So this afternoon on my way into work, I am running late because of traffic of course. It doesn't help that it seems as though every main road and highway in the state of New Jersey is under construction. So even though I have a handful of different routes I can take, none of them are really a safe bet. So I am on the NJ Turnpike and there are 3 lanes of traffic struggling to even go the speed limit. As it turns out, I end up behind a car in the left lane who is doing 65 on the dot with not a care in the world. I flash my high beams just once and the car pulls to the middle lane, and I see what appears to be a middle-aged woman lean her hand down the outside of her door and flip me the bird. She then proceeds to move over to the far right lane (yes, where she should have been in the first place).
Now the reason I was dumbfounded that this woman flipped me the bird, is because she was so obviously in the wrong place doing the wrong speed. What possesses people to park in the far left lane of of of the most highly trafficked roads in the country going exactly the speed limit, and then to actually get pissed of when someone suggests that she move over where she should be to begin with? Did no one ever teach this person the rules of the road, never the less driving etiquette? Are people so petty and full of self-worth these days that the mean idea of being told you need to get over brings out such a reaction? Now I speak from first hand experience when it comes to road rage, because trust me I have a serious case of it. But what angers me when driving is stupidity. I am not one who is always in a hurry and has to be at the front of the line all the time. I do not feel the need for speed, and I do not weave in and out of traffic at high speeds. I simply want to get where I am going at a reasonable pace, without having to deal with idiots who do not know how to get along with others. But that seems to be what this world is becoming more and more full of.
Somewhere along the way people have either forgot or not been taught the rule of the road. the whole idea of "keep right except to pass" is not just a suggestion, but A LAW. Yet it is almost never enforced, and way too many people just don't care to follow it. That someone would feel it is their God given right to park in the left lane and damn everyone else is absurd, ad for that same person to get belligerent when flashed to move over is even more so. This is the kind of person whop ends up causing miles and miles of backups, all because they do not want to be stuck behind a tractor trailer (even though they are going the same speed). These people are also a main cause of accidents. When someone drives slowly in the passing lane it causes others to pass on the right, which is a dicey and dangerous situation, especially when there are 3 lanes and you may have two people trying to use the same middle lane to pass at the same time.
It is time that people start respecting each other on the roadways. There would be little to no road rage if we all started driving with respect (AKA move to the right and get the hell out of the way of those who actually have somewhere to be). And please, if you are not in a hurry and if you are scared of other vehicles and you can't stand the mere suggestion that you need to move over, then please just stay home until a person with a higher driving IQ can come and pick you up...
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
The Slippery Slope
The continuation towards a total lack of self-responsibility in this great country of ours is in high gear as we speak. The latest, and one of the most absurd, examples is in a potential lawsuit against McDonald's. No, it's not about people spilling shockingly hot coffee on themselves again, but this time over the inclusion of toys in their Happy Meals. Seems as though the CSPI, which claims to be a public watchdog group, is threatening a lawsuit claiming that including toys with Happy Meals is a marketing ploy to lure children into their store and to consume less than healthy foods. As I heard about this lawsuit and read more about it, the more infuriated I got. It seems as though this "free country" of ours is slowly becoming one where parents no longer have the right, or responsibility to raise their children the way they seem fit. If this lawsuit is heard in court, and especially if it is upheld, I am afraid to think of what will be next.
It seems that if it's not the government telling us how we should raise our children, it is the court system allowing lawsuits that basically accomplish the same thing to be heard. We not only live in a country where more and more people are passing the blame of their own bad parenting on to everyone and everything else, but we are allowing the dilution of our legal system by allowing so many frivolous lawsuits to be heard. This nutritional watchdog group that is filing the lawsuit against McDonald's should be spending their time and resources on making sure that businesses are following nutritional guidelines, maintaining healthy facilities, etc. They should not be deciding that it is a restaurant's job to play the role of parent to all American children. And when a suit like this is heard, and worse than that won or settled, it created a domino effect that shifts blame from consumers to the businesses. Was it really McDonald's fault that a woman spilled coffee on herself? And now every take out cup of coffee you get from any fast food joint has a message on it telling you that it's contents are hot. That is like Dairy Queen being forced to print on their cups "Contents are extremely cold". Makes no sense. Yet here we are, wanting to tell McDonald's that they can't include toys in their Happy Meals because it creates childhood obesity. And I still don't see how not including a toy in the meal is going to deter people from feeding their kids fast food. The smaller portions are most likely more of an attraction to parents than the toy is.
So the whole premise is that by including toys in the Happy Meals, and by advertising such (the nerve of a retail company to advertise a product), they are pushing young children to pressure their parents in to buying them these meals. And the implication is that this is fast food, so it is promoting unhealthy eating habits. Now as much as I agree that eating a lot of fast food is unhealthy, for adults as well as children, there are several issues with this thought process. First of all, if a parent is going to buy an extreme amount of Happy Meals for their child simply because the child is begging for the toys, then that is just bad parenting and I would be afraid to know what else their children are allowing them to do. Second, this is a free country, so no one should be forced not to feed their kid something that they want to. It is not the government's or the court's job to parent our children. The "slippery slope" that is so often spoken about is show quite clearly just in these two examples of cases with McDonald's...the allowing of the case of hot coffee eventually leads to the bringing of this lawsuit concerning Happy Meal toys. We allow the courts to tell us we can not make decisions for ourselves. We become a lazy society who sits back and lets the government tell us how to parent our children. These frivolous lawsuit should never be heard by any court.
The sad reality is that it is likely McDonald's will reach a settlement with this organization, where they will change their marketing strategy or the things that they include in the Happy Meals. They will do this in order to prevent possible bad publicity. But I say they should fight it with every bit of resources they have. The fact that something so simple and silly can be made such a big deal, all because we are afraid to stand up and take responsibility for raising our own children. It is as if they are saying "we can not raise our children right in a world with such bad options available", instead of TEACHING our kids how to live a balanced and healthy life. It reminds me of how several years back Camel cigarettes were told they could no longer use Joe Camel in their advertising, because it was construed as marketing smoking to minors. The fact that the caricature of a camel was going to make kids want to smoke any more than the fact that their own parents smoked is absurd, yet no one found that frightening. And the numbers relating to childhood smoking today don't really show that the ban was a success, do they?
There needs to be a movement in this country towards taking back responsibility for our parenting choices. We need to stop blaming everyone else for our children's problem, such as food chains, musicians, actors, medications, the rich, the poor, and the video games. If you are a responsible and engaged parent, you will know what your child is eating, drinking, playing with, listening to...and if it is the wrong thing than it is YOUR FAULT. But even if your kids are doing the wrong thing, it should not be against the law. We are free, and that means free to even make bad choices...
It seems that if it's not the government telling us how we should raise our children, it is the court system allowing lawsuits that basically accomplish the same thing to be heard. We not only live in a country where more and more people are passing the blame of their own bad parenting on to everyone and everything else, but we are allowing the dilution of our legal system by allowing so many frivolous lawsuits to be heard. This nutritional watchdog group that is filing the lawsuit against McDonald's should be spending their time and resources on making sure that businesses are following nutritional guidelines, maintaining healthy facilities, etc. They should not be deciding that it is a restaurant's job to play the role of parent to all American children. And when a suit like this is heard, and worse than that won or settled, it created a domino effect that shifts blame from consumers to the businesses. Was it really McDonald's fault that a woman spilled coffee on herself? And now every take out cup of coffee you get from any fast food joint has a message on it telling you that it's contents are hot. That is like Dairy Queen being forced to print on their cups "Contents are extremely cold". Makes no sense. Yet here we are, wanting to tell McDonald's that they can't include toys in their Happy Meals because it creates childhood obesity. And I still don't see how not including a toy in the meal is going to deter people from feeding their kids fast food. The smaller portions are most likely more of an attraction to parents than the toy is.
So the whole premise is that by including toys in the Happy Meals, and by advertising such (the nerve of a retail company to advertise a product), they are pushing young children to pressure their parents in to buying them these meals. And the implication is that this is fast food, so it is promoting unhealthy eating habits. Now as much as I agree that eating a lot of fast food is unhealthy, for adults as well as children, there are several issues with this thought process. First of all, if a parent is going to buy an extreme amount of Happy Meals for their child simply because the child is begging for the toys, then that is just bad parenting and I would be afraid to know what else their children are allowing them to do. Second, this is a free country, so no one should be forced not to feed their kid something that they want to. It is not the government's or the court's job to parent our children. The "slippery slope" that is so often spoken about is show quite clearly just in these two examples of cases with McDonald's...the allowing of the case of hot coffee eventually leads to the bringing of this lawsuit concerning Happy Meal toys. We allow the courts to tell us we can not make decisions for ourselves. We become a lazy society who sits back and lets the government tell us how to parent our children. These frivolous lawsuit should never be heard by any court.
The sad reality is that it is likely McDonald's will reach a settlement with this organization, where they will change their marketing strategy or the things that they include in the Happy Meals. They will do this in order to prevent possible bad publicity. But I say they should fight it with every bit of resources they have. The fact that something so simple and silly can be made such a big deal, all because we are afraid to stand up and take responsibility for raising our own children. It is as if they are saying "we can not raise our children right in a world with such bad options available", instead of TEACHING our kids how to live a balanced and healthy life. It reminds me of how several years back Camel cigarettes were told they could no longer use Joe Camel in their advertising, because it was construed as marketing smoking to minors. The fact that the caricature of a camel was going to make kids want to smoke any more than the fact that their own parents smoked is absurd, yet no one found that frightening. And the numbers relating to childhood smoking today don't really show that the ban was a success, do they?
There needs to be a movement in this country towards taking back responsibility for our parenting choices. We need to stop blaming everyone else for our children's problem, such as food chains, musicians, actors, medications, the rich, the poor, and the video games. If you are a responsible and engaged parent, you will know what your child is eating, drinking, playing with, listening to...and if it is the wrong thing than it is YOUR FAULT. But even if your kids are doing the wrong thing, it should not be against the law. We are free, and that means free to even make bad choices...
Friday, May 14, 2010
Kick the Crutch Out
Several years ago I was listening to a radio telethon that was raising money for food banks and the sort in New York. I was intrigued mostly by a guest who ran an organization that not only provided food for those who were in need, but also gave out advice on how to better make ends meet, and offered assistance in reaching these goals. It stuck with me because it makes so much sense, yet is so infrequently the way that help is given out these days. And it goes back to the way I was raised, and to the mentality that generations past had, which was to be self-sufficient and have self pride. These are things that for some reason have been lost in the last few decades in this country, becoming more of nostalgia and less a way of life. Now we are a society of beggars and people who feel things are owed to us, whether or not we have earned them, and it is a mentality that is making us weak.
There is no doubt that many people in this country have tried to do things on their own, but for one reason or the other they can't make ends meet. It is for these people that there are government programs to help assist, whether it be welfare or food stamps or other similar programs. There are also countless privately funded programs such as food banks, homeless shelters, clothing donations, etc. But for many, the reliance on this assistance becomes a crutch, and pretty much a way of life. Along those lines, and in a much larger scale, the United States government has taken what was 6 months of unemployment benefits (which could be extended to 12 months if proper effort to find a job landed none) and prolonged it to 2 years. And now they have approved lengthening those benefits even more because there are so many people out of work. Now as much as I understand the economy is bad and there is less of an abundance of jobs to be found, it is hard to believe that almost 3 million people in this country can not find a suitable job for over 2 years. What it is an example of is the longer you do something for someone, the more they rely on you.
In order to get people to be productive and independent, we need to kick the crutch out from underneath them. If you have a broken leg and need to use crutches to walk, that is understandable. But eventually, your bone heals. The only way to get the strength back in the leg is to start using it, little by little, until eventually you are back on your own, and you don't need the crutches anymore. But if you just continue to use the crutches and refuse to put your foot down and begin the process of healing, you will rely on those crutches forever. It is no different with government or charitable programs. These were designed to help get people back on their feet and get back to being productive citizens, but instead, by design in a lot of ways, have become that wicked crutch that does not go away. People all over the country rely on welfare checks and food stamps as a way of life, instead of a means to get their life back on track. The fault is two fold...on one hand it is human nature to allow yourself to be helped, and in many ways there is an attitude of entitlement forming in the country that "it isn't my fault, and someone needs to take care of me". But the main fault is the fact that as well-intended as most of these programs are, they are merely band aids, with no real forward thinking or plan for the future of those who use them. This has been something I have thought for years needs to be addressed.
It goes to what that food pantry I spoke of had in mind. Sure you want to feed the person who is hungry and can not eat properly, that is very admirable. But why don't we find out why it is that they are hungry to begin with? Are they sick? Did they lose their job? Do they have a disability? What about their family? The idea should not just be to take care of people now and today, but to help them going forward. Instead of a food bank that just feeds homeless people once a day or once a week, how about an organization that gets to the reason they can't eat on their own and try to give them the tools so that one day they can? If we could band together several programs, and also have local businesses tied in, a network of resources could be created that would not only help people in the present, but it would give them the tools they need to guide themselves down a new path. A network of motels or landlords that would rent out a place to live at a reduced cost so long as you are working. Places of business that would give jobs to those in the program. Local colleges and vocational schools that would give free or affordable classes to those who enlisted in the network. Surely this is something that could happen.
The same thing applies to welfare and unemployment benefits. It used to be in order to continue getting an unemployment check you would need to apply for a certain amount of jobs each week and show proof that you were not accepted. But now it is at a point where you can just check in online and still get your check. With welfare, we have created a way of life, a system where people live off of their welfare check and food stamps and do not go out and finds a primary income on their own. Is this all people? Not at all...but it is a good enough amount to where it is draining our resources. But again, these are people that could very well be productive members of their communities, if only they were forced to be. Laziness is something that will take hold if the opportunity is presented. If you do not allow people to use charity and government assistance as a way of life, but instead make it something that is to be earned, then you would see a lot of people turning their lives around and who knows what they could become.
If companies, charities, and government agencies would all work together to guide those who need help so that they can become self-sufficient citizens, we would all be better for it. Too many times we see those less fortunate as "bums" and "homeless" and figure their books have been written. Most feel that they do not want any more out of life. I have a hard time believing that. I truly believe that if given the resources and guidance many people could get their lives back on track, and be a benefit to the community. All it takes is to kick the crutch out and make them get their strength back...
There is no doubt that many people in this country have tried to do things on their own, but for one reason or the other they can't make ends meet. It is for these people that there are government programs to help assist, whether it be welfare or food stamps or other similar programs. There are also countless privately funded programs such as food banks, homeless shelters, clothing donations, etc. But for many, the reliance on this assistance becomes a crutch, and pretty much a way of life. Along those lines, and in a much larger scale, the United States government has taken what was 6 months of unemployment benefits (which could be extended to 12 months if proper effort to find a job landed none) and prolonged it to 2 years. And now they have approved lengthening those benefits even more because there are so many people out of work. Now as much as I understand the economy is bad and there is less of an abundance of jobs to be found, it is hard to believe that almost 3 million people in this country can not find a suitable job for over 2 years. What it is an example of is the longer you do something for someone, the more they rely on you.
In order to get people to be productive and independent, we need to kick the crutch out from underneath them. If you have a broken leg and need to use crutches to walk, that is understandable. But eventually, your bone heals. The only way to get the strength back in the leg is to start using it, little by little, until eventually you are back on your own, and you don't need the crutches anymore. But if you just continue to use the crutches and refuse to put your foot down and begin the process of healing, you will rely on those crutches forever. It is no different with government or charitable programs. These were designed to help get people back on their feet and get back to being productive citizens, but instead, by design in a lot of ways, have become that wicked crutch that does not go away. People all over the country rely on welfare checks and food stamps as a way of life, instead of a means to get their life back on track. The fault is two fold...on one hand it is human nature to allow yourself to be helped, and in many ways there is an attitude of entitlement forming in the country that "it isn't my fault, and someone needs to take care of me". But the main fault is the fact that as well-intended as most of these programs are, they are merely band aids, with no real forward thinking or plan for the future of those who use them. This has been something I have thought for years needs to be addressed.
It goes to what that food pantry I spoke of had in mind. Sure you want to feed the person who is hungry and can not eat properly, that is very admirable. But why don't we find out why it is that they are hungry to begin with? Are they sick? Did they lose their job? Do they have a disability? What about their family? The idea should not just be to take care of people now and today, but to help them going forward. Instead of a food bank that just feeds homeless people once a day or once a week, how about an organization that gets to the reason they can't eat on their own and try to give them the tools so that one day they can? If we could band together several programs, and also have local businesses tied in, a network of resources could be created that would not only help people in the present, but it would give them the tools they need to guide themselves down a new path. A network of motels or landlords that would rent out a place to live at a reduced cost so long as you are working. Places of business that would give jobs to those in the program. Local colleges and vocational schools that would give free or affordable classes to those who enlisted in the network. Surely this is something that could happen.
The same thing applies to welfare and unemployment benefits. It used to be in order to continue getting an unemployment check you would need to apply for a certain amount of jobs each week and show proof that you were not accepted. But now it is at a point where you can just check in online and still get your check. With welfare, we have created a way of life, a system where people live off of their welfare check and food stamps and do not go out and finds a primary income on their own. Is this all people? Not at all...but it is a good enough amount to where it is draining our resources. But again, these are people that could very well be productive members of their communities, if only they were forced to be. Laziness is something that will take hold if the opportunity is presented. If you do not allow people to use charity and government assistance as a way of life, but instead make it something that is to be earned, then you would see a lot of people turning their lives around and who knows what they could become.
If companies, charities, and government agencies would all work together to guide those who need help so that they can become self-sufficient citizens, we would all be better for it. Too many times we see those less fortunate as "bums" and "homeless" and figure their books have been written. Most feel that they do not want any more out of life. I have a hard time believing that. I truly believe that if given the resources and guidance many people could get their lives back on track, and be a benefit to the community. All it takes is to kick the crutch out and make them get their strength back...
Thursday, May 13, 2010
About My Wife
This past Sunday was Mother's day, a day we spend taking care of and reflecting on those women in our lives that mean the most to us and have raised their children without any consideration for themselves. It got me thinking about my wife, and how in the last two years things have changed in our lives since having our daughter. It got me thinking about how she has changed, yet how she has remained the same as before she was a mom. How I feel about her now compared to how I felt about her before. So many things that seem to always go untold, but the feelings have always been there.
My wife is one of the most stubborn people I know...and I am very stubborn myself so I know the signs quite well. She is also one of the most selfless people I have ever known, always has been. And most importantly, she is the most loving woman I have ever met. All these things are what gave her a predisposition to be a wonderful mother. From the day we found out she was pregnant and that we were going to be parents she was intent on being the best mother she could be. As cool and collected as I was and took all the planning in stride, she was a nervous wreck and questioned everything. But it was her way of being prepared. And even through the many moments of self doubt that she had during her pregnancy, I always knew that she was more than well prepared for motherhood. So when our precious daughter was born, my wife may have changed from Jessica to Mommy, and her priorities may have shifted just a bit, but she was still the same amazing woman that always made me feel so special. Just now her main focus turned to our baby.
The stubbornness I spoke of came about shortly after delivery, as she was intent on nursing as long as she could, which she did. It continued several months later when she started to make and freeze our own baby food as she had planned on during her pregnancy. She was, and still is, constantly reading book s and magazines and online articles trying to learn as much as she can about parenting and how to be a great parent. She had set her mind at being a wonderful mother and she has been way more than that from day one. I see the time she puts in with our daughter, how she not only plays with her and has fun, but how she teaches her life lessons. And I see the adoration that my little girl has for her mommy in her face every time she sees her. And I know look and feeling, because it is the same one that I have had since I have know her.
As wonderful a companion and wife as she is, she is just as much a mother, if not more. The love that I felt for her for all the things she had done for me before, I now feel that even more when I see her channel that energy towards our daughter. There is something about seeing a person go without in an effort to give their child everything possible. As much as my wife has kept her independence and individuality and remained a professional woman, she is first and foremost a mom. She worries that she isn't spending enough time with her daughter when she is at work, yet sees the benefit of of having her own adult time. She enjoys stopping on the way home from work to pick up a little something special for her daughter "just because". She loves saying "she is her mother's daughter" to anyone who will listen. She has taken this motherhood thing and embraced it, and in turn gotten more satisfaction out of it than anything I have ever seen while I have known her.
And the thing that makes my wife so special, is that with so much of her time and energy spend being Mommy she is still my wife. She still does the little things that tell me she loves me. She still enjoys spending time together, even if it is not as much time as we used to have. She is not only a mother, but she is a strong, beautiful woman. And being a great mom just makes me look at her not in a new light, but in a brighter one. I always knew she would be a special mother, but the best part is that I get to watch her each and every day. And as proud as I am of her and what she means to our daughter, I know that I am the lucky one for having her in my life...
My wife is one of the most stubborn people I know...and I am very stubborn myself so I know the signs quite well. She is also one of the most selfless people I have ever known, always has been. And most importantly, she is the most loving woman I have ever met. All these things are what gave her a predisposition to be a wonderful mother. From the day we found out she was pregnant and that we were going to be parents she was intent on being the best mother she could be. As cool and collected as I was and took all the planning in stride, she was a nervous wreck and questioned everything. But it was her way of being prepared. And even through the many moments of self doubt that she had during her pregnancy, I always knew that she was more than well prepared for motherhood. So when our precious daughter was born, my wife may have changed from Jessica to Mommy, and her priorities may have shifted just a bit, but she was still the same amazing woman that always made me feel so special. Just now her main focus turned to our baby.
The stubbornness I spoke of came about shortly after delivery, as she was intent on nursing as long as she could, which she did. It continued several months later when she started to make and freeze our own baby food as she had planned on during her pregnancy. She was, and still is, constantly reading book s and magazines and online articles trying to learn as much as she can about parenting and how to be a great parent. She had set her mind at being a wonderful mother and she has been way more than that from day one. I see the time she puts in with our daughter, how she not only plays with her and has fun, but how she teaches her life lessons. And I see the adoration that my little girl has for her mommy in her face every time she sees her. And I know look and feeling, because it is the same one that I have had since I have know her.
As wonderful a companion and wife as she is, she is just as much a mother, if not more. The love that I felt for her for all the things she had done for me before, I now feel that even more when I see her channel that energy towards our daughter. There is something about seeing a person go without in an effort to give their child everything possible. As much as my wife has kept her independence and individuality and remained a professional woman, she is first and foremost a mom. She worries that she isn't spending enough time with her daughter when she is at work, yet sees the benefit of of having her own adult time. She enjoys stopping on the way home from work to pick up a little something special for her daughter "just because". She loves saying "she is her mother's daughter" to anyone who will listen. She has taken this motherhood thing and embraced it, and in turn gotten more satisfaction out of it than anything I have ever seen while I have known her.
And the thing that makes my wife so special, is that with so much of her time and energy spend being Mommy she is still my wife. She still does the little things that tell me she loves me. She still enjoys spending time together, even if it is not as much time as we used to have. She is not only a mother, but she is a strong, beautiful woman. And being a great mom just makes me look at her not in a new light, but in a brighter one. I always knew she would be a special mother, but the best part is that I get to watch her each and every day. And as proud as I am of her and what she means to our daughter, I know that I am the lucky one for having her in my life...
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
The Greatest Gift
Something hit me this morning when I woke to the sound of my two year old daughter giggling, I walked into her room, she looked at me from her bed and said "Hi Daddy!". It was the most simple of moments, yet so full of meaning. With that phrase my heart gushed, my eyes welled, and my chest filled with pride. Not that I didn't already feel this way, but it was that simple moment that confirmed to me that being a father is the greatest gift in the world.
I had been somewhat selfish most of my life growing up, not in the sense that I was all about me so much as just did what I wanted when I wanted it. Bought things I didn't need, went places I wanted to go to, basically lived life for me. Then a little over 2 years ago my daughter, Samantha Shea, was born, and that life as I knew it came to an abrupt end. It's not something that was thought about or decided, it just happens. In that one moment that she began to breath the same air as the rest of us, she became my life and my reason for being here. Now, I may want things, but I don't always get them, or feel the need to get them. Now instead of going away for the weekend with my wife or vacationing in the Caribbean, I go to Sesame Place and actually enjoy it. When my wife asks me sometime in November what I want for Christmas I struggle for answers, because in all honesty I am only concerned with making my daughter happy and seeing the joy in her face as she opens her gifts. Life has changed, and changed for the better no doubt about it.
It is hard to put into words what being a parent is like, and I think even harder to explain what being the Dad of a little girl is about. It is something that we all know is important on many levels, protective, caring, strength. But deep down there is something that escapes words. As much as you want to protect her and hold her close so that nothing or no one hurts her, you also want to do everything you can to make her a strong woman. As much as you want her to be Daddy's little tomboy and know all about your favorite teams, you also want her to be the little lady that is the most beautiful in her class. It is a contradiction of sorts, yet all comes from just wanting her to be the best person she can be.
Because of my work schedule I have the great fortune of being able to be home with my daughter during the morning and afternoon. This is something that I welcomed, and something that I treasure each and every day. Sure, it is tough when I am sick and just want to stay in bed, yet she keeps pulling at my arm telling me "Daddy up!". But I can not imagine what life would be like if I did not get to spend the time with her that I do. As much as I teach her about how to count and spell and play, I honestly do think that she teaches me more. She has taught me patience, which has never been my strong point. She has taught me humility, as I do not mind changing diapers and sharing child care tips with other moms and dads. But what she has taught me more than anything, is selflessness. My life is about her and my wife, and not about me. I honestly can not remember what life was like before she was born, and I shudder at the thought of what life will be like when she is old enough to go to school and will no longer be around the house when I am home during the day. But that one phrase, "Hi Daddy!", has way more meaning and way more weight than anything that I have every heard. Because of her, I feel like my life has meaning, and for that I thank her and I thank my wife for giving me this gift...
I had been somewhat selfish most of my life growing up, not in the sense that I was all about me so much as just did what I wanted when I wanted it. Bought things I didn't need, went places I wanted to go to, basically lived life for me. Then a little over 2 years ago my daughter, Samantha Shea, was born, and that life as I knew it came to an abrupt end. It's not something that was thought about or decided, it just happens. In that one moment that she began to breath the same air as the rest of us, she became my life and my reason for being here. Now, I may want things, but I don't always get them, or feel the need to get them. Now instead of going away for the weekend with my wife or vacationing in the Caribbean, I go to Sesame Place and actually enjoy it. When my wife asks me sometime in November what I want for Christmas I struggle for answers, because in all honesty I am only concerned with making my daughter happy and seeing the joy in her face as she opens her gifts. Life has changed, and changed for the better no doubt about it.
It is hard to put into words what being a parent is like, and I think even harder to explain what being the Dad of a little girl is about. It is something that we all know is important on many levels, protective, caring, strength. But deep down there is something that escapes words. As much as you want to protect her and hold her close so that nothing or no one hurts her, you also want to do everything you can to make her a strong woman. As much as you want her to be Daddy's little tomboy and know all about your favorite teams, you also want her to be the little lady that is the most beautiful in her class. It is a contradiction of sorts, yet all comes from just wanting her to be the best person she can be.
Because of my work schedule I have the great fortune of being able to be home with my daughter during the morning and afternoon. This is something that I welcomed, and something that I treasure each and every day. Sure, it is tough when I am sick and just want to stay in bed, yet she keeps pulling at my arm telling me "Daddy up!". But I can not imagine what life would be like if I did not get to spend the time with her that I do. As much as I teach her about how to count and spell and play, I honestly do think that she teaches me more. She has taught me patience, which has never been my strong point. She has taught me humility, as I do not mind changing diapers and sharing child care tips with other moms and dads. But what she has taught me more than anything, is selflessness. My life is about her and my wife, and not about me. I honestly can not remember what life was like before she was born, and I shudder at the thought of what life will be like when she is old enough to go to school and will no longer be around the house when I am home during the day. But that one phrase, "Hi Daddy!", has way more meaning and way more weight than anything that I have every heard. Because of her, I feel like my life has meaning, and for that I thank her and I thank my wife for giving me this gift...
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Illegal is Illegal
Several days ago the state of Arizona passed a law authorizing police to request proof of residence from anyone have a reasonable suspicion of being in the country illegally. This has since sparked the latest protests from immigrants and their supporters, claiming civil rights abuse and the legalization of racial profiling. It is reminiscent of the "Day Without an Immigrant" movement several years ago, where illegal immigrants tried to band together and not work for a day to show the country their value to the economy of America. The problem with that movement was that in turn it caused more outrage from legal Americans and has since made people in this country more focused on fixing the immigration problems we are facing. So in other words, it backfired. The outcries against this Arizona law are just as misguided, and I believe will further demonstrate the people of this country's desire to expand such laws nationwide.
What no one in the mass media seems to be bringing up or emphasizing in this whole debate is the fact that we are talking about people who are in this country ILLEGALLY. By definition these are people who should not be in the country, and therefor they do not have the same rights as American citizens do. The President can try to change the wording of what he calls these people, but it doesn't change the fact that they came here without proper permission or background checks, and the majority are living under the radar and not paying into our tax system.
My other issue with this is also tied into the whole "Immigration Reform" debate that has been talked about for the last several years, where certain groups want to give amnesty to those here illegally. Most people, including the media and special interest groups assume when talking about illegal immigrants we are automatically talking about Hispanic people. But that simply is not the case as a whole. An illegal immigrant can be from Mexico as well as Russia, Pakistan, China, or anywhere else in the world. The majority of the men that hijacked the planes on September 11th were here illegally from countries in the Middle East. So think about it, any amnesty that is given to illegals not only allows Hispanics (which we assume are hard working, harmless people) but also any possible terrorists that may be here also. Do we really want to have an open door policy for anyone who wants to come into this country? We can not pick and choose who are the good immigrants and who are the bad ones, it's all or nothing. That is the basic reason why we have a process to enter the country and to become a citizen. I understand the desire for those who are struggling in other countries to come to America to make a new start, but how fair is it to those who go through the proper channels when there are so many that bypass the law and then cry for rights?
As far as the Arizona law, the one thing that I keep going back to is how outraged people are that the police now have the right to demand proof of residence. To me, the only ones who would feel threatened by this would be those who have something to hide and are actually here illegally. If you have nothing to hide, why would you care? So that is like saying "I am a criminal, but you can not ask me if I am a criminal". How much sense does that make? And so if you are here legally and are asked to show proof, you should have no problem showing proof. My wife is of Hispanic descent but was born here, so if we were driving through Arizona and pulled over and she was asked for proof of residence, she has her driver's licence and Social Security card. No harm, no foul. So I do not understand how we somehow have gotten to the point in this country where we have laws yet are guilted into not enforcing them, as to not hurt anyone's feelings. I am in no way against anyone from any country coming to America to start a new and better life. But there is a process and if you don't follow it you might possibly be caught and sent back to the country where you belong. I do not find that nasty or cruel, it is only following the law. So please, think about the term Illegal Immigrant and then tell me what Arizona has done that is so wrong...
What no one in the mass media seems to be bringing up or emphasizing in this whole debate is the fact that we are talking about people who are in this country ILLEGALLY. By definition these are people who should not be in the country, and therefor they do not have the same rights as American citizens do. The President can try to change the wording of what he calls these people, but it doesn't change the fact that they came here without proper permission or background checks, and the majority are living under the radar and not paying into our tax system.
My other issue with this is also tied into the whole "Immigration Reform" debate that has been talked about for the last several years, where certain groups want to give amnesty to those here illegally. Most people, including the media and special interest groups assume when talking about illegal immigrants we are automatically talking about Hispanic people. But that simply is not the case as a whole. An illegal immigrant can be from Mexico as well as Russia, Pakistan, China, or anywhere else in the world. The majority of the men that hijacked the planes on September 11th were here illegally from countries in the Middle East. So think about it, any amnesty that is given to illegals not only allows Hispanics (which we assume are hard working, harmless people) but also any possible terrorists that may be here also. Do we really want to have an open door policy for anyone who wants to come into this country? We can not pick and choose who are the good immigrants and who are the bad ones, it's all or nothing. That is the basic reason why we have a process to enter the country and to become a citizen. I understand the desire for those who are struggling in other countries to come to America to make a new start, but how fair is it to those who go through the proper channels when there are so many that bypass the law and then cry for rights?
As far as the Arizona law, the one thing that I keep going back to is how outraged people are that the police now have the right to demand proof of residence. To me, the only ones who would feel threatened by this would be those who have something to hide and are actually here illegally. If you have nothing to hide, why would you care? So that is like saying "I am a criminal, but you can not ask me if I am a criminal". How much sense does that make? And so if you are here legally and are asked to show proof, you should have no problem showing proof. My wife is of Hispanic descent but was born here, so if we were driving through Arizona and pulled over and she was asked for proof of residence, she has her driver's licence and Social Security card. No harm, no foul. So I do not understand how we somehow have gotten to the point in this country where we have laws yet are guilted into not enforcing them, as to not hurt anyone's feelings. I am in no way against anyone from any country coming to America to start a new and better life. But there is a process and if you don't follow it you might possibly be caught and sent back to the country where you belong. I do not find that nasty or cruel, it is only following the law. So please, think about the term Illegal Immigrant and then tell me what Arizona has done that is so wrong...
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
No Crime, Yet Still Punishable?
I have become very disturbed by what I have been hearing and reading and spoken about over the last several weeks concerning Ben Roethlisberger and possible action being taken against him by the National Football League. Now my outrage might not be at what most would think. those who know me know that I have always been very critical of professional athletes and celebrities who get themselves in trouble with the law. to me, with all the money these people make and the resources at their fingertips there is no excuse for a DUI and no reason to be hanging out with thugs and carrying guns. Why then, am I so upset by what has been going on with this case you ask? Because this situation is far different than that of Michael Vick or Donte Stallworth or Mel Gibson. In those cases you had rich professionals who were arrested for and convicted of crimes. All of those situations were a case of someone doing something they shouldn't have and being caught. The Roethlisberger situation is different, way different, yet the media and even sports apologists are chastising an athlete for something that he was accused of yet never charged with. For some reason which I can not fathom, this person has been found guilty in the court of public opinion, when in so many other cases the opposite is true.
Roethlisberger was out bar hopping with some friends in Georgia last month when he is alleged to have sexually assaulted a 20 year old college student in the bathroom of a bar. He was never arrested, and after weeks of investigating the local District Attorney declined to file any charges. It also came out that the alleged victim asked the DA not to file charges because she did not want to go through a long trial. But since this decision numerous details have come out about the night in question and what Ben was accused of. Problem is, these details are only one person's story (a drunk person at that), and even the statements given to police by the accuser seem vague and open to interpretation. She claims she was ushered to a back hallway by one of Ben's bodyguards, then when Ben made advances towards her she said it wasn't a good idea, to which he said it was okay. She also then makes the statement that "he had sex with me", not "he then raped me". She then went on to say that when he was done he left the room and didn't say anything. Now all of these things, I agree, sound like the actions of a creep, of a guy who does not know how to treat a woman and is only out for his own gratification. But at the same time, in of itself is that a crime? Is it a crime to be a single guy who goes to bars and has drunk sex with random women? No, it isn't. As much as I agree this isn't what you would want your son to do, their has been nothing proven to say that Roethlisberger did anything wrong or especially illegal. he may not win Man of the Year awards or be well liked by women's advocacy groups, but it also does not, or should not effect his job status. Yet the NFL commissioner has had harsh words for Ben, and it is expected that he will levy a fine and/or suspension against him soon. I just don't get it.
Michael Vick was arrested for, lied about, and eventually plead guilty to running a dog fighting ring and participating in the execution of dogs. Donte Stallworth was arrested for and plead guilty of driving drunk and hitting and killing a man. Plaxico Burress was arrested for and plead guilty to carrying a loaded weapon in a New York City nightclub and shooting himself in the leg with it. Matt Jones was arrested for Cocaine possession. These are all situations that are different than the Roethlisberger case because of one thing: he was never arrested or charged with anything. The one thing I have always been amazed by is how an elite athlete making millions of dollars can go out drinking and then drive his own car. All that money and you would think they would pay someone to drive for them, just to avoid any possible situations. Yet here is a guy who is not out driving himself, drinking with friends and yes, had sex in a bar bathroom with someone he just met. while it may not be what most people consider appropriate behavior, it is by far not illegal.
Twenty or thirty years ago if an athlete was out in a bar womanizing it wouldn't even be reported, because they weren't considered "celebrities". Yet with the salaries that the modern athlete makes now most are now tied in with the celebrity crowd and are followed and reported on daily. Mickey Mantle was a big time drinker and womanizer, so much that it shortened an already amazing career. Babe Ruth caroused just about every night yet was a national hero and considered a role model. Even Michael Jordan had a gambling problem and cheated on his wife very publicly, yet is considered a national treasure and icon. There was also the case of Kobe Bryant several years ago, where he was accused of raping a female worker at a resort he was staying at. And although charges were eventually dropped in that case, the entire time the proceedings were going on Bryant was practicing and playing with his basketball team night in and night out. so my point in all of this is why is Roethlisberger being treated so differently? Yes, you can bring up the fact that he was accused of rape last year, yet those accusations came a year after the alleged assault and the DA there also refused to file charges. To most who followed it, it appeared to be a woman that wanted more who decided to get paid off by a rich athlete.
So what is it that makes this case so different? Is it because he is a big star and the face of a historic franchise? Is it because the media and public are so tired of all the public debauchery that they want to make an example of someone? I honestly am still searching for the answer. As far as I have always been taught, people in this country are innocent until proven guilty. So if the authorities did not find substantial evidence to charge this person with any crime it seems to me there should be no further action in the private sector. The main difference between the examples I laid out prior and this one is that in those cases there was no doubt a crime had been committed, it was simply a matter of judging whether or not those people were responsible for it. In the Roethlisberger case there is still a question whether or not anything criminal even happened. It is a matter of her word versus his, and it is up to authorities to determine that. So how can others decide that he is guilty when those trained to make those types of decisions say there was no crime? I am all for those we watch on Sundays staying off the police blotter, but if we take every claim of sexual assault and immediately assume the person is guilty, what is to keep anyone from making up accusations just to get money out of it? I agree that what happened that night in it's simplest form was not what you would expect out of an elite athlete, but then again who are we to say what they should do? Why just because they make millions of dollars should they not go out and have fun and even make bad decisions, so long as they stay within the law?
With media coverage growing by the day, and every step celebrities and athletes take being recorded, it is for sure that many more cases of bad behavior and criminal activity will be reported on. On many cases an example needs to be made of those who think they are above the laws and rules because of their profession. But we set a very scary precedent by assuming guilt just because someone might not be a squeaky clean person. We need to let law enforcement do their jobs. But when we take sides in a he said-she said, we head down a slippery slope...
Roethlisberger was out bar hopping with some friends in Georgia last month when he is alleged to have sexually assaulted a 20 year old college student in the bathroom of a bar. He was never arrested, and after weeks of investigating the local District Attorney declined to file any charges. It also came out that the alleged victim asked the DA not to file charges because she did not want to go through a long trial. But since this decision numerous details have come out about the night in question and what Ben was accused of. Problem is, these details are only one person's story (a drunk person at that), and even the statements given to police by the accuser seem vague and open to interpretation. She claims she was ushered to a back hallway by one of Ben's bodyguards, then when Ben made advances towards her she said it wasn't a good idea, to which he said it was okay. She also then makes the statement that "he had sex with me", not "he then raped me". She then went on to say that when he was done he left the room and didn't say anything. Now all of these things, I agree, sound like the actions of a creep, of a guy who does not know how to treat a woman and is only out for his own gratification. But at the same time, in of itself is that a crime? Is it a crime to be a single guy who goes to bars and has drunk sex with random women? No, it isn't. As much as I agree this isn't what you would want your son to do, their has been nothing proven to say that Roethlisberger did anything wrong or especially illegal. he may not win Man of the Year awards or be well liked by women's advocacy groups, but it also does not, or should not effect his job status. Yet the NFL commissioner has had harsh words for Ben, and it is expected that he will levy a fine and/or suspension against him soon. I just don't get it.
Michael Vick was arrested for, lied about, and eventually plead guilty to running a dog fighting ring and participating in the execution of dogs. Donte Stallworth was arrested for and plead guilty of driving drunk and hitting and killing a man. Plaxico Burress was arrested for and plead guilty to carrying a loaded weapon in a New York City nightclub and shooting himself in the leg with it. Matt Jones was arrested for Cocaine possession. These are all situations that are different than the Roethlisberger case because of one thing: he was never arrested or charged with anything. The one thing I have always been amazed by is how an elite athlete making millions of dollars can go out drinking and then drive his own car. All that money and you would think they would pay someone to drive for them, just to avoid any possible situations. Yet here is a guy who is not out driving himself, drinking with friends and yes, had sex in a bar bathroom with someone he just met. while it may not be what most people consider appropriate behavior, it is by far not illegal.
Twenty or thirty years ago if an athlete was out in a bar womanizing it wouldn't even be reported, because they weren't considered "celebrities". Yet with the salaries that the modern athlete makes now most are now tied in with the celebrity crowd and are followed and reported on daily. Mickey Mantle was a big time drinker and womanizer, so much that it shortened an already amazing career. Babe Ruth caroused just about every night yet was a national hero and considered a role model. Even Michael Jordan had a gambling problem and cheated on his wife very publicly, yet is considered a national treasure and icon. There was also the case of Kobe Bryant several years ago, where he was accused of raping a female worker at a resort he was staying at. And although charges were eventually dropped in that case, the entire time the proceedings were going on Bryant was practicing and playing with his basketball team night in and night out. so my point in all of this is why is Roethlisberger being treated so differently? Yes, you can bring up the fact that he was accused of rape last year, yet those accusations came a year after the alleged assault and the DA there also refused to file charges. To most who followed it, it appeared to be a woman that wanted more who decided to get paid off by a rich athlete.
So what is it that makes this case so different? Is it because he is a big star and the face of a historic franchise? Is it because the media and public are so tired of all the public debauchery that they want to make an example of someone? I honestly am still searching for the answer. As far as I have always been taught, people in this country are innocent until proven guilty. So if the authorities did not find substantial evidence to charge this person with any crime it seems to me there should be no further action in the private sector. The main difference between the examples I laid out prior and this one is that in those cases there was no doubt a crime had been committed, it was simply a matter of judging whether or not those people were responsible for it. In the Roethlisberger case there is still a question whether or not anything criminal even happened. It is a matter of her word versus his, and it is up to authorities to determine that. So how can others decide that he is guilty when those trained to make those types of decisions say there was no crime? I am all for those we watch on Sundays staying off the police blotter, but if we take every claim of sexual assault and immediately assume the person is guilty, what is to keep anyone from making up accusations just to get money out of it? I agree that what happened that night in it's simplest form was not what you would expect out of an elite athlete, but then again who are we to say what they should do? Why just because they make millions of dollars should they not go out and have fun and even make bad decisions, so long as they stay within the law?
With media coverage growing by the day, and every step celebrities and athletes take being recorded, it is for sure that many more cases of bad behavior and criminal activity will be reported on. On many cases an example needs to be made of those who think they are above the laws and rules because of their profession. But we set a very scary precedent by assuming guilt just because someone might not be a squeaky clean person. We need to let law enforcement do their jobs. But when we take sides in a he said-she said, we head down a slippery slope...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)