The Stupidity of Others

How long exactly do people have to pay for their crimes?

2010-02-07T09:47:00.000-08:00

TSA Hires Convicted Felon

How can you form an air-tight opinion on this when you have so little information? Is this man still 18 and committed this crime mere weeks ago? Or is a 35-year-old man, who has had no other incidents with the law? Does the TSA paperwork request only convictions in the last 7 years, as many applications do? Or did he actually omit the information on purpose? Or is it like TSA has said and he was a minor, in which case the record is expunged? It is the opinions of folks such as yourself that prevent "convicted felons" from being able to return to society and become productive members. You say he was convicted of robbery, was that a petty $50 from a convenience store or did he hold up a bank at gunpoint? Men returning from jail, after having paid their debt to society according to the laws of the country you live in, cannot support themselves or their families in a legal manner, if people like you won't let them work. And fine, you say this is TSA, our security. But there is always an excuse at every job. And again, should this man be expected to spend the rest of his life working at Burger King because he made a mistake once in his life?

We Don't Live In Yesteryear

2009-11-11T05:29:00.001-08:00

9-Year-Old Foils Would Be Car Jacker

As one mother found out, leaving your kids, all 4 of them, in a car while you run in for a drink isn't the best idea. Many people are calling those of us who feel the mother was in the wrong, too harsh. How could she be expected to carry all of those children, ages 9, 3, 19 months, and 4 months, into the store for just a drink? Back in the day, parents left their children in the cars all the time. In answer to the first question, I don't expect her to take all of her children into the store for a drink, I expect her to go through a drive thru like the rest of us. As for the 2nd thought, we don't live back in the day.

Almost everyday, I hear of one person or another talking of yesteryear, a time when parents weren't afraid to let their children play alone outside. Or run into a store and leave their kids in the car. Some feel parents today are overprotective, our children are becoming wimps. But gone are the days when others would look out for your children. We live in a time where people stand around and watch a young woman being ganged raped outside of a school. We live in a time when some idiot tries to jack a car with 4 children inside of it. This little boy was brave, but he shouldn't have needed to be. He shouldn't have been held responsible for the safety of his baby brothers.

I don't subscribe to the theory that the mother should be tarred and feather, or the equivalent of being processed through Child Services. It was a bad decision, and hopefully she will learn from it. I am not without guilt. I have left my son in the car while I used a port a potty at a park. I left him in the car in the pouring rain while I had to run through a flooded parking lot to ask a gas attendant to turn on a pump. Both instances where I felt he was safer in the car, both instances where I was panic stricken the entire time that something was going to happen to my kid. And maybe I am overly cautious, but for all of the children who are safely sitting in the vehicle when the parent returns, there are the ones who aren't. The ones who have accidentally pulled the emergency brake and rolled the car into traffic. The babies found sitting on the side of the road where the car jackers tossed them once they were discovered in the back seat. The children who are never found. Because even if the ratio is 150 to 1, the ratio means nothing if your child is the one.

Fear of Information

2009-11-11T05:12:00.000-08:00

Convicted Bomber Invited to Speak at University

When did our society become so afraid of information that we want to refuse adults the right to decide if they want to hear a lecture? I personally would be fascinated to hear this man's story, the who's, what's, and why's. This doesn't mean I agree, or disagree, with his actions, it means I enjoy and value knowledge. Without speaking with those who have committed crimes, everything we know about those crimes is speculation. You can't possibly understand, or even know, a person's motives unless you speak with them. Maybe a greater understanding of the thought process behind terrorists would give us little bit more assistance than the unsuccessful beatings at Gitmo.

Honestly, though, this is not a question of agree or disagree, right or wrong. This is a University. The students are adults. This is not mandated as part of their grade. This is an informational lecture, they may participate or not. They may agree or disagree. They may walk away changed or have more conviction of their established morals. The choice is theirs. Our country is so afraid of "indoctrination" that we are willing to raise sheep, those who follow blindly without ever being given all of the details. Information is power and we should be teaching our children to embrace it, not be afraid of it.

Learning doesn't stop once children exit the classroom

2009-11-03T06:54:00.000-08:00

In discussing the state of our education system, Obama was quoted as saying, "Now, I know longer school days and school years are not wildly popular ideas… But the challenges of a new century demand more time in the classroom." (msnbc.com)

The thought process being if we wish to be competitive with other countries, we must focus more of our time on school. According to Education Secretary Arne Duncan, we spend 25-30 percent less time in the classroom than foreign countries. But what are those countries giving up in their quest for educational dominance? When does education begin to hinder rather than help?

Being the parent of a 2-year-old, I have not yet faced the concerns of school through the eyes of a parent. But I hear from parents with children in the Carroll County school system that school is far from over when their children step off the bus. First graders have 2-3 hours of homework a night. In addition, the parents are sent their own list of tasks to accomplish on a daily or weekly basis. And let’s not forget about the all too important standardized testing time, when the earth stops rotating on its axis and parents, students, and teachers must study for tests that serve no real purpose aside from determining a school’s budget for the next year. In addition, parents and students are expected to participate in school functions outside the realm of education: chaperoning field trips, attending sporting functions, and raising funds for the school through constant fundraising.

Elementary school used to be a stepping stone, a foot in the door, to teach basics, and prepare children for middle then high school. These days, children are being treated like high schoolers right out of the gate. Parents are being told children’s elementary school careers are determining factors of how they will do later in life. I don’t know about you, but I know plenty of people who would be doing a lot worse (and some better) if elementary school was a true indicator of their adult life.

I remember starting school when I was 5, no preschool for me, and then I only attended half-days. My kindergarten class consisted of interactive play that taught me my ABC’S and 123’s. It seems now the kindergarteners are expected to learn as older children do, with less play and more book learning. The ABC’s and 123’s are expected to have been taught prior to what used to be a child’s first year of school. I understand the science behind this, children under 5 are better able to learn and retain information, such as numbers, letters, and languages. But that doesn’t change the fact that they are antsy, squirmy little creatures who need to be taught in an interactive atmosphere rather than from behind a desk. I’ve heard of teachers telling parents of 1st and 2nd graders that their children lack focus and will have no hope of a good education if it isn’t reigned in now. But, and it’s been awhile, I remember most 1st and 2nd graders lacking focus. Shouldn’t the teachers have some way of garnering their attention? Helping to make it interesting enough that they want to focus?

Since teachers already have complaints about children’s attention now, what will happen when children are expected to be in the classroom 8 hours a day, 6 days a week, 11 months a year? When will they have the time to recoup, unwind, and start fresh? Children need decidedly more down time than adults, their brains and bodies are still growing, at warp speed some times. This requires more sleep, and when kids are stressed, just like adults, sleep is restless.

And in all of this hubbub about competing with other countries, are we forgetting the importance of a well-rounded child? A child exposed to sports, leisure reading, playing on the swings, enjoying a movie with their family, as well as school assignments. Countries way ahead of the curve in education, allow their children to miss out on most of these things. But if a child doesn’t have the opportunity to be a child while they are attending school, when will they have the chance? These same countries also have students who attend graduate school well into their 20’s.

I think the approach here is off. Before we start adding time to school, why don’t we do more with the time we have? Give teachers the tools they need to make their classrooms a place of learning for children with all types of personalities, not only those that are easy to deal with. Give back the time that is taken away to focus solely on standardized tests. Reduce the amount of written homework and assign interactive assignments. For instance, if you are working on conversion of measurements, have the children help make dinner. Longer hours and more days is not the answer to a better school system. Focus on our children and don’t worry about how well other countries’ students are doing. Contrary to popular belief, it isn’t a competition, and maybe if we stop treating education like it is, then we may see some results. And most importantly, let’s remember, school needs to be a part of children’s lives not be their life.

**Published Eldersburg Advocate 11/3/09

Redefining The American Dream

2009-10-20T07:52:00.000-07:00

A tragedy occurred in Mt. Airy, MD recently: a murder-suicide involving a husband, wife, and their 2 children.

No note was left, so the true motive will never be known, but due to the family’s economic situation, financial strain is being speculated as the cause. A decline in profits from a home improvement business and a house on the market for over a year may have lead a man to kill his family and then take his own life. I can’t imagine the unbelievable pain and anguish someone must be in to lead them to such a drastic step; but I can say with some certainty, it was unnecessary. And though it has not been absolutely determined to be the cause in this instance, there have been many similar cases where this is indeed the reason for such drastic, horrific measures. We have gotten so far from what’s truly important in life we feel our children are better off dead than living below middle-class.

In my area of Maryland, not too far from Mt. Airy, I have friends ranging from well-off to head just above water, though on all ends of the spectrum, no one seems to think they are doing well. How is this possible? According to the US Census Bureau, the median income in Carroll County in 2007 was $79,803. So, how are people making $80,000 a year in the same boat as those making $40,000? How did the American Dream make $80,000 a year the poverty line in some people’s minds? Do we truly believe a job as a school janitor, a 2-bedroom apartment, only 1 car, and food on the table is a failure? So much so, that we’d rather not live, than live without?

Our economic crisis unfolded as we all chased a fleeting image of what we felt we deserved. And when we caught it, and didn’t have the money to buy, we got in bed with the banks and let them control the situation. We accepted everything from “sub-prime” mortgages to credit cards that increased your limit anytime you came within $200. We lost control of our financial selves and when we were finally forced to stop and see what had come of it, we gasped. And then we started pointing fingers. And as the economy as a whole began to further decline, we asked the government how they were going to fix it. But, in the end, we can only blame ourselves because we are the only ones we can fix. Right now, as the realization of our monumental mistakes become clear, is the time to show our true character. Everyone talks about finding our real selves in the tough times, well that time is here. Now is the time to see what we can live without. What’s truly important can’t be paid off over time.

I’m not without fault. I’m constantly worrying how I will pay my $600 credit card payment. A payment that slowly grew over time as I tried to avoid facing my financial issues. A payment that reflects so many things I could have lived without. Some days I feel I’m at the bottom of the economic barrel, with no way out. Yet, when reality slaps me in the face, I realize, my priorities need to be readjusted. A few weeks ago, I was pulling into a Shell parking lot when I noticed a man clutching a little girl’s hand and in the other he held a baby in a carrier. The sight warmed me and I smiled. As I pumped my gas and made faces at my son through the back window, the image quickly faded from my mind. As I drove away, I noticed them, along with a dozen others, standing in front of a building next door. It was then I noticed the sign on the building, “Family Services”. And directly above the man and his children was a sign that read “Food”. Since then, I haven’t been able to shake the image of this man and his children crossing the street, to me seeming just a happy family out for a stroll, when in fact he was headed to a place to ask for food for his children. I worry about how I’m going to pay a credit card bill and he worries about how is going to feed his kids. Perspective is usually hidden in a piece of humble pie.

As I was growing up, my mother worked everywhere from a gas station to an industrial laundry mat. My dad was a laborer in a heat treating plant that left him with medical problems for the rest of his life. My parents chased the American Dream and it left them with irreparable damage to their credit. We moved a lot, sitting here now I’m counting 10 homes I lived in before my 15th birthday. Some were purchased, most rented. Of those 10 houses, 3 were foreclosed on, 1 burnt to the ground, and 1 flooded. I’m not without a story, but I never felt I was missing out. My mother planted flowers in front of every single one of those houses. And I called all of them home. Even today, when I go to my parent’s house, a place I’ve never lived, I feel at home. It’s where my parents are, their scents, their voices, their laughter, the pictures from my childhood, the knick knacks I’ve seen a 1000 times. It’s where the things that matter are.

And some may say my parents never got the American Dream. But they’ve gotten to love the same person for 40 years, raise 4 children who still speak to them regularly, spoil 6 grandchildren, and on the rare occasion they have a few extra dollars in the bank, they get a crappy motel room, no more than 20 miles from their home, and spend an evening on the beach together. If that’s not the American Dream, then perhaps we should redefine it. If my parents had decided to end it all the first time they lost everything, I wouldn’t have made it to my 2nd birthday.

Everyone’s problems are real and I don’t discount them, but in the larger view of life we have to worry about the things that matter. Could Charles Dalton have had a decent life without his business or home? Unfortunately, we’ll never know, but my thought is yes. Because a business and home don’t make you what you are. The people who love you do. Possessions can only define us if we let them and sometimes the only way to keep that from happening is to just let it go.

**Published Eldersburg Advocate 10/21/09

This Is America, Land of Rule Breakers

2009-10-17T14:09:00.001-07:00

Chester City Firefighter Suspended Over American Flag Sticker

Shared via AddThis

Once again, the point is lost. This isn't about whether or not an American flag is offensive, it is about keeping others from posting offensive items. Unfortunately, in this climate of 'give an inch, take a mile', employers are forced to take an all or nothing stance.

So many people are unable to differentiate between what is and isn't OK to post in a public area, the only way to prevent it from becoming a lawsuit is to ban everything. I worked in offices for many years, some allowed personal affects, some didn't. In the offices that allowed it, without fail, there would be at least one person a week calling foul because they were asked to take down an offensive item. When I was an employee, I would do everything I could to make sure their mistakes didn't affect my ability to post my extremely necessary "Live Long and Prosper" sign. When I became a supervisor and had to be the one to address the offenders, I became very anti-personal items. There were times I would pass a desk and not notice something someone else considered offensive, just to be called out later for allowing someone to break the rules. If the rule was no personal items, then it was easier to know when I had an issue to address. With most things, the few ruin it for the many.

This firefighter's refusal to remove his flag doesn't show his patriotism, it shows his lack of respect for rules. His anger shouldn't be pointed towards those who made the rule, but rather those who forced the station to make the rule.

Don't Bother, It Won't Last

2009-10-16T07:34:00.000-07:00

Interracial Couple Denied Marriage License in Louisiana

Oh, Louisiana. You make my day a little brighter. I thought I would have to be married to my husband forever, but according to a Justice of the Peace in LA, it will never last. Thank goodness, because there are days I want to kill him. I muscle through because I made a commitment, but now I know not to bother. And I was afraid my child wouldn’t have any emotional scars to blame on me, but now, NOW, he has a whopper. His complete and total ostracization from polite society because he doesn’t belong to either race, he’s a hybrid, and everyone knows how much people hate hybrids.

Judge Keith Bardwell, a JOP in Tangipahoa Parish, is refusing to marry interracial couples based on their inability to remain married for an acceptable length of time. Uh, what ruler is he using, exactly? Last I checked marriage as an institution is in the toilet. I know you’ve heard the stats, 50% of marriages end in divorce. That’s all marriages. And while I understand that some of these marriages are interracial, what of the others? Bardwell would have you believe he is being fair because he has never married any interracial couples, but if his reasoning is in fact because of the breakdown of the marriages, then wouldn’t it be fair to refuse to marry anyone. If he is, in fact trying to prevent marriages that won’t last from happening, then why is race the only factor he takes into account. Why not age or economic status? Both of which are statistically proven indicators of doomed marriages.

And frankly, his ill conceived belief that mixed children aren’t accepted in either culture is hog wash. There are so many different races in schools today many mixed children aren’t even identified by white or black. Some are mistaken for Hispanic or Middle Eastern. Believe me, I have more to worry about when my kid enters school than how he will be judged for his heritage. I’ve got to watch out for 6-year-old cub scouts bringing utensils to school.

As with most racists, the judge is sure to point at his “piles and piles” of black friends, friends he allows to use his bathroom. And he’ll marry them, as long as they don’t get high and mighty and start wanting to marry outside of their socially acceptable pool of mates. Racism isn’t just about disliking a race as a whole, it is judging any person about anything based solely on their race. The fact that he holds this antiquated view that interracial couples aren’t able to make their marriages work makes him a racist. The fact that he is a sitting judge who openly allows his racism to sway his judicial responsibilities is a sign of how far behind the south actually is in race relations.

Regardless of Judge Bardwell’s true intention, whether it is as he says or it’s the very real fact that he is a racist, the point is moot. He agreed to uphold the rights of his citizens when he became a judge. He does not get to pick and choose which laws he upholds; he is required to uphold them all. If he is unable to do that, then perhaps he should find a career where picking and choosing your beliefs is allowed.

You mean, I have to pay for this?!

2009-10-16T06:10:00.003-07:00

Burlington Coat Factory Riot

Shared via AddThis

It’s a crisp fall day as you are perusing the racks of a local Burlington Coat Factory. You notice a commotion and ask what is going on. Someone breathlessly tells you there is a woman in the store who has won the lottery and she is paying for everyone’s purchases up to $500. What is your reaction? Do you continue shopping and ignore the craziness? Or do you make a mad dash for the closest rack of clothes and grab everything? Things you may or may not need, shoes that aren’t even in your size, anything close enough for you to get your hands on.

I just can’t imagine what would go through someone’s mind that would make them start grabbing everything off the racks because some person they’ve never met says they will pay for it. Why isn’t the first thing you think about “umm…I’m gonna need a bank statement first”? I know I’m supposed to be railing against the crazy lady that came in and lied about winning the lottery, but frankly, that’s the obvious. Of course she’s a whack job, but what about customers who began stripping the store of all of its merchandise and then trashing the place when they were asked to pay for it? Or the ones who managed to make it out of the store with stolen goods? Some mental case you’ve never laid eyes on before tells you she’ll buy you stuff and when she doesn’t make good, you think you’re still owed the booty.

I’ve never understood the concept of looting and rioting. People would have you believe they are trying to make a point, but whatever message they are trying to send gets lost in the rubble. You can’t expect people to listen to you or champion your cause if you’ve just caused them thousands of dollars worth of damage.
As with most things, greed is the motivator here; it can turn upstanding citizens into criminals, from Wall Street down to Burlington Coat Factory. Not one of those customers thought they would be walking into that store getting their purchases for free (well, with the exception of a possible shoplifter or two), yet each one walked out feeling they had been robbed of something they deserved. In deplorability, this is a case where the effect far outweighed the cause. The woman was wrong for what she did, but the customers overshadowed her by a long shot. Her actions were to grab attention (possibly due to a mental condition); theirs displayed a true lack of character.

I don’t subscribe to the theory that no one is owed anything. I believe we all have basic human rights that we are owed; a roof over our heads, food on our table, and the ability to seek medical care are all things I think everyone should have, regardless of their economic condition. Nowhere on that list will you ever find discount coats.

The Six Year Old Felon

2009-10-14T20:11:00.000-07:00

It's a Fork, It's a Spoon, It's a...Weapon?

Zero tolerance. It was an idea brought about by our changing climate. No longer do principals worry about smoking and necking, they worry about guns and drugs. Zero tolerance is supposed to send a message to gang bangers and drug dealers, a message that we won’t let you have our children. But what happens when the message gets lost and a 6 year old gets a 45-day suspension for a seemingly innocuous transgression? Zero tolerance seems like a good, tough policy, until you realize you have stripped children of their basic rights. The right to have their case heard, an explanation offered, and punishment given based on their intent, as well as, their actions. These are rights given to criminals every day, why doesn’t a school have to give the same to their students?

Zero tolerance could change its name to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, in the sense that regardless of your reasons for making the mistake, you have no right to defend yourself. They aren't going to ask your reasons and you shouldn't bother to tell because no one is listening. No one looks at the character of the child and says “hmmmm…was he going to try to kill another student or he did he have a childish lapse in judgment”. Zero tolerance policies lack common sense.

In the most recent case, of the 6-year-old, the parents appealed to the school board and the board saw in favor of the student. But this is a case that snowballed into a media storm of disgust. What happens when the school board only has the pressure of a parent and not the national media? Will it still go in favor of the student? Many parents who have come forward because of this story say no. Their children had to accept the punishment that was given, even when it wasn’t necessarily the fairest decision.

I’m not suggesting that children shouldn’t be punished for violating zero tolerance policies. As adults, when we make mistakes and get caught, there are consequences. But those penalties are in line with the crime. Someone who injuries another person in a car accident because they ran a stop sign, is not going to receive the same punishment as someone who causes an accident by being drunk. The end result may be the same, but the intent is taken into account when sentencing is given. Why do we not feel our children should be granted that same right? Instead the school uses a one size fits all policy, regardless of whether it actually does fit. To me, this seems more to do with available resources, or lack thereof, to handle disciplinary situations than it does with actually trying to rid the school of danger. Schools are stretched thin and discipline is no longer a luxury the school’s can afford. They aren’t able to look at each individual case and determine the appropriate outcome, so they throw a blanket over the whole thing and call it a day. When you have teacher’s making test copies on the back of their bank statements because the school doesn’t have enough money for copy paper, well, something has to give. I get that.

But I remember principals and teachers having a rapport with their students, good and bad. They knew the ones who intentionally caused trouble from the ones who made stupid decisions. When you were in trouble, you spoke with administration, your parents and the principal came to an understanding as to what the crime was and a respectable punishment. A punishment that fit the crime, that’s what Zero Tolerance is missing, the connection between the crime and the punishment. Without that they aren’t solving the school’s problems, they’re just making it look like they are. Like polish on scratched veneer, it looks shiney, but you rub a little bit and the cracks start to show. Zero Tolerance can’t stop violence and drugs in school if the school never bothers to determine who the actual threat is. When you skip the trial and go right for the punishment, you’ve left out the truth. And the past has shown, without the truth, there’s no hope for the future.

Exxon, Pillar of the Community

2009-10-12T14:12:00.000-07:00

Exxon Mobile appeals $150 million award

Jacksonville, MD is a town located in Baltimore County, about 20 miles NE of Baltimore. Jacksonville is populated with about 10,000 people and has a median income of approximately $100,000. The number of people who rent in this community is almost non-existent. People move to this town to put down roots, looking for a place to call home. And for many families that’s what they thought they found, until a grave error made by a major corporation changed all that.

In 2006, Exxon Mobil Corp contacted the Maryland Department of the Environment to inform them of a leak. This was no ordinary leak, though; this leak produced 15 feet of gas in just one well. This leak spilled about 4 tankers full of gas into the community’s ground water. This leak caused a mess that could take as long as 10 years before it is ever truly cleaned up. Exxon managed to allow this leak to go on for a 37-day period without investigating, even after the station had to receive extra shipments of product and some $2,000 worth of gas went unaccounted for each day. Obvious negligence on the part of Exxon caused this catastrophe, yet 3 years later, they still don’t want to take responsibility.

For many people, $150 million may seem like a lot of money. However, split between 89 families, the enormity of that amount dwindles. This was the total awarded to families affected by the oil leak that went undetected by an Exxon Mobil station for 5 weeks. For 5 weeks these families had 26,000 gallons of gas seeping into their lawns and ground water. For 5 weeks, their children were drinking tainted water. For 5 weeks, this service station wreaked havoc on people’s lives, havoc that will resonate for a lifetime. They will always have in the back of their minds the possibility that physical damage was done. When they have a headache, they will wonder. When their child complains of a stomach ache, their hearts may, for a brief moment, seize with fear. Each time they put a glass of drinking water to their lips, they’ll hesitate. And if they decide it’s too much to bear and they want to uproot, they may have to take a loss on the sale of their homes to do so.

At the beginning of the trial, the defense attorney promised that his clients “want to make it right”. Yet, instead of Exxon Mobil Corp. stepping up and doing the right thing, they forced these families to muddle through the court systems and be awarded their justice through a jury. And even after a jury saw fit to give these families a little of what they deserve, Exxon is still planning to appeal. They have already asked the judge to lower the sum, and except for a few minor legal adjustments to the amount, the judge agreed with the jury. Yet, Exxon’s lawyer says he is disappointed. Disappointed? Let’s talk about disappointment. Disappointment is a major company allowing this to go to trial, a company who brought in $44 million in profit, a record for the corporation, in 2008, a year when many companies were struggling to keep their head above water. Allowing these families, who have already been through so much, to have to sit and listen to this mega company provide excuses for their lack of consideration for everyday people. The victims were forced to hear an email, written by an Exxon Mobil project manager, discounting their pain and suffering, referring to it as “just another notch in the tree of life”. During his closing remarks, the defense attorney further ridiculed the plaintiffs, calling the families’ fears, about potential health risks, unsubstantiated. Even though, the effects of a long-term presence of MTBE, a gasoline additive, are not fully understood.

Exxon is letting their true colors show, exposing them for the greedy corporation they are. For me, it seems only yesterday we were hearing how this company had to be forced to take responsibility for a far more major catastrophe in Alaska. In 20 years they still haven’t learned community conscientiousness. They still aren’t accepting responsibility for their actions. When will this company see that they can’t railroad the little people? They can’t brush their mistakes under the rug and pretend they didn’t happen. Their mistakes affect the community in which they are made and they need to step up and repair the damage, and not just the physical damage. They need to reach in where it really hurts, the pocketbook. They need to stand up and accept their punishment for these egregious errors. Only then will they have made it right.

I'm watching you...

2009-10-12T14:08:00.000-07:00

iWatch, Government Community Watch

A summit among big city police chiefs was held in Denver to discuss the specifics of a new program called iWATCH, an anti-terrorism community watch developed by the LAPD. The basis of this program is similar to that of a neighborhood watch, but on a much larger scale. The police are hoping that everyday citizens can help put the kibosh on terrorists by reporting suspicious behavior in areas such as government buildings, mass gatherings, schools and public transportation. They are asking citizens to look for unusual indicators such as smelling chemicals or fumes, someone wearing baggy clothing, or someone purchasing supplies or equipment that could be used in bombs. There are a total of 9 suspicious actions to look for and 12 places you should look. So basically, keep your eyes peeled for anyone doing anything, any time you are in public place.

Smelling chemicals and fumes is a regular occurrence on public transit and if I had to call every time I saw some teenager wearing clothes 14 times bigger than him, I’d start sending my cell phone bill to the government. And aren’t the only people who know what everyday items are used to make a bomb, the people who are making the bombs. I mean how many 70-year-old grandmas had to be told why their cold medicine could only be purchased after asking the pharmacist’s permission, presenting your ID and having your retina scanned by infrared? The only people who knew you could make meth with Sudafed were the people making meth. So with such broad indicators, how are we to determine who is a terrorist and who simply tends to run cool on a summer day? If we’re being honest, then we all know the answer. It will be the color of their skin, the accent in their voice, or the language they speak. Let’s face it, if I’m purchasing a large amount of conditioner, a cashier is going to assume I’m having a bad hair day. (This is just an example, of course, because I have no idea if you can make a bomb with conditioner.) People are not going to walk around all day checking whether people are emitting fumes; those who will participate in iWATCH, are those that will judge a terrorist suspect based on the criteria with which they are comfortable. And that certainly won’t be their size 42 pants.

The founders of this watch group claim they will educate callers who are reporting people based solely on their ethnicity or race. But will this prevent those people that have been reported from having their privacy invaded? Are you seriously telling me a person calling in a claim about an Arab-American at the court house, walking around in a winter coat in October, is not going to be investigated? We live in a racist society. Over the years the prejudice changes from minority to minority, but the foundation is still there. Fear those who look different. Fear those who look similar to others who have caused harm. And the only way to really know what we are looking for in the form of terrorists is to look to those who have terrorized before. America is full of imperfect citizens who make imperfect decisions. And as an American it is our right to make those decisions, but it is also our right not to be figuratively stripped searched based on the accusation of one of our imperfect brethren.

The police chiefs endorsing this program would have you believe it is your civic duty to protect our nation. But is it not also our civic duty to allow our fellow Americans to do as they wish when not harming others? When does civically responsible individual and nosy busybody collide? For years, police have set up tip lines to assist in solving crimes; but they are usually preceded by a release of information about the crime, a description of the suspect, the date, place, and time of the event, or even a description of the crime that was committed. iWATCH is being hailed as something similar to neighborhood watch groups, but those neighbors know what they are watching for, they know who doesn’t belong in their neighborhood. What is being asked of our citizens with this anti-terrorist watch is more along the lines of playing a game of I Spy. Give us some clues and send us to see if we spot anyone fitting that vague description. The possibility of guesses is endless. How can this possibly help prevent terrorism?

America is a fear based society and when anyone questions the propaganda being fed to us under the guise of keeping our country safe, we are told we live in a post-9/11 world. (Just as previous generations were told it’s a post-Pearl Harbor or post-Vietnam society.) When will that excuse no longer wash? When we will we realize that we can never make up for what happened that day? No matter how many “suspects” we turn in, no matter how many prisoners we torture, no matter how many neighbors’ homes we search, we can never make up for what happened on 9/11. Because that’s what iWATCH, and all of the other Patriot Act’esque operations, seems to be trying to do; relieve the guilt we feel over not being able to stop the Twin Towers from falling.

Perhaps we should try a different approach, though, because this one feels very “been there, done that”. iWATCH is a wash from the start; from one side of the mouth they are saying, look for terrorists, but from the other they are saying terrorists could be anyone, anywhere, looking anyway. Asking the citizens of our nation to spend their time looking for terrorists suspects who may or may not exist in their general vicinity, is like asking a 2-year-old to spot the difference between a cookie and a low-fat, low-calorie, gluten free alternative. We don’t know what we are looking for and the vague description, given by those who comprehend what they are looking for, serves as little more than a false security blanket that we are helping to serve and protect, when really, we’re probably just turning in an innocent bystander. As with many far reaching programs, this one is doomed to fail, or at least be a long and arduous process that lends to few, if any, real leads. Have we learned nothing from our “No Fly” list?

Kane Hoax

2009-09-15T11:22:00.001-07:00

William Taylor was standing at the corner of a busy intersection in Tyson’s Corner holding a sign that read, “I cheated. This is my punishment.” As cars whizzed by, they honked, they yelled, some practiced sign language, and the buzz began to spread through the area. Local radio and TV stations sent crews to get a quote from the adulterer. Soon, the story was picked up by national news organizations and by 6PM, it was on every station’s website and ran on many evening broadcasts. Taylor began receiving calls from Today and GMA. He spoke with The Kane Show on DC’s Hot 99.5 radio station.
On Wednesday, September 02, 2009, after allegedly being accosted by a local reporter, Kane, from The Kane Show, admitted the entire story was made up and “William Taylor” was actually an intern for the radio station. Kane explained that the idea had come to him about 6 months prior, after hearing about a mother who made her son wear a sign admitting to bad grades and smoking marijuana. The ruse, according to the radio DJ, was meant to expose the lack of research and truth in a lot of news stories. He said he decided to execute the plot last week because of the death of Ted Kennedy. The timing was meant to prove the ability of a fluff story to supersede that of a true news story.
Perhaps the point of the deception is a valid one; but, really, was Kane’s hoax an attempt to bring to light a lack of journalistic integrity or was it meant to feed his seemingly insatiable ego? As with many of his segments, Kane came across as self-righteous when revealing his hoax, lecturing on the need for journalists to check their facts and use truth in reporting. Though, in the same hour in which he addressed his moral “experiment”, he also trivialized the truly heinous hazing at a Colorado State University sorority, commenting that eating cat food is “not that bad”. And when a caller admitted that his frat brothers were asked by their sister sorority to color the parts of pledges’ bodies that they didn’t like, Kane responded such an act is “not going to hurt you”. I guess having previously dismissed his journalistic responsibility, saying simply, “I’m not a journalist”, releases him from any accountability in encouraging degrading behavior that can lead to serious emotional distress. The hypocrisy of lecturing others on principled reporting while claiming his liabilities are nil, because his show is for entertainment, seems to be lost on him.
I have listened to Kane for many years, having been in Florida during his tenure at 93.3FLZ, and for the most part he comes across as an arrogant individual who admits to his faults only as they benefit his ratings. I’ve heard him defend asking a spouse to flirt with your boss to get a raise, but condemn a woman for making pornographic tapes with her long-time boyfriend. He’s punished his wife for keeping old love letters from an ex-fiancé by reading the letters on air, but has admitted to looking up ex-girlfriends on the internet. He was enraged at Ashlee Simpson’s rebuttal to claims she was drunk during an interview with his show, claims that cast him in an unflattering light, yet defended the ‘right’ of his co-host to accost a woman who was smoking a cigarette while wearing a Live Strong bracelet. He claims to be pressing for more journalistic accuracy, but has a Celebrity Dirt segment on the half hour that regurgitates mostly fabricated stories regarding celebrities. (Sarah manages to quote from the National Enquirer without even a hint of sarcasm in her voice.) Kane is a walking contradiction and far from being in a position to dub himself a moral compass.
Maybe I’m completely off base, maybe Kane’s only motives were those of a concerned party, but to me this practical joke seemed to feed Kane’s ego more than teach a lesson to the unethical news journalists. From the conception of the plan to the news storm that ensued to his dramatic admission that the story was bogus, Kane seemed to relish more in his ability to dupe everyone than in the principle he was supposedly trying to convey.
After the revelation, Kane commented on Twitter, “MEDIA: ur getting it ALL wrong. if it was publicity, I'd have my name on it. YOU made it a story by not checking your facts. Don't blame me”, but it’s hard to believe such a thing when he had his hand in it the entire time. He didn’t send his intern to the busy intersection and then sit back and watch how it played out. He promoted the story. He posted about it on Facebook and Twitter, interviewed the “adulterer” and “wife” on his morning show, and timed the big reveal, purportedly to thwart harassment by a reporter, to serendipitously cause The Kane Show to be splashed across the internet.
Kane is a good radio DJ. He markets himself well and keeps his show fresh and interesting, a prime example being this story. He reels his listeners in with current events that get them fired up. (On more than one occasion I have spent an hour in the car, yelling at my radio.) He tells just enough about his life to make the audience feel as if they know him. He, Samy, and Sarah have an easy connection, one that leaves you thinking you’ve been involved in a 4-way conversation, rather than having been a mere listener within the masses. As a morning show host, he gets the job done. As a beacon of integrity, however, he is sorely lacking.
If Kane does not wish to be categorized as a journalist, then he should stick to what he does best, reciting other journalists’ stories on air, giving away concert tickets, and playing music. Leave the ethical checks and balances to those who have a leg to stand on.

A Little To The Left...

2009-09-02T04:32:00.001-07:00

In recent weeks of the health care debate, much attention has been given to the town hall meetings turned screaming matches. In theory, these meetings would explain the intricate details of a jargon-filled bill that most Congress members are having trouble deciphering (I don’t even think Schoolhouse Rock would want to tackle this one), but in practice they have become little more than a partisan debate over which side’s ideals are more un-American. The fiascos are a chance for one side to convince the other why they are wrong. With each side standing up and asking preposterous questions of the other (Do you really believe the Health Care bill is a communist plot?) and nutcases attempting to disrupt the entire event with their in-your-face tactics ranging from screaming over Senators to bringing a weapon to the affair, these meetings serve as satirical fodder for newspaper columnist and late night hosts, but have managed to accomplish little else. And in the end, most Americans on both sides of the aisles, see it going to the way-side with little changed, as was done with the Health Care Reform bill of President Clinton’s time. We all have the same hopes and prayers at the end of the day, that we and our loved ones will go to our graves having lived such healthy lives that we will never really be affected by Health Care Reform, or the lack thereof. It seems are ideals for accomplishing the unpleasant task of caring for our ailing and sick fellow Americans are so different, however, that we can’t even manage to be in the same room with someone that won’t be brought around to our side of the argument.
But are our ideas really that different? In the end, don’t we all want good doctors, with reasonable costs, that won’t turn us away because we would have to file for bankruptcy once we finished paying for our procedures (if we paid at all)? That’s what I hear, at least, from people on the right to the left to those who like nothing more than to have something to discuss around their dinner tables. So why has finding a solution to a common problem become a passion-filled, fear-inducing, shout fest that has no hope of considering either side, let alone coming to an amicable end?
I’m reminded of a tactic my mother used to keep things fair in our house. Being raised with 3 siblings gives you a perspective on fair that most people don’t have until well into their 20’s, fair doesn’t really exist at all. But in an effort to delay my knowledge of this fact, my mother would allow one of us to split what we were fighting over (usually a candy bar) and the other would be get to choose their side first. And while splitting everything evenly isn’t always the best course of action in adult matters, the sentiment is still the same; represent each side and each side will feel represented.
“I’m not saying Health Care doesn’t need reform, but this isn’t the way.” Or so I hear from any random person on the street who doesn’t agree with my belief about the Health Care system. So, what is the way? That seems to be the million dollar question that our town hall meetings have yet to answer. And with the exception of a close friend who filled several boxes of comments on my Facebook, no one person has seemed to be able to articulate this for me, either.
The true issue of this debate isn’t that we don’t agree, but rather that we can’t manage to come together as mature individuals with a common goal (better health care) and brain storm a solution. I’m sure the highly intelligent, opinionated men that became our founding fathers had their disagreements, as well. But they managed to hammer out a couple of life-altering documents in their time. Hopefully, we can do the same.
Imagine what we would come up with if the screaming subsided, the name-calling ceased, the dramatic, look-at-me tactics were set aside and everyone just listened. Maybe you would hear something you never thought of before. And maybe, just maybe, it would be coming from the opposite side of the aisle. That debate may just produce some results, a little from the left, a little from the right, some from the middle. And then, we might just have ourselves a Health Care Reform bill that has a little bit of hope to reform health care.

**Published 09/23/09 in Eldersburg Advocate

2008-12-14T10:25:00.000-08:00

A news story I found today on AOL was about a former professional baseball player who owes upwards of $725,000 in back child support. The story goes on to explain that this person (I refuse to call him a man) bought a South Pacific island and lived there for 8 years with his current wife to avoid paying child support. He was finally returned to the US when his passport expired. This story is bad enough. A person doesn't want to pay $5000 a month in child support, which seems like a lot of money until you find out he purchased an island and a 21-room resort. But in the comments after the story, you find this:

                                  dominguezfiv                                  12:28:26 PM                                  Dec 14 2008                                
Think,think,think! Regardless of what the father made monetarily, it was temporary.The amount of $5000 per month, which the chidren would have never spent, would surely make the wife ample in funds to spend on herself. I am sure the $5000 was court mandated. The result of which was his leaving. If the court had, with his agreement, found an amount which he agrred was reasonable, his children would have seen his father all along, and he would not have been cornered. Additionally, the children, would have prefered to have a father all along and some support, say $1000 per month, than to have neither. Some court decisions, cause more damage than benefits to the children that are beign protected. What is needed is to improve situations and not worsen them. I am sure the mother was very happy at the court decision. Could she forsee the final results? They both lost. Not to mention the children.
I, on many occasions, have found numerous people I disagree with in the comments section of AOL. However, I never thought there would be even one person who thought this guy wasn't a bastard, and then that. The man bought an island and hid from his kids to avoid paying $5000 a month in child support. And this is the courts' and mother's fault? This guy's post is the very reason so many people don't have personal responsibility. Regardless of whether he agreed or disagreed with the amount, a MAN would have stayed behind and supported his children. A MAN would have wanted to be near his children, no amount of money would have changed that. Instead he ran off and left his kids high and dry. Regardless of whether you think a child is worth $5000 a month has nothing to do with it. If he truly couldn't afford the payments, he could have gone back to court a year later and proven that. Instead he is a coward, low-life, dead-beat dad, who has been living a life of luxury. He deserves every punishment he gets. He and the commenter are why the world is full of fatherless children. They make excuses for dead-beat dads so they feel justified in their actions.

Gee Mr. Journalist, Why Does Jennifer Aniston Keep Talking About Her Ex?

2008-12-13T06:12:00.000-08:00

Recently Jennifer Aniston has been featured prominently on the cover of 2 major magazines, GQ & Vogue. Prior to both of these articles, Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt had made comments about falling in love on the set of Mr. & Mrs. Smith, thus admitting to an affair during Pitt's marriage to Aniston. Of course, this is going to prompt questions from the journalists of the Aniston articles to ask her how she feels or thinks about these comments. In both situations the responses by Aniston are pretty short. In response to the articles on Aniston, the sentiment has been, 'just get over it already, stop bringing it up'.

Perhaps, if you would truly like for her to "get over it", 2 things should happen. One, Pitt and Jolie could manage to stop publicly stating they had an affair while Pitt was still married. An allegation that up until a few months ago, both vehemently denied. For whatever reason, they are now owning up to it. I guess Aniston is to have no response to the fact that she was lied to by her then-husband.

The second course of action, I think the most important, is STOP ASKING HER ABOUT IT. I don't know if everyone thinks that she walks into her interviews and says "What Angelina Jolie said, that was really uncool", but last I checked interviews are conducted by the writer of the story and they tend to ask questions. She could simply refuse to answer, but as history has shown, that can cause more gossip than a simple response. In my humble opinion, Jennifer Aniston has been nothing but courteous and respectful throughout the entire ordeal. The bottom line is, this woman's husband cheated on her, then lied to her about it and at the time she choose to believe him. Now, 4 years later he and the new woman are admitting that they did, in fact, have an affair. For any woman this would come as a blow, but for Aniston, she has to read about it splashed across every entertainment rag magazine and be constantly questioned about it during interviews that are supposed to be about her new movie. And on top of all of that, she is now being told to "get over it". How about all of you get over it and leave her alone?

2008-12-10T19:27:00.000-08:00

On HSN they feature a gentleman named John Edward who purports to sell spiritual items. But really how spiritual can they be if he's hocking them on HSN so he can turn a profit? I put him on the same level as televangelists. I can help you find salvation, for 3 easy payments of $39.95.

Growing up, my parents always tithed to our church, even when we had no money. That same church, however, kept us clothed and feed on several occasions when we had no money. Tithing to your community church helps the people of that church and community. They are truly doing God's work. But these televangilists and authors of multi-million dollar christian books are nothing but self-serving opportunists. Using the faith people have in God to drain them of their bank accounts. Now, normally in these situations, I would say of the people being taken advantage of, oh well, they should use common sense. However, the victims of these schemes are usually older folks, confined to their homes and no longer able to attend their local churches. They turn to these farces on TV to give them spiritual guidance and in turn "tithe" to those "churches". Unlike their local church, however, they will never see this money again. Not unless they become a business associate of the "preacher". Those funds line the pockets of men who are out for themselves, they are not out to do God's work.

There are so many debates about religion and spirituality, none of which I want to get into. But I think we can all agree on one thing: you don't have to hock merchandise on HSN to get closer to God. You will only be getting closer to the poor house.

Update on Black Friday Stampede

2008-12-03T18:56:00.000-08:00

In the news today, was a story about the family of the Wal-Mart worker who was trampled to death and that they are suing. While I half expected this, I'm very surprised at the number of people they have decided to sue. In addition to suing Wal-Mart, they are suing the strip mall where Wal-Mart is located, the security company Wal-Mart hired, Nassau County, and the Nassau County PD. The claims against Wal-Mart, I get. I've always felt Wal-Mart needed to better control these types of events. Stampedes have happened before. How exactly are the rest of these entities responsible? The strip mall has absolutely no control over the sales Wal-Mart offers, they are not responsible for Wal-Mart's security. The security company was doing as instructed by their employers, Wal-Mart, and they are not liable unless an egregious mistake was made on their part. The most incredilous of all of these is the County and the PD. How in the world could they have possibly foreseen this type of thing happening, or where for that matter, and been on scene to prevent it? The police can only do so much.

This is a horrible, horrible thing. Not only because a person lost their life, but also because it shows the lack of humanity left in this world. But the bottom line is, suing everyone under the sun will do nothing but make a lot of lawyers very happy. Should Wal-Mart be investigated to ensure they did everything within their power to keep their employees safe? Absolutely. If they are found negligent, then by all means they should pay. But the rest of this lawsuit is frivilous. The very inclusion of these other parties diminshes the substance of this lawsuit.

The Black Friday Stampede

2008-11-29T19:40:00.001-08:00

Being one who has only once gone shopping on Black Friday, I'm already at a disadvantage for understanding the hype. Standing in line for 5 hours to purchase a TV is not what I would consider a bargain, let alone good use of my precious sleeping time. So when I heard about a man being trampled to DEATH by a mob of shoppers, I really had a difficult time grasping the news. To begin, two thousand people tried to shove through a double door at a Wal-Mart at the same time. The sheer force of the self-propelled sea of bargain hunters bent the metal frame like an accordion. Then a 34-year-old man, who did not appear to be of small stature, was knocked to the ground by the first wave of customers. The throngs of people behind this group continued to force themselves into the store and simply stepped on, some may have gone around, the employee. As co-workers tried to force their way to the lifeless man, they began to be trampled, as well. While I have no idea how you would manage to step on a person and never look back, I'm simply stunned that these people, a term I use very loosely in the situation, could manage to trample 4 people and not even notice. Once the stampede through the front door cleared and the police and rescue teams arrived, the real humanity in these folks came alive. When told by the police that the store would need to be evacuated due to the death of the employee, the angry shoppers began to complain that they had been waiting in line for hours and were not leaving until they made their purchase. Most continued shopping, some had to be forcably removed from the store. Perhaps had these kind folks not trampled an innocent man at the front door, they would have been able to continue their holiday shopping in peace.

When did the prospect of a $100 TV become more valuable than another human being's life? At what point did it become acceptable to simply shove your way through a crowd of 2000 people to find a Christmas present? Here's a gift, have some common descency you inconsiderate bastards. When your life becomes so pathetic you have to wait outside a Wal-Mart for 5 hours, be sure to check the tool department for some sturdy rope. You should be able to get it for half off.