I'm bringing back ghosts that are no longer there

Yes, I know, you hate children. You'd never do anything so stupid as have your own. And I respect that. Sometimes I wonder why I have one, and why I'm having another. But let me tell you something. I don't bring my 3-year-old to your fancy restaurants, your house, your posh gym.

And the cliche is true. SOMEONE has to have kids for the species to maintain itself. I agree that it would be nice if people would stop propagating beyond replenishing themselves, but hey. The point is, it's great if you don't want to be the one to continue the human race. Me doing it actually relieves you of some of that pressure.

So, if my kid, my 3-year-old, is in a grocery store, or the children's section of a library, or a post office, and being a bit wild (and I'm talking running around, not tearing things off shelves), GET OVER YOURSELF, HE"S THREE. I'm doing my best to wrangle him, but I have to mail my stuff. I do my best to enforce appropriate behavior in public (and private) but sometimes kids (and moms) have bad days. My husband works, and I can't afford a nanny (why would I want one?) just so I can run my errands. I'm going to be in the post office, and so is my toddler. If you don't like him running wild, why don't you offer to help instead of standing there glaring at me?

WHAT THE HELL DO YOU WANT ME TO DO??? I'm doing the best I can here, ok? Back off and don't you DARE give me dirty looks and go running to your other childfree friends bitching about the breeder and her spawn. Just don't.

~Me

This post has been brought to you by this post, and my bad day.

You know... I'm all for having a nice-sized house (even just a giant kitchen) and maybe even a pool. But people who own houses like this just make me sick.

Why should one person/family get to live in such splendor whilst there are hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people living on the street, due to no fault of their own, oftentimes. Ronald Regan severely cut funding for mental institutions in his day. Where do you think the former residents of those closed down institutions are now? Mental disease has a stigma attached, and that includes at the level where care is paid for. Insurance rarely has good coverage for mental illness.

Some other people are hit by a bad economy. Look at Michigan. Many Detroit workers have been tossed out of jobs of 20, 30, 40+ years because the auto industry is crumbling. Their families are on the streets.

Nevermind people in third-world countries who would give everything for clean drinking water or a roof over their heads, no matter how shabby.

And then you have this obscene show of wealth. Let's not help out the impoverished; let them rot on the streets! mwahaha! Let's throw our money into a home and grounds that we can never hope to fully take advantage of in our lifetime!!

I know this isn't as eloquent as some of my rants, but I am just viscerally angered and outraged at this. Yes, I know, I'm a bleeding-heart socialist. But christ, people. Think of your karma.

Hi,

I just learned about a really important issue, and signed a petition about it. The federal government is on the verge of turning over a huge portion of our public airwaves to companies like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast--who will use them for private enrichment instead of the public good.

These newly available airwaves are a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to revolutionize Internet access -- beaming high-speed signals to every park bench, coffee shop, workplace, and home in America. Phone and cable companies don't want this competition to their Internet service--they'd rather purchase the airwaves at auction and sit on them.

You can sign the petition I signed here - urging the government to make sure the public airwaves are used for the public good:

http://civic.moveon.org/airwaves/?…

Thanks!

As a mother (and, for another week, a mother who works outside the home) I always pay special attention to the "Mommy Wars" topics that come into my e-mail. Sometimes they come in via NOW (the National Organization for Women), and sometimes through the New York Times. But never do they seem to do justice to the complex stage of life that is Being A Mother.

While I agree with both sources that women who wish to work while raising a family deserve more options to make that a viable option (affordable quality childcare, flex scheduling, telecommuting, decent wages and health benefits, etc.), I disagree with both sources that women should, nay MUST work in order to maintain the strides of the feminist revolution. They seem to focus on society's need for women in the workforce and neglect to recognize children's need for their mother (or father), for a parent in the home. More importantly, they neglect what the woman actually wants for *gasp* herself.

You see, I was under the impression the feminist revolution was about not forcing a woman's hand. Granted, the trend used to be for women to be nearly forced to stay home. They weren't accepted in the work force and were expected to be "barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen," as they saying NOW loathes so much goes. But I kind of like the phrase. To me, that conjures up an image of comfort and stability. I enjoy cooking and baking, I love the feeling of pregnancy (at least until the pains and heartburn of the third trimester kick in), and I HATE wearing socks. Do I think all women should be forced to follow my lead and live their lives as I see fit to live mine? Absolutely not.

On the other hand, there are lots of career women out there. Nothing makes them happier than getting up at 5 a.m. to go for a run, shower, and dress in a crisp business suit. They'd happily spend their days on the fast track to an excellent career with great pay. In fact, some women would be happy to work even if the pay was less than ideal. Because, let's face it, 24/7 with a toddler can be maddening.

But for some reason, NOW and the New York Times won't extend the same courtesy to moms who want to stay home. They're fighting for better pay and benefits, flex schedules and options for the working mom, even to the point of saying a stay at home mom is doing a disservice to society. But they're not fighting for those things that make staying home an option to moms who want to. How many moms are forced to work (often menial, thankless jobs) because they don't have the option of staying home, because their family is critically dependent on that extra bit of income (what's left after the high cost of day care and gasoline) to pay those last few bills?

What we should be lobbying for is, yes, more options. But more options all around. Universal healthcare so a woman who doesn't work can take care of her health, even if her husband's job doesn't provide it. Stipend payments to the stay-at-home moms who are doing the most important job this country has - raising future generations. More part-time options, more flex-scheduling, and more telecommuting.

Personally, I would love to work if I could telecommute (most of my job would be easy to do from home). But my employer won't have it, so I'm returning home, despite the slight dip in income we'll suffer. Because, for ME, spending time with my son is more important than having or giving him the finer things in life. And for ME, I have no fast-track career I'm losing out on. For ME, I'll only be in my early 40s when I'm no longer mothering a child. But that's me.

No man OR woman should be telling mothers they MUST stay home or they MUST go to work. We should be fighting for options, because that's the only true freedom.

When I was pregnant (and indeed, for probably the first 8 months of my son's life, despite evidence to the contrary), I suffered from 'childless' syndrome. If you're a parent, you've no doubt encountered this syndrome as childless friends, family, and complete strangers peppered you with wisdom and advice as to how to raise your children. I like to think I did not suffer to that extreme in pregnancy, but I was just certain I would be the perfect parent. I would never lose patience, I would eat and feed my child healthy food (NEVER sweets!), and I would keep him entertained with healthy activities such as reading, building with blocks, and the study of Newtonian physics. Never, NEVER would I deign to poison my child with the likes of TELEVISION. At least not until he was old enough to learn about it from his friends.

Now that my son is two, I've had a year and a half to discover the experience that is not showering for four days and finding the time to do so only by using 15 minutes of "Dora the Explorer." My toddler is addicted to the movie "Cars," and rather enjoys "Happy Feet." He usually watches some combination of the two (and his "All About Trains" mini-kidocumentary) at least 3-4 times per week. That said, I do try to limit his screen time and I've always been rather offended by built-in DVD players in minivans. Corny as it may seem, I prefer to tell stories, sing songs, and let my son observe the nuances of his dad and I ranting about religion and politics.

Despite my distaste for that particular parenting tool, I've always managed to do little but roll my eyes when commercials appeared touting the device as one of many special features in a family vehicle. Chrysler's latest Town & Country commercial, however, is rather infuriating and - dare I say it? - even a bit offensive.

Though Youtube has failed me this time in providing the commercial for your own viewing pleasure, allow me to recap:

INT. HIGH SCHOOL CAFETERIA
Mayhem. Students are shrieking, hollering, and causing a general ruckus. Paper airplanes litter the air and an apple flies past the camera screen.

CUT TO - A MIDDLE AGED MAN, POSSIBLY A TEACHER OR PRINCIPAL, IN THE BACK OF THE ROOM
HE reaches up and flips a mini dvd sreen down from the ceiling.

CUT TO - THE STUDENTS IN THE CAFETERIA
as they fall silent and stare, slack-jawed at the screen.

NARRATOR
(some bull about how important it is to always have a dvd player at hand to keep children in check)

CUT TO - INT. MINIVAN
you can see a family of four as we look in through the winshield. Father and mother in the front, a boy and a girl in the back, mesmerized by the built-in dvd player.NARRATOR
(the usual blah blah about the Chrysler Town & Country and how wonderful a built-in dvd player is)

A bit later, a similar commercial aired, touting the tagline, "When kids get what they want, you'll get what you want."

Now, my husband's and my families live a good 3 hours away. I will not deny that there have been trips in which I wished desperately for a portable dvd player to give us a moment's peace. But I've submitted only once that I can recall, pulling out my laptop to play "Cars" for my distressed toddler.

I am offended, however, by the idea that marketing personnel would seemingly glorify the dazed and glazed look that often comes over a child entranced with the television. I also find it rather painful that a commercial would encourage parents to effectively drug their children into calm and complacency. Truth be told, I am so disturbed by these commercials that I am finding it rather difficult to speak intelligently on the matter.

I'd like to write to Chrysler and express my displeasure. However, firstly I'm not sure I could speak with intelligent conviction to them either, and secondly I doubt it would matter to them. Because let's face it, advertisers try to make their product into what their potential consumers desire. The fact is, many mainstream parents would rather pull down a DVD player and have the instant gratification of quiet children than make the effort to interact with their kids, or provide more than a digital disk for entertainment. After all, a DVD creates far less mess than a stack of books, or crayons ground into the carpet, less noise than children's music or noisy toys, and requires far less effort than "I Spy" or "What Color Is That."

The whole situation just makes me incredibly sad.

Tuesday morning, the New York Times posted no less than five "headliner" articles related to the shootings at Virginia Tech which took the lives of 33 people Monday afternoon. My heart truly goes out to all of the families affected by this tragedy.

However, I must raise my voice in protest against the apathy of this nation when it comes to anyone but our own.



Yesterday, 171 people were killed in 5 explosions and a sniper shooting in Baghdad. I know this because there was one, one tiny headline in the New York Times this morning. According to the New York Times, most of the victims were civilians. But there is no outcry by the citizens of the United States. There are no memorial icons, no bloggers distraught by the very idea of it, and only one headline in the New York Times on "the morning after."

WHY AREN'T YOU DISTRAUGHT?

Is it because these 171 people are in a country across the ocean? Is it because the victims had the audacity to live (or be born) in a country that would be invaded by another power-hungry, deceitful government? Is it because the perpetrators, rather than untreated mental patients, were "insurgents" making an attempt to protect the country they love, to expel those treacherous invaders?

Or is it because we are a sad country of gluttonous, apathetic fools whose hearts can reach no further than our borders?

Tell me a secret! (anonymous posting on)