Thursday, June 25, 2009
This sort of thing I would normally look at and brush-off, but for some reason, I was compelled to check this out. While I waited, I loaded up a website (not sure which one) on my Blackberry 8310/Curve, and kept updating/refreshing the website periodically while seeing what FoxNews was saying on the TV.
Then I saw it before my eyes, on my Blackberry Curve, "Michael Jackson Pronounced Dead" (approximate quote). Seconds later, the FoxNews broadcast updated with the same thing. (Eventually, so did Wikipedia News2.)
There I stood, in the lobby of Taco Casa, standing in the booth above the TV, my ear pressed to the TV speaker so I could hear the sound, and employees behind the counter looking at the television with absolute shock plastered all over their faces.
I will never forget it, if I live to be 100.
To be sure, I've encountered the death of important people, and--in the case of my grandfather in 1997--people close to me. Between John Lennon, Len Bias, Redd Foxx (of Sanford and Son), Lucille Ball, Wilt Chamberlain, Michael Landon, Kurt Cobain (I wasn't a fan of his, but I knew he was a big name), James Brown, Johnny Carson, (recently) Ed McMahon, the lead singer of INXS, Don Knotts, actors in "The Jeffersons", I have seen greats pass-on. All of these have saddened me and spooked me as they reminded me of the temporary nature that is life. Also, Elvis Presley died in 1977 when I was about age 8, although I was too young to really understand it.
This one may well outrank all of them.
What has been said about John F Kennedy, John Lennon, and others--that is, "I will never forget where I was when I heard the news," applies here as well.
Only 2 other such events in my life can claim to have effected me enough so as that I have never forgotten where I was when I learned the news. I remember where I was when I learned John Lennon had died; I was a young 11 year old carpooling with our preacher on the way to school, just by Bob Aiken's house when I heard it on his radio. I remember where I was when I learned Dean Smith retired as the Tar Heels coach; I was in Phoenix AZ staying in the Clarion hotel for work-related reasons when I saw it at the Tar Heel website on my computer, then subsequently on the hotel television on ESPN.
This one has easily taken the lead as most-shocking thus far and most unlikely to ever be forgotten by me.
Most of all, it as really has shaken me to the very core. It has reminded me of one hard, cold, blunt and unavoidable truth.
Life is temporary. Nothing we do here is going to last.
Michael Jordan has aged, and no longer can play in the NBA. The Three Stooges are dead and will never perform again. There will never be a "The Jeffersons" or "The Andy Griffeth Show" reunion. We never got to see Len Bias dunk in the NBA, and never will.
All those attractive women in bathing suits at the lake and pool, even super-attractive ones like Farrah Fawcett (who also died today, lest we forget) are going to age and look totally unappealing to the eye eventually. This has happened even to all-time greats like Lena Horne, Elizabeth Taylor, and Bridgette Bardot. The same thing will even happen to current sex symbols like Jennifer Lopez, Paris Hiton, Beyonce, Salma Hayek and Britney Spears--if they even live that long. Laura Ingalls isn't a little child anymore. Neither is Opie. And eventually, they'll all be dead.
Wilt Chamberlain, one of the best basketball players ever, now doesn't even exist. Neither does Len Bias (already mentioned). One day, Michael Jordan will not even exist anymore. Bath Ruth doesn't exist anymore. Ronald Reagan doesn't exist anymore.
Everything here that humans do, however great or not-so-great, it all fades away.
Sure, I can go to YouTube and look at clips of Michael Jordan's outstanding play of the 80s and 90s, but it will never be that way again in the present-time or future-time. I can still listen to Michael Jackson on my MP3 player anytime I please, and the music will be just as clear, vibrant and alive as it ever was. But people eventually forget, tastes change, especially in pop music that is so short-term to begin with. What's more, I am harshly reminded that I will never had any opportunity, even if I win a million dollars tomorrow, to ever witness such a performance in person.
Besides all of that, how can I ever listen to his music again without thoughts of how he passed away polluting my attempts to just enjoy the music?
The innocence is over, the jig is up. The King (of Pop) is dead, and will never moonwalk again.
Like other persons, I remember owning Michael Jackson music way long ago. The first recording of his I owned was "Rock With You" as a 45-rpm record. "Don't Stop Til You Get Enough" followed. Like most 80s-era teenagers, "Thriller" was so good it blew your mind. The music was simply incredible, his dancing--better than you could even imagine a human-being dancing. Surely, you said to yourself, even in heaven no one dances that good.
Unlike the case with other persons, though, the music of his that really moved me to the very core of my musical soul was "Dangerous" from 1991-2. I was well known in my circle of friends as a really hard-core Phil Collins/Genesis fan, and Genesis had a new album "We Can't Dance" that had appeared that year which I was thoroughly enjoying. Yet, amazingly enough, Michael Jackson's "Dangerous" surpassed it, and has lived on--even in recent years--as one of my favorite albums ever. The music was so outstanding, so ground-breaking, it blew your mind that music such as that could even be imagined, much less actually exist in reality.
But, like all other things, it faded into history, even as I continued to enjoy it on my SanDisk 8G MP3 player.
And now, the man has faded into history.
We will never see him dance again. Those comeback concerts he planned--they're never going to happen. There is absolutely no chance whatsoever, in this life anyway, we will ever see him perform again, ever, never even hear him share his thoughts and his experiences with us in interviews in his older days.
And so it is with everything.
Enjoy LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Tiger Woods, or whoever your favorite athlete is. One day, they'll grow too old to do it anymore, and they'll pass on. That girl you knew in high school that was cute? She may still look good now, heck she might even look better, but in time, she'll be as wrinkled and unappealing to the eye as Janet Reno. It happens to everyone, it will happen to me, and it will happen to you.
I love to bike-ride and play basketball, although I'm not spectacular at either. I take pride in the fact that I'm 40 and can still do those things. But if I live long enough, the day will come when I will never be able to do those things again, at least without considerable pain. The day may come in just a few years in which, like what occurred with Michael Jackson, I'll suffer a sudden cardiac arrest and it'll be over, just like that.
Anyone remember Pistol Pete Maravich? He was one of the greatest basketball players of the 1970s, but he died in 1988 at age 40--of a heart attack. Age 40. For Pete's sake, that's how old I am. And here was a man who had the financial ability to have any sort of medical checkups he wanted so as to screen for these things. Yet, even he was felled by surprise, out of left-field--at age 40.
Age 40, the age I am.
If it could happen to him, it could happen to me. It could happen to my best friend KSG. It could happen to my wife, that guy at the local store who's friendly with me when I ask for more ice with my soda, it could happen to my mother tomorrow (she's 68), it could happen to my father (he's 70)--heck, it could happen to my 2-year old daughter.
Nothing lasts. Not even the King of Pop is immume, and certainly the same goes for us.
Don McLean needs to update his "American Pie" song--today is the day the music died.
Enjoy what you have, what's around you, and enjoy it with all the passion you can muster. But never forget what the death of Michael Jackson has reminded me, and should remind all of us.
Everything dies. Nothing lasts. Nothing.
2 FoxNews Video Clip of MJ's Death, #1
3 Wikipedia News Article about MJ's death
4 FoxNews Video Clip of MJ's Death, #2
5 FoxNews Video Clip of MJ's Death, #3
6 MSNBC Video about his death
7 CNN Clip #1, Best One of All Clips I'd Say
8 CNN Clip #2
9 NBC Clip #1
10 NBC Clip #2
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
In a real eye-opening clip from 19991, before 9-11 paranoia hit, George Carlin did a great bit on excessive airline security and excessive fear in general. (Warning, the clip has explicit language, I'd rather it didn't.) He talks about how over-the-top we've become with security and how we're willing to trade liberty for security--this was before 9-11. I disagree with George Carlin about a lot of things, and his tone is definitely vulgar--but he really hit the nail on the head with this one. I find it applies even more now, in 2009, than it did 10 years ago in 1999 when it was recorded. This blog poster2 also thinks that airport security is over-the-top.
Call me a jerk, but I have no desire or intent to be "understanding" about the long lines and overzealous measures they engage in nowadays. That's not to say I will make a scene, but I reserve to right to grumble about it, and when I do, I have no interests in your rebuttal of "they're doing their job, shut up and quit whining" or "they're trying to keep your worthless behind from being hurt, you should be thankful." I appreciate security, but that doesn't mean something over-the-top doesn't deserve criticism. I'm just glad I hardly ever fly to begin with.
It isn't just airport security that we have turned into a nation of wussies. Just look at the parents at your local swimming lake. I have, and let me tell you--if I were the children of some of these parents, I'd run away. I have seen and heard of accounts of 9-year olds--yes, 9-year olds--not being allowed in the lake at all by their overprotective parents, not even the very edge of the water, not even when it's a public pool and lifeguards are present. I have seen parents not let their children play outside if there are any mosquitoes at all. I'm not talking about being in a swamp or somewhere where there are hundreds of them, but even in the city where maybe 1 or 2 have been spotted. Gee whiz, how many mosquito bites did I & my contemporaries used to get as children, from all that playing in the woods, none of us ever got a disease.
I have even seen parents yell at their children to "stop running." Was this poolside? No. It was in the park. Yes, the park! If you can't run in the park, where and when can you run?
I recall playing in the woods outdoors for hours at a time, I was probably 8 years of age or older. In fact, I was forbidden from coming in the house for a good 2 hours or so--that let my parents have some sanity, and let me have some childhood adventures without excessive oversight. How many parents do you know that allow this now? They're too worried about predators, mosquitos, snakes, imaginary serial killers, the list goes on.
I encounter this, also, when I take my camera to the lake and take photographs of the ducks on the lake--such a photo of mine turned out so good, I enlarged it 16x20 (you can go here 3 to see it). Time and time again I encounter people, apparently scared I'm John Wayne Gacy4 or something, screaming at me "don't be taking photos of my children." Now, besides the fact that it's legal to take photos of children or anyone else in public--yes, that is correct, it is perfectly legal and they have no legal footing whatsoever--but besides that, it's highly irritating and my reply tends to go like this: "don't worry, I only take photos of things that actually LOOK GOOD."
All this over-worrying that people do nowadays, I call this the "Dateline NBC", "20/20" and "America's Most Wanted" phenomenon. People watch these shows all the time. Just try watching any of those shows yourself for more than 5 minutes, and I promise you'll be so frightened at the world around you that you'll be motivated to construct a bomb shelter, go out and get a lifetime supply of pork & beans and battery-operated appliances and NEVER come out the rest of your life. We've allowed them to brainwash us with the notion that the world is so crazy you can't dare adventure any.
Yes, I know, I know, it's a different world since 9-11. I for one think that refrain is the most overused and overdone sentiment of all, and it's gone way overboard. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate efforts to protect me and my loved-ones from another attack, and I understand that we are fighting terrorism. I am NOT one of those that screamed "war for oil" during the Iraq conflict of 2003. I didn't think that then nor do I think that now.
But even with that understanding, I think it's possible to take things too far, and if it leads to us never again being able to just enjoy life and have fun, then the terrorists have accomplished the very thing they set out to do, and you might as well declare us dead as a nation.
I think that people need to relax and take it easy. Just because 9-11 happened doesn't mean we need to throw all fun to the wind and worry so much about everything. Yes let's be careful and let's take reasonable measures, and by all means any reasonable parent doesn't want their children to get hurt--but sometimes you can go too far and worry too much. You get ulcers that way. Besides being a child out to be fun, let's stop taking all the fun out of being a child. Life is too serious as it is.
1 George Carlin "You are All Diseased", 1999. Start around 1:20 to hear relevant portions (warning, explicit language)
2 Fixing Airport Security, Bruce Schneier, 06-24-2009
3Duck, Lake Gladewater, from my PBase.Com photos website
4Wikipedia Entry for John Wayne Gacy, a serial killer
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Basically, my view is--parents should be able to parent however they choose, even if everyone in society disagrees with their choices. I definitely don't object to, and even appreciate, advice from family members and best friends, but the government butting its nose into a family affair and telling us what to do is not American in the least. Neither is it proper for strangers amongst me to butt their nose in, either.
The case of Daniel Hauser, the 13 year old who has cancer and whom doctors say needs chemotherapy, but doesn't want it1, and whose mother wants alternative medicine treatments instead on his behalf, is a perfect example of the government butting its nose in where it doesn't belong. Here you have the state of Minnesota using the legal system--even to the point of employing international agencies like Interpol--to strong-arm the mother & son into returning home to be forced into a form of treatment neither of them agree with.
Once again, the government tells you how to parent your children. It doesn't suggest or advise, or even strongly advise, it orders.
Who is the parent here anyway?
Granted, this is apparently a serious life/death situation, but as one reader wrote in a letter-to-the-editor2 in the NorthJersey.Com newspaper, this form of government intervention doesn't stop here. Further, as the letter-to-the-editor stated, this is a God thing; God placed these parents in charge of these children's lives, not the state or government. This is nothing less than the government disrespecting God and his principles full-blown.
Except in extreme cases, we're supposed to let parents decide, but we don't. Already, you are not allowed to decide for yourself whether or not to let your children enjoy the back of an open-bed pickup truck due to safety, whether they should be confined to child seats in the car (miserable in the process, often-times) or be allowed some freedom to move about, and some states are doing their best to eliminate the option of home-schooling your children, so tough luck if you don't like what they're teaching your children in school these days about homosexuality, evolution or the like.
Here we go with yet another intrusion--the government can order the parents to provide the type of medical treatment they think is right, and can even force the child to accept it if they don't want it. This sort of thing is actually happening in the USA?
I sure am glad this type of ridiculous oversight didn't exist when I was a child. All those wonderful times riding in the back of my father's open-bed pickup truck--at highway speeds, mind you, all those times my cousins and sister rode in the back of my aunt's camper-shelled Toyota during the summertime on the way to White Lake, all the times I rode my Big Wheel® on a 55 mph rural highway as an 8-year old (with my mother inside, mind you), playing unsupervised at my grandaddy's home with all that junk he had outside there (and in the barns I used to sneak into also), I am so glad there wasn't some busy-body with a cellular phone (or CB radio) calling the government and using them as a tool to impose their parenting views on my family.
What does one have to do now to parent as one sees fit, move to a 3rd world country, or never leave the rural country for the city?
Growing up, I always saw my parents--not my government, not social services, not CPS--as the final authority as to what went down in my life. Heck I didn't even know who CPS was. At times I hated it, sure, but I respected it--and for the most part I wouldn't have had it any other way. Really, the only time I would've had it any other way was when I wanted to be mischievous and get away with it.
Which brings up another aspect--how is anyone supposed to parent if their children know that there's always someone they can go to outside their home that is above their parents? Growing up I always believed that, if I didn't like how my mother parented me, the only option I had was to run away, period. Any family members I went to backed my mother up, and rightly so. No one in school or anywhere else would referee and force my mother to do as I wanted her. And so it should've been.
I understand that parental rights doesn't mean a parent should be able to be deliberately negligent or deliberately harmful, I certainly wouldn't agree with a parent taking their child to one of those "fringe" churches where people let poisonous snakes bite you while you trust in God to heal you. But some examples where I've seen people call for intervention I haven't agreed with it being done--Michael Jackson and the "baby dangling," Britney Spears and her forgetting to buckle her children up, Steve Irwin holding his child in his arm while feeding a crocodile. Granted those were risky behaviors, and I understand that they shocked people, but do we really think it's any of our business to use the government to butt into their affairs and tell them how to do their job as parents? Where does it end? Who gave us the right to judge others, when we're not perfect ourselves?
To be sure, this is why even more mundane adventures such as taking a child to the pool with you in the deep end (even with floaties), letting a child ride in the back of an open-bed pickup and feel the wind in their hair, letting them ride a bicycle without those stifling (if protective) helmets--now parents aren't able to make such decisions about such matters for themselves. Previously, it was left up to US to decide what safety/adventure ratio position we wanted to take. Maybe our choices weren't agreed with by everyone, but our right to choose as we saw fit was respected--even though some deaths occurred. It should still be this way, I strongly feel, even with the occasional death, yet it isn't, and that's wrong.
I will recreate the Letter To The Editor which I linked to above, in case the link has expired:
The Daniel Hauser case should outrage all Americans ("Boy in need of chemo can stay with parents," Page A-8, May 27).
I understand that Daniel's life may or may not be in danger depending on whom you believe: his medical doctors, who feel chemotherapy is necessary to save his life, or his parents, who believe there are other methods of curing cancer without chemo or radiation.
The Hauser case cuts directly to the heart of the American dream and the American promise: freedom and the right to self-determination. For generations, people from around the world have sought to come to America not just because we are such a wealthy nation, but because we are supposed to be a nation that allows people to determine for themselves how to live life and raise families. Here people may live as they choose and worship, or not worship, as they choose. Freedom also includes the right to choose how to care for disease.
Daniel is a minor, and I would agree that he is not capable of self-determination. Further, it's probably true that Daniel does not fully understand his condition. However, I believe Daniel's parents do. The doctors in this case might argue that his parents don't fully understand his condition and therefore are not fit to make decisions about his medical care. But that is a slippery slope. Where does that end?
America was based upon this ideal: "In God we trust." If we, as a nation, still do believe in God and still trust in God, then we should accept that Colleen and Anthony Hauser are exactly the right parents providing exactly the right kind of care for Daniel.
The Hausers were given the task of raising and caring for a child, Daniel, by their creator. It was the Hausers who were assigned the job of Daniel's decision-making until he is an adult, not the government of the United States or the state of Minnesota. The Hausers are not neglecting Daniel. They are providing care they believe in, which is outside commonly accepted medical standards.
When the Hausers disappeared before a court hearing, U.S. marshals were sent to search for them. Is this how our tax dollars should be spent — sending marshals to search for a mother who has determined what she and her husband believe is best for their child?
As a parent, I can tell you that I do not want the government telling me what is best for my child. This should outrage every parent. Cases like this one set a dangerous precedent for government to tell us how we should raise our children. Even worse, this case gives way too much power to medical doctors to dictate, backed by the government, what kind of medical care families choose.
My heart goes out to the Hausers, not only because they are dealing with their son's health challenge, but also because now they must cope with the government dictating to them which course of care is best. Making our children's health decisions is nerve-wracking enough without our government and a group of medical doctors forcing their will upon us.
I believe Colleen and Anthony Hauser should be honored as true, brave Americans who are bold enough to follow their own path and stand up for the right to freedom and self-determination, instead of being pushed into following "accepted doctrine," if they honestly do not believe that is what is best for their child.
Please don't tell me how the Hausers are putting their child at risk. We allow our children to experience risk every day. We allow them to play football, baseball, soccer, lacrosse and all manner of violent contact sports. We take them skiing, surfing and skydiving. We put them on bicycles, dirt bikes and quads. We let them snowboard and skateboard while doing flips and tricks. We travel in airplanes, and we allow them to scuba dive — not to mention all the more mundane risks we live with every day, such as driving on America's highways.
I understand Daniel has cancer and many of us feel that he should be receiving certain care. However, before we push too hard for this family to do what we think is best for their son, we should all think long and hard about just how soon we want Big Brother knocking on our door, telling us how to raise our family.
I couldn't have said it any better, and it is so refreshing to see a letter-to-the-editor from someone that gets it, as opposed to the Communist-types prevalent nowadays who think the government most certainly should be in everyone's business, and heck should be in it even more than they already are. I mean, after all, parents can't be trusted to know what's best for their children, in the name of "protecting the children" we butt into their business and say that it's a wonderful thing we're doing.
1 Yahoo! Story, Minnesota teen says he's angry about continuing chemo.
2 Letter to the Editor regarding this case, in support of parental rights
Monday, June 22, 2009
In a way, this whole Rihanna/Chris Brown affair is a departure for me, as I really don't get into celebrity news, but this one is an exception.
I have learned much about domestic violence laws over the years, and have been absolutely shocked at what the laws state nowadays. It has totally changed my mind about the supposed "need for reform" with domestic violence, and has totally tainted my view of all of these "stop the violence" and "end the silence" slogans I read about nowadays.
My question simply enough is this: if Chris and Rihanna want to be in contact with each other, how is that anyone's business? Since when does the law have any right to tell the two of them they can't get together if that is absolutely what they want to do? Moreover, no one can play the "children will be affected" card, as they don't have any children.
Yes, it would likely be foolish for Rihanna to "take him back" as it were, given his behavior, but hey--if she wants to, that's her business, and I cannot fathom laws that would actually penalize either of them for being in touch with each other if that's what they want to do. It's not any of our business--I don't care what the law says, it's wrong and should be changed and, dare I say it, even ignored--yes, ignored--by the both of them if they want to be together.
It really appalls me to read this, given that today you can't state, without resulting ostracizing by society, that marriage is between a man & a woman. Just ask Carrie Prejean3 about that--you know, the one that lost her 2009 Miss California USA Crown4 because she replied (when asked!) that marriage should be between a man & a woman. These days the laws increasingly recognize the rights for gays to marry, let alone to be together--something I don't agree with--yet we can't recognize the right of two heterosexual persons to simply be together (not just married) if they want to? Since when is that anyone's business whatsover?
But such is the state of domestic violence laws today. I have discovered, in fact, that one can get legal punishment simply for destruction of property--even if the property belongs to the one doing the destruction--under the heading of "domestic violence, criminal damage." So in other words, you could be a Tar Heel basketball fan and, while watching Duke & Carolina play, become incensed at Duke winning a game and respond by breaking a remote control. If someone hears you shouting and so forth, the police show up, and you admit to breaking a remote control, that alone could cause you to be whisked away to jail for "domestic violence, criminal damage."
What's worse? Your spouse could vehimently disagree with this, not out of ignorance but out of understanding you better than those outsiders do (which shouldn't be a surprise), yet the "outsiders" (re, the police) will totally ignore this and arrest anyway. What's worse, the supposed "victim" doesn't even have the choice to not press charges, because the presumption is made that she is only doing this out of "economic dependence" (that is, she needs his money from him working) or fear of retaliation.
Imagine that--the system assumes that you don't know any better, or that when you tell them that you don't wish to press charges that you're only lying to protect your spouse even if you actually DO NOT want to press charges. Absolute liberalism on display here.
It gets worse--when my wife & I had our car stolen in 2005 (we got it back, thankfully), we had to persist very strongly with reminding the police that we did wish to press charges. So, in other words, the option for us to not press charges against a car thief exists, but yet if a domestic violence situation were to occur between my wife and I, she wouldn't have the option to refuse to press charges against her own husband? Are you kidding me?
It's no wonder that many people say that society is losing respect for marriage. This only serves to prove it even more.
Well I take the "neanderthal" stance that domestic violence is a "family issue," it is not the government's business or anyone else's business, unless the "victim" wants to press charges. If the "victim" of her own free fill and educated thought process wishes to remain in a relationship with a man who allegedly beat her, that is between the two of them and no one else. If he ends up killing her, by all means--charge him with murder, but otherwise--it is not anyone's business.
I mean good grief, we're legislation private relationships now? To quote Larry the Cable Guy, "what the hell is this, Russia?"
1 Link. Look for comments by "jasugarcane," her posts reflect my opinion.
2 Yahoo! Story
3 Link to article from Catholic News Agency
4 Link to FoxNews coverage of Carrie Prejean (video link initially)
5EJFI.Org, Great Domestic Violence Site: Chapter 3>>Chapter 1>>>Domestic Violence Is A Human Problem
7 Domestic Violence: The 12 Things You Aren't Supposed to Know
8 Taken into Custody: The War Against Fatherhood, Marriage, and the Family
Friday, June 19, 2009
These are the ones that express glee at the banning of cellular phone usage in places such as doctor's offices, subways, restaurants, even grocery store lines--while expressing no such views with other noises like crying babies, people talking loudly to someone in person. They also strongly support the banning of usage of cellular phones while driving, while expressing no support for the banning of other driving distractions like eating, reading maps, etc.
I have long felt this way, however as I have just created this blog barely a week ago at this time, I had not yet added a post about this topic, though I knew I was due for one. This story inspired me to do so, it's a story about how North Carolina (where I formerly lived) has now passed a law banning texting while driving (unless you're stopped and/or pulled over). (You can click here to read my comment, #86, page 3.)
Again, my position is--laws like this are inspired by cellular phone bigotry. Simply enough, cellular phone users are the new smokers, as they are increasingly ostracized and made to feel like dirty maggots anytime they dare use a phone in a situation people think to be inappropriate. It's a type of hatred that is becoming--or has been, really--downright bigoted in its nature.
So, laws like this are written, and they come from a double standard type of attitude that picks on cellular phone users as if they're the AntiChrist--again, much as smokers are often-times picked-on.
Think I'm joking?
Then how come doctor's offices ban the usage of cellular phones commonly, but they NEVER address other irritants such as noisy children, people talking loudly to their friends who are present with them, or listening to an MP3 player so loudly neighbors can tell which song is playing (despite the earphones)? Many restaurants do the same thing. Subways exist that have "no cellular phone" cabins, but they don't have "baby-free" cabins or "no talking to your neighbor" cabins--those are sources of noise, too. How come many jobs will fire employees for using a cellular phone at work, but often-times won't fire these employees for using the company phone for making personal calls?
I think it's striking, too, how the haters can be so against cellular phones not just supposedly due to safety, but in fact merely where it regards social acceptance. I wonder how such types would respond to this story--the story of a woman who was kidnapped but rescued due to the presence of a Blackberry cellular phone in the trunk of the car? They'd probably oppose the woman being rescued since a cellular phone was involved in it.
A lady friend of mine recently told me of a situation where her child got in trouble at school for using his cellular phone to call her to pick him up from school as he was sick. He was in trouble for using his cellular phone even though he wasn't in class at the time. As the story was relayed to me, he would've been in no trouble at all had he used the phone in the principal's office to call her--something which would've required him to walk all the way to the other side of the building. The mother stated that she told the principal that she gave the phone to her son for such specific reasons and that they were wrong to punish him for it, and that her son had her permission to use it under such circumstances and, basically, to heck with their rule.
Way to go, I say.
But such is the case in today's cellular phone bigoted society. You see this in particular with the big mama of excuses for anti-cellular phone bigotry and legislation--highway safety. Granted, there are people swerving around almost hitting others due to usage of cellular phones while driving, but you also have the same thing happening due to other distracting behaviors: people waving at their friends on the sidewalk, eating, rummaging through the glovebox looking for a pack of cigarettes or a map, refereeing noisy children in the backseat, reading a map, looking at something on the roadside (like a house or car for sale), applying makeup--you name it. All of these are distractions, too, but no one ever pushes for legislation regarding any of those things.
Heck, here is the story of someone who was killed, admitedly at his own hand, due to a distraction from dimming his lights. Are we going to outlaw dimming your lights while driving?
In 1999, in Tucson AZ (where I lived at the time), a teenage-driver hit and killed a woman on the roadside while she was jogging. They later-on determined the crash was due to his being distracted while changing a song on his car stereo. That's a distraction, and one that lead to a death. BUT, here's my point--was there the same level of outcry for that analogous to what would've occurred had the accident been due to a cellular-phone based distraction? Not at all. The uproar that occurred was downright minuscule compared to the uproar that occurs when a cellular-phone accident occurs, even if no one is killed. Here you have a lady killed due to a distraction, but since the distraction is not due to cellular phone usage, there's no uproar.
Call me crazy, but I call that bigotry.
This is a type of double-standard, and even, I'd say, a form of discrimination similar to racism, or discrimination based on religion, sex, politics--anything. I agree with none of it. I will even go so far as to state that I think anyone who is for this is as much of a bigot as someone who dislikes minority groups, Jews, women, African-Americans--any of it. Yes, I said it--you're a bigot.
Bigotry is the only word I can describe to explain why there is such a heated push for the banning of cellular phones while driving, but no such push to ban things such as the application of makeup, eating, waving at a friend on the sidewalk, reading a map--any of that. If there is going to be such a law, what they should do is lump all of it under a "driving while distracted" type of rule that covers all types of distractions and doesn't single out one particular type over all others based on sheer hatred and bigotry.
Besides that, though, there are those that can, somehow, perform such tasks and never crash. I personally feel that if someone has an excellent driving record free of accidents (or they're, say, 10 years or more apart), they should be left alone to drive as they please--eating, texting, reading, all of it. After all, it's all about safety, right--and they're proven they're safe. Let them be, leave them alone. I would say the same thing for speed limits and "rolling stops" as well--but that's for another posting.
In closing, I will say it again--if you support the banning of cellular phones in doctor's offices, restaurants and the like but don't express any such opinions regarding noisy children, noisy talking in general, and other disruptive behaviors--but simply the cellular phone usage, then yes you are a bigot. If you support the banning of cellular phone activities while driving but are fine & dandy with eating while driving, applying make-up while driving, waiving to your friend walking on the sidewalk while driving--then again, you are a bigot.
Besides all of this, though, I guarantee you that 95% of the persons that approve of this law engage in other distracting behaviors like what I listed, but would not appreciate any laws intruding on their "right" to do those things. You can't have it both ways--if you are going to stick your nose into my business inside my car regarding what I'm doing or not doing with my cellular phone on the road, I think it only fair we start sticking our nose into your business regarding whether you're eating in there, whether you're reading a map (or GPS) in there, any of it. It's only fair.
(with a description of content or where the pertinent information is located within the page)
(last 3 paragraphs)
("Opponents of the legislation, "I think some people")
(California bans carrying pet in laps while driving, a distraction) (alternative link)
RushOnLine, an apparent "non-official" Rush Limbaugh site with article, including various letters (written to Rush, or whom?) with opposition to cellular laws expressed.
#25 is the Best, But All Of It's Good
Movie Theatres Considering Devices to Jam Cellular Phones, Includes a Comment by Me Link #2
Monday, June 15, 2009
Apparently, the 10 year old was visiting his friends' house, as opposed to (say) roaming around (I don't know why that matters, if it does), but regardless, I find this sort of thing outrageous, and an affront to responsible dog owners everywhere. I've railed and railed to no end about how annoying, for instance, the noise of a dog barking is, about neighbors who let their dogs run loose and then blame you for not erecting a fence when their dog roams into YOUR PRIVATE YARD and causes destruction (tore-up trash bags, food eaten, holes dug, chasing your cat, etc).
I often-times wonder--would such dog owners appreciate it if I were to, say, get a wild tiger or giraffe without restraining it, and then upon it wandering into their yard causing destruction respond "well they're just doing what comes natural to them, nothing I can do, maybe you ought to put a fence up if you hate giraffes so much." Or, say, if I get a wild bear and it roars all the time and wakes people up, respond to their complaints "I have him for protection in case a stranger comes up, that roar makes me feel safe."
Of course they wouldn't appreciate it, as well they shouldn't. Fine, then--how come these ignoramuses around here think dogs are any different?
Here is a letter to the editor3 from me, it appeared in the Longview News-Journal newspaper:
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
I'm new to the Leverett's Chapel area and live about 1 mile away from where Justin Clinton was mauled to death by two pitbulls.
I mean no disrespect, but what is with the people who have no sense of responsibility for their dogs? I've been known to bicycle in the area where this occurred, which I have every right to do, and dogs are constantly running out in the road upon sight. Is it really that difficult to put a dog on a chain, or erect an invisible electric fence? I have every right to bicycle on a public road without that sort of harassment, or worse. I'm not going to stop bike-riding, but do I now have to seek legal counsel to find out what sort of weapons I can start carrying with me?
I own a dog, but it is chained every minute I'm not home and outside supervising it, every minute, even though I'm well off any roads, secluded in the woods. I do so because what few neighbors I do have are perfectly within their rights to not want my dog wandering on their land or bothering them, even though my dog is harmless.
There is no excuse for the sort of irresponsibility I'm seeing around here.
— Larry R Harrison Jr, Laird HillHey, I love dogs in general, and if a stray dog approaches me from the road but is actually acting friendly, I will WELCOME it and pet it in return. No reason to get upset in that case, just be friendly back I say. I'm easy-going in those cases. But when they come into the road shouting (ok, barking) at me, nipping at my heels? Like I said, I'm on a public road, I have every right to not have to put up with it for a single minute.
I don't know the details of what happened here, yet anyway, but I do know that this sort of thing is outrageous and should not be happening. What's also messed up is that responsible dog owners, like my best friend, people like that who would never be in the middle of something like this, are the targets of scorn & backlash when he & others like him are nothing but totally responsible dog owners who deserve no backlash at all. It's unfair for him and others, I've said about him that if all dog owners were like him there would be no trouble, and that's true.
I love my dog myself, but it doesn't walk on water and not everyone around me feels the same about it as I do. It has no business trespassing on other people's land or bothering someone on a public road. That is my responsibility, not someone else's to learn to live with it.
Or, in this case, (apparently) die on account of it.
1KLTV Story #1
2KLTV Story #2
3Longview News-Journal, letters to the editor, 6-23-2009
Saturday, June 13, 2009
One area where my opinions, perhaps, don't line up with what I hear from other conservatives is with regard to noise.
I totally believe in the idea of the existence of noise pollution.
I make no bones about it: especially in the privacy of my own home, but even to an extent when I'm elsewhere, I have the expectation of quiet. Yes, I have children, and yes I still expect it. Yes I have a dog, and yes--I still expect it.
The term noise pollution is used because, to me, it applies. It really is a form of pollution, just like smog in the air or bad chemicals in the water. It is a degration of the environment. It may not lead to cancer or lead poisoning, but it will effect you enough that the stress from it can certainly adversely effect the quality of your life and, possibly, even your health.
As such, I believe we are obligated to not make noise that bothers other people, especially at their home environment or in inherently stressful locations like waiting rooms, or especially "dignified" places like church. The ones being exposed are NOT obligated to "tune it out." The noise-makers are obligated to "turn if off."
Many more liberals, it seems, are "on board" with the idea of the existence of noise as at least a serious nuisance and possibly even a form of pollution, I hear far fewer conservatives speak of this. So be it. If this makes me a "sort of" liberal, or at least a non-consistent conservative, then so be it.
Many of you who've known me for years know that I grew up in eastern NC until age 27, I lived for 10 years in Tucson AZ, since 2006 I now live in eastern TX. I will say that Tucson AZ, although it was the noisiest place of them all (because it was a large city of 500,000 or so), it was a place that had much more respect for this concept. That may be because Tucson AZ is considered a liberal-biased city, and this concept seems to have more liberal connotations to it for some reason.
Again, so be it--I'm all for it.
Especially now that we have a place where the nearest neighbor is some 100 yards away, through a decent patch of woods, and we live in a private road that only services about 5 households total (including ours and the one 100 yards away), and since the others are even further away than this, and especially since (again) it is a PRIVATE road--my expectations for quiet are extremely high. Thankfully, they have been met here for the most part.
As I tell people all the time, there is a reason we live in the boonies.
I have the expectation that, simply enough, if a noise is irratating, I shouldn't have to hear it. Period. I shouldn't have to "learn to live with it," or find coping measures--it simply should be dealt with, simply enough--eliminated.
Again, this especially applies for me if I'm on my property.
The 4 main sources of irritating noises for me
- Barking Dogs
- Crying Infants, Other Loud Children
- Loud Car Mufflers and Engines
The 1st one is one that I have run into problems with in eastern TX, where apparently if some one's dog is barking and it bothers you, then it's YOUR problem and not the responsibility of the source person to eliminate it. I find that puzzling. If I had an exotic tiger or hippopotamus and it roared loudly, I guarantee you half the block would be all over me to get rid of it. How come, with dogs, it's a different story? I don't get that, and I don't accept that double standard either. I should NEVER, NEVER, NEVER (and I stress--never) have to hear my neighbor's dog bark. Period. 3 seconds in a 5 year period? Yes, that's too much to listen to. I am serious.
I am happy to say, at our current location, this isn't a problem. If it were, I'd be all over it, no apologizing. And yes I have a dog, and yes I am all over him if he barks for any reason at all. Burglars, mailmen, UPS delivery guys, the man on the moon--it makes no difference. ZIP IT, I tell him, and I take care of business emphatically if he doesn't.
Crying children also is a huge problem for me--and again, I blame the source. I don't understand why, in waiting rooms, airplanes, grocery stores, church and the like, I have to listen to this. It's irritating, and yes I am a parent and yes I forbid children under my care from being noisy--not just for my sake, but for everyone else's. It is my responsibility to not inflict noise on others through my children. If others are okay with it, fine, but they are under no obligation to be, I am the one under the obligation--to stop it, by any means necessary (and yes, that would include discipline if they're old enough).
Much in the way of car noise bothers me too. Sirens and cars with loud mufflers are key issues. However, I also dislike the noise of 4-wheelers, jetskiis, motor boats, and even cars themselves in some situations. Again, there is a reason I live on a private drive. I don't want cars around me, and I really don't want to hear a siren wailing or a car with no muffler roaring so loudly you can hear it on Jupiter.
Gosh I love it out here. So quiet you can hear the crickets, the frogs, and practically nothing else. That is the way it ought to be everywhere. (Well maybe except at a Tar Heels basketball game.)
Thursday, June 11, 2009
I am sick of tired of these communist, socialist types thinking that any single solitary thing that has the slightest, most minuscule chance of affecting them in any way at all should be subject to governmental interference in our lives. With people like this, there is never an end to it--no place is considered sacred and private enough for the government to just leave us the heck alone and quit micromanaging everything.
Already we require people to wear seatbelts, and some states ban the usage of cellular phones while driving--and we applaud this as "safety." You think it's going to stop with the inside of your car? It ain't. It ain't even going to stop with seatbelts, or cellular phones; it's merely the start.
Next thing you know, they are going to want to ban all music in the car--and I'm not talking about regulating volume, but totally abolishing all music listening. Why? Because changing the CD, radio station or cassette may distract you. Then, no eating in the car. Drive-thrus will be banned. Cup holders. Makeup holders. Ashtrays. Smoking in the car will be disallowed because of the off-chance that you might hit a bump and burn yourself with a cigarette butt. Or, we may require all drivers to wear sunglasses, to protect from the chance of a crash occurring due to sun-glare.
At some point, it may be decided that children are too much of a distraction in the car, so all children will be banned. Then, it will follow that sticky leather seats are uncomfortable and may lead to the driver being less focused on driving due to the discomforts of the seats, so now all cars will have to be brought in and brought up to code--even if you don't want it that way. Then, it will be discovered that any conversation with anyone in the car at all can be distracting, so no more conversation. If a crash occurs, hidden tape recorders or satellite spy system will reveal how much conversation occurred in the car. If it's deemed excessive, you will be cited.
It doesn't stop with the inside of your car.
Next thing you know, all snow skiing will be banned. Someone will decide that snow skiing is a stupid and useless activity, and if you dare to engage in it you risk hurting yourself and thus effectively increasing medical insurance rates for everyone else. So under the guise of "everytime you go skiing you risk increasing my insurance rates so it IS my business," all snow skiing will be banned. Next, they will discover that hang-gliding is dangerous and risky, and those who engage in it create excessive medical insurance rates for everyone else. So now you will no longer be allowed to hang-glide--unless of course you follow governmental regulations in how you do it.
Meanwhile,in southern AZ (where I lived at the time I wrote this article) you can't go diving into the lake from the rocks at Lake Patagonia--even though in spots it's 30 feet deep--because someone is worried you might hurt yourself and require expensive medical treatment, increasing medical costs for everyone else. (Either that or they're worried about lawsuits.) What's funny, and great to see frankly, is that I've observed plenty of people jumping from that spot regardless--totally rejecting such governmental busy-bodiness. I say "right on" to them.
Next thing you know it will be announced that 80% of all injuries occur in the home. No sooner does that little nugget of information get announced than the government (and communist/socialist types) will use this as an excuse to regulate what you do in the privacy of your own home! No more using inverted 5 gallon buckets to reach the ceiling to change a light bulb. Doing this will risk you getting a governmental fine, and someone like these socialists will consider such busy-bodiness totally justified because "when you hurt yourself behaving foolishly it affects my health insurance premiums," and you will be made to feel like a selfish, ignorant, uneducated, "stuck in yesteryear" good-for-nothing Big-Red Tobacco- chewing backwoods dumb-blinking pickup truck-driving mobile-home dwelling embicle for thinking that what you do in your own home is, (egads!), no one else's business. After all, if it can be established that what you're doing effects someone else in ANY way, why then you no longer have any rights to freedom whatsoever.
And those of you who like to smoke? Oh, you've felt plenty of aggravation already, but beware those who would try & prevent you from doing this in your own home either. Even though it's your health and hence your own business--and certainly you've heard all the warnings by now--nonetheless, someone will, under the guise of saving you from yourself OR more likely
under the guise of protecting their health insurance premiums from surcharging--they will use this as a justification for thinking it's okay to invade your privacy in your own home and tell you that smoking is now illegal and not allowed any longer.
All to save themselves a few bucks a year on their insurance premiums.
Meanwhile in southern Arizona it has now become law that all new homes built in Pima County must conform to handicapped accessibility rules--PRIVATE built homes. Not apartment complex, not office buildings, not governmental buildings, restaurants, etc. YOUR PRIVATE HOME for crying out loud. And to think there are those who applaud this!
What is so scary to me is that such idiots like this exist in this country, and still think this way even after September 11th should've waken them up.
Well to me it's proof that there is no hope for these people, for if even September 11th couldn't wake them up, NOTHING can.
If you like to smoke, fine. Frankly, smoking is just about the stupidest thing a person can do. It's unhealthy and it's a burden to our public health system. But before I concern myself with that, I am more concerned with preserving the freedoms that make this country what it is. If that means I have to resist the urge to butt my Pinocchio-sized nose into someone else's business and meddle in their private life under the guise of protecting them from their stupid choices, and if my health insurance is a little higher because I'm subsidizing their doing this---so be it. The preciousness of freedom is worth it to me.
Folks, you should be scared off of your carcus that there are idiots out there who, knowing fully well the sacrifices our forefathers made to establish a country of freedom and staying out of other people's affairs, nonetheless are willing to trade all of that away just to save a few bucks a year on their medical insurance rates. They can NEVER be satisfied and place limits on how much of your private life they make your business under the guise of safety, insurance rates, etc. You think seat belts is as far as that will go? Think again.
They think it's okay to make you wear a helmet on your motorcycle, when it's YOUR HEAD and not theirs--all because their insurance rates are more important to them than the privelage of freedom which our forefathers fought and died for. (Thank God where I live that's not the law; common sense still exists by God!) They think it's okay to butt their nose into the lives of
smokers even if they're smoking in their own home. They think it's okay to get inside your car and micromanage every single thing you're doing and try and stop you from doing anything that may increase their insurance rates or risk a bit--however minscule it may be. They think it's okay to tell you that you HAVE to build your home to suit handicapped people--even those who
don't live with you--even though it's your house and you have every right as far as I am concerned to make it as inaccessible to anyone as you jolly darn-well please.
Folks, you should be scared off of your carcus that such meddling socialists-types exist in this country. You should tell them to mind their own business. Tell them to get a history book and learn something about the history of this country, because apparently they are totally ignorant about it.
Why? Just read here and you'll see why, or I'll sum it up for you--the overprotection of children continues, and to heck with the adults.
Once again, convenience for adults--the ones that actually do all the work, mind you--has once again been stomped to bits because, apparently, we don't know how to make children stay out of things that aren't theirs to play with. Moreover, people who have no children and don't give a rip about them--and I have no hate for any such people, mind you--have to suffer yet another inconvenience due to this over-protection-ism.
As a result of this, since January of this year (2009), as mandated by law (and George Bush signed it!) all gasoline containers have childproof nozzles.
Have you tried using one of these things? It's about as straightforward and effortless as wrestling a muddy pig during a downpour, and equally as messy (and let's not forget it's gasoline making the mess). Me personally, I like for things to be easy to use, and since you can only get the "good old fashioned" gasoline containers at garage sales and the like, I've been snapping up everyone I can get my hands on, and even storing them in my storage room INSIDE where the weather won't age it as quickly.
You want to know what started this? As usual, woosy parenting, that's what. Apparently, someone's 4 year old child got into the gasoline can, spilled it, a fire resulted, and the child died.
Look, I don't want a child to burn to death, and I'm sure the parent is devastated at this, but dare I ask--has the parent ever heard of whipping a child's butt if they get into things not theirs? There is this little thing called "respect for property," and the children have to be taught it and expected to live it daily.
My mother surely didn't have this problem, and she didn't do everything right (what parent does?) but this concept was not a problem for her. She used to keep a rifle & shotgun in her bedroom closet, at FLOOR level, unlocked, merely concealed by her clothes. She even showed me where they were, and she also told me another thing--touch those things, and I'll whip your butt to pieces.
Without the benefit of any locks or CPS (Child Protective Services) intervention, we never had a gun accident, because I did not dare touch them. My mother's presence and intimating presence was all that was needed.
I love our 2 year old daughter Helen to bits, but she knows the routine--play with your toys, and leave mine alone. I don't tuck every last granule of belongings away where she can't get to it (other than obvious things like chemicals and razor blades). In fact, I make a POINT of leaving such things where she CAN get to them, yet communicating to her in no uncertain terms--you had better not touch it. Violate that rule, and it's not going to be fun for the next 3 minutes for you. (And yes, the EMPTY gasoline cans are in the house, and are among the "don't touch it or else" items.)
We have nieces/nephews who come over periodically, they think of me as the "crazy goofy Uncle," but they also know that, unlike the way things are with the persons (my in-laws) who normally watch them, they had better not go poking around into our things without asking. At the in-law's house they help themselves to the refrigerators and tools like it's a playground. Here, they ask, they know if they don't I know where the flyswatters and the switches are, and I WILL use them.
If more people would do that, we wouldn't have a need for these stupid goofy gas cans, and create an irritating inconvenience for adults trying to live life without a bunch of nagging hassles.
Somewhere along the way, we decided as a society that the proper response to seeing other people parent their children in ways we don't agree with is to label it "abuse" or "neglect" and whisper gossip to the local authorities, in this case Child Protective Services (henceforth termed CPS).
Try being a parent in this climate.
Dare to scold your youngster for having a tantrum in Wal Mart, and you better make sure no one follows you to your car and sees your license plate; otherwise, odds are very good an open CPS case will commence. Leave your child in the car--even if you're only 20 feet away, well off-road and with the air conditioning going--and someone says "what are they doing leaving that child alone in there like that!" and picks up the cellular phone. So, even though your child is sound-asleep and you don't feel like lugging them out yet again--and they're safe--you go out of your way to conceal it, or (worse yet) you disturb them anyway, due to fear of being reported.
Again, try being a parent in this climate.
In one instance around 2000, a young woman I knew--a rather well-off woman with a nice house in a well-endowed neighborhood and with a penance for Rolex watches, certainly not someone who would have insufficient finances for caring for her children--she was the victim of a CPS investigation, simply because her daughter (about age 5) mumbled in the background repeatedly "mom, I'm hungry". Her mother was calling the local shipper to check on the status of a package and, apparently, the agent on the phone overheard and thought this a reason to report her.
This is getting entirely overboard.
I am 40 years old, and I well remember as a child around age 8 or so riding in the back of my father's open-bed pickup truck, on the highway at highway speeds (55mph). I also well remember my sisters, cousins and myself riding to our summer-time vacation destination, White Lake; we would ride in the back of my aunt's Toyota truck with a camper shell--during summer, with no air conditioning mind-you. (There were windows that pivoted open, however.) How perfect it was--we were able to be kids, noisy as we wanted to be, our joy totally uninhibited, yet our parents (my mother and my aunt) were upfront with a nice, quiet cabinet to have their private adult conversations without us rugrats shouting in their ears.
No one thought anything of it--not the police, not the locals, and as parents or children you certainly didn't have the worry that a nosy busy-body with more hateful motivation than brains (to say nothing of respect of the common adage "mind your own business") was going to pick up their cellular phone and report "child endangerment" to the local social services agency with your license plate number.
Granted, cellular phones didn't exist back then for all practical purposes, but many folks did have CB radios; had the desire to report on their part existed, it could've been facilitated. But no one did so? Why? Because they respected parents' rights to parent their children as they existed.
(And no, I do not agree with the idea that "you can't do that in today's world, too many crazy drivers out there." I think a little study of the history will show that crazy drivers and highway fatalities existed back then, too, and not necessarily in smaller numbers either.)
It shouldn't surprise us that, in a society where you are co-erced legally to wear seatbelts based on the "I don't want my medical insurance going up on account of your negligence" argument, ditto motorcycle and/or bicycle helmets laws, cellular phones in cars laws, mandatory usage of child-safety seats (even at age 8!)--it should come as no surprise that people fail to respect that how someone parents their children, barring REAL abuse (example, going upside their head with a baseball bat), simply isn't any of their business.
Understand--this view of mine does not apply (typically anyway) to family-members. In fact, I think that parents benefit very highly from the support of family. That's my point, really--people, with some exceptions, would much rather have supportive, loving family members provide advice and guidance for parenting than having some nosy outsiders doing it, or especially the government. When family members provide this, it's usually with a motivation based on love and grace, not the "look at that wacko, someone oughta report them!" mentality that is more likely when it's strangers.
The government already intrudes on too much as it is, now it's the government's business NOT to prevent abuse (which is understandable) but to even dictate what your parenting styles hould be? How we choose to parent our children, so long as REAL abuse (leaving outside in 32'F weather with no clothes on, beating with a 2x4 on a daily basis) isn't occurring, it simply isn't anyone's business, especially the government's.
Parents need to be left alone, if you want to help with a LOVING attitude great, otherwise butt out. This is a family issue, and if you aren't in the family your opinion, unless asked for, isn't warranted or needed. Butt out.
1 Yahoo! Article I Posted to (Comment #42)
2 Yahoo Article #2 I Posted To, Talks About Moms Letting Themselves Go Post-Children (Comment #248)
I am Larry Harrison Jr, age 40, white-male (and that doesn't make me evil), married for 8½ years to the same woman (unlike half of Hollywood), 3 children, with a passion for computers, photography, the ability to type 70-odd words per minute (as far back as high school), and I reside with my wife in a decent-sized 3 bedroom home (okay, trailer, so what?) out in the woods of Leverett's Chapel.
OK, you have no idea where that is. It is in eastern Texas between Kilgore and Overton.
I am on the Internet very often (perhaps too much?), I love sites such as Wikipedia, DPreview, Yahoo! and Fred Miranda. Within this post, and other blogger posts, if you see a word or phrase underlined (like this), then that means it's a hyperlink that refers to an external website that elaborates on the topic matter in more detail. (If you go to such a site you won't lose your place here.)
I have been online since 1997, first with America OnLine (I later wised up), I used to have "Personal Web Pages" (with my opinions and photographs posted) long before we had Facebook, MySpace or Twitter. I now have a MySpace (which I barely use), a Facebook (same thing), and a PBase site for my photos (used very heavily). To make it easy for any of you, in case you care--as long as you keep track of this site, or my PBase site, that's all you need to do. Anything else is "cyberjunk" (or, if nothing else, already referred to at this site and/or the PBase one so you won't have to keep up with it all).
I also am a North Carolina Tar Heels fan (and we won it all in 2009, nanny nanny nanny!).
I hold (basically) conservative views, and I created this blog as an outlet for expressing them.
Among other things: I believe that far too little is respected as "none of your business" nowadays, and I fight for a return to that. I believe how someone parents their children is no one's business. I believe that if someone wants to use a cellular phone in their car for talking, texting, or MapQuesting--so long as they're not weaving and/or crashing into light-poles, that's not anyone's business. If two adults desire to have consensual intercourse in a homosexual context in the privacy of their homes, that's also no one's business--BUT it isn't a marriage, either. (Carrie Prejean was right.)
I dislike slow drivers, but I also dislike "rat runners," people that take shortcuts through residential areas to avoid busy streets but in doing so create annoying road noise for residents trying to escape it (and often-times paying good money to do so). Consistent with my "mind your own business" point of view, I believe traffic-law enforcement is extremely over-the-top. My proposal--if someone has a good safety record, leave them alone, period.
I also don't believe in abbrevations, like "LOL" or "c u l8r," I consider it lazy-typing. Some are okay, ones like DVD, VCR, NASA--but these cutesy Internet/texting acronyms? Lazy typing. I don't engage in it. Whenever I see a need for abbrevating within this blog, most likely you'll see me refer to it by its full name earlier in the post, with something like "(henceforth known as DVD)" or the like following-it for clarification.
Well that's it for now. Here we go.