keep that allegory strong by making it clear that Harry Potter is WILLING to die, willing to lay down his life for the greater good.
And yes, I'm done. I'm way too involved in this series, as you can tell.
Posted by: wRitErsbLock at July 10, 2007 06:33 AM (+MvHD)
5
I do not believe that Harry will die. He has scraped by too many times to build up to...his death? no way!
I think that Neville will die. I also suspect Luna could go and maybe even Ron. I expect that Scabbers/Pettigrew will die because of the debt he owes Harry that must be repaid. And, I suspect that Snape will also shuffle off, though I'm still on the fence as to whether he is good or evil, or perhaps just out for himself? I don't know. I can tell you that I am primed and pumped and farookin' ready to get my hands on the book!
Posted by: Phoenix at July 10, 2007 06:43 AM (4N2f4)
Posted by: Jenna at July 10, 2007 07:58 AM (fd/rX)
7
I don't think that Percy will die, that's too easy. The readers have no real emotional attachment (other than thinking he's an absolute wanker --hehe-- gotta use the British terms). If he dies, I think another more likable Weasley will die too.
And yes, on the baddie side, Pettigrew will have to die, I think she's set us up for that. (And Voldemort as well)...
8
I've never read any of the books nor seen any of the movies, but the rest of my family are card-carrying Potter-heads. This is what I tell them:
The BIG SECRET in Book VII will be that Harry and Hermione are really brother and sister and that Valdamort is their father. He'll die only after turning good and reconsiling with Harry. In the meantime, a loveable army of House Elves will save Hogwarts from a surprise attack by the armies of darkness.
There are times when my family doesn't like me very much.
9
I'm scared to guess...I know at least two characters will die, maybe more. I'd say Hagrid, Hermione, and maybe Draco.
No matter what, I'll be getting my book at midnight and reading it straight through.
Posted by: Mrs. Who at July 10, 2007 08:34 AM (9FXen)
Another 10 minute quiz
Name all 43 Presidents. It took me less than 5 minutes, but I would have been done in under 3 if I had remembered who was before old Abe sooner.
It's not super hard, as Presidents with the same last name are entered together when you type in the name. The timer starts when you click the link.
My dear friend wRitErsbLock wrote something this morning that struck a nerve with me. She writes:
Do not ask people "when are you going to start having children?"
It might just be a very, very sore subject for the couple.
Maybe one wants children while the other does not. Maybe you asking that question will cause the couple to have yet another fight about it later on.
Maybe the couple is unable to conceive and has been trying without success for quite some time. If so, you just helped plunge them back into despair.
Maybe the couple hates children and never plan to have any.
No matter where the couple is at, you are stepping into dangerous water when you ask the question. It's none of your business. And you are running a risk of either angering the couple or upsetting them. So just don't ask.
Very succinct. About the only thing she didn't mention is maybe the couple has medical issues that must be resolved first.....
People really fuck me off when they ask this kind of shit. It may take a village to raise a child, but does the entire village need to know the details of the conception and whether or not the child was wanted, planned, or a complete surprise? Does the whole village need to know why?
It's amazing to me how the most private and significant moments in our lives, and their accordant choices seem to be public fodder: who we marry (or not, as the case may be), whether we parent, and how we parent. People pop out of the woodwork with advice and questions better for weddings and babies than any other event I've ever seen. Every new mom or mom-to-be that I know has been made to feel pathetic for one choice or another with regard to her baby.
And you know what else fucks me over? A lot of these nosy nellies are the same bitches who go around screaming, 'My Body, My Choice" but then they want to censor your right to do the SAME FUCKING THING if your choices don't agree with their holy-anointed-best-for-the-child-best-for-the-world-happy-shiny BS.
AUUUGH. Get over yourselves, people
With regard to WB's post, the real answer is this: You shouldn't have to ask. If you know me well enough to PRESUME to ask such questions, you should already know the answer. So if you're even considering asking those kinds of questions, that should serve as your notice that I don't want you to know.
Posted by: wRitErsbLock at July 09, 2007 01:17 PM (+MvHD)
2
YES!
And even if they already have kids, STILL don't ask. When my son was 18 months, we started on trying to have another (It ended up taking over a year....) Anyway, everyone started asking when we were going to have another RIGHT after I had a miscarriage when we finally got pregnant after 8 months of trying. While we were on vacation. For our anniversary.
Let's just say it did NOT HELP AT ALL. Blah.
People ask too many personal questions.
Posted by: silvermine at July 09, 2007 02:58 PM (hn7Rm)
3
It may take a village to raise a child, but does the entire village need to know the details of the conception and whether or not the child was wanted, planned, or a complete surprise?
No, but I'm sure if you name the kid "Oops" they'll figure it out.
4
How true... and since it's been a sore subject for what seems like my entire life I never, ever ask anyone else that sort of question, no matter how well I know them.
Unfortunately, many people aren't as sensitive. Or maybe they're just rude. :/
5
I, too, have been harangued quite a bit with these inappropriate you-don't-know-me-well-enough-to-ask sorts of questions.
I have always tried to answer them with the non-answer: the shrug, wink, nod. It means nothing, they get nothing from it, and I get to avoid calling them pushy or nosy or things of that sort.
No sooner had Bunny Boop arrived than people starting asking about the next one. Now, it is one thing for my OB/GYN and I to discuss it. I'll even allow it as a topic from my mother, albeit grudgingly. But my boss? I don't think so.
You are correct that it is a can of worms. It is far better to just be a good friend, polite, and be happy for the couple whatever choices they make or situations that are forced upon them.
For the record, I am firmly of the opinion that it damn well doesn't "take a village" to raise a child. It only "takes a village" if you suck as a parent and are abdicating your responsibilities and "the village" has to take up the slack.
But that's a whole other angry screed and this is neither the time nor the place.
Posted by: Phoenix at July 10, 2007 06:59 AM (4N2f4)
Posted by: DirtCrashr at July 10, 2007 02:27 PM (VNM5w)
7
Oh, amen to all of that.
Two thoughts:
1. I've been accused of "not caring" just because I didn't care to join in on the speculation or drumbeat of "when are you going to have kids" to couples I know. No, I DO care, but I figure that if they want to tell me, they will.
Don't try to goad me into being a blasted gossip or a nosy Nellie.
2. I've threatened in the past to begin asking married couples, "So...you two still having sex?" when people asked me when I was going to "settle down" and get married.
Hey - you ask an intrusive question, I get to ask one. Isn't that how the game goes?
(People have stopped asking. I don't know whether to take that as a relief, or as an ominous sign.)
3. I wonder how much of the "celebutante" culture (where every hangover, every bad haircut is shown all over the media) is contributing to people getting the idea that no one's private life is really private any more.
Posted by: ricki at July 17, 2007 10:59 AM (O5SYw)
The 24-year-old son of former Vice President Al Gore was arrested for drug possession on Wednesday after he was stopped for allegedly speeding in his hybrid Toyota Prius, a sheriff's official said.
Al Gore III -- whose father is a leading advocate of policies to fight global warming -- was driving his environmentally friendly car at about 100 miles per hour on a freeway south of Los Angeles when he was pulled over by an Orange County sheriff's deputy at about 2:15 a.m..
A subsequent search yielded a small amount of marijuana, along with prescription drugs including Valium, Xanax, Vicodin and Adderall, said sheriff's spokesman Jim Amormino. There were no prescriptions found, he said.
Gore was arrested on suspicion of drug possession and booked into the Inmate Reception Center in Santa Ana, about 34 miles south of Los Angeles, on $20,000 bail, he said.
Well, that answers a burning question of mine.... I was wondering if the Prius had any guts. Turns out that it might not be worthless as a vehicle, after all,
As for algore, junior, MWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA. Moron.
3
I wonder what he's looking at. Marijuana's generally just a misdemeanor, but at least in Florida, possession of any amount of those controlled substances, especially alprazolam (Xanax) without a prescription is a felony, and I imagine California's statutes are similar.
Posted by: Dave J at July 04, 2007 05:32 PM (PEbS4)
4
I actually feel sorry for the punk, "Al Gore's Kid" - I mean just look at it, he never had a chance... And a Priapus at 100, how many minutes did it take to get up to that speed? How tedious. If you want to go fast do it on two wheels, a Yamaha or Suzuki or Ducati is fast - a Prius is just another way of faking-out reality.
Posted by: DirtCrashr at July 05, 2007 02:02 PM (VNM5w)
I want this dude driving MY cab
Best Headline EVAR, too:
4 July 2007 HERO CABBIE: I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON
Oh hells yes.
A HERO cabbie who took on the Glasgow Airport terror suspects told yesterday how he booted one of them in the privates.
Alex McIlveen, 45, kicked the man, whose body was in flames, so hard that he tore a tendon in his foot.
But he said last night: "He didn't even flinch. I couldn't believe he didn't go down.
"A doctor told me later I'd damaged a tendon in my foot."
If NHS wasn't free, I do believe that someone would be picking up this man's tab. I guess if the fucktard dies of his burns, he won't be able to use those 72 virgins....
Man is prone to evil as the sparks fly upward....
Babies as young as 6 months are capable of deception:
Behavioural experts have found that infants begin to lie from as young as six months. Simple fibs help to train them for more complex deceptions in later life.
Until now, psychologists had thought the developing brains were not capable of the difficult art of lying until four years old.
Following studies of more than 50 children and interviews with parents, Dr Vasudevi Reddy, of the University of Portsmouth's psychology department, says she has identified seven categories of deception used between six months and three-years-old.
Infants quickly learnt that using tactics such as fake crying and pretend laughing could win them attention. By eight months, more difficult deceptions became apparent, such as concealing forbidden activities or trying to distract parents' attention.
By the age of two, toddlers could use far more devious techniques, such as bluffing when threatened with a punishment.
Dr Reddy said: "Fake crying is one of the earliest forms of deception to emerge, and infants use it to get attention even though nothing is wrong. You can tell, as they will then pause while they wait to hear if their mother is responding, before crying again.
"It demonstrates they're clearly able to distinguish that what they are doing will have an effect. This is essentially all adults do when they tell lies, except in adults it becomes more morally loaded."
So babies are pushing their boundaries almost from day 1. It's really no surprise to a developmental biologist. Children's brains are built to explore, and from the moment they exit the womb they are continually surveying their environment for cues as to "the rules", this includes everything from object permanence to gravity, to the social niceties of their individual culture. These early manipulations are simply another form of exploration; that is, figuring out how to most effectively get the reward (attention, approval, toys, food, etc.) that they want.
It kind of makes me sad though, as I'd prefer to see babies as little innocents, rather than this more cynical view of children as pre-programed manipulation machines.
Oh, and 10 points to the first person who identifies the source of the title....don't Google it, Google has a bunch of sources....
1
Evil little monsters, I tells ya!
Actually, this is not a surprise to most parents. We've all seen the fake cough, the fake crying, the fake laughing. We're not fooled.
The more perceptive of us have also seen the fake IDs, the forged pink slips, and the bogus credit cards, though a lot of that goes unnoticed and unpunished...
3
"Until now, psychologists had thought the developing brains were not capable of the difficult art of lying until four years old."
Evidently, these psychologists have not actually lived with children under four years old.
Tony Blair -- Realist
Tony Blair is interviewed by the BBC about his response to terrorism and whether or not new anti-terrorist laws enacted under his leadership limit British civil liberties:
The money quotes start at about 1:30 left. And yes, this is the video of the interview that yielded the quotes discussed here.
An observation... and an apology
So tonight I have been watching Sunday's Concert for Diana, which we Tivoed, and I have seen about half of it. I was just watching Andrea Bocelli's performance of Andrew Lloyd Webber's Music of the Night, and I had a strange feeling about it. I mean on one hand, my goodness, the man's voice is amazing, and every note was a treasure.
On the other hand, it was a bit disconcerting to hear the words sung with an Italian-influenced accent. This is the third time I've seen this particular bit of the concert, and something had bothered me about it from the first few notes each time. Now I realize that it was the pronunciation of the words.
In that sense, I'd like to apologize to the gods of classical music everywhere for my pitiful American attempts at French, German, Latin, Italian, Russian, Spanish, and any other language I have attempted to sing in in my brief choral career. Considering the difference between Bocelli's amazing talent, and my pitiful voice, I can only imagine how awful my American-accented words must be in other languages, no matter how hard I try....
Here's Bocelli's Music of the Night:
and here is Sarah Brightman and Josh Groban, with All I Ask of You, for comparison:
1
I was reading the obituary of Beverly Sills. I saw that she didn't perform at the Met until very late in her career because the guy who ran it didn't like American singers - so he would never book them. She didn't get to sing there until after he retired!
I wonder now if that man (can't remember his name) could hear the "flaws" of pronunciation in an American singing, but maybe wasn't able to catch it if say... a French singer was singing Italian... The article didn't say. Only that he liked European singers.
Posted by: Teresa at July 03, 2007 11:49 AM (gsbs5)
2
I love Sarah Brightman; I have her on my Pod.
I think you bring up an important point; we have the ability to butcher a fine piece of work without realizing it. That is why I would never play Beethoven's 3rd movement of Moonlight Sonata with anyone else in the room. In my head it sounds lovely, in reality; ugh.
Posted by: Stacy at July 03, 2007 05:00 PM (92p8H)
Tony Blair lets his guard down
And finally has a chance to speak his mind after 10 years as Prime Minister:
'The idea that as a Muslim in this country that you don't have the freedom to express your religion or your views, I mean you've got far more freedom in this country than you do in most Muslim countries,' Blair told Observer columnist Will Hutton, who presents the documentary.
'The reason we are finding it hard to win this battle is that we're not actually fighting it properly. We're not actually standing up to these people and saying, "It's not just your methods that are wrong, your ideas are absurd. Nobody is oppressing you. Your sense of grievance isn't justified."'
Blair held out the example of the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan - criticised by Islamists as an example of the heavy-handed imperial West oppressing Muslims - to highlight unfounded claims of grievance. He asked how it is possible to claim that Afghanistan's Muslims are being oppressed when the Taliban 'used to execute teachers for teaching girls in schools'.
Blair added: 'How are [we] oppressing them? You're oppressing them when you support the people who are trying to blow them up.'
Blair, who normally chooses his language carefully when he talks about Islamists, also takes a swipe at critics who accused him of undermining civil liberties. 'When I'm trying to change the law in order to make it easier to deport people who engage in terrorism - the idea that that's an assault on hundreds of years of British civil liberties is completely absurd. Some of what is written on this is loopy-loo in its extremism.'
Honestly, I have been waiting for this since Tony and Cherie walked out of 10 Downing Street. You know there has to be a LOT boiling beneath that calm exterior.
I look forward to more of what Tony has to say. Glad to hear he's not going quietly into his next assignment as mideast envoy.
