I found this story on KTLA News
This happened in Florida, where a woman claims she was at a "family party drinking tequila," Friday night. Joanne Martinez is 24-years-old and has two children, ages 6 and 4. She was leaving the party in her SUV with her two kids, 6 and 4 yr olds, and also her 7-year-old nephew. According to reports, "Martinez began to feel tired, pulled over to the side of the road and fell asleep." The report also said, "A man living in the area called police when he noticed the Ford Expedition running, with a little boy playing around the vehicle. Police found her unconscious and she smelled like alcohol. The children were found in the back seat crying, and the police called Martinez's mother to come pick up the children, and they took Martinez to jail. She remains there facing felony child neglect charges with a $15,000 bond.
My first reaction was...not again. This stuff happens all the time. People don't know how to make better decisions with their kids around.
First of all, why did this woman get into her vehicle and "try" to drive home with her children and nephew in the back seat of her SUV? Second of all, what does her nephew's mother think now, after letting her child go with his drunken aunt in her car? Sounds to me like the entire family is irresponsible. If you go to a family get together, and you know there's alcohol there, either get a baby sitter or don't drink. She could also have found what I call a DD, Designated Driver. I know this woman if she were to get in a car accident and kill one of her kids, would have woke up the next day and felt the worst pain she would have ever felt. Knowing she killed one of her own children, or even nephew. I hate seeing things like this, and unfortunately, I'm not surprised. Stuff like this happens all the time. People are so stupid sometimes. We all make mistakes as a parent, maybe be a little too hard on our kids, or whatever. But I don't think this would be considered a "mistake as a parent," but a selfish decision that could have cost your kids their lives. You would figure that someone at their "family party" would have noticed her drinking to much tequila, getting drunk, and walking out the door with her keys in her hand, and her kids by her side. Now because of this woman just wanting to get drunk and have a good time, her kids have to pay for it. Yeah, she'll pay for it by losing her kids, or going to jail, or both. But her kids will pay for it more than she ever will. They have to live the rest of their lives without their mother. I hope she sobered up and realized what an idiot she was.
My opinion always stays the same. There are thousands + people out there who can't have children who would love to, and there are thousand+ idiots out there who have kids who don't want nor deserve them. If you can't take responsibility for your children and make good decisions, DON'T HAVE KIDS, or put them up for adoption. It would be better than forcing them to live through the mistakes you'll make as a parent.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Many tots watch 32 hours of TV a week
I found this story on MSNBC News
In New York, this report refers to the television being called the "electronic baby sitter." The Nielsen Co says, "Children ages 2 to 5 watch more than 32 hours of television each week. Kids 6 to 11 spend a little less time in front of the TV screen---more than 28 hours." The main reason this older group of kids have a lower hour rate is because those kids are in school, and have less time to watch television. According to this study, this has been the highest number of hours for children aged 2-11 since the year 1995. Nielsen also says, "Children ages 6 to 11 play video games on a television for nearly 2 1/2 hours a week on average."
My first reaction to this story was that I have a 3 year old and a 7 year old. And the hours on this report seemed kind of high for my kids.
However, both my children have their own television in their rooms, with a cable box so they can watch cartoons. And my oldest, the 7 year old-Elijah, has a play station in his room as well. I think kids spend a lot of time watching TV; however I would allow my 7 year old to watch as much TV as possible because he loves the Discovery Channel. He always comes out of his room and tells us something interesting he learned on a show he's watching. Elijah is very smart, even his teacher told us the other day at his parent teacher conference that he is well advanced past the other students. He tries to learn everything he can, and he is so smart. I know kids sit around and watch TV, and I completely agree with it being "a built in babysitter," but if your child can find something good to watch and it will help him/her more than hurt them, then I don't see a problem with it. On the other hand, all of my children get plenty of time outside as well. Elijah plays football, which is over now for this year, and he'll play baseball coming in a few months. They all love to be outside doing things. I know some kids just sit and watch cartoons, and they really don't advance in learning anything, and sometimes it's just because their parents are to lazy too spend the time to teach them things. My son, Elijah, and I have math books we do together, and he loves to read, so we do that as well. Even if he is watching a lot of television, he is also getting a lot of learning time in between.
I think if parents allow their children to watch TV, great, especially if they are watching educational programs. But parents need to make sure they are spending time with their children without involving the television. Letting kids get fresh air playing outside, this to can also prevent your child from being overweight. I know there are so many parents out there who are worried about their child being overweight, but look at the statistics. This is probably why most American kids are getting overweight, is because they spend too much time sitting on their rear ends doing nothing. Parents need to set an example for their kids. The earlier your child learns about getting exercise, and staying healthy, the better it will influence them. This will keep your child from setting around getting obese like half of Americans are.
In New York, this report refers to the television being called the "electronic baby sitter." The Nielsen Co says, "Children ages 2 to 5 watch more than 32 hours of television each week. Kids 6 to 11 spend a little less time in front of the TV screen---more than 28 hours." The main reason this older group of kids have a lower hour rate is because those kids are in school, and have less time to watch television. According to this study, this has been the highest number of hours for children aged 2-11 since the year 1995. Nielsen also says, "Children ages 6 to 11 play video games on a television for nearly 2 1/2 hours a week on average."
My first reaction to this story was that I have a 3 year old and a 7 year old. And the hours on this report seemed kind of high for my kids.
However, both my children have their own television in their rooms, with a cable box so they can watch cartoons. And my oldest, the 7 year old-Elijah, has a play station in his room as well. I think kids spend a lot of time watching TV; however I would allow my 7 year old to watch as much TV as possible because he loves the Discovery Channel. He always comes out of his room and tells us something interesting he learned on a show he's watching. Elijah is very smart, even his teacher told us the other day at his parent teacher conference that he is well advanced past the other students. He tries to learn everything he can, and he is so smart. I know kids sit around and watch TV, and I completely agree with it being "a built in babysitter," but if your child can find something good to watch and it will help him/her more than hurt them, then I don't see a problem with it. On the other hand, all of my children get plenty of time outside as well. Elijah plays football, which is over now for this year, and he'll play baseball coming in a few months. They all love to be outside doing things. I know some kids just sit and watch cartoons, and they really don't advance in learning anything, and sometimes it's just because their parents are to lazy too spend the time to teach them things. My son, Elijah, and I have math books we do together, and he loves to read, so we do that as well. Even if he is watching a lot of television, he is also getting a lot of learning time in between.
I think if parents allow their children to watch TV, great, especially if they are watching educational programs. But parents need to make sure they are spending time with their children without involving the television. Letting kids get fresh air playing outside, this to can also prevent your child from being overweight. I know there are so many parents out there who are worried about their child being overweight, but look at the statistics. This is probably why most American kids are getting overweight, is because they spend too much time sitting on their rear ends doing nothing. Parents need to set an example for their kids. The earlier your child learns about getting exercise, and staying healthy, the better it will influence them. This will keep your child from setting around getting obese like half of Americans are.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Night Club Settles After Wash U. Students Accused It Of Racism
I found this story on fox2news.com.
This story happened in St. Louis, MO, with 6 African Americans, and a night club called Mother's. There were 6 African Americans, who attend Washington University, who went to a night club and weren't allowed in because their pants were too baggy. Ten days after the night club was accused of racism, the club made a settlement with the 6 men. The article said, "The Original Mother's bar has agreed to make public and private apologies, participate in training programs for management and participate in an anti-discrimination rally to be held in Chicago next month." The night club/bar will also help these students with four fundraisers for charities which are not yet determined. Regis Murayi, the class treasurer, helped organize their night out. The article says Murayi traded jeans with a white kid and still was not allowed into the bar, even though the white kids pants were tighter than his baggy jeans he had on. The college seniors say they didn't have any intentions to gain anything financial, but they only want to "raise awareness that racial issues are still prevalent in the community." The students say, "since they've secured legal councel, if any of their demands are not met, they will review their options and then consider a lawsuit."
My first reaction to this story, was, guys do wear their jeans really low. And a lot of people do not want to see it.
As far as Murayi changing into a white kids jeans and still not getting into the club, well then I would have to say the club is probably being racist. I'm just really surpised to see that the 6 students didn't want more than 4 fundraisers for charities. Just by that action itself, I'd say these kids probably really were being picked on because they were African American. Because if this were a plan they had, just to get money, then that's what they would have done. I think this night club or bar, whatever it is, should be evaluated, and made sure that they do something to make this up. There is no reason for these college students to have trouble getting into this club, unless they have previously caused problems there. Maybe the guy at the door of this club had something against the guys, or maybe it’s not the club itself, but maybe it's the guy at the door who is racist. There are lots of people out there how are racist and they need to get over it. I’m not racist, I’ve had friends who were black, and I hate to see others being racist.
I wish people would just get over the racist situations. There are no more slaves anywhere, so there's no reason for this night club to not allow blacks into their club. If this club is going to be racist, then it should probably be shut down, because I'm sure there are just as many African American customers as there are White customers. I wish everyone could just get along.
This story happened in St. Louis, MO, with 6 African Americans, and a night club called Mother's. There were 6 African Americans, who attend Washington University, who went to a night club and weren't allowed in because their pants were too baggy. Ten days after the night club was accused of racism, the club made a settlement with the 6 men. The article said, "The Original Mother's bar has agreed to make public and private apologies, participate in training programs for management and participate in an anti-discrimination rally to be held in Chicago next month." The night club/bar will also help these students with four fundraisers for charities which are not yet determined. Regis Murayi, the class treasurer, helped organize their night out. The article says Murayi traded jeans with a white kid and still was not allowed into the bar, even though the white kids pants were tighter than his baggy jeans he had on. The college seniors say they didn't have any intentions to gain anything financial, but they only want to "raise awareness that racial issues are still prevalent in the community." The students say, "since they've secured legal councel, if any of their demands are not met, they will review their options and then consider a lawsuit."
My first reaction to this story, was, guys do wear their jeans really low. And a lot of people do not want to see it.
As far as Murayi changing into a white kids jeans and still not getting into the club, well then I would have to say the club is probably being racist. I'm just really surpised to see that the 6 students didn't want more than 4 fundraisers for charities. Just by that action itself, I'd say these kids probably really were being picked on because they were African American. Because if this were a plan they had, just to get money, then that's what they would have done. I think this night club or bar, whatever it is, should be evaluated, and made sure that they do something to make this up. There is no reason for these college students to have trouble getting into this club, unless they have previously caused problems there. Maybe the guy at the door of this club had something against the guys, or maybe it’s not the club itself, but maybe it's the guy at the door who is racist. There are lots of people out there how are racist and they need to get over it. I’m not racist, I’ve had friends who were black, and I hate to see others being racist.
I wish people would just get over the racist situations. There are no more slaves anywhere, so there's no reason for this night club to not allow blacks into their club. If this club is going to be racist, then it should probably be shut down, because I'm sure there are just as many African American customers as there are White customers. I wish everyone could just get along.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Men can get (and beat) breast cancer
I found this story
Men to can get breast cancer. Peter Criss, the guy painted like a cat, from the KISS band, had breast cancer. During Breast Cancer Awareness Month his treatment was successful and he is now cancer free. Criss first noticed a lump in his left breast, and unlike most men who won’t go to the doctors, Criss got it checked out. The article said, “Doctors removed a cancerous tumor.” Criss is now 63 years old and remains cancer free. There are several statistics on male breast cancer, such as: men are 100 times less common in getting breast cancer than women are; and breast cancer is more likely to be in a male between the ages of 60-70 years old. Most men hate going to the doctor and even refuse going, but as Criss said, “prompt medical attention improves your odds of beating breast cancer.”
My first reaction was….What? Male breast cancer? No way.
My grandmother had breast cancer twice, and now is cancer free, and I know there is millions of other woman out there that have had or do currently have breast cancer. But this is a shock to me; I never knew men could get breast cancer. I looked on another site to find some symptoms of male breast cancer and I found that the main symptom is, “finding a firm, non-painful mass located just below the nipple. The average size of breast cancer in men when first discovered is about 2.5 cm in diameter.” Males may also get changes in their skin around their nipple(s) and/or discharge. Another site stated, "An estimated 1,910 new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed in men in the U.S. in 2009, accounting for about 1 percent of all breast cancers." It also said that there is an estimated 440 men who will die in the U.S. in the year 2009. I know how stubborn men can be with going to the doctor if they think something is wrong. My father is the most stubborn man I know, and I remember him sitting in a recliner rocking chair banging his head against the back of the chair because his appendix was about to explode and he was in a lot of pain.He refused to go to the hospital so my mom had to call an ambulance to get him to the hospital. My dad was a fire fighter, he had heart surgery and was supposed to be in bed for a couple weeks, and refused, he was home less than a week and he was out in fires again. My husband to is stubborn about going to the doctor, he wouldn’t go until I set up an appointment and made him go, just to find out he has spinal stenosis and a protruding disc.
I know men will try to be tough and not go to the doctor, but you never know, the one trip you take to the doctor could save your life.
Men to can get breast cancer. Peter Criss, the guy painted like a cat, from the KISS band, had breast cancer. During Breast Cancer Awareness Month his treatment was successful and he is now cancer free. Criss first noticed a lump in his left breast, and unlike most men who won’t go to the doctors, Criss got it checked out. The article said, “Doctors removed a cancerous tumor.” Criss is now 63 years old and remains cancer free. There are several statistics on male breast cancer, such as: men are 100 times less common in getting breast cancer than women are; and breast cancer is more likely to be in a male between the ages of 60-70 years old. Most men hate going to the doctor and even refuse going, but as Criss said, “prompt medical attention improves your odds of beating breast cancer.”
My first reaction was….What? Male breast cancer? No way.
My grandmother had breast cancer twice, and now is cancer free, and I know there is millions of other woman out there that have had or do currently have breast cancer. But this is a shock to me; I never knew men could get breast cancer. I looked on another site to find some symptoms of male breast cancer and I found that the main symptom is, “finding a firm, non-painful mass located just below the nipple. The average size of breast cancer in men when first discovered is about 2.5 cm in diameter.” Males may also get changes in their skin around their nipple(s) and/or discharge. Another site stated, "An estimated 1,910 new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed in men in the U.S. in 2009, accounting for about 1 percent of all breast cancers." It also said that there is an estimated 440 men who will die in the U.S. in the year 2009. I know how stubborn men can be with going to the doctor if they think something is wrong. My father is the most stubborn man I know, and I remember him sitting in a recliner rocking chair banging his head against the back of the chair because his appendix was about to explode and he was in a lot of pain.He refused to go to the hospital so my mom had to call an ambulance to get him to the hospital. My dad was a fire fighter, he had heart surgery and was supposed to be in bed for a couple weeks, and refused, he was home less than a week and he was out in fires again. My husband to is stubborn about going to the doctor, he wouldn’t go until I set up an appointment and made him go, just to find out he has spinal stenosis and a protruding disc.
I know men will try to be tough and not go to the doctor, but you never know, the one trip you take to the doctor could save your life.
Don't Sleep With Your Baby
I found this story on Fox 2 News.
"Allowing babies to sleep with their parents is a bad idea," says the American Academy of Pediatrics and the consumer Product Safety Commission. They say it can pose a risk of strangulation or even suffocation. Some of the risks that are involved with a baby younger than 2 years old sleeping in bed with you are; suffocation with pillows, blankets or comforters; strangulation and/or entrapment of the baby's head in any part of the bed frame itself; it increases the chance of SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome); and also increases the chance of injuries by the parents accidentally rolling over onto the child, or having the child roll of the side of the bed. All of these are hazards for babies. The report also says, "Co-sleeping often results in poor sleep for parents and children." Baby's move around a lot more during sleep, which can interrupt the parents sleeping as well. And the baby can also get used to sleeping with the parent and depend on it more often, such as nap time: Kids won't want to take a nap without a parent because of the attachment they get when sleeping together. This can also contribute to behavioral problems. The last paragraph of the report said, "If parents let their babies sleep with them, they should have a firm mattress that fits snugly into the bed. There should be no soft bedding, pillows, or stuffed animals." It also encourages parents to not drink or take any medication that could affect their alertness while having a baby sleep with them. And always place the baby on his/her back to reduce the chance of SIDS.
My first reaction to this was, how could sleeping with a baby be dangerous if you’re careful? I know that babies could suffocate, but not if you watch what’s around them and make sure your baby is safe.
As I read the article the one and only thing that stuck out that could be bad (for me and my own baby) was the attachment part. My baby is now 8 months old and he has only slept in bed with me and my husband maybe a handful of times. There are times when he just can't sleep, whether he was teething or just not feeling good, and he wanted to sleep in bed with us to be close. I completely understand that a baby could suffocate while in bed with parents because of all of the pillows and blankets that are soft and could easily cover the baby's face. I, however, am a very light sleeper: I wake up to every little tiny noise around me. If my son is sleeping in his crib next to me, and he rolls over, or even makes a cooing noise while sleeping, it wakes me up right away. I'm so used to hearing him make a noise and I lean over and give him his pacifier. This too is a very bad idea because now if I don't give him his pacifier right away, he wakes up crying.
I think this is a great article for new mothers. Sometimes people don't understand that babies, especial newborns, can't defend themselves. If a newborn baby gets a blanket or pillow over their heads they don't know how to use their arms well enough to free their face. And the increase of SIDS, I’m not too sure about. I don't think where the baby sleeps has an effect on if SIDS takes place. But I’m not the expert, so I guess whatever makes my baby safer, then I’ll do.
"Allowing babies to sleep with their parents is a bad idea," says the American Academy of Pediatrics and the consumer Product Safety Commission. They say it can pose a risk of strangulation or even suffocation. Some of the risks that are involved with a baby younger than 2 years old sleeping in bed with you are; suffocation with pillows, blankets or comforters; strangulation and/or entrapment of the baby's head in any part of the bed frame itself; it increases the chance of SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome); and also increases the chance of injuries by the parents accidentally rolling over onto the child, or having the child roll of the side of the bed. All of these are hazards for babies. The report also says, "Co-sleeping often results in poor sleep for parents and children." Baby's move around a lot more during sleep, which can interrupt the parents sleeping as well. And the baby can also get used to sleeping with the parent and depend on it more often, such as nap time: Kids won't want to take a nap without a parent because of the attachment they get when sleeping together. This can also contribute to behavioral problems. The last paragraph of the report said, "If parents let their babies sleep with them, they should have a firm mattress that fits snugly into the bed. There should be no soft bedding, pillows, or stuffed animals." It also encourages parents to not drink or take any medication that could affect their alertness while having a baby sleep with them. And always place the baby on his/her back to reduce the chance of SIDS.
My first reaction to this was, how could sleeping with a baby be dangerous if you’re careful? I know that babies could suffocate, but not if you watch what’s around them and make sure your baby is safe.
As I read the article the one and only thing that stuck out that could be bad (for me and my own baby) was the attachment part. My baby is now 8 months old and he has only slept in bed with me and my husband maybe a handful of times. There are times when he just can't sleep, whether he was teething or just not feeling good, and he wanted to sleep in bed with us to be close. I completely understand that a baby could suffocate while in bed with parents because of all of the pillows and blankets that are soft and could easily cover the baby's face. I, however, am a very light sleeper: I wake up to every little tiny noise around me. If my son is sleeping in his crib next to me, and he rolls over, or even makes a cooing noise while sleeping, it wakes me up right away. I'm so used to hearing him make a noise and I lean over and give him his pacifier. This too is a very bad idea because now if I don't give him his pacifier right away, he wakes up crying.
I think this is a great article for new mothers. Sometimes people don't understand that babies, especial newborns, can't defend themselves. If a newborn baby gets a blanket or pillow over their heads they don't know how to use their arms well enough to free their face. And the increase of SIDS, I’m not too sure about. I don't think where the baby sleeps has an effect on if SIDS takes place. But I’m not the expert, so I guess whatever makes my baby safer, then I’ll do.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Garth Brooks coming out of retirement
I found two articles, one on MSNBC News and the other on examiner.com
"Country superstar Garth Brooks announced Thursday that he's coming out of retirement with a show in Las Vegas." Brooks said at a news conference that he is ending his retirement with an extended engagement at the Wynn Resort. He has been retired since 2000, because he wanted to spend more time with his children, but once he raised them, he wanted to return to the road. The article said, "The Recording Industry Association of America honored Brooks in 2007 with a career award after he passed Elvis Presley to become the top-selling solo artist in U.S. History. At the time he had sold more than 123 million albums." Garth Brooks is 47 years old, and is currently married to Trisha Yearwood. They live together in Oklahoma. On examiner.com Brooks stated at a press conference at the Grand Ole Opry House in Nashville that, "We're going to take the retirement room off over our head, and I already feel taller." That article said as of December 11, 2009 he will start performing 3 nights a week at the Wynn Resort in Vegas. He has a private jet that will fly him back and forth for weekend shows, so he will remain at home with his wife and kids during the weekdays. His shows in Vegas will only last 15 weeks out of the year, but could last up to 5 years in length. Brooks is optimistic about coming back, saying, "I know this is a young industry, so I'm not sure I'll be welcome back but, if the fans want me, I still want to pursue my music."
My first thought was how excited I was. I LOVE Garth Brooks and I am so excited to see him come out of retirement.
I don't think anyone realizes how excited my husband and I are to hear this happening. Garth Brooks has been a big part of our lives, we love his music, and we are going to try to do everything possible to get in to see one of his shows. I have never been to Vegas, but what a time to go. I still can't believe Brooks has passed up Elvis Presley to become the top-selling solo artist in the history of the U.S. history. That is the most exciting thing I could ever think of. I couldn't imagine being his wife, or even one of his kids. And I definitely can't imagine how proud they are to say they are related to him. Garth Brooks has worked so hard in his life to earn everything he has gotten, and he deserves everything he gets. When he stated "I'm not sure I'll be welcomed back but, if the fans want me, I still want to pursue my music," well, h*ll yeah we want him back. I don't think anyone would want him to stay in retirement. Everyone who is a fan of him would want to go to more shows to see him do what he does best. You can tell he enjoys his music. Every show I've ever seen him do, he has been so happy, and shows how passionate he is about singing. You can tell he is one in a million who love their jobs, and his positive attitude rubs off on millions of people in this world. I can actually say he is one that millions look up to. I am just so excited that he is coming back.
Now the next step is going to see him in Vegas. Maybe we'll get lucky and Garth and Trisha Yearwood will write some songs together. You never know, maybe we'll see her sing some of his songs with him onstage at the Wynn Resort in Las Vegas. :) YAY!!!
"Country superstar Garth Brooks announced Thursday that he's coming out of retirement with a show in Las Vegas." Brooks said at a news conference that he is ending his retirement with an extended engagement at the Wynn Resort. He has been retired since 2000, because he wanted to spend more time with his children, but once he raised them, he wanted to return to the road. The article said, "The Recording Industry Association of America honored Brooks in 2007 with a career award after he passed Elvis Presley to become the top-selling solo artist in U.S. History. At the time he had sold more than 123 million albums." Garth Brooks is 47 years old, and is currently married to Trisha Yearwood. They live together in Oklahoma. On examiner.com Brooks stated at a press conference at the Grand Ole Opry House in Nashville that, "We're going to take the retirement room off over our head, and I already feel taller." That article said as of December 11, 2009 he will start performing 3 nights a week at the Wynn Resort in Vegas. He has a private jet that will fly him back and forth for weekend shows, so he will remain at home with his wife and kids during the weekdays. His shows in Vegas will only last 15 weeks out of the year, but could last up to 5 years in length. Brooks is optimistic about coming back, saying, "I know this is a young industry, so I'm not sure I'll be welcome back but, if the fans want me, I still want to pursue my music."
My first thought was how excited I was. I LOVE Garth Brooks and I am so excited to see him come out of retirement.
I don't think anyone realizes how excited my husband and I are to hear this happening. Garth Brooks has been a big part of our lives, we love his music, and we are going to try to do everything possible to get in to see one of his shows. I have never been to Vegas, but what a time to go. I still can't believe Brooks has passed up Elvis Presley to become the top-selling solo artist in the history of the U.S. history. That is the most exciting thing I could ever think of. I couldn't imagine being his wife, or even one of his kids. And I definitely can't imagine how proud they are to say they are related to him. Garth Brooks has worked so hard in his life to earn everything he has gotten, and he deserves everything he gets. When he stated "I'm not sure I'll be welcomed back but, if the fans want me, I still want to pursue my music," well, h*ll yeah we want him back. I don't think anyone would want him to stay in retirement. Everyone who is a fan of him would want to go to more shows to see him do what he does best. You can tell he enjoys his music. Every show I've ever seen him do, he has been so happy, and shows how passionate he is about singing. You can tell he is one in a million who love their jobs, and his positive attitude rubs off on millions of people in this world. I can actually say he is one that millions look up to. I am just so excited that he is coming back.
Now the next step is going to see him in Vegas. Maybe we'll get lucky and Garth and Trisha Yearwood will write some songs together. You never know, maybe we'll see her sing some of his songs with him onstage at the Wynn Resort in Las Vegas. :) YAY!!!
Hilary Swank: I let boyfriend's son see me nude
I found this story on MSNBC News.
Hilary Swank, 35-year-old, isn't know for showing her stuff on the big screen. However, she does claim to be naked in front of her boyfriend's 6-year-old son, Sam, and this may affect her bid for her third "Oscar: a new biopic about legendary aviatrix Amelia Earhart." Swank told TODAY's Meredith Vieira that she believes, "being open about this choice in her personal life may open lines of communication in families." Another thing Swank said was, "I think it's great that people can talk about things that bring up debate. I think every family is different, and you have to know what's right for you and your family." This debate came up when Swank had an interview with Joanna Coles who asked what she wears to sleep. Hilary answered, "I don't sleep in anything." Hilary is currently involved with John Campisi, her agent. Campisi's son Sam typically only sees Hilary nude when he comes into the bedroom in the morning. "He doesn't look twice, he doesn't think about it yet," Swank says to Marie Claire. Her reasoning for sleeping naked is, as she says, "I just toss and turn too much when I sleep, and if I'm in clothes, I get all twisted up."
My first reaction to this this story was how wrong this is. As I read this story my thoughts and opinions did not change.
I realize this is not her biological son, but as the girlfriend of someone with a child, she should have the decency to keep her clothes on in front of this boy. I think once a child is old enough to say, "hey mommy/daddy, what's that," it's time to not be naked in front of him/her. My daughter was only 2-2 1/2 years old before I stopped changing and showering in front of her. My daughter showered with me until she was that age, and I started getting uncomfortable, feeling like I was doing something wrong. This was before she started pointing things out and asking questions. I know in the article it said that Sam, the boy, only sees her naked when he goes into her bedroom in the morning, but if she knows he will come into her bedroom, then she need to set rules with him not to come into the room until he knocks, or start locking the door. It's a respect thing. And as for this child's father, he should be embarrassed to have this out in the news, that his girlfriend is being naked in front of his child. If he is not embarrassed then he is not a very good father. I would have to bet that Sam's mother now knows about this, and I know if I were her, I would be furious. Parents are supposed to protect their children, and prevent them from seeing things on the television they shouldn't be watching, and talking to them about sex, drugs, and right and wrong. I believe as a parent, John Campisi, is not doing his job. When Sam is old enough to have sex explained to him, is John going to sit him down, strip down the girlfriend, and explain every detail of a womans body to him? There are things that parents should and shouldn't do, and I am so against something like this.
I hope that other parents out there think twice about how they are influencing their children, and if they are still showering and/or changing in front of their children, they should think twice. Kids are so influenced by the things around them, and parents need to set a good example.
Hilary Swank, 35-year-old, isn't know for showing her stuff on the big screen. However, she does claim to be naked in front of her boyfriend's 6-year-old son, Sam, and this may affect her bid for her third "Oscar: a new biopic about legendary aviatrix Amelia Earhart." Swank told TODAY's Meredith Vieira that she believes, "being open about this choice in her personal life may open lines of communication in families." Another thing Swank said was, "I think it's great that people can talk about things that bring up debate. I think every family is different, and you have to know what's right for you and your family." This debate came up when Swank had an interview with Joanna Coles who asked what she wears to sleep. Hilary answered, "I don't sleep in anything." Hilary is currently involved with John Campisi, her agent. Campisi's son Sam typically only sees Hilary nude when he comes into the bedroom in the morning. "He doesn't look twice, he doesn't think about it yet," Swank says to Marie Claire. Her reasoning for sleeping naked is, as she says, "I just toss and turn too much when I sleep, and if I'm in clothes, I get all twisted up."
My first reaction to this this story was how wrong this is. As I read this story my thoughts and opinions did not change.
I realize this is not her biological son, but as the girlfriend of someone with a child, she should have the decency to keep her clothes on in front of this boy. I think once a child is old enough to say, "hey mommy/daddy, what's that," it's time to not be naked in front of him/her. My daughter was only 2-2 1/2 years old before I stopped changing and showering in front of her. My daughter showered with me until she was that age, and I started getting uncomfortable, feeling like I was doing something wrong. This was before she started pointing things out and asking questions. I know in the article it said that Sam, the boy, only sees her naked when he goes into her bedroom in the morning, but if she knows he will come into her bedroom, then she need to set rules with him not to come into the room until he knocks, or start locking the door. It's a respect thing. And as for this child's father, he should be embarrassed to have this out in the news, that his girlfriend is being naked in front of his child. If he is not embarrassed then he is not a very good father. I would have to bet that Sam's mother now knows about this, and I know if I were her, I would be furious. Parents are supposed to protect their children, and prevent them from seeing things on the television they shouldn't be watching, and talking to them about sex, drugs, and right and wrong. I believe as a parent, John Campisi, is not doing his job. When Sam is old enough to have sex explained to him, is John going to sit him down, strip down the girlfriend, and explain every detail of a womans body to him? There are things that parents should and shouldn't do, and I am so against something like this.
I hope that other parents out there think twice about how they are influencing their children, and if they are still showering and/or changing in front of their children, they should think twice. Kids are so influenced by the things around them, and parents need to set a good example.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
6 things you forgot to childproof
This article was on MSNBC News
1.) The floor: Susan Baril, co-founder or Safe Beginnings (a child-safely company) says, "Taking a trip around your home on your hands and knees is the only way to see it like a child." Some of the things to look for would be; paper clips in the baseboards, cords hanging neck high, even splinters in any hardwoods floors you may have, and electrical outlets that may be exposed.
2.) Baby gate: The article said, "Never use pressure gates at the top of stairs. They'll hold back a crawling baby, but not a pushy toddler."
3.) Fireplace: not only blocking the fire place itself, but blocking the "sharp hearthstone in front," which can pose a huge danger also. Especially to kids who go from crawling, to walking, to running.
4.) Television: "More than 15,000 kids are injured each year by falling furniture," according to the Center for Injury Research and Policy. Most of these injuries are caused by the TV's falling over onto the children. If you have a way to strap the television down, you should do so.
5.) The cat: If you have a cat, you should buy a crib tent to protect your toddler from being stepped on.
6.) Yourself: Baril says, "Toddlers love to imitate." Examples would be; how to operate the baby gate, and stepping over the baby gate. If your child sees you doing these things, they will try to do them themselves.
My first reaction was that I have an infant myself and I want to make sure I do everything possible to make sure he's safe at all times. My thought while reading this story was thinking about these things, and how obvious they are and I would have never thought about them. So good thing I read this article.
The first one, the floor, is a good childproof example. I know the other day I was on the floor playing with my son and I looked around for a split second and saw something on the floor that I couldn't see from above. As I looked around to see anything else I may have missed, I realize how much their views are different from our own. I saw things in a whole new light. The second one, the baby gate, I haven't quite started using yet. Although, it's a big thought in my head since my baby is crawling everywhere now. I know I would never put them above the stairs in my home, if I had stairs, but I never thought about not letting my son see me climb over it. As for number 3, the fireplace, I already knew. You should always make sure that any sharp objects or tables, ect. are protected. My son will grab onto something and pull himself up, and if he loses his balance, he falls over, so anything around him he can hit his head on. We have a hardwood floor in our living room, and my son falls all the time and hits his head on them. I try to put blankets around him while he holds onto things while standing, but there's only so much I can do. I wish I could just put a helmet on him until he gets better at standing and walking. But I guess it will just make him tougher later in life to just deal with the head pains now, although it makes me so sad when he cries. Number 4, the television, is something every mother/father should know. I always make sure things like that are safe. Our flat screen TV in our living room has straps on the back to keep it tied down to the entertainment center it's on. Number 6, yourself, is the best one. I knew that toddlers love to imitate the things or the people around them, but I never actually thought about them trying to do things like climbing over the gates. However, there was one point where I was buckling him into his car seat and he tried to help me, because he has seen me do it so many times. Now he tries to help me all the time. He also, in the last month or so, started pulling off his own diaper, because watching me, he knows where to unstrap it.
I'm glad they make articles like these, because there are so many things to be done to childproof your own home, and sometimes we over look the most obvious ones. And I want to do everything possible to make sure my children are safe.
1.) The floor: Susan Baril, co-founder or Safe Beginnings (a child-safely company) says, "Taking a trip around your home on your hands and knees is the only way to see it like a child." Some of the things to look for would be; paper clips in the baseboards, cords hanging neck high, even splinters in any hardwoods floors you may have, and electrical outlets that may be exposed.
2.) Baby gate: The article said, "Never use pressure gates at the top of stairs. They'll hold back a crawling baby, but not a pushy toddler."
3.) Fireplace: not only blocking the fire place itself, but blocking the "sharp hearthstone in front," which can pose a huge danger also. Especially to kids who go from crawling, to walking, to running.
4.) Television: "More than 15,000 kids are injured each year by falling furniture," according to the Center for Injury Research and Policy. Most of these injuries are caused by the TV's falling over onto the children. If you have a way to strap the television down, you should do so.
5.) The cat: If you have a cat, you should buy a crib tent to protect your toddler from being stepped on.
6.) Yourself: Baril says, "Toddlers love to imitate." Examples would be; how to operate the baby gate, and stepping over the baby gate. If your child sees you doing these things, they will try to do them themselves.
My first reaction was that I have an infant myself and I want to make sure I do everything possible to make sure he's safe at all times. My thought while reading this story was thinking about these things, and how obvious they are and I would have never thought about them. So good thing I read this article.
The first one, the floor, is a good childproof example. I know the other day I was on the floor playing with my son and I looked around for a split second and saw something on the floor that I couldn't see from above. As I looked around to see anything else I may have missed, I realize how much their views are different from our own. I saw things in a whole new light. The second one, the baby gate, I haven't quite started using yet. Although, it's a big thought in my head since my baby is crawling everywhere now. I know I would never put them above the stairs in my home, if I had stairs, but I never thought about not letting my son see me climb over it. As for number 3, the fireplace, I already knew. You should always make sure that any sharp objects or tables, ect. are protected. My son will grab onto something and pull himself up, and if he loses his balance, he falls over, so anything around him he can hit his head on. We have a hardwood floor in our living room, and my son falls all the time and hits his head on them. I try to put blankets around him while he holds onto things while standing, but there's only so much I can do. I wish I could just put a helmet on him until he gets better at standing and walking. But I guess it will just make him tougher later in life to just deal with the head pains now, although it makes me so sad when he cries. Number 4, the television, is something every mother/father should know. I always make sure things like that are safe. Our flat screen TV in our living room has straps on the back to keep it tied down to the entertainment center it's on. Number 6, yourself, is the best one. I knew that toddlers love to imitate the things or the people around them, but I never actually thought about them trying to do things like climbing over the gates. However, there was one point where I was buckling him into his car seat and he tried to help me, because he has seen me do it so many times. Now he tries to help me all the time. He also, in the last month or so, started pulling off his own diaper, because watching me, he knows where to unstrap it.
I'm glad they make articles like these, because there are so many things to be done to childproof your own home, and sometimes we over look the most obvious ones. And I want to do everything possible to make sure my children are safe.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Deputies set to enforce seat-belt law
I found this story in the Joplin Globe online.
Area law-enforcement agencies are going to set up patrol this weekend in rural areas to give tickets to unbuckled motorists. Lori Marble, a spokeswoman for the Missouri Department of Transportation's district office, has outlined the pilot program, which will funnel funds into 10 different Southwest Missouri counties. The ten counties are: Jasper, Newton, McDonald, Barry, Christian, Greene, Lawrence, Stone, Taney and Webster. This money will pay for police officers to work overtime to "saturate roads", starting this weekend until the end of the month. There was a recent survey that stated that "over 1/3 of Southwest Missouri drivers fail to regularly use seat belts." The national seat belt average is 84% of people using them: Missouri's average is 77%: and the 10-county area is 66% usage. This means that within this 10-county area, there is a 11% drop of seat belt usage. The report said, "Of the 45 traffic fatalities between 2005 to 2007 in Jasper County, 30 of the people were not wearing safety belts, according to statistics compiled by MoDOT." "In Newton County, 36 out of 56 traffic fatalities involved victims who were not wearing seat belts." "McDonald County revealed 36 fatalities for the same period, with 22 of the victims not wearing seat belts."
My first reaction was that the government shouldn't be trying to control everything so much. After reading the article and reading the number of people who died because of not wearing seat belts, I have changed my mind. I am on a fence right now, not sure which side I like better.
I have had 2 people in my life who have died from not wearing seat belts. My Aunt Kristy when she was 17, and a friend of mine from school, who was 19, both of these people were not wearing seat belts. I can't help but tell myself that if either of them had been wearing their seat belts, then they may still be here today. My husband and I had an argument about this article, we both agree with wearing seat belts, but my husband thinks it shouldn't be a law. He thinks people should have their own choice on wearing seat belts or not. If they get into a car accident, then they are not hurting anyone else except themselves, so why is it a law? I completely understand his view, but I am more stuck on the fact that not wearing a seat belt influences our children. My son asks me all the time "how come Daddy never wears his seat belt?" What am I supposed to tell him? I just tell him because Daddy's stubborn and he's an adult so he makes his own decisions. I also tell my son that he has to wear one because it's safer. My son and I also had a conversation about his booster seat; we figured out that he has to be 80 lbs to not use one. He later asked me how big he has to be to not wear his seat belt. I told him until he dies. Seat belts are important and he must wear one at all times. It's hard for me to tell my son he has to wear a seat belt and have him watch his father not wear one. I know there are people out there who die because of the seat belt being worn, but I also know there are more deaths from not wearing them, then actually wearing them. So I think I will take my chance and always wear mine. I always wear my seat belt, and I notice if I don't have one on, I feel weird, like I'm missing something. So it's just a habit I have to just put it on as soon as i get into the vehicle.
Like my husband says, when you're 18 years old, you should be able to make your own decision as to if you want to wear a seat belt or not: because in all honesty, you aren't hurting anyone but yourself. On the other hand, my opinion, I believe seat belts may kill some people, but I also know they save more lives then they take. So I think police should buckle down with the seat belt law. It would be stupid not to. Plus, I believe it would keep our children safer, and become a great influence on their lives. If they see Mommy and Daddy wearing a seat belt, then they have no reason to argue to not wear one themselves.
Area law-enforcement agencies are going to set up patrol this weekend in rural areas to give tickets to unbuckled motorists. Lori Marble, a spokeswoman for the Missouri Department of Transportation's district office, has outlined the pilot program, which will funnel funds into 10 different Southwest Missouri counties. The ten counties are: Jasper, Newton, McDonald, Barry, Christian, Greene, Lawrence, Stone, Taney and Webster. This money will pay for police officers to work overtime to "saturate roads", starting this weekend until the end of the month. There was a recent survey that stated that "over 1/3 of Southwest Missouri drivers fail to regularly use seat belts." The national seat belt average is 84% of people using them: Missouri's average is 77%: and the 10-county area is 66% usage. This means that within this 10-county area, there is a 11% drop of seat belt usage. The report said, "Of the 45 traffic fatalities between 2005 to 2007 in Jasper County, 30 of the people were not wearing safety belts, according to statistics compiled by MoDOT." "In Newton County, 36 out of 56 traffic fatalities involved victims who were not wearing seat belts." "McDonald County revealed 36 fatalities for the same period, with 22 of the victims not wearing seat belts."
My first reaction was that the government shouldn't be trying to control everything so much. After reading the article and reading the number of people who died because of not wearing seat belts, I have changed my mind. I am on a fence right now, not sure which side I like better.
I have had 2 people in my life who have died from not wearing seat belts. My Aunt Kristy when she was 17, and a friend of mine from school, who was 19, both of these people were not wearing seat belts. I can't help but tell myself that if either of them had been wearing their seat belts, then they may still be here today. My husband and I had an argument about this article, we both agree with wearing seat belts, but my husband thinks it shouldn't be a law. He thinks people should have their own choice on wearing seat belts or not. If they get into a car accident, then they are not hurting anyone else except themselves, so why is it a law? I completely understand his view, but I am more stuck on the fact that not wearing a seat belt influences our children. My son asks me all the time "how come Daddy never wears his seat belt?" What am I supposed to tell him? I just tell him because Daddy's stubborn and he's an adult so he makes his own decisions. I also tell my son that he has to wear one because it's safer. My son and I also had a conversation about his booster seat; we figured out that he has to be 80 lbs to not use one. He later asked me how big he has to be to not wear his seat belt. I told him until he dies. Seat belts are important and he must wear one at all times. It's hard for me to tell my son he has to wear a seat belt and have him watch his father not wear one. I know there are people out there who die because of the seat belt being worn, but I also know there are more deaths from not wearing them, then actually wearing them. So I think I will take my chance and always wear mine. I always wear my seat belt, and I notice if I don't have one on, I feel weird, like I'm missing something. So it's just a habit I have to just put it on as soon as i get into the vehicle.
Like my husband says, when you're 18 years old, you should be able to make your own decision as to if you want to wear a seat belt or not: because in all honesty, you aren't hurting anyone but yourself. On the other hand, my opinion, I believe seat belts may kill some people, but I also know they save more lives then they take. So I think police should buckle down with the seat belt law. It would be stupid not to. Plus, I believe it would keep our children safer, and become a great influence on their lives. If they see Mommy and Daddy wearing a seat belt, then they have no reason to argue to not wear one themselves.
Toddler Abandoned by Woman at South L.A. Bus Stop
I found this story on KTLA News.
A woman left a 3-year-old boy all alone, in the middle of the night, at a South Los Angeles bus stop, with a purple stuffed frog. Captain Robert Green says "a man saw the woman waiting for a bus with the boy sleeping in her lap at about 1 a.m. Friday". The man also said he, "saw her boarding the bus, leaving the child behind, and yelled at her to 'Hey, you forgot the kid.' "Det. Javier Lozano said, "she turned around made eye contact, basically did one of these waves at him, boarded the bus and left." The man said he sat with the boy waiting for the mother to return for about an hour, but she never came, nor did anyone else to claim the child. Eventually the man took the 3-year-old boy to 77th Area Police Station, which was nearby. The boy was taken to the hospital to make sure he was in good health, and was determined to be in a good condition. The police are not sure if the woman who left him there is his mother or not, but the she is described to be 20-25 years old, 5'4", Hispanic, and wearing a black and red checkered poncho. The police also believe the boys name is Xavier, he is Hispanic as well, with brown eyes and brown hair which was styled into a Mohawk. Anyone with information about the mystery woman or parent or guardian and/or the 3-year-old child, is to call police at (213) 485-6991 or 1-877-LAPD-24-7.
My first reaction to this story was how sad it was for someone to do this. As I read the story it became even sadder for the fact that it was done on purpose.
This Hispanic woman left her child at a bus stop in the middle of a Friday night in a big city. Let's just be so lucky and grateful that the man who found him was nice enough to sit with him for an hour to see if his mother or gardian would come claim him. However, being in such a big city, anyone could have found him: such as someone on drugs or a child molester who could have physically injured the boy, or even corrupted him. Thank God that he is in good hands now, and let's just pray that someone comes forth, or pray that the boy gets put into a good home, with people who will take care of him and love him the way he should be. Like I've said in another article, some people can't have children, so to see someone who has a child, do something like this is horrible.
I wish that people, who didn't want children, wouldn't have children. And the people who want children, could have children. It's not fair that it isn't that way. These kids grow up with parents who don't want them, and they don't get the proper needs of a child. Just remember, if you don't want your child, give them to an adoption agency, a church, or even the police station. Make sure your child is in good hands: don't leave them in the middle of a big city where anyone could find them. I wonder what the mother would think, if she saw this 3-year-old child on TV injured or worse. Would she care?
A woman left a 3-year-old boy all alone, in the middle of the night, at a South Los Angeles bus stop, with a purple stuffed frog. Captain Robert Green says "a man saw the woman waiting for a bus with the boy sleeping in her lap at about 1 a.m. Friday". The man also said he, "saw her boarding the bus, leaving the child behind, and yelled at her to 'Hey, you forgot the kid.' "Det. Javier Lozano said, "she turned around made eye contact, basically did one of these waves at him, boarded the bus and left." The man said he sat with the boy waiting for the mother to return for about an hour, but she never came, nor did anyone else to claim the child. Eventually the man took the 3-year-old boy to 77th Area Police Station, which was nearby. The boy was taken to the hospital to make sure he was in good health, and was determined to be in a good condition. The police are not sure if the woman who left him there is his mother or not, but the she is described to be 20-25 years old, 5'4", Hispanic, and wearing a black and red checkered poncho. The police also believe the boys name is Xavier, he is Hispanic as well, with brown eyes and brown hair which was styled into a Mohawk. Anyone with information about the mystery woman or parent or guardian and/or the 3-year-old child, is to call police at (213) 485-6991 or 1-877-LAPD-24-7.
My first reaction to this story was how sad it was for someone to do this. As I read the story it became even sadder for the fact that it was done on purpose.
This Hispanic woman left her child at a bus stop in the middle of a Friday night in a big city. Let's just be so lucky and grateful that the man who found him was nice enough to sit with him for an hour to see if his mother or gardian would come claim him. However, being in such a big city, anyone could have found him: such as someone on drugs or a child molester who could have physically injured the boy, or even corrupted him. Thank God that he is in good hands now, and let's just pray that someone comes forth, or pray that the boy gets put into a good home, with people who will take care of him and love him the way he should be. Like I've said in another article, some people can't have children, so to see someone who has a child, do something like this is horrible.
I wish that people, who didn't want children, wouldn't have children. And the people who want children, could have children. It's not fair that it isn't that way. These kids grow up with parents who don't want them, and they don't get the proper needs of a child. Just remember, if you don't want your child, give them to an adoption agency, a church, or even the police station. Make sure your child is in good hands: don't leave them in the middle of a big city where anyone could find them. I wonder what the mother would think, if she saw this 3-year-old child on TV injured or worse. Would she care?
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Woman Claims She was Held Captive, Groped by Dr. Phil
I found this story on KTLA News.
This is going on in Los Angeles, where a woman went to get some therapy in 2007 from Dr. Phil. She claims "the TV host held her captive inside his production offices, forcing her to endure physical and emotional abuse." This was filed Wednesday in L.A. County Superior Court. She is suing Dr. Phil, but the story does not say for how much. Dieu said Dr. Phil was trying to brainwash her, and forced her to "be in the same room with a completely naked live man while he exposed his entire naked body, genitals and all." Dieu said she tried to escape but "was blocked by the staff to prevent her from leaving."
My first reaction from this story was when I read the title, "Woman Claims She was Held Captive, Groped by Dr. Phil," I thought it was someone trying to get attention. My same reaction continued as I read how crazy the story was.
First off, there are so many people out there that will sue for anything. People just want attention, just want to be on TV, or just want to be rich. So if they find "anything" to sue for, they do. I can't believe some of the things that people sue for that shouldn't even be sued for. Such as someone suing because they got cancer from cigarettes....hello....if they didn't know they could possible get cancer from cigarettes; then what did they expect? I remember a couple years ago, there was, on a Mac n Cheese box, a picture and directions on how to eat it. Yes, it said, place on fork, insert into mouth, chew, swallow. It's sad that companies have to put stupid stuff like that on the boxes of their products because people are waiting for a reason to sue. Not sure exactly what happened in this story, but I guess we'll never know. This woman may have actually had something happen to her from Dr. Phil. Some celebrity's thing they can get away with anything and everything. Maybe Dr. Phil thought he could get away with this, because he's famous, and/or has money. But I guess not. But I truly believe that probably about 75+ lawsuits that involve famous people are just scams to get non-famous people some extra money.
It's sad, but true. People will do whatever they can get away with just to get what they want. It's sad that famous people think they can get away with everything because of "who they are," or the money they have. And it's also sad that the average Joe tries so hard to be rich. But we're all in the wrong. Nothing will ever be like it was in the olden days. Guess we'll have to except the stupid stuff that goes on around us, and just sit back and laugh.
This is going on in Los Angeles, where a woman went to get some therapy in 2007 from Dr. Phil. She claims "the TV host held her captive inside his production offices, forcing her to endure physical and emotional abuse." This was filed Wednesday in L.A. County Superior Court. She is suing Dr. Phil, but the story does not say for how much. Dieu said Dr. Phil was trying to brainwash her, and forced her to "be in the same room with a completely naked live man while he exposed his entire naked body, genitals and all." Dieu said she tried to escape but "was blocked by the staff to prevent her from leaving."
My first reaction from this story was when I read the title, "Woman Claims She was Held Captive, Groped by Dr. Phil," I thought it was someone trying to get attention. My same reaction continued as I read how crazy the story was.
First off, there are so many people out there that will sue for anything. People just want attention, just want to be on TV, or just want to be rich. So if they find "anything" to sue for, they do. I can't believe some of the things that people sue for that shouldn't even be sued for. Such as someone suing because they got cancer from cigarettes....hello....if they didn't know they could possible get cancer from cigarettes; then what did they expect? I remember a couple years ago, there was, on a Mac n Cheese box, a picture and directions on how to eat it. Yes, it said, place on fork, insert into mouth, chew, swallow. It's sad that companies have to put stupid stuff like that on the boxes of their products because people are waiting for a reason to sue. Not sure exactly what happened in this story, but I guess we'll never know. This woman may have actually had something happen to her from Dr. Phil. Some celebrity's thing they can get away with anything and everything. Maybe Dr. Phil thought he could get away with this, because he's famous, and/or has money. But I guess not. But I truly believe that probably about 75+ lawsuits that involve famous people are just scams to get non-famous people some extra money.
It's sad, but true. People will do whatever they can get away with just to get what they want. It's sad that famous people think they can get away with everything because of "who they are," or the money they have. And it's also sad that the average Joe tries so hard to be rich. But we're all in the wrong. Nothing will ever be like it was in the olden days. Guess we'll have to except the stupid stuff that goes on around us, and just sit back and laugh.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Dance Routine Called 'Too Sexy for School'
I found this story on KTLA News
In Sacramento there was a dance performed at Rio Americano High School to welcome new students. A parent (P.J. Bascom) of one of the girls said, "it was not something I would want my son looking at. I didn't find it to be appropriate or acceptable." Biscom is also a parent on the PTA, who said, " it has been discussed whether there's action going to be taken. At this time, they're not allowing the dance any further." A student at Rio High School, John Butterfield, wrote, "...moves that are explicitly sexual, which would have been almost all of this rally's routine." He also wrote, "When the song team spends most of the routine bent ver, while it may elicit catcalls from the audience, it is simply not appropriate." Lisa Berger is a cheer coordinator, said she "didn't find the routine objectional." Another student, Reagan Maranda, said, "I feel like dancers should be able to express themselves how they want and be able to dance how they feel." The coach, Berger, said, "If you look at all the other schools, it's competition. It seems like that's what's wanted in the competition and I really don't have a problem with it."
My first thought was my sister-in-law, when she was a high school cheerleader. I watched the video on you tube, and realized that...at least they are fully clothed, although a lot of the moves were unapropriate.
I know when I watched my sister-in-law do a Christmas cheerleading routine in her high school gym, I was shocked. They wore santa outfits, that included: mini skirts made of the red velvet, with a white velvet band around the bottom, and they had red and white velvet tops that were low cut, with santa hats. They shook their butts like no other, and I remember thinking...how inappropriate the schools have gotten these days. That was almost 2 years ago, so this story doesnt really suprize me to much. The coach saying, "she did not find the routine objecionable," ? The coach needs to realize that she is an authority figure, and the girls look up to her. She is supposed to be a role model for these girls, and for her to not think this is inappriate is outragous. I think they shouldn't get suspended, because I'm sure the girls didnt make up the routine by themselves, so they shouldnt punish the girls. But I do believe the coach should pay some kind of a price. Maybe the high school should find another coach. I understand that it may be a competition, but there should be a limit to this. Most of these girls are probably underage, and having the audience members yelling out catcalls to them is unnecisary.
I hope they figure out something to do about this, and I hope they show these girls some class. These girls are up there shaking their a**es in front of their male students, and what does that say to the high school guys?
In Sacramento there was a dance performed at Rio Americano High School to welcome new students. A parent (P.J. Bascom) of one of the girls said, "it was not something I would want my son looking at. I didn't find it to be appropriate or acceptable." Biscom is also a parent on the PTA, who said, " it has been discussed whether there's action going to be taken. At this time, they're not allowing the dance any further." A student at Rio High School, John Butterfield, wrote, "...moves that are explicitly sexual, which would have been almost all of this rally's routine." He also wrote, "When the song team spends most of the routine bent ver, while it may elicit catcalls from the audience, it is simply not appropriate." Lisa Berger is a cheer coordinator, said she "didn't find the routine objectional." Another student, Reagan Maranda, said, "I feel like dancers should be able to express themselves how they want and be able to dance how they feel." The coach, Berger, said, "If you look at all the other schools, it's competition. It seems like that's what's wanted in the competition and I really don't have a problem with it."
My first thought was my sister-in-law, when she was a high school cheerleader. I watched the video on you tube, and realized that...at least they are fully clothed, although a lot of the moves were unapropriate.
I know when I watched my sister-in-law do a Christmas cheerleading routine in her high school gym, I was shocked. They wore santa outfits, that included: mini skirts made of the red velvet, with a white velvet band around the bottom, and they had red and white velvet tops that were low cut, with santa hats. They shook their butts like no other, and I remember thinking...how inappropriate the schools have gotten these days. That was almost 2 years ago, so this story doesnt really suprize me to much. The coach saying, "she did not find the routine objecionable," ? The coach needs to realize that she is an authority figure, and the girls look up to her. She is supposed to be a role model for these girls, and for her to not think this is inappriate is outragous. I think they shouldn't get suspended, because I'm sure the girls didnt make up the routine by themselves, so they shouldnt punish the girls. But I do believe the coach should pay some kind of a price. Maybe the high school should find another coach. I understand that it may be a competition, but there should be a limit to this. Most of these girls are probably underage, and having the audience members yelling out catcalls to them is unnecisary.
I hope they figure out something to do about this, and I hope they show these girls some class. These girls are up there shaking their a**es in front of their male students, and what does that say to the high school guys?
Smoking in pregnancy risks psychotic children
I found this story on MSNBC News.
British scientist, on Thursday, said, "Mothers who smoke during pregnangy put their children at greater risk of developing psychotic symptoms as teenagers." There were 4 British Universities, who took 6,356 children, all 12 years old, to interview for psychotic-like symptoms that include hallucinations and/or delusions. Other studies have shown that a mother smoking while pregnant, can harm the fetus. Smoking can cause the fetus to be born smaller, increase the risk of SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome), and also heart defects. Researchers also found that a woman who drank more than 21 units of alcohol per week while pregnant, would also increase psychotic symptoms in teenagers. Zammit and colleagues suggested that "exposure to tobacco in the womb might affect a child's impulsivity, attention or cognition."
My first reaction to this story was how mothers should not smoke while pregnant. As I read, I believe the report is something somebody made up to get attention to their schools in London.
Mothers who smoke while pregnant are putting their fetus at risk. Babies can't handle the flu's or anything else we, as adults, get. My son, when he was 3 months old, ended up in the emergency room for RSV (respiratory syncytial virus). The doctors told me it was from having too much mucous getting in his lungs. Because babies cannot cough mucous up like we can, nor can babies sniffle it up their noses. So something that would have just been a cold for adults, became a hospital visit for an infant. There are so many other things out there that babies cannot handle. So smoking while pregnant is a dumb thing to do. Everything a pregnant woman puts into her own body, goes to the baby's body as well. If a mother wants to smoke, good for her, at least wait until the pregnancy is over so you don't risk your baby's health. However, this report about smoking while pregnant causes psychoticness in teenagers....bull crap, in my opinion. If you read this report, you'll see how bad the information is. It said 19% of these 12 year old kids had mothers who smoked while pregnant with them....but....just over 11% of the total kids had "suspected" or "definite" symptoms of psychosis. The numbers don't even add up. 19% had smoking mothers, 11% are crazy...??? So that means that 8% had mothers who smoked while they were pregnant, and their children are completely normal. So basically the study is not really a good proven research project. The report also states how, "the reason for the link between maternal smoking and psychotic symptoms are not clear, but Zammit and colleagues suggested that exposure to tobacco in the womb might affect a child's impulsivity, attention, or cognition." So in other words, their clueless. The sympotms are "not clear" but Zammit and colleagues "suggested" that tobacco in the womb "might" affect those three things.
This report somewhere in it, might have a good cause for the research they've done. However, I believe this story was horribly written, the data and numbers were way off, and it makes the universities that put time into this, look like they are full of crap. Maybe I miss-read something, or maybe I just took it the wrong way. Hopefully, woman who are pregnant, put their baby first, and make sure they do not smoke while pregnant.
British scientist, on Thursday, said, "Mothers who smoke during pregnangy put their children at greater risk of developing psychotic symptoms as teenagers." There were 4 British Universities, who took 6,356 children, all 12 years old, to interview for psychotic-like symptoms that include hallucinations and/or delusions. Other studies have shown that a mother smoking while pregnant, can harm the fetus. Smoking can cause the fetus to be born smaller, increase the risk of SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome), and also heart defects. Researchers also found that a woman who drank more than 21 units of alcohol per week while pregnant, would also increase psychotic symptoms in teenagers. Zammit and colleagues suggested that "exposure to tobacco in the womb might affect a child's impulsivity, attention or cognition."
My first reaction to this story was how mothers should not smoke while pregnant. As I read, I believe the report is something somebody made up to get attention to their schools in London.
Mothers who smoke while pregnant are putting their fetus at risk. Babies can't handle the flu's or anything else we, as adults, get. My son, when he was 3 months old, ended up in the emergency room for RSV (respiratory syncytial virus). The doctors told me it was from having too much mucous getting in his lungs. Because babies cannot cough mucous up like we can, nor can babies sniffle it up their noses. So something that would have just been a cold for adults, became a hospital visit for an infant. There are so many other things out there that babies cannot handle. So smoking while pregnant is a dumb thing to do. Everything a pregnant woman puts into her own body, goes to the baby's body as well. If a mother wants to smoke, good for her, at least wait until the pregnancy is over so you don't risk your baby's health. However, this report about smoking while pregnant causes psychoticness in teenagers....bull crap, in my opinion. If you read this report, you'll see how bad the information is. It said 19% of these 12 year old kids had mothers who smoked while pregnant with them....but....just over 11% of the total kids had "suspected" or "definite" symptoms of psychosis. The numbers don't even add up. 19% had smoking mothers, 11% are crazy...??? So that means that 8% had mothers who smoked while they were pregnant, and their children are completely normal. So basically the study is not really a good proven research project. The report also states how, "the reason for the link between maternal smoking and psychotic symptoms are not clear, but Zammit and colleagues suggested that exposure to tobacco in the womb might affect a child's impulsivity, attention, or cognition." So in other words, their clueless. The sympotms are "not clear" but Zammit and colleagues "suggested" that tobacco in the womb "might" affect those three things.
This report somewhere in it, might have a good cause for the research they've done. However, I believe this story was horribly written, the data and numbers were way off, and it makes the universities that put time into this, look like they are full of crap. Maybe I miss-read something, or maybe I just took it the wrong way. Hopefully, woman who are pregnant, put their baby first, and make sure they do not smoke while pregnant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
