This person has gotten all kinds of rants, including comments like this: "My husband stays home with our baby and has been doing this for almost a year now. I just want to let the stay at home moms know something: if you see a stay at home dad hanging out in the park with his child HE IS NOT TRYING TO PICK YOU UP. Get over yourselves!"
And very sensibly points this out: "If children needed an obsessed parent's dilated pupils to be fixed on them all day in order to thrive, the human race would have died out long ago."
I used to know a guy, about 10 years ago, who called handlebar mustaches "wife beater mustaches". And it was odd because after I heard him say that, I actually saw 2 tv shows about spousal abuse, and both perpetrators, on both shows, had handlebar mustaches. (One show was Walker Texas Ranger, of course.)
But anyway, why don't we start calling cheap men's dress shirts "child molesters". And how about calling diamond engagement rings "gold diggers". And we can come up with a plethora of clothing items for various nefarious terms... Such as "arsonist", "serial killer", "drunk driver", "stalker", etc.
It really is possible to change Google ranking very quickly. Earlier today this entry of mine came up as #5 on a this Google search, but now it's not even on the first page.
Probably not in the best 'taste'... But taste is a very subjective thing.
After all, I have a friend who once did a disection on a human body - and she's totally abhorred by gummi worms!
"Or how's this: it's just completely ridiculous, unnecessary and over-reaching to ban the sale of sex toys. I mean really. Aren't conservatives supposed to be against the concept of a nanny-state?"
But is it really euthanisia?
Does that mean that if she were in a 3rd world country where the means to keep her alive after that heart attack weren't available, it would be murder by the people who lacked advanced medical facilities?
The lines are so blurry.
Though one thing's clear to me. Like it or not, when your child marries, by law, their closest relative is their spouse. Even if the spouse is abusive.
Even if I were totally abused by my spouse... I still wouldn't want to live on, confined to a hospital bed and a feeding tube. It would not be worth it to me to sacrifice my dignity and live on with no real quality of life, just to punish an abusive spouse. So I'm not sure I understand those arguments.
If there's reason to suspect the husband is guilty of murder, as has been bandied about... then that should be investigated, by all means. But I see it as a seperate issue in regards to her medical condition.
That said, the cock-eyed optimist in me would hope that this woman would somehow miraculously recover and go on to live a rewarding life. Sadly, I know that's probably impossible.
Frivolous Claims Law and Legal Definition
('frivolous' is a specific legal term, which is not synonymous with the word "silly" nor what someone might think is 'not worth fighting about in court')
...
"A frivolous claim in legal terms refers to a lawsuit or motion in a lawsuit motivated by an intent merely to harass, delay or embarrass the opposition. In order to be found frivolous, the claim must have no arguable basis in law or fact."
(why didn't 1 of the 3 people who reported the kid stay with the kid?)
Police aren't sure whether to resume a search after reports of a missing child.
More than 100 volunteers searched an area off Route 309 in Hazle Township overnight. Three people told police they saw a child, 2 or 3 years old, crossing the street and going into the woods. The child was wearing only a white shirt, a diaper, and no shoes. Nothing was found. No one has filed a missing report.
What I don't understand is why not even one of those 3 people who reported the kid, didn't stop, talk to the kid, stay with the kid, or take the kid to the nearest authority or place of business to report the kid, if they didn't have a cell phone or something.
They just drove along, saw the kid, reported the kid, and then left the kid to play in traffic or wander into the woods?
(just goes to show how well & accurately news articles report details of law suits - NOT)
The previous article had stated, "A Durango judge Thursday awarded Young almost $900 to recoup her medical bills."
and "He didn't award any punitive damages."
But the truth comes out... or does it? What is the deal?
The judge awarded only $1 for damages, even though he could have given the plaintiff lost wages and the cost of new motion- sensor lights for her porch and more. She had itemized about $3,000 in all.
But political conservatives who read the story were convinced the judge must be a liberal activist intent on being politically correct. On the other hand, liberals said the judge and neighbor must be conservatives, who tend to see "terrorists behind every bush and on every porch," even in a quiet rural neighborhood just south of Durango.
Maybe if conservatives and liberals got accurate information about law suits, they could make reasonable speculations about the parties involved, eh?
Maybe if people realized that in some states they could've been legally shot dead for delivering surprise cookies that late at night, a law suit wouldn't seem so severe.
And maybe if health insurance was a bit better, that woman's insurance would've covered her hospital bills, and wouldn't have had as much reason to go to court over a prankish scare.
And so now the prankster girls are swimming in cash sent to them, and the old lady has to live in fear, without adequate security, because death threats sent to her.
superficiality >>If the facade is what's important to you, all you wind up with is an illusion. Disillusionment is the gift of substance.
-- Chloe<<
(more)
