Screaming children

I'm sure we've all been in a place where someone's children are acting inconveniently. We go into a restaurant and a child is talking loudly or throwing food, a grocery store with a child screaming because his mom won't buy a toy. I will admit, I really haven't had this issue with my children being less than pleasant in public since my oldest was quite young. My sons have never been loud and obnoxious in restaurants, and my daughter learned to control herself in public by the time she was 7 or 8.

Of course, when my kids got to the point where it looked like they may get unruly, we'd exit before they were in full flame mode. I really don't think it was that my kids never acted out. It's that we caught the signs that preceded the less than desired outcome and we preempted. I've left restaurants with a pre-tantrum child. Why? It wasn't really to make it easier on the other adults in the restaurant. It had a lot more to do with the fact that otherwise well behaved children don't suddenly turn monstrous without a reason. This is what I didn't know with my daughter, and probably why she had public outbursts. With her, I was very young and still under the impression that children are of lower class than parents and they should just behave. Period. There are still a lot of adults who have this belief, especially about other people's children (while making excuses for their own), but I've come to understand that my children aren't extensions of me.

They are individual human beings with feelings completely separate from mine. What a concept, huh? Just because I can stand a two hour trip to the grocery store without feeling like I'm going to scream, why do I assume a young child can do the same? If a two year old is bored because she's being made to endure an event that far surpasses her attention span, why do I think that child will act as if she's fully engaged? What do I do when I'm bored? I sigh loudly. I might ball up paper and throw it at someone. I make snide comments and odd noises. I fidget. Why do I think a child should have a different reaction to boredom than I do?

When I'm tired and grumpy, everyone knows it. We somehow don't allow children to express their negative emotions, because it signifies "bad behavior". If I'm grouchy, I might slam things around or yell. I get it out of my system. I would expect that all other people do the same sorts of things to keep their brain from eating itself. I would expect children to do the same, considering they are people and all.

Deserving of rape?

With the whole Steubenville rape trial over and two young men convicted of using a young woman as nothing more than a living blowup doll to abuse and degrade as they saw fit, I thought I would try to get my thoughts down about the issues I saw with this whole mess and what they mean to women and the rights we have.

The young woman, the victim, is incredibly brave. I would hope that I would have had the strength and courage to stand up and testify about being so callously disregarded as a human being, but I'm not sure I would have. She faced ridicule, harassment, and now death threats, all because she didn't allow her rapists to get away with what they did. She didn't remember what happened that night, piecing it together only through pictures and information shared by others on social media. Her social media, a world so important to kids now that to see this stuff about herself posted there, laughed about, disparaged and jeered at, certainly caused permanent scarring. Yet she still sat in a courtroom and testified against the two young men, not even being broken when she was shown a picture of herself from that night that she hadn't seen before.

Her so-called friends accused her of lying, even in the face of video and pictures of her being assaulted. They distanced themselves from her when this went viral, saying that she had a habit of drinking too much and so this rape couldn't have actually occurred. These were people who'd seen her being digitally penetrated and derided, people who'd witnessed it first hand and those who'd seen it on the internet or their cell phones, and yet they still chose to think of the actions of the two rapists as anything other than rape. Because she had a habit of drinking too much, as if that excuses the things that were done to her. I guess when a woman is not conscious, her body is a public playground and a free for all, to be used as anyone around her sees fit.

People watched this happen. They watched the crime occur and they took pictures of it and laughed. What kind of youth has been raised that when they see something so awful happening, they won't step in but instead egg it on? This didn't happen when I was a teenager. We protected our friends. If a group of us went to a party together, we stuck together and we left together. No guy wormed his way in between us and one of our girls, separated one of us from the herd so to speak, and got away with it. We would simply move in, surround her and get her out of harm's way. We had each others' backs. That seems to no longer exist.

And then there is the sentencing of these two criminals and the reaction to it. They each got a year for the rape. One year. One of them also got an extra year for distributing the images, which I have to call bullshit on because isn't that child pornography distribution and doesn't that have worse penalties? I think these guys were charged with crimes less than what they committed because of this sickening boys will be boys attitude, and how sad is it that now their lives are ruined, blah blah blah. They were tried as juveniles. They raped a girl and were tried as juveniles, at the ages of 16 or 17. We will try an eleven year old who shoots an abusive parent as an adult, but we won't try two damn near adult age young men as adults for raping an unconscious girl. I'm trying to wrap my mind around the reasons that might be because I certainly can't imagine a more vile crime than raping a person who is passed out and then distributing the images.

Yes, this girl got really drunk and she very well may have been flirting with these boys early in the evening. It doesn't mean she deserved to be violated. It doesn't mean that she asked for it or that her poor choices (and yes, they were poor choices) mean she deserved less justice. I'm willing to bet there were many drunk guys at this party, maybe even passed out drunk guys, who didn't have fingers stuck into their orifices while pictures were taken, and if that did happen, would we be having a conversation about drinking and poor choices? Maybe or maybe not. While we might still be shaking our head at such horrifying drinking activity, I don't think anyone would be thinking the guy asked for it or deserved it.

We need to stop trying to find ways to justify sexual assault. Until we do, we will be forever dealing with rapes of this nature. I mean, we are human and humans have used rape as a weapon for most of their existence, but this girl wasn't spoils of war. She was just a drunk girl who was taken advantage of and we can't be okay with that in any way. We can't be questioning what she did wrong when she was the victim of this crime, and we can't be trying to find ways to explain such horrible behavior in a way that leads us to more ways for women to not get raped. It's time the message becomes "Don't rape."

NO H8

Today is a day to wear purple to stand in support of gay teens (and really all gay people) and their right to not be bullied and harassed for their sexual preferences.

This means a lot to me, after having heard over the past few weeks of the teens who have committed suicide after being bullied about being gay. My daughter is bisexual, currently with a girl. She hasn't had to deal with a lot of the issues other gay people have. Her family has accepted her choices (not that I think people choose to be gay), and we love her girlfriend, who has been openly gay since she hit her teen years. Her girlfriend's family accepts their daughter's choices and loves my daughter too. They hit the jackpot, I think.

It sickens me that gay people don't have the same opportunity to love openly that heteros do, that they have to fear for their well being, and in many cases, their lives.

In an airport recently, I had to listen to this asshole spouting about why gay people shouldn't be allowed in the military. I literally had to crank my music up so I couldn't hear his hate speech. The fallout had I not done so could have been bad.

His basic argument is how it's unfair to straight soldiers to have to bunk with gay soldiers.

So to this man, I say:

Dude, did it ever occur to you that gay people may not be comfortable bunking with straight people?

He also said it was unfair to make straight soldiers have to be respectful of their gay peers.

WHAT?? So a gay person shouldn't be allowed in the military because one of his fellow soldiers has a "god given" right to use the term "fag"? Really? That's your argument?

I'd counter that I have a right, then, to not have to censor my speech about bigotry and small mindedness and therefore could call you a fucking asshole douchebag (as my "god given" right). And while we're at it, couldn't we legislate that fucking asshole douchebags not be allowed in airports because I have to be respectful and so it impinges on my right to call said person the fucking asshole douchebag that he is?

Seriously, the ridiculousness that this whole thing brings to my mind is astonishing. Let me boil it down. I don't care who you have sex with. Not my biz. Whom I have sex with is not your biz. You have no "god given" right to say what you want to whomever you want with the expectation that it won't be returned to you in the same manner. Sure, you can say what you like, but don't you dare suggest that no one else can throw your hate right back at you, because you'd be dead wrong about that.

Is this really where we stuck as a society? Where is a good apocalypse when you need one? I think the gene pool needs a good cleaning.

Having a kid with mental illness

Most of my life, I feel like I've been charmed. I've certainly had enough shit fall on me to make me know what pain is like. It's not as if I've encountered no real problems. I really have, but I've always been able to handle them. I'm a silver lining kind of person. Give me a problem, and I'll give you the silver lining.

About 20 months ago, my middle son had a meltdown. We woke up to a perfectly normal day, and by the end of it, he was in a psychiatric facility being drugged to calm him down. I really think that day was the end to my charmed life.

How do parents handle having a mentally ill child? It's been almost two years and I'm still utterly lost. My son cycles so fast, from manic to lethargic, euphoric to depressed, and I can't keep it all straight. It's breaking my heart and I can't find a silver lining anywhere.

He has a real problem with authority, so almost any rule we put in place is seen as a challenge. Okay, so we're not really "rules based" anyway, so that should be easy to navigate, right? Wrong. Things that have never really been considered rules are suddenly seen by him as oppressive. And let's just be honest here. In my home, I'm the alpha bitch. I win. Period. I don't ask a lot from anyone in my home, but what I do ask, I get and it's hard for me to try to adjust that very basic part of my personality, to not get into pissing contests with this boy. Even if I win, I lose because of how much it hurts him.

And that's the worst part. The way my heart aches for him. Forget how much trouble it causes in my otherwise rosy life. I hate that he struggles every day of his life. I hate that when he wakes up from his drug induced stupor, he doesn't know if he's going to be up or down or sideways. He doesn't know if he's going to be able to pull a reason to live out of the air. Every single day. I know by a lot of standards, my life wouldn't be considered "easy", but compared to what my son deals with, it's been a cake walk. And that makes me want to cry.

When he had his first "episode", everyone at the hospital was convinced it was drugs. When we found out he was bipolar, I wanted to go up to the fucktard tech who was so rude to us when my son was in the ER with a self inflicted head wound and jam the diagnosis up his ass. I want to scream at him and tell him I'd take that imaginary drug problem over bipolar disorder any day. A drug problem can be dealt with. You find a lot of recovering drug addicts. I've yet to hear a good story about someone getting over bipolar disorder. And my son deserves a good story. He deserves his silver lining.

In keeping with the "back to school" spirit

Another really fun "back to school" article today. This one is about how parents are being asked to supply even more school stuff than normal. I remember when schools gave out one pencil and one tablet for every nine week period. I remember when I had to start buying paper and pencils because the school could no longer afford to give them out. I even remember when the kindergarten teacher at the local elementary started asking parents to send in tissues. What parents are now being asked to supply is almost a joke.

*Paper towels
*Paper plates
*Hand sanitizer
*Baby wipes
*Liquid soap
*Ziploc bags

All of that sounds almost reasonable, right? I mean, these could all theoretically be used by your child, for his own hygiene. It gets so much better.

*Garbage bags
*Clorox wipes
*Wet swiffer refills

So now parents are being asked to pay for cleaning supplies for the schools?

And the coup de grace:

*Toilet paper

No shit. Although I suppose if there was no shit, toilet paper in schools wouldn't be in such short supply. Kids have to bring their own toilet paper. And parents are okay with this. They get the must buy list every year, and every year they simply go and get what's on the list, whether it makes sense to them or not?

There are some parent quotes in the article. One mother said she would rather buy the goods than expect the teacher to do so. And I will quote - "We don't expect Walmart cashiers to buy the plastic bags for our groceries, or the mailman to pay for the gas to deliver our mail." Of course we don't. We expect the money we pay for the groceries to cover the cost of the plastic bags, and we expect the money we pay to send packages to pay for the gas. Why shouldn't we expect the taxes we pay for the schools to cover the cost of basic maintenance supplies? Teachers shouldn't be paying for this stuff out of pocket either.

We don't expect prisoners to buy the supplies to keep the prison clean, do we? Yet we expect school kids to supply the stuff to keep the schools clean? What's next? I can envision a major change in the way schools work. New classes like "Custodial Arts" where kids spend a class period scrubbing toilets (with the clorox wipes they brought to school), and "Lunch Logistics", having each child serve lunch one day a month. Why not? Imagine the savings if the school didn't have to supply the janitor or the lunch ladies either? The only people who are really needed in the school are the well protected school teachers. Seriously, if schools got rid of all superfluous personnel, they could afford Viagra coverage and kids could get some truly real world experience.

While we're at it, shouldn't parents be supplying the food too?

Why do parents put up with this? When it became apparent that I was doing more to educate my children than the people I was paying to do it, I brought them home. I figured why have my child be one in hundreds when he could get very individualized attention at home. Oh, and the toilet paper is provided for them. By their teachers.

This is really the chosen battle

I'm stunned. Not to whine about the economy, but I think we all know it's not good. And by "not good" I mean we keep hearing about a lot of layoffs and high unemployment rate, all of those things that we really see as not good.

Almost everyone who knows me knows I'm not a big of fan of the public school system in the US. I think it's a mechanism by which we dumb most kids down by teaching them to pass a test the president who enacted NCLB couldn't even pass on his smartest day. I also think that it doesn't serve the children it claims to be educating. The politics of the entire system are corrupt, and the people who always say they have the best interests of the children in their hearts seem to do things that are so counter to that notion that I have a very hard time understanding why they even bother to attempt the lip service.

Imagine my reaction when I read an article today about Milwaukee's teachers' union fighting the schools to get Viagra included once again in their insurance coverage. Their argument is that it discriminates against male employees. The district's argument is it costs ~$786K a year for that coverage and since they do cover other things to help with erectile dysfunction, there is no discrimination.

More of the union argument is since ED is associated with diseases and conditions like heart disease and prostate cancer, this is a very important issue for men. It was at this point in the article that I felt compelled to post this to my blog.

ED absolutely is associated with heart disease, prostate cancer, high blood pressure, diabetes. True statement. What isn't included in their argument is the fact that heart disease, prostate cancer, high blood pressure, diabetes all contribute to ED, not the other way around. A limp dick does not cause heart disease.

By what mechanism do these conditions cause ED? High blood pressure meds can certainly keep the blood from flowing, right? Diabetes interferes with blood flow, too. I mean, people lose entire limbs to the lack of blood flow. Hearts pump blood, so if the heart is having trouble pumping enough blood for the rest of the body, the body protects its important functions first. An erection isn't an important function for the health of the body.

I mean, come the fuck on. Are we really supposed to be so stupid as to believe that this is discriminatory, that men somehow have a right to turgid penises at whim? A right so basic that it should be paid for by taxpayer dollars? Shoot, taxpayers don't pay for basic health care for millions of people, but teachers are special enough that the bill for men to have sex should be footed by an already strapped system (pun absolutely intended)? Not to mention, one Viagra costs ~$20? That's less than most hookers charge, so what's the big deal about paying for it? I know if I wanted to get laid and had to pay $20, I'd happily pay it. Seriously, give up a few Big Macs and the trips to Starbucks each week, and you could cover the cost yourself with the savings. Not to mention probably getting healthy enough to get a hard on without the pills, considering being overweight causes most of what contributes to ED.

This fight has been going on for two years, costing the taxpayers a lot of money as the teachers' union continues to appeal court decisions siding with the school district. This is the battle they've chosen to fight. Forget the more than 600 teachers who were laid off. Forget that parents everywhere lament the fact that they are now required to pay for many basic school supplies. I'm really wondering how Milwaukee schools are doing on the NCLB crap. Are they so far ahead in achievement that they can honestly justify wasting that much money on sex?

I'm still rather flabbergasted at the whole concept. Maybe we could get state funded massages with happy endings for them too. I mean, isn't the fact that they can't get reimbursed for sexual release proof of some sort of discrimination?

Eight year old girl to blame for rape

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.