Everyone wants bad guys to get a fair trial even when they don't know it. That's because even the angriest member of a mob, does not want an innocent guy to go to jail and a guilty guy to walk free. But the term "alleged" gets tiresome. For example, the Ft Hood shootings were witnessed by about 100 people including the police whom the shooter shot, and who returned fire. Apparently a lot of the footage from surveillance tapes shows some of the murders too. No one, not even his lawyer, has suggested we got the wrong man. But his attorney has made a mistake that is truly irking me. But as for saying "alleged shooter" okay we get it, some of us are lawyers. But we're not retarded all the time. Just say his name and leave it at that for now.
Today, his attorney WHINED with outrage that Maj Hasan was NOT allowed to pray in ARABIC with his family, without an interpreter present... Gee, that's got to be a major constitutional issue. OMG! What's next? Serving pork... or BURNING HIM AT THE STAKE? (All eqally extreme and offensive, right?) Were we raised by wolves? Don't we know that torture like this blatant insensitivity angers Muslims??? Geez, I know we don't want to do that. I mean, what happens if we anger Islamic extremists - AND just when they were going to love us so much? What could happen? Well for one thing, they might start killing people, just murdering at random and then...they...might kill some...oh wait, they already do that!
And never mind that these same types of terrorists filmed and showed a LIVE beheading of reporter Daniel Pearl among others...civilians and soldiers alike. Somehow, we self flaggelate and then get bogged down in our own discomforts so much so that we think water boarding (which make many of us understandably squeamish) equates somehow to their behavior and that is nuts. "Insensitivity" due to our security concerns, versus public beheadings...There is no comparison. Only a fool would find them the moral equivalent. Do I like torture of any kind? No, because I'm a good person. I'm not violent or hateful by nature and have never harbored murderous thoughts beyond self defense. And I'm discerning enough to see a difference between water boarding for interrogation and beheading for terrorizing. The means and the ends are very different. Those jerks in Iraq even executed the female Director of CARE, an organization of charities operating within and for Iraq. She was a charity worker who was a British citizen married to an Iraqi Muslim & serving their people there for 30 years, and even she was executed, and left by the side of the road......
(Ahem...) So now Maj Hasan's lawyer complains about him having to pray in English OR waiting for a interpreter, as if it matters at all. If we make accommodation to this killer/traitor, I'm going to think we are officially insane. Have we lost ALL our common sense?
Help me out here folks. To me, this Maj Hasan is a killer and a traitor, who violated every oath as a solider and officer and doctor/healer. And he's an American. If my husband Jon, an Army Doctor, had been a POW in the War, under the Geneva Convention he'd have to treat ALL patients regardless of which side they were on. He's a "non-combatant healer"...That's the law of war, "treat ALL wounded" and the oath doctors take as healers is "First, do no harm"...yet here's a man who violated every trust we gave him and after so much was given to him by this country. It's beyond the ken of most of us.
The rules are that he cannot speak in a foreign language without an interpreter. Folks, news flash...that's standard. I could not care less that his prayers were delayed while waiting for an interpreter. Plenty of Muslims pray in English and who said he gets to pray with his family at all? Oh for the life of me, it takes some nerve to utter a word of complaint at this point.
What other country would be so peculiarly fixated on the silliest of "rights"? We understand and care about the big rights like Due Process, fine. But this complaint, this "offense" should get NO attention. It hurts his client to raise it b/c it shows no self awareness, no recognition of how his actions are seen by most people. It's typical of this man though. You see, Maj Hasan's amazing sense of entitlement reveals itself in his disgruntled nature. HE should have gotten whatever assignment he wanted from the Army, and never have to deign to serve with real soldiers in Ft Hood...He should have only received very good evaluations (his officer evaluations mention his poor attitude, his bad rapport with patients and substandard medical practice and mediocre knowledge of neuroscience in his field) and even though WE paid for his college AND medical school AND residency AND fellowship, WITH salary and benefits...somehow we still owe him a debt of....a debt of WHAT? Didn't he owe us anything? He never tried to get out of the Army, by the way. No record of that. If he had, then I'd say just pay back the half million dollars your education cost taxpayers, and move overseas to your jihad friends. So far there is no record of him wanting out of the military in any normal channels. There are ways, but none known from him. What a sense of entitlement, especially for such a social leper, and self centered bastard.
The attorney is being foolish. Maybe he wants some public sympathy from the left wing, but that demographic does NOT matter to a court martial. (And it really annoys the rest of us). Gotta admit, THIS killer gets to me more than almost any. He's right up there in creepo land with up Scott Peterson and Casey Anthony...in some ways, worse.
SO GROSS...and on a slightly different topic, this story offends b/c there are political ramifications. It's just too politically correct of the Army to station that doctor, a hostile Islamic fundamentalist who had conveniently hidden that fact when he joined the Army- and to put HIM in that job, was just STUPID..
Ask yourself how many returning vets from WWII - returned to be treated by German and Japanese docs for anything, (let alone a psychological problem). It didn't happen then and it shouldn't happen now. It's an inexcusable loss of common sense in favor of political... "diversity"? = correctness.
Then there's the bureaucratic incompetence of the FBI and their paranoid habit of hoarding information. Yet it's SO NOT SURPRISING...Now watch the "cover our asses" going on big time at the FBI. I bet you the FBI will escape relatively unscathed compared to the Army, though it was first and foremost the error at the bureau to withhold CLEARLY relevant data from the Army.
Why wouldn't they tell the Army? What possible reason for withholding that information is there? A turf war? Or worse, was it just a horrible and baffling failure to communicate without ANY reason at all...(What's worse? I don't know). In the Army, heads will roll. They usually take hits worse because; A) they're more accountable and; b) their public affairs people are not in it for the long haul, and so the FBI has much more experience hiding their idiocies. I do respect the hard working folks there. I really do. But they are human so just once I'd love the FBI to come out and say "We messed up and won't do it again, & We are SORRY!" But this failure to communicate with other agencies, which was notorious under Clinton, apparently continues even post 9-11 and is simply inexcusable. It reeks of incompetence or dereliction of duty. There's blood on their hands too. (But please, never ever let that anger at our own mistakes, make you forget who planned this out and who pulled the trigger, over and over and over...Maj Hassan did. Not us.)
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Gitmo to ChicaGO, OH NO!
The decision to close Gitmo had it's followers. Their complaints centered mainly on the allegations of torture and indefinite confinement for those not formally charged. They believed this immoral behavior hurt our standing in the world. As a former defense attorney, I share some of those concerns as well. (But more and more, I care less and less about our "standing" in the world. We were attacked before Gitmo existed, & more than once. So the standing we have in the world seems more like another avenue for blaming America, even when we're clearly the victims.) But I don't like big brother either and indefinite confinement for uncharged people freaks me out. Big brother usually comes most effectively when there is justified fear of an enemy.
As a veteran of the Army JAGC, I also know that regardless of what you believe about civil rights in general, there is such a thing as the Law of War. (Hence the Geneva Convention). As far as Islamic anger at us, all I can say is, 9-11 happened before Gitmo opened. We've been hated a long time. As weird as that is for most of us, I finally asked, "what would it take to make the fundamentalist Islamics like us?" And I can't find an answer to that question that I can live with. I don't want to convert to their faith or die, don't want to wear head coverings, be treated the way their women are treated, or lose freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to assemble, the right to divorce, use birth control, vote, own a business, "expose" my bare arms or ankles, etc. Frankly, the truth is that we'd have to be like them, for them to like us. They want to destroy us. It's not a policy choice they disagree with (that is merely one on a long list of Bin Laden's grievances against "Satan America" and our western cohorts). But onward the President went, deciding to close Gitmo without a place to put the remaining detainees. Some were shipped for "rehabilitation" to Saudi Arabia. Had Bush done that, the left would have screamed about a conspiracy, a la Micheal Moore, and his "fat cats with oil" conspiracy theory, which is forgotten now that it's Obama allowing the Saudis some interesting benefits. The left ignored this completely and guess what? 90% of the detainees who were transferred to Saudi Arabia were "rehabilitated" within months, and were set FREE!....including some seriously bad guys...where's the outrage? Oh, I forgot...the double standard of the left. (True, there are conservative talk show hosts on tv and the radio who are obviously biased against the President. We know. But they identify their belief system and admit bias! Who on the left does that? I can't think of one on television who admits a bias in favor of the liberal agenda. They're sincerely unaware of their bias, because their arrogance leads them to think they're just "Right"...)
For the record, Gitmo's environment is not that of a dungeon in the middle ages, despite the media's claims. The Red Cross is right there and there are more rights and privileges given to those detainees than the Geneva Convention requires of non-combatants...(That status matters, b/c these are NOT prisoner's of war...POW's are in recognized conflicts between nations, or declared wars, and belong to a nation's armed forces. That's why there's a different category for these folks and we did not invent this. For centuries, spies and assassins were on their own if they got caught. This was so even if they were authorized by their government, to do what they did. The Law of War has long recognized that there are exceptions to the rights given to regular POWs and they had these types of killers in mind. No "rights to due process" exist for them in the real world with that. As the saying goes, "only in America"...)
So here we are. Gitmo is closing and the rest of the detainees are to be sent HERE to our country, where Miranda rights and attorneys at tax payers expense, and all the rest, will be accorded to them. So if they revealed incriminating information to us without all those American rights being afforded to them, the evidence will be suppressed. Great news folks...The attorney general told us he was confident of convictions because he expected guilty pleas...Ooops surprise, they want to speak out about their feelings and desires and their thoughts about Bush (never mind that their crimes were in his eigth month of office and during the Clinton years as well). I'm not so sure the attorney general knew what he was talking about.
The primary & fundamental problem with America's handling of terrorism in the 90's with Clinton as President, was that he treated acts of war, as crimes to be handled by the Department of Justice. It failed! We had the USS Cole, the embassies, the World Trade Center in 1993 (by the same people who did 9/11 !!) as crimes for prosecution in civilian court. That murderer is housed, fed and medically cared for with our tax dollars! And he inspired the subsequent attack again, on the same target, on 9-11. What should we have learned? We were laughing stocks to him, then, so what will happen with this?
Of course there are security problems to trying the 9-11 terrorists in NYC and housing them in Illinois. They'll create a circus atmosphere for the victim's families and mock us in front of the world; not the result Obama so wanted, but he was naive in that endeavor. A naivete that will be the source of coming problems beyond our sight now.
Putting the rest of the Gitmo detainess near the President's hometown, just smacks of corruption. A prison in the home of the President and Rod Blogoyovich, which isn't even completed yet. But it got selected as the most secure facility? No one has a problem with that? What are the odds that the prison would be in his home state? I submit it'll be Obama's Halliburton. (Follow the money).
They also assure of us security, but they can't figure out who gets into the White House! They assured of us convictions, (as if that was sufficient reassurance or justification) but already the defendants are arguing for their day in court, as if they're owed one.
And for those who think there's an intangible benefit to our world wide image by closing Gitmo, I say, maybe so. But it hardly seems likely it will turn the hearts of terrorists. They won't suddenly like us. And even if world opinion shifted some, so what? That cannot outweigh the security risks to our own people, and the mockery of our judicial system that these trials will surely entail. Reflect on the victim's families a bit more too. Can you imagine hearing the killers of your children (or parents or loved ones) airing their grievances with our foreign policy and calling us murderers? How that adds to the esteem other nations hold us in, is beyond me.
Would any other country have gone so far out of its' naive way to show them that just by being nice, we can all get along? Well good luck. A lot of the evidence against the terrorists may be suppressed due to the lack of Miranda rights being given to them b/c they were not necessary. War criminals don't get the same rights as American Citizens tried in our civilian courts, and shouldn't be. Treating these war criminals as if they're citizens is stupid and will result in some acquittals of very guilty, very evil creatures. We're compounding their original crimes, with our stupidity and arrogance. Jeanninespitfire@gmail.com
As a veteran of the Army JAGC, I also know that regardless of what you believe about civil rights in general, there is such a thing as the Law of War. (Hence the Geneva Convention). As far as Islamic anger at us, all I can say is, 9-11 happened before Gitmo opened. We've been hated a long time. As weird as that is for most of us, I finally asked, "what would it take to make the fundamentalist Islamics like us?" And I can't find an answer to that question that I can live with. I don't want to convert to their faith or die, don't want to wear head coverings, be treated the way their women are treated, or lose freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to assemble, the right to divorce, use birth control, vote, own a business, "expose" my bare arms or ankles, etc. Frankly, the truth is that we'd have to be like them, for them to like us. They want to destroy us. It's not a policy choice they disagree with (that is merely one on a long list of Bin Laden's grievances against "Satan America" and our western cohorts). But onward the President went, deciding to close Gitmo without a place to put the remaining detainees. Some were shipped for "rehabilitation" to Saudi Arabia. Had Bush done that, the left would have screamed about a conspiracy, a la Micheal Moore, and his "fat cats with oil" conspiracy theory, which is forgotten now that it's Obama allowing the Saudis some interesting benefits. The left ignored this completely and guess what? 90% of the detainees who were transferred to Saudi Arabia were "rehabilitated" within months, and were set FREE!....including some seriously bad guys...where's the outrage? Oh, I forgot...the double standard of the left. (True, there are conservative talk show hosts on tv and the radio who are obviously biased against the President. We know. But they identify their belief system and admit bias! Who on the left does that? I can't think of one on television who admits a bias in favor of the liberal agenda. They're sincerely unaware of their bias, because their arrogance leads them to think they're just "Right"...)
For the record, Gitmo's environment is not that of a dungeon in the middle ages, despite the media's claims. The Red Cross is right there and there are more rights and privileges given to those detainees than the Geneva Convention requires of non-combatants...(That status matters, b/c these are NOT prisoner's of war...POW's are in recognized conflicts between nations, or declared wars, and belong to a nation's armed forces. That's why there's a different category for these folks and we did not invent this. For centuries, spies and assassins were on their own if they got caught. This was so even if they were authorized by their government, to do what they did. The Law of War has long recognized that there are exceptions to the rights given to regular POWs and they had these types of killers in mind. No "rights to due process" exist for them in the real world with that. As the saying goes, "only in America"...)
So here we are. Gitmo is closing and the rest of the detainees are to be sent HERE to our country, where Miranda rights and attorneys at tax payers expense, and all the rest, will be accorded to them. So if they revealed incriminating information to us without all those American rights being afforded to them, the evidence will be suppressed. Great news folks...The attorney general told us he was confident of convictions because he expected guilty pleas...Ooops surprise, they want to speak out about their feelings and desires and their thoughts about Bush (never mind that their crimes were in his eigth month of office and during the Clinton years as well). I'm not so sure the attorney general knew what he was talking about.
The primary & fundamental problem with America's handling of terrorism in the 90's with Clinton as President, was that he treated acts of war, as crimes to be handled by the Department of Justice. It failed! We had the USS Cole, the embassies, the World Trade Center in 1993 (by the same people who did 9/11 !!) as crimes for prosecution in civilian court. That murderer is housed, fed and medically cared for with our tax dollars! And he inspired the subsequent attack again, on the same target, on 9-11. What should we have learned? We were laughing stocks to him, then, so what will happen with this?
Of course there are security problems to trying the 9-11 terrorists in NYC and housing them in Illinois. They'll create a circus atmosphere for the victim's families and mock us in front of the world; not the result Obama so wanted, but he was naive in that endeavor. A naivete that will be the source of coming problems beyond our sight now.
Putting the rest of the Gitmo detainess near the President's hometown, just smacks of corruption. A prison in the home of the President and Rod Blogoyovich, which isn't even completed yet. But it got selected as the most secure facility? No one has a problem with that? What are the odds that the prison would be in his home state? I submit it'll be Obama's Halliburton. (Follow the money).
They also assure of us security, but they can't figure out who gets into the White House! They assured of us convictions, (as if that was sufficient reassurance or justification) but already the defendants are arguing for their day in court, as if they're owed one.
And for those who think there's an intangible benefit to our world wide image by closing Gitmo, I say, maybe so. But it hardly seems likely it will turn the hearts of terrorists. They won't suddenly like us. And even if world opinion shifted some, so what? That cannot outweigh the security risks to our own people, and the mockery of our judicial system that these trials will surely entail. Reflect on the victim's families a bit more too. Can you imagine hearing the killers of your children (or parents or loved ones) airing their grievances with our foreign policy and calling us murderers? How that adds to the esteem other nations hold us in, is beyond me.
Would any other country have gone so far out of its' naive way to show them that just by being nice, we can all get along? Well good luck. A lot of the evidence against the terrorists may be suppressed due to the lack of Miranda rights being given to them b/c they were not necessary. War criminals don't get the same rights as American Citizens tried in our civilian courts, and shouldn't be. Treating these war criminals as if they're citizens is stupid and will result in some acquittals of very guilty, very evil creatures. We're compounding their original crimes, with our stupidity and arrogance. Jeanninespitfire@gmail.com
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Crappy Gifts and December Birthdays
As someone with a December birthday, I grew up feeling ripped off at gift time. Many of my “birthday” gifts were wrapped with dancing reindeer or Santa on the wrapping. It was clear that my birthday had been combined with Christmas for a net loss to me. My brother had it worse than me, because his birthday was the day after Christmas, when we were all too busy playing with our new toys to even pay attention to someone else opening one. Of course, his gifts were also wrapped in Christmas paper. Worse still, my mother was born on Christmas, which must have really sucked for her growing up. As it was, she grew up in a poor family. Even so, it came as a surprise when she said her first birthday cake was the one given to her by us, when she turned seventy.
I married a man who procrastinates and is very practical. This was problematic when it came to getting presents for me. Plus, I have friends married to the proverbial “good guys,” the men who get their wives great gifts that take time and thought and money! These men are the envy of their wives's friends, sisters and co-workers, who openly praise the wonder boys for their generous thoughtfully selected gifts for decades. When it comes to gifts, women can forgive a lot better than we can forget. Indeed, the bad gift givers are also remembered long after their faux pas. They have a hard time living it down. (But it’s very important to let them try to overcome their past).
One year my father gave my mother a lawn mower for Mother’s Day. Worse still, it wasn’t even a gas or electric powered one, but a manual! Gee dad, why not give her an orange jumpsuit and pick axe to break rocks with? Oh, and some big shears for the north 40? The symbolism my mother saw in his present baffled my father. He had no insight into why my mother, who liked doing the yard work with my brothers, and said she needed more exercise, would feel a tad under-appreciated by this gesture.
Similarly, I was seven months pregnant one birthday when I truly saw my husband’s gift problem. His innate practicality, infamous gift procrastination and insanely busy schedule as a medical resident fully, but briefly, blossomed. I had mistakenly mentioned that my sweaters were getting snug due to the recent weight gain. So on my big day, my military husband gave me an extra extra large sweatshirt that said “Walter Reed Army Medical Center” on its’ front, and an autobiography written by a Marine sniper. Come on, a sniper book? Was I actually so cranky he thought I was planning to kill? Was I now "Super K Mart Sized? (Not yet!) I choose to believe that he was shopping in the hospital store, on my actual birthday, and not that he thought I was murderously irritated. When I opened those gifts, I wondered if he even knew me, if he thought a sniper’s autobiography was something I would enjoy reading...ever.
But this was when having a December birthday was a blessing. My husband had seen my obvious disappointment at the walrus sized sweatshirt and murder manual on my birthday. With that memory still fresh, he only had three weeks til Christmas to overcome his transgression. On Christmas morning, he presented me with a beautiful gold ring, bearing a diamond for every year we’d been married. Now that made me cry, with happiness, not horror. See? Redemption! It happens.
A second problem with my husband is he has similar attitudes about receiving gifts. When I asked what he wanted for Christmas early in our marriage, he said, “a new tire for my car” and he meant it. Instead, I gave him gifts I thought he should have, and not what he’d get for himself anyhow. He doesn’t understand this. Even when he liked the presents, I could tell he was confused about getting a “want” of his met, and not a “need.”
I know needs should always take precedence over wants, unless those needs are going to be met anyhow. For instance, when you know you’ll be able to afford a practical item later, (like a tire) why give it as a gift? That’s like paying a utility bill and saying “Happy Anniversary!” Times are tough. If you are strapped for cash this year, at least meet a “need” that feels more personal than a new tire. She's looking for a job? Maybe a new interview outfit (or a gift certificate for one, so you can avoid the size guessing game), or an accessory piece that she can wear to work and social events, like a tasteful necklace, or a classic purse she's commented on, assuming you don't ignore purse discussions.
When you are financially able to give a real present, try to meet a “want”. You don’t have to mind read guys, you can ask her what she wants. If she says “nothing”, that’s a lie. She wants something. She may not know what she wants, but she damn well wants you to know.
I’ve solved the dilemma for my husband. For example, I have long loved certain perfumes. Not every perfume, certain perfumes. After decades of getting perfume I had never heard of, or actively disliked, I made a list. My husband (and his mother) seemed to think this list either didn’t exist, or was merely a wispy guideline. I persisted with the list. The first time I got one of my listed perfumes was last year, when the collection of mini-perfume bottles from my mother in law, happened to include one of them. Yes I wondered if my husband simply didn’t like the fragrances I had chosen. But his nose was broken in a wrestling match years ago, and he couldn't smell smoke if he were on fire. His mother has a 2 pack a day tobacco habit, so her fragrance detector is also way off. The good news? Our son gave me perfume from my list! It comforts me to know I’ve raised a young man who will be the future bane of the bad gift givers & the envy of his future wife’s friends and family. (The girl he marries better be grateful to me.)
Here’s a news flash; men and women are different, and so are our friends. Find out what a specific holiday means to your significant other before you attach great meaning to their choices. (For that matter, find out what they consider “expensive and tasteful” to mean, so you can avoid those awkward moments when you underspend your friend by two socio-economic classes). I have friends who make huge spectacles out of their birthdays. They’ll take cruises and get expensive jewelry. Other friends just hope for a nice lunch with a card. Of course women need to be more direct about what we want. What’s new? Men are not mind readers (and most of the time, that fact makes me very grateful.)
Guys, no woman wants an “extra, extra large” clothing item unless she’s just had breast augmentation surgery, chose that size, and it’s for her to wear on top. Unless that's your situation, never buy your wife an “extra/extra large” item. Never. Just keep the receipt for her to return the item and buy it for her with an intentionally low balled estimate of her girth. Underestimate by at least two sizes. Sure, it’s a hassle to return an item, but it sure beats the look she’ll give you if you ever guess two sizes the other way. Trust me.
I still have a lingerie set my husband gave me that wouldn’t fit a third world pre-pubescent girl, (or my 85 lb. daughter). Though his sizing estimate was way way off, it’s so flattering to think he believed it ever fit me, that I still own it! It’s on the top shelf in my closet.
What’s on your list, and have you told anyone?
I married a man who procrastinates and is very practical. This was problematic when it came to getting presents for me. Plus, I have friends married to the proverbial “good guys,” the men who get their wives great gifts that take time and thought and money! These men are the envy of their wives's friends, sisters and co-workers, who openly praise the wonder boys for their generous thoughtfully selected gifts for decades. When it comes to gifts, women can forgive a lot better than we can forget. Indeed, the bad gift givers are also remembered long after their faux pas. They have a hard time living it down. (But it’s very important to let them try to overcome their past).
One year my father gave my mother a lawn mower for Mother’s Day. Worse still, it wasn’t even a gas or electric powered one, but a manual! Gee dad, why not give her an orange jumpsuit and pick axe to break rocks with? Oh, and some big shears for the north 40? The symbolism my mother saw in his present baffled my father. He had no insight into why my mother, who liked doing the yard work with my brothers, and said she needed more exercise, would feel a tad under-appreciated by this gesture.
Similarly, I was seven months pregnant one birthday when I truly saw my husband’s gift problem. His innate practicality, infamous gift procrastination and insanely busy schedule as a medical resident fully, but briefly, blossomed. I had mistakenly mentioned that my sweaters were getting snug due to the recent weight gain. So on my big day, my military husband gave me an extra extra large sweatshirt that said “Walter Reed Army Medical Center” on its’ front, and an autobiography written by a Marine sniper. Come on, a sniper book? Was I actually so cranky he thought I was planning to kill? Was I now "Super K Mart Sized? (Not yet!) I choose to believe that he was shopping in the hospital store, on my actual birthday, and not that he thought I was murderously irritated. When I opened those gifts, I wondered if he even knew me, if he thought a sniper’s autobiography was something I would enjoy reading...ever.
But this was when having a December birthday was a blessing. My husband had seen my obvious disappointment at the walrus sized sweatshirt and murder manual on my birthday. With that memory still fresh, he only had three weeks til Christmas to overcome his transgression. On Christmas morning, he presented me with a beautiful gold ring, bearing a diamond for every year we’d been married. Now that made me cry, with happiness, not horror. See? Redemption! It happens.
A second problem with my husband is he has similar attitudes about receiving gifts. When I asked what he wanted for Christmas early in our marriage, he said, “a new tire for my car” and he meant it. Instead, I gave him gifts I thought he should have, and not what he’d get for himself anyhow. He doesn’t understand this. Even when he liked the presents, I could tell he was confused about getting a “want” of his met, and not a “need.”
I know needs should always take precedence over wants, unless those needs are going to be met anyhow. For instance, when you know you’ll be able to afford a practical item later, (like a tire) why give it as a gift? That’s like paying a utility bill and saying “Happy Anniversary!” Times are tough. If you are strapped for cash this year, at least meet a “need” that feels more personal than a new tire. She's looking for a job? Maybe a new interview outfit (or a gift certificate for one, so you can avoid the size guessing game), or an accessory piece that she can wear to work and social events, like a tasteful necklace, or a classic purse she's commented on, assuming you don't ignore purse discussions.
When you are financially able to give a real present, try to meet a “want”. You don’t have to mind read guys, you can ask her what she wants. If she says “nothing”, that’s a lie. She wants something. She may not know what she wants, but she damn well wants you to know.
I’ve solved the dilemma for my husband. For example, I have long loved certain perfumes. Not every perfume, certain perfumes. After decades of getting perfume I had never heard of, or actively disliked, I made a list. My husband (and his mother) seemed to think this list either didn’t exist, or was merely a wispy guideline. I persisted with the list. The first time I got one of my listed perfumes was last year, when the collection of mini-perfume bottles from my mother in law, happened to include one of them. Yes I wondered if my husband simply didn’t like the fragrances I had chosen. But his nose was broken in a wrestling match years ago, and he couldn't smell smoke if he were on fire. His mother has a 2 pack a day tobacco habit, so her fragrance detector is also way off. The good news? Our son gave me perfume from my list! It comforts me to know I’ve raised a young man who will be the future bane of the bad gift givers & the envy of his future wife’s friends and family. (The girl he marries better be grateful to me.)
Here’s a news flash; men and women are different, and so are our friends. Find out what a specific holiday means to your significant other before you attach great meaning to their choices. (For that matter, find out what they consider “expensive and tasteful” to mean, so you can avoid those awkward moments when you underspend your friend by two socio-economic classes). I have friends who make huge spectacles out of their birthdays. They’ll take cruises and get expensive jewelry. Other friends just hope for a nice lunch with a card. Of course women need to be more direct about what we want. What’s new? Men are not mind readers (and most of the time, that fact makes me very grateful.)
Guys, no woman wants an “extra, extra large” clothing item unless she’s just had breast augmentation surgery, chose that size, and it’s for her to wear on top. Unless that's your situation, never buy your wife an “extra/extra large” item. Never. Just keep the receipt for her to return the item and buy it for her with an intentionally low balled estimate of her girth. Underestimate by at least two sizes. Sure, it’s a hassle to return an item, but it sure beats the look she’ll give you if you ever guess two sizes the other way. Trust me.
I still have a lingerie set my husband gave me that wouldn’t fit a third world pre-pubescent girl, (or my 85 lb. daughter). Though his sizing estimate was way way off, it’s so flattering to think he believed it ever fit me, that I still own it! It’s on the top shelf in my closet.
What’s on your list, and have you told anyone?
Monday, December 14, 2009
Why Carnivores are Superior, (Morally and all)
My acting coach told us all, with great authority, that "it has been proven that plants FEEL AND EXPRESS PAIN...." (What this had to do with acting was unclear.)
So last night, I thought I heard screaming and realized it was the terrified carrots, a Holocaust in my salad bowl! With the lugubrious & mournful lettuce sadly wilting at the mutilation. Oh, the murder and carnage in my very bowl!
But you see, that is why I love meat so much, AND why it is morally superior to be a carnivore! It is so much fairer! Animals can flee from us, or fight back and bite or kill us, but NOT SO the poor immobilized defenseless plants, (I'm not counting artichokes or those other things that prick your fingers, but then again, maybe they are the plant warriors?)
Well then, so, what can I eat? If all I can eat are plants that feel and talk to each other, yet I find some on the ground, what am I to think? How do I know that those fruits and vegetables aren't the depressed suicidal plants who jumped, OR worse, the sociopaths that were voted off the vine or tree - eating THEM cannot be healthy for us!
How do we know whether in some "plant faiths" maybe there are heroically suicidal plants, who knowingly expose themselves to pesticides, allowing themselves to be pulled and eaten by US as their form of attack. Yes, call them terrorists if you will. I'm just saying to be alert...you never know. (But my acting coach does.)
So last night, I thought I heard screaming and realized it was the terrified carrots, a Holocaust in my salad bowl! With the lugubrious & mournful lettuce sadly wilting at the mutilation. Oh, the murder and carnage in my very bowl!
But you see, that is why I love meat so much, AND why it is morally superior to be a carnivore! It is so much fairer! Animals can flee from us, or fight back and bite or kill us, but NOT SO the poor immobilized defenseless plants, (I'm not counting artichokes or those other things that prick your fingers, but then again, maybe they are the plant warriors?)
Well then, so, what can I eat? If all I can eat are plants that feel and talk to each other, yet I find some on the ground, what am I to think? How do I know that those fruits and vegetables aren't the depressed suicidal plants who jumped, OR worse, the sociopaths that were voted off the vine or tree - eating THEM cannot be healthy for us!
How do we know whether in some "plant faiths" maybe there are heroically suicidal plants, who knowingly expose themselves to pesticides, allowing themselves to be pulled and eaten by US as their form of attack. Yes, call them terrorists if you will. I'm just saying to be alert...you never know. (But my acting coach does.)
Casey Anthony and Her Crazy Ways/Family
The Casey Anthony case still fascinates us on a number of levels. In this piece I won't explore the issue of guilt; i.e., the mountain of evidence against her. I was a defense attorney for 3 years and she's guilty. For now, let's focus on why her case has held our interest for so long and what we can learn about people like her.
First, we're always dumbstruck and horrified by mothers who kill their own children. This is especially true with premeditation, and not some momentary snap or loss of temper. And except for post partum psychosis, which is rare but real, we usually find ourselves wanting blood for blood and an eye for an eye. We argue that if the death penalty is ever just, it is uniquely suited for this crime. We just don't get it. It is more than being against nature; it offends it. Animals fight to the death to save their offspring, they don't kill them.
The first thought most of us had was based on hope that "it must not be her" or "it must have been an accident and she freaked…" To our horror, neither story fits with her behavior before, during or after her daughter's case unfolded.
Casey's behavior before and after are totally inconsistent with an accident. Arguing "accidental death" now, is a bit too late. First, remember that it was not Casey who called the police about her missing daughter; her mother did! It had been a month of Caley missing, so any idea that either Zanny the mystery and non-existent nanny abducted her, is fatally undermined by this tardiness. Any suggestion that there was an accidental death involving Casey and that she "freaked out" gets weaker as each day passed without her notifying anyone about it, and partying on like it was 1999. There's just no way to explain her failure to report her daughter missing. Neither the "Zanny" story works, nor the "oops! It was an accident!" story make sense with the failure to call the police. But aside from what that means to guilt, consider what it means about her conscience and the apparent lack thereof. She lies like few people lie. Her father mentioned that quirk early on and said she'd lie "beyond anyone else" and she sure does. She carries the lying to such an extreme that she seems baffled and indignantly outraged that she isn't believed when she lies earnestly. If it weren't for having a dead child involved, her claim to have been looking on her own, is hilarious. She was dancing and humping away in public, (maybe Caley liked dancing?) while her "private search for Caley" was happening. (The "search" for Caley was so private, no one else knew about it...) Good grief, this reminds me of OJ's golf course searches for "the real killers" of his ex-wife Nicole and Ron Goldman...
Casey denies any and all wrong doing and even points the finger at others. As a former defense attorney I see this as yet another mistake on the part of the defense. Like any murder defense with a case involving a ton of evidence against your client, you only have 3 reasonable choices. You can try to deny it, which isn't usually effective in the face of a mountain of evidence, but by finding fault with the police investigation on occasion, it can work. (See California vs OJ Simpson, for example).
You can claim self defense, but that hardly applies to killing your toddler. Or finally, you can use the insanity defense and use it for the guilt phase and or, at least try to claim some diminished responsibility for sentencing. With Casey's whole defense, Baez has failed miserably b/c the only reasonable approach to this case if he wants to save her life, is to focus on her mental state. Unless he has some serious mistakes on the part of the police and for some idiotic reason is saving them up for trial, I'd say he's already lost her case. Baez has been in over his head from the start, making public relations blunder after blunder. He has made mistakes at almost every turn. But to me, he seems sexually attracted to Casey, and I suspect that matters to Casey a great deal more than it should. This leads me to my two biggest points of interest in this case.
First, as to how & why a mother kills her own offspring, we're morbidly intrigued. It's rare that we can see a true sociopath in action and so much of her thought process and behavior is on display via her computer searches on missing children (before Caley's disappearance) and the use of chloroform, and her video taped discussions with family while she was in jail. She killed her own child and feels no remorse, according to her diary entries and her behavior. That itself shocks the conscience so much that it's worth studying. She claims at one point, in a talk with her parents, that "no one knows how I feel. I'm a victim here. I have no one to comfort me...no one. You have each other but I have no one..." Amazing. She's alone...b/c she killed her daughter! It's the definition of chutzpah, to say "Your honor, please, have mercy on me because I'm an orphan"--when you're on trial for murdering your parents! These statements alone, gets a "WTH?!" from me. God, I hope the jury gets to hear those self pitying clueless comments. They are so telling. Zero insight and zero concern for the loss of an innocent child who inconvenienced her.
Second, I'm fascinated by her family. Evidently they are incapable of holding Casey responsible for anything now. In the past, they knew her to be a "pathological liar" and a thief, and Mrs. Anthony even warned a young man Casey was dating, away from her. What does that feel like as a mother? While I do feel for her, my sympathy only goes so far. Mr. & Mrs. Anthony were the first to suspect the ugly truth in this case, and are on record (in their interviews with the police and their conversations with the car impound lot, and their 911 calls) saying as much. At one point while George Anthony (Casey's father) was talking to law enforcement, he vomited after revealing his inner most fears--which were that he had helped "raise someone who could do this". Mrs. Anthony made the 911 call about her missing grandchild, and both parents reported the "Smell of death" inside Casey's car, which she had so brilliantly abandoned. (I think that was for a Plan B in case she wanted to claim the car was stolen. No matter, no explanation has come forward on that issue). Later, it was George Anthony, not Casey, who attempted suicide in a motel.
Despite being the first to call attention to their grandchild's case, the Anthony family is evidently now standing behind her story, (whatever story that is). They publicly say "she's innocent!". Excuse me? That deserves another "WTH?!" from me.
They know the truth, so why stand by her now? Possibilities to explore are the role they feel they played in her behavior. It has to be a nightmare for them as parents and grandparents. To paraphrase the fear that George Anthony disclosed just before he vomited, "to think we could raise someone who would do this…please don't tell my wife b/c I don't think she'll be able to handle this…" Then he threw up and later he tried to end his life. God help him, and their family at this terrible time. But why stand by her? Do they assume responsibility simply based on parenthood? I've seen clients who did bad things and yet had no criminal siblings. Sometimes someone goes bad, for no apparent reason.
As far as I can tell, that's the case with the Anthony's. They are not criminals, except for Casey. Yet they've raised a true sociopath. I think a psychopath kills for pleasure whereas a sociopath kills b/c it's the easiest path for them. Neither a psychopath or a sociopath feels remorse or empathy for their victims; it's all about them. In her diary, after the killing, (or after her child is inexplicably missing) Casey wrote "I'm more sure now, that I've done the right thing". Wow. What do you do with that?
As repulsive as she has behaved, it is as if she is missing some sort of maternal gene. The gene that forces 99.9% of mothers to go into a burning building to rescue their child. Here, you have a woman who killed her child, perhaps to get back at her own mother (who had criticized her selfish ways and mothering), or to simply rid herself of the inconvenience of having a toddler. Hardly a motivation that to which anyone can relate. Never mind that no one knows the identity of the father. That's another piece to the story that Casey cares nothing about, and has lied about from the beginning. But you have to wonder what makes this woman feel? Has she ever loved? Look at the photos of her behavior even when her daughter's known to be missing. She kept on rocking and humping, in public, getting photographed. And kept on lying to her newest boyfriend, who asked the whereabouts of Caley. (Explain that Mr. Baez). He has to go for the diminished capacity. It's his only option now. Instead, he keeps promising that "when the whole truth comes out, we'll see that Casey is innocent". What are you waiting for?? Does Casey like jail? Get the "innocence proof" out there now!
As a mother, I know I'd stick by my children in the sense that I'd always love them. But there's a difference between that, and literally letting them get away with murder. You'd think by now, the Anthony's would say to themselves, "Gee, enabling Casey to get away with everything wasn't such a good plan...it only seemed easier than following through on accountability", because in the long run, Caley is gone forever. And that must hurt. What a tragic case this is, no matter how evil Casey may turn out to be, because she leaves so many victims in her wake. But in Casey's world, the only victim is her.
First, we're always dumbstruck and horrified by mothers who kill their own children. This is especially true with premeditation, and not some momentary snap or loss of temper. And except for post partum psychosis, which is rare but real, we usually find ourselves wanting blood for blood and an eye for an eye. We argue that if the death penalty is ever just, it is uniquely suited for this crime. We just don't get it. It is more than being against nature; it offends it. Animals fight to the death to save their offspring, they don't kill them.
The first thought most of us had was based on hope that "it must not be her" or "it must have been an accident and she freaked…" To our horror, neither story fits with her behavior before, during or after her daughter's case unfolded.
Casey's behavior before and after are totally inconsistent with an accident. Arguing "accidental death" now, is a bit too late. First, remember that it was not Casey who called the police about her missing daughter; her mother did! It had been a month of Caley missing, so any idea that either Zanny the mystery and non-existent nanny abducted her, is fatally undermined by this tardiness. Any suggestion that there was an accidental death involving Casey and that she "freaked out" gets weaker as each day passed without her notifying anyone about it, and partying on like it was 1999. There's just no way to explain her failure to report her daughter missing. Neither the "Zanny" story works, nor the "oops! It was an accident!" story make sense with the failure to call the police. But aside from what that means to guilt, consider what it means about her conscience and the apparent lack thereof. She lies like few people lie. Her father mentioned that quirk early on and said she'd lie "beyond anyone else" and she sure does. She carries the lying to such an extreme that she seems baffled and indignantly outraged that she isn't believed when she lies earnestly. If it weren't for having a dead child involved, her claim to have been looking on her own, is hilarious. She was dancing and humping away in public, (maybe Caley liked dancing?) while her "private search for Caley" was happening. (The "search" for Caley was so private, no one else knew about it...) Good grief, this reminds me of OJ's golf course searches for "the real killers" of his ex-wife Nicole and Ron Goldman...
Casey denies any and all wrong doing and even points the finger at others. As a former defense attorney I see this as yet another mistake on the part of the defense. Like any murder defense with a case involving a ton of evidence against your client, you only have 3 reasonable choices. You can try to deny it, which isn't usually effective in the face of a mountain of evidence, but by finding fault with the police investigation on occasion, it can work. (See California vs OJ Simpson, for example).
You can claim self defense, but that hardly applies to killing your toddler. Or finally, you can use the insanity defense and use it for the guilt phase and or, at least try to claim some diminished responsibility for sentencing. With Casey's whole defense, Baez has failed miserably b/c the only reasonable approach to this case if he wants to save her life, is to focus on her mental state. Unless he has some serious mistakes on the part of the police and for some idiotic reason is saving them up for trial, I'd say he's already lost her case. Baez has been in over his head from the start, making public relations blunder after blunder. He has made mistakes at almost every turn. But to me, he seems sexually attracted to Casey, and I suspect that matters to Casey a great deal more than it should. This leads me to my two biggest points of interest in this case.
First, as to how & why a mother kills her own offspring, we're morbidly intrigued. It's rare that we can see a true sociopath in action and so much of her thought process and behavior is on display via her computer searches on missing children (before Caley's disappearance) and the use of chloroform, and her video taped discussions with family while she was in jail. She killed her own child and feels no remorse, according to her diary entries and her behavior. That itself shocks the conscience so much that it's worth studying. She claims at one point, in a talk with her parents, that "no one knows how I feel. I'm a victim here. I have no one to comfort me...no one. You have each other but I have no one..." Amazing. She's alone...b/c she killed her daughter! It's the definition of chutzpah, to say "Your honor, please, have mercy on me because I'm an orphan"--when you're on trial for murdering your parents! These statements alone, gets a "WTH?!" from me. God, I hope the jury gets to hear those self pitying clueless comments. They are so telling. Zero insight and zero concern for the loss of an innocent child who inconvenienced her.
Second, I'm fascinated by her family. Evidently they are incapable of holding Casey responsible for anything now. In the past, they knew her to be a "pathological liar" and a thief, and Mrs. Anthony even warned a young man Casey was dating, away from her. What does that feel like as a mother? While I do feel for her, my sympathy only goes so far. Mr. & Mrs. Anthony were the first to suspect the ugly truth in this case, and are on record (in their interviews with the police and their conversations with the car impound lot, and their 911 calls) saying as much. At one point while George Anthony (Casey's father) was talking to law enforcement, he vomited after revealing his inner most fears--which were that he had helped "raise someone who could do this". Mrs. Anthony made the 911 call about her missing grandchild, and both parents reported the "Smell of death" inside Casey's car, which she had so brilliantly abandoned. (I think that was for a Plan B in case she wanted to claim the car was stolen. No matter, no explanation has come forward on that issue). Later, it was George Anthony, not Casey, who attempted suicide in a motel.
Despite being the first to call attention to their grandchild's case, the Anthony family is evidently now standing behind her story, (whatever story that is). They publicly say "she's innocent!". Excuse me? That deserves another "WTH?!" from me.
They know the truth, so why stand by her now? Possibilities to explore are the role they feel they played in her behavior. It has to be a nightmare for them as parents and grandparents. To paraphrase the fear that George Anthony disclosed just before he vomited, "to think we could raise someone who would do this…please don't tell my wife b/c I don't think she'll be able to handle this…" Then he threw up and later he tried to end his life. God help him, and their family at this terrible time. But why stand by her? Do they assume responsibility simply based on parenthood? I've seen clients who did bad things and yet had no criminal siblings. Sometimes someone goes bad, for no apparent reason.
As far as I can tell, that's the case with the Anthony's. They are not criminals, except for Casey. Yet they've raised a true sociopath. I think a psychopath kills for pleasure whereas a sociopath kills b/c it's the easiest path for them. Neither a psychopath or a sociopath feels remorse or empathy for their victims; it's all about them. In her diary, after the killing, (or after her child is inexplicably missing) Casey wrote "I'm more sure now, that I've done the right thing". Wow. What do you do with that?
As repulsive as she has behaved, it is as if she is missing some sort of maternal gene. The gene that forces 99.9% of mothers to go into a burning building to rescue their child. Here, you have a woman who killed her child, perhaps to get back at her own mother (who had criticized her selfish ways and mothering), or to simply rid herself of the inconvenience of having a toddler. Hardly a motivation that to which anyone can relate. Never mind that no one knows the identity of the father. That's another piece to the story that Casey cares nothing about, and has lied about from the beginning. But you have to wonder what makes this woman feel? Has she ever loved? Look at the photos of her behavior even when her daughter's known to be missing. She kept on rocking and humping, in public, getting photographed. And kept on lying to her newest boyfriend, who asked the whereabouts of Caley. (Explain that Mr. Baez). He has to go for the diminished capacity. It's his only option now. Instead, he keeps promising that "when the whole truth comes out, we'll see that Casey is innocent". What are you waiting for?? Does Casey like jail? Get the "innocence proof" out there now!
As a mother, I know I'd stick by my children in the sense that I'd always love them. But there's a difference between that, and literally letting them get away with murder. You'd think by now, the Anthony's would say to themselves, "Gee, enabling Casey to get away with everything wasn't such a good plan...it only seemed easier than following through on accountability", because in the long run, Caley is gone forever. And that must hurt. What a tragic case this is, no matter how evil Casey may turn out to be, because she leaves so many victims in her wake. But in Casey's world, the only victim is her.
Halloween Spookhouse, Our Family's Fav Holy Day
By far, Halloween was my family’s favorite holiday. Like any big family (I’m one of nine kids, born in a span of 12 years--God bless my mother), we had the usual love for Christmas and the 4th of July excitement. But with a brilliant yet raging alcoholic father, those holidays had their downsides. Way too many “un-fun” drunken scenes marred the recall of those holidays.
Yet with Halloween, my French Canadian mother had discovered an outlet for her love of performing and her love for frightening people. She found that hilarious. So did we. Surprisingly, my father’s eccentricity allowed him to enjoy this as well. So my father chose to join her in this hobby-turned-passion, and they both got sooo into the spook house we made, that I have no recollection of them ever fighting on Halloween. (That itself is remarkable.) Thus, all the warmth and joy that a normal kid might have in his memories of Christmas, for me, come from that holiest of days, “All Saint’s Eve”, (whatever that meant).
What brings a family closer than scaring the hell out of our loved ones? (Especially our stoned friends!) For my younger siblings, scaring those pesky bullies who tormented them all year was sweet revenge. With Halloween’s laudable goal of scaring the hell out of those brats, we had a carte blanche on it! It was like getting a free “punch in the face” for all the bullies you’ve avoided all year! And of course, seeing your real friends leave your house with the same look they had after riding a terrifying but exhilarating roller coaster, was a great reward. And they were grateful!
Our spook house was well known in the neighborhood and the crowds and lines forming, grew over the years. One year we were in the newspaper with an article about our devotion to community and the spirit of the holiday. Today it would have made us sound like a great family for a reality TV show (actually we would have been a great family for a reality TV show, but I don’t mean that in a good way). In any case, that only sparked more kids coming the next year, and more money and time devoted to maintaining the quality of the event for my parents. But they were into it, 100%! (It never occurred to us to charge a fee, but that might have been a good idea because it did get pricey to do every year).
Unfortunatly there were some risks and downsides.
The biggest risk was probably to my brother Martin, who took it upon himself to start the show off outside in front of our house. Scary music was blaring from speakers outside, along with some pretty cool lighting effects, for the time...(Hey, it was the 70’s, so black lights and strobes were enough back then. And sometimes we had dry ice).
Anyway, Martin was probably the sibling who experimented the most with “things from the 70’s”. (Am I being too ambiguous, or do you see where I’m going with this? Since you read my blog, that makes you one of the “cognitive elites” so you get it!) Moving on....okay -- so Martin would do stunts like putting on several pairs of pants he didn’t like anymore (or that didn’t belong to him). Then Martin would place a bucket of water at the end of the yard, behind our big tree. He’d cross over to the driveway and light himself on fire in front of as many people as possible. Then he’d run across the lawn screaming, on fire, to the bucket of water and put himself out. EXCELLENT.
Another year, Martin made a harness that he could wear under a sweatshirt, and then he could hang himself from a tree as if he’d been lynched. (He was really clever!) This worked wonders and was a total success, until some kids thought he was more like a pinata, and they took turns hitting him with bats and other assorted weapons. Again, where were the parents?? (Oh as for our parents, I choose to believe they were not fully aware of what Martin was doing. That’s possibly true.) And hey, he survived. But the hang man thing only works well if you have an “assistant bouncer” for the morons who like to hit performers. (I’m just informing those of you who might want to do this too.) Though there was a year in which Martin had several head injuries requiring hospitalization, I don’t think any of them were from Halloween. Amazing. I guess God really does watch out for you on holy days...
Mom and dad were safe enough. Mom would dress as a witch and play a morbid tune on the piano, for her “dead brother, which was usually a dummy corpse in a coffin someone that actually made for us, as a gift! (Talk about community spirit!) The lyrics were something like “Pray for the dead, and the dead will pray for you”. She’d invite “guests” who came trick or treating, through our front door and into the living room to come and pay their respects to her late brother. She’d ask the guest if they thought her brother looked “good enough” as a corpse, implying that she had done the embalming herself (or something like it.) One of my older brothers was usually under the dummy and would periodically make him move, just a bit, as the guest leaned over to look closely. The body would move just a little, enough to get a reaction, so to speak. When I reached my junior year, I got to be under the dead guy and that was a real treat! I got to lay down instead of awkwardly posing and staying still, I didn’t get hit, and usually I got a great scream out of the person whom I was "entertaining"..It was very rewarding. And just for moving his arm! Occasionally, if I had imbibed a bit (after reaching legal age I’m sure...) I’d get freaked out imagining I was under an actual corpse in an Edgar Allan Poe story, but then whatever brain cells were still functioning in me, would remind me that it was a dummy, not a real dead body. (Phew!)
Anyhow, my dad was in the dining room, next to the “wake” we were having in the living room. He’d be in his chef’s clothes, except that they were very bloody for this night. He’d be sharpening his knives and ask if there were “any juicy children coming in”... In his politically incorrect way, if there were African American kids around, Dad would inform them he liked “dark meat the best”. He thought that was so witty.
One particularly innovative year, my parents removed a leaf from the dining room table and had my sister Gisele sit on a stool sticking her head through the leaf. They put a circle of material that looked like a “plate” around her neck and then a table cloth with a hole in it on, and put the leaf closer in, so that it looked like my sister’s head was on a platter. The effect was wonderful and realistic. It got even better when she’d say to guests “Please help me, PLEASE...?” Then my dad would tell her to “be quiet! You’ll scare the guests away from being here FOR DINNER...” (Get it? “For Dinner”?) It was great.
As the kids would continue on through the house there was really only one more room to get through; the kitchen with the candy bowl. But on the way they’d pass the glass door to the library - where we had a sibling getting beaten or stabbed, with a strobe light flashing in the back ground. That sibling was protected by the door, (which turned out to be a good thing). One year a kid hit a window pane on the door and broke it. Could have been my sister’s face instead...)
Then, onto the kitchen where the candy lay! Someone in a gorilla outfit, or a corpse’s, was holding the bowl in their lap. It’s amazing how little candy actually was removed from our house. Hardly needed one bag, though we had over 300 people come see us one year. So, after a good “Gotcha!” at the candy bowl, the kids ran down the few steps towards the back door and passed a monster crawling up the stairs seemingly trying to attack them on their way out (my sister Josette).
Here was another risk of injury to us, from some idiot over reacting. I still think it’s amazing how few parents controlled their kids, knowing they were entering a truly scary spook house. These days, we’d need some informed consent forms to assume the risk and act as a thin veneer of protection for us in the event of a lawsuit. Plus we’d need insurance because of the out of control visitors! Josette got hit in the face twice by a kid with a wooden sword. He chipped her front tooth! Not a word of apology from him or his idiot father who accompanied him, and this injury required the kid to go down a step and reach down the stair to hit her, and his dad did nothing! I can only hope that kid had some terrifying nightmares. He sure didn’t have guilt.
So off they’d go out of the house howling.
When my high school friends came, it was usually after a few drinks or a joint or two. After all, what high schooler goes trick or treating? I never knew back then if anyone did harder stuff, but I had inklings about a few of them. Looking back, I’m pretty sure several of them did. At least they did before coming to my house on Halloween.
I should have told them that going to my house on Halloween was not an activity for someone with a coke problem, because if you had anxiety issues, going to a real spook house would tend to aggravate them. I know this because two of my friends with such a condition could not make it through my house. My craziest friend at the time, Barbara, (who shall remain nameless) could not get through my dining room! She’d freak when she got to the living room and could not get any further. She’d turn around and go back against the waiting crowd in line outside, screaming. It did wonders for the younger ones to see that a teenager could not make it through. Those of us at the door tried to limit the number of entrants and did warn those with little kids to hold them in their arms or not to come in at all. We informed them that we were seriously scaring people, albeit with our own twisted humor. But the screaming and not making it through, made the kids who actually made it all the way out the back door, pretty proud. They’d yell out “I made it through!!” This became a real badge of honor in the 10-13 year age group.
For my high school friends who imbibed too much of...anything...it was also an accomplishment to actually find your way through the house, which may have seemed like a maze to them, but was really quite small and we guided them, or tried to. (Perceptions change in some states of mind, what can I say?) One friend that came in, just reeked of pot. At first she was laughing hysterically, which I loved. Then she began crying, which I did not love. But she kept trying to stumble her way through. That was the night I was the gorilla, and I kept telling her it was alright, she was “safe” and to “keep going, you’ll be okay”. Evidently, a gorilla telling her all was well, was not comforting at all. But no one in my family ever touched a guest, and none of them actually got stabbed; they just witnessed stabbings and murders and thought there was a decapitated head on our table. But this friend could not make it through the house and almost collapsed, literally hysterical with herself for not being able to handle it. She kept saying “I AM FREAKING OUT, OH MY GOD I AM JUST FREAKING OUT! I CAN’T DO THIS, I’M FREAKING TOO MUCH!” And she went back outside into the crowd, adding to the fervor of the waiting masses and never making it through my house. She later told me that was the most frightened she had ever been. I still cherish that memory.
(I think it’s important to remember our Saints).
My parents sold the house when I graduated from high school. The next year no one warned the new owners about our famous spook house. I can only imagine the expression on their faces, when the crowd formed a long line around the block, waiting to be frightened & entertained. A neighbor went over to explain that the crowd wanted a “real spook house” so then I think the new owners answered the door wearing a mask. I'm pretty sure they got egged a lot for the first five years. Guess some people forgot about the spirit of the holiday.
Yet with Halloween, my French Canadian mother had discovered an outlet for her love of performing and her love for frightening people. She found that hilarious. So did we. Surprisingly, my father’s eccentricity allowed him to enjoy this as well. So my father chose to join her in this hobby-turned-passion, and they both got sooo into the spook house we made, that I have no recollection of them ever fighting on Halloween. (That itself is remarkable.) Thus, all the warmth and joy that a normal kid might have in his memories of Christmas, for me, come from that holiest of days, “All Saint’s Eve”, (whatever that meant).
What brings a family closer than scaring the hell out of our loved ones? (Especially our stoned friends!) For my younger siblings, scaring those pesky bullies who tormented them all year was sweet revenge. With Halloween’s laudable goal of scaring the hell out of those brats, we had a carte blanche on it! It was like getting a free “punch in the face” for all the bullies you’ve avoided all year! And of course, seeing your real friends leave your house with the same look they had after riding a terrifying but exhilarating roller coaster, was a great reward. And they were grateful!
Our spook house was well known in the neighborhood and the crowds and lines forming, grew over the years. One year we were in the newspaper with an article about our devotion to community and the spirit of the holiday. Today it would have made us sound like a great family for a reality TV show (actually we would have been a great family for a reality TV show, but I don’t mean that in a good way). In any case, that only sparked more kids coming the next year, and more money and time devoted to maintaining the quality of the event for my parents. But they were into it, 100%! (It never occurred to us to charge a fee, but that might have been a good idea because it did get pricey to do every year).
Unfortunatly there were some risks and downsides.
The biggest risk was probably to my brother Martin, who took it upon himself to start the show off outside in front of our house. Scary music was blaring from speakers outside, along with some pretty cool lighting effects, for the time...(Hey, it was the 70’s, so black lights and strobes were enough back then. And sometimes we had dry ice).
Anyway, Martin was probably the sibling who experimented the most with “things from the 70’s”. (Am I being too ambiguous, or do you see where I’m going with this? Since you read my blog, that makes you one of the “cognitive elites” so you get it!) Moving on....okay -- so Martin would do stunts like putting on several pairs of pants he didn’t like anymore (or that didn’t belong to him). Then Martin would place a bucket of water at the end of the yard, behind our big tree. He’d cross over to the driveway and light himself on fire in front of as many people as possible. Then he’d run across the lawn screaming, on fire, to the bucket of water and put himself out. EXCELLENT.
Another year, Martin made a harness that he could wear under a sweatshirt, and then he could hang himself from a tree as if he’d been lynched. (He was really clever!) This worked wonders and was a total success, until some kids thought he was more like a pinata, and they took turns hitting him with bats and other assorted weapons. Again, where were the parents?? (Oh as for our parents, I choose to believe they were not fully aware of what Martin was doing. That’s possibly true.) And hey, he survived. But the hang man thing only works well if you have an “assistant bouncer” for the morons who like to hit performers. (I’m just informing those of you who might want to do this too.) Though there was a year in which Martin had several head injuries requiring hospitalization, I don’t think any of them were from Halloween. Amazing. I guess God really does watch out for you on holy days...
Mom and dad were safe enough. Mom would dress as a witch and play a morbid tune on the piano, for her “dead brother, which was usually a dummy corpse in a coffin someone that actually made for us, as a gift! (Talk about community spirit!) The lyrics were something like “Pray for the dead, and the dead will pray for you”. She’d invite “guests” who came trick or treating, through our front door and into the living room to come and pay their respects to her late brother. She’d ask the guest if they thought her brother looked “good enough” as a corpse, implying that she had done the embalming herself (or something like it.) One of my older brothers was usually under the dummy and would periodically make him move, just a bit, as the guest leaned over to look closely. The body would move just a little, enough to get a reaction, so to speak. When I reached my junior year, I got to be under the dead guy and that was a real treat! I got to lay down instead of awkwardly posing and staying still, I didn’t get hit, and usually I got a great scream out of the person whom I was "entertaining"..It was very rewarding. And just for moving his arm! Occasionally, if I had imbibed a bit (after reaching legal age I’m sure...) I’d get freaked out imagining I was under an actual corpse in an Edgar Allan Poe story, but then whatever brain cells were still functioning in me, would remind me that it was a dummy, not a real dead body. (Phew!)
Anyhow, my dad was in the dining room, next to the “wake” we were having in the living room. He’d be in his chef’s clothes, except that they were very bloody for this night. He’d be sharpening his knives and ask if there were “any juicy children coming in”... In his politically incorrect way, if there were African American kids around, Dad would inform them he liked “dark meat the best”. He thought that was so witty.
One particularly innovative year, my parents removed a leaf from the dining room table and had my sister Gisele sit on a stool sticking her head through the leaf. They put a circle of material that looked like a “plate” around her neck and then a table cloth with a hole in it on, and put the leaf closer in, so that it looked like my sister’s head was on a platter. The effect was wonderful and realistic. It got even better when she’d say to guests “Please help me, PLEASE...?” Then my dad would tell her to “be quiet! You’ll scare the guests away from being here FOR DINNER...” (Get it? “For Dinner”?) It was great.
As the kids would continue on through the house there was really only one more room to get through; the kitchen with the candy bowl. But on the way they’d pass the glass door to the library - where we had a sibling getting beaten or stabbed, with a strobe light flashing in the back ground. That sibling was protected by the door, (which turned out to be a good thing). One year a kid hit a window pane on the door and broke it. Could have been my sister’s face instead...)
Then, onto the kitchen where the candy lay! Someone in a gorilla outfit, or a corpse’s, was holding the bowl in their lap. It’s amazing how little candy actually was removed from our house. Hardly needed one bag, though we had over 300 people come see us one year. So, after a good “Gotcha!” at the candy bowl, the kids ran down the few steps towards the back door and passed a monster crawling up the stairs seemingly trying to attack them on their way out (my sister Josette).
Here was another risk of injury to us, from some idiot over reacting. I still think it’s amazing how few parents controlled their kids, knowing they were entering a truly scary spook house. These days, we’d need some informed consent forms to assume the risk and act as a thin veneer of protection for us in the event of a lawsuit. Plus we’d need insurance because of the out of control visitors! Josette got hit in the face twice by a kid with a wooden sword. He chipped her front tooth! Not a word of apology from him or his idiot father who accompanied him, and this injury required the kid to go down a step and reach down the stair to hit her, and his dad did nothing! I can only hope that kid had some terrifying nightmares. He sure didn’t have guilt.
So off they’d go out of the house howling.
When my high school friends came, it was usually after a few drinks or a joint or two. After all, what high schooler goes trick or treating? I never knew back then if anyone did harder stuff, but I had inklings about a few of them. Looking back, I’m pretty sure several of them did. At least they did before coming to my house on Halloween.
I should have told them that going to my house on Halloween was not an activity for someone with a coke problem, because if you had anxiety issues, going to a real spook house would tend to aggravate them. I know this because two of my friends with such a condition could not make it through my house. My craziest friend at the time, Barbara, (who shall remain nameless) could not get through my dining room! She’d freak when she got to the living room and could not get any further. She’d turn around and go back against the waiting crowd in line outside, screaming. It did wonders for the younger ones to see that a teenager could not make it through. Those of us at the door tried to limit the number of entrants and did warn those with little kids to hold them in their arms or not to come in at all. We informed them that we were seriously scaring people, albeit with our own twisted humor. But the screaming and not making it through, made the kids who actually made it all the way out the back door, pretty proud. They’d yell out “I made it through!!” This became a real badge of honor in the 10-13 year age group.
For my high school friends who imbibed too much of...anything...it was also an accomplishment to actually find your way through the house, which may have seemed like a maze to them, but was really quite small and we guided them, or tried to. (Perceptions change in some states of mind, what can I say?) One friend that came in, just reeked of pot. At first she was laughing hysterically, which I loved. Then she began crying, which I did not love. But she kept trying to stumble her way through. That was the night I was the gorilla, and I kept telling her it was alright, she was “safe” and to “keep going, you’ll be okay”. Evidently, a gorilla telling her all was well, was not comforting at all. But no one in my family ever touched a guest, and none of them actually got stabbed; they just witnessed stabbings and murders and thought there was a decapitated head on our table. But this friend could not make it through the house and almost collapsed, literally hysterical with herself for not being able to handle it. She kept saying “I AM FREAKING OUT, OH MY GOD I AM JUST FREAKING OUT! I CAN’T DO THIS, I’M FREAKING TOO MUCH!” And she went back outside into the crowd, adding to the fervor of the waiting masses and never making it through my house. She later told me that was the most frightened she had ever been. I still cherish that memory.
(I think it’s important to remember our Saints).
My parents sold the house when I graduated from high school. The next year no one warned the new owners about our famous spook house. I can only imagine the expression on their faces, when the crowd formed a long line around the block, waiting to be frightened & entertained. A neighbor went over to explain that the crowd wanted a “real spook house” so then I think the new owners answered the door wearing a mask. I'm pretty sure they got egged a lot for the first five years. Guess some people forgot about the spirit of the holiday.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Jury Duty...I WISH!
So I got called for jury duty. Unlike some of you, I'd love to get on a jury. But I'm a lawyer, so I'm not a likely choice. Though I understand this, what bothers me is that the questionnaire we fill out mentions our occupations up front. So why they make me wait 11 hours, (or 3 days), to get booted off for being a lawyer?
So I go to the main room & do some paperwork and am not immediately rejected. To my surprise, I pass the first cuts. "Wow, I might actually get on a jury. What a great learning experience and insider's look at the process this could be", I say to myself. Then I learn that the case is a famous one, which sounds very cool to me. I squirm with some delight at the prospect of serving on a famous case...Increasingly, I see myself being interviewed on television about this "significant case" & why we, the jury, ruled the way we did. Naturally I will have been selected as foreman...I can see myself getting to host my own TV show, due to the legal acumen and clarity I use speaking on television, despite all the pressure of the media in my face...I can handle it! I'm smarter than Nancy Grace! Well, at least I'm not Southern! Then I learn I really was out of the area when the events happened, so I honestly have not heard of this famous case, which further qualifies me to serve. (OMG, I might win this contest!)...
Then we get some "background facts" from the judge. We're told the case involves an injury to an elderly woman in a nursing facility, and her family is suing a bunch of defendants. The plaintiff's attorney calls the harm "violent." I start to feel less excited about this trial. First off, I really like old people. So a simple gang stabbing, or even a double murder would make me so much more comfy, than some little old lady getting beat up by a Nurse Ratchett / Baby Jane. Hmmm, and I'll be missing out on holiday fun too? And for $15 per day! (Don't tell me there aren't jobs in LA...) Then we're told the trial is likely to be a "LONG" one, (YES - SIZE MATTERS!!) and will probably end before the holidays.
Long story short, the lawyers ran out of challenges/cuts, so they got stuck with the remains left up there at that moment, which did not include me. Here's what so freaked me out.
QUESTION THAT BUGGED ME THE MOST:
The Plaintiff's attorney said this:
1) “Some people think that if a VICTIM cannot communicate about their suffering, then IT DOES NOT COUNT...but other people think it shouldn't matter if a person can't communicate b/c they're still people...which way do you lean? (Blatant manipulation is bad enough, but when it's so stupidly asked, it pained me so.) "Gee, wonder what the right answer is..How about, 'I'm in the first group - that’s why I only hang out with babies, mutes & the severely disabled...it doesn’t count when you hurt them. Kind of like my kids!"
ANSWERS/NON-ANSWERS THAT FRIGHTEN ME THE MOST:
The Defense attorney discussed how juries award damages in cases where there's an injury caused...he asked:
2) “Some jurors feel that the seriousness of the injury should matter, if you pay an injured person some money. Do you think the level of injury or harm, should factor in how much money is paid? FOUR PEOPLE COULD NOT ANSWER THIS QUESTION....AT ALL....and two of THEM GOT ON THE JURY!! They said crap like "well I don't know, I don't have enough information" or "that depends". Depends? On what?? Oh, the seriousness of the injury? The level of harm done? Of course, you fools! What is wrong with these people? It's not a trick question! You think a broken neck is worth a bit more than a scraped knee? IT IS! OMG, I was horrified and that was one of those moments when I knew I'd blog about this to tell you to PLEASE SERVE ON A JURY IF YOU CAN POSSIBLY DO IT. IF YOU ARE READING THIS BLOG, YOU ARE IN THE "COGNITIVE ELITE" (hereinafter referred to as the "CE"), TRUST ME...it's your duty to be on a jury. Each jury should have at least one member of the CE on it...
3) The defense attorney asked a question that generated yet another idiotic response, but this one shows why women used to be prohibited from serving on juries. (Frankly, she embarrassed me as a woman). The defense attorney asked:
“When you decide things, Do you tend to go with your heart and stay with that, even if facts come out later that show you may not be right? In other words, if you FEEL sympathy for a person, would you still be able to listen to facts that might, under the law, mean they don't get any money?"
One particular woman so relished the attention the court gave her, it was visible to all. She beamed waiting her turn to answer. After all, never before had anyone asked her opinion on so many important issues. It didn't matter to her that she didn't have answers to the questions, nor had she given thought to the issues before, b/c the attention and focus was on her and what she felt about something...so she answered: “You have to understand, I follow my heart. I’m a very compassionate person and that's just how I live. I choose to live my life with my heart. And I'm not sure I could really listen to facts if I'm following my heart.I'm just a very compassionate person with a lot of feelings..."
That woman did NOT get on the jury, thank God. But she left the court room in a proud flurry of activity, as if she'd proved a very important point about herself and her big compassionate heart.
I saw three different people cry getting asked questions that were the slightest bit emotional. That included a man who once had a stroke years ago and so, I assume, over identified with the old woman. The others were women who cried about the pressure of...either being asked a question or just thinking about aging. I don't know, but I'm pretty sure I could have gotten one of them to confess to the JFK assassination if pressed. I'm seriously thinking of attending the end of the trial to see what happens. But while the trial is going on, I'll be Christmas shopping with the money I earned doing my civic duty...
If nothing else, please remember that you really must serve on a jury someday. Otherwise, "the compassionate" people with their feelings and inability to hear facts that don't go along with those feelings, may be on a jury when a loved one of yours is on trial. They'll be the only ones left. And if you refuse to serve b/c you just find it so inconvenient & you just "have to get out of it" then NEVER EVER complain to anyone about a stupid jury verdict. The system only works when we, the people, make it work.
So I go to the main room & do some paperwork and am not immediately rejected. To my surprise, I pass the first cuts. "Wow, I might actually get on a jury. What a great learning experience and insider's look at the process this could be", I say to myself. Then I learn that the case is a famous one, which sounds very cool to me. I squirm with some delight at the prospect of serving on a famous case...Increasingly, I see myself being interviewed on television about this "significant case" & why we, the jury, ruled the way we did. Naturally I will have been selected as foreman...I can see myself getting to host my own TV show, due to the legal acumen and clarity I use speaking on television, despite all the pressure of the media in my face...I can handle it! I'm smarter than Nancy Grace! Well, at least I'm not Southern! Then I learn I really was out of the area when the events happened, so I honestly have not heard of this famous case, which further qualifies me to serve. (OMG, I might win this contest!)...
Then we get some "background facts" from the judge. We're told the case involves an injury to an elderly woman in a nursing facility, and her family is suing a bunch of defendants. The plaintiff's attorney calls the harm "violent." I start to feel less excited about this trial. First off, I really like old people. So a simple gang stabbing, or even a double murder would make me so much more comfy, than some little old lady getting beat up by a Nurse Ratchett / Baby Jane. Hmmm, and I'll be missing out on holiday fun too? And for $15 per day! (Don't tell me there aren't jobs in LA...) Then we're told the trial is likely to be a "LONG" one, (YES - SIZE MATTERS!!) and will probably end before the holidays.
Long story short, the lawyers ran out of challenges/cuts, so they got stuck with the remains left up there at that moment, which did not include me. Here's what so freaked me out.
QUESTION THAT BUGGED ME THE MOST:
The Plaintiff's attorney said this:
1) “Some people think that if a VICTIM cannot communicate about their suffering, then IT DOES NOT COUNT...but other people think it shouldn't matter if a person can't communicate b/c they're still people...which way do you lean? (Blatant manipulation is bad enough, but when it's so stupidly asked, it pained me so.) "Gee, wonder what the right answer is..How about, 'I'm in the first group - that’s why I only hang out with babies, mutes & the severely disabled...it doesn’t count when you hurt them. Kind of like my kids!"
ANSWERS/NON-ANSWERS THAT FRIGHTEN ME THE MOST:
The Defense attorney discussed how juries award damages in cases where there's an injury caused...he asked:
2) “Some jurors feel that the seriousness of the injury should matter, if you pay an injured person some money. Do you think the level of injury or harm, should factor in how much money is paid? FOUR PEOPLE COULD NOT ANSWER THIS QUESTION....AT ALL....and two of THEM GOT ON THE JURY!! They said crap like "well I don't know, I don't have enough information" or "that depends". Depends? On what?? Oh, the seriousness of the injury? The level of harm done? Of course, you fools! What is wrong with these people? It's not a trick question! You think a broken neck is worth a bit more than a scraped knee? IT IS! OMG, I was horrified and that was one of those moments when I knew I'd blog about this to tell you to PLEASE SERVE ON A JURY IF YOU CAN POSSIBLY DO IT. IF YOU ARE READING THIS BLOG, YOU ARE IN THE "COGNITIVE ELITE" (hereinafter referred to as the "CE"), TRUST ME...it's your duty to be on a jury. Each jury should have at least one member of the CE on it...
3) The defense attorney asked a question that generated yet another idiotic response, but this one shows why women used to be prohibited from serving on juries. (Frankly, she embarrassed me as a woman). The defense attorney asked:
“When you decide things, Do you tend to go with your heart and stay with that, even if facts come out later that show you may not be right? In other words, if you FEEL sympathy for a person, would you still be able to listen to facts that might, under the law, mean they don't get any money?"
One particular woman so relished the attention the court gave her, it was visible to all. She beamed waiting her turn to answer. After all, never before had anyone asked her opinion on so many important issues. It didn't matter to her that she didn't have answers to the questions, nor had she given thought to the issues before, b/c the attention and focus was on her and what she felt about something...so she answered: “You have to understand, I follow my heart. I’m a very compassionate person and that's just how I live. I choose to live my life with my heart. And I'm not sure I could really listen to facts if I'm following my heart.I'm just a very compassionate person with a lot of feelings..."
That woman did NOT get on the jury, thank God. But she left the court room in a proud flurry of activity, as if she'd proved a very important point about herself and her big compassionate heart.
I saw three different people cry getting asked questions that were the slightest bit emotional. That included a man who once had a stroke years ago and so, I assume, over identified with the old woman. The others were women who cried about the pressure of...either being asked a question or just thinking about aging. I don't know, but I'm pretty sure I could have gotten one of them to confess to the JFK assassination if pressed. I'm seriously thinking of attending the end of the trial to see what happens. But while the trial is going on, I'll be Christmas shopping with the money I earned doing my civic duty...
If nothing else, please remember that you really must serve on a jury someday. Otherwise, "the compassionate" people with their feelings and inability to hear facts that don't go along with those feelings, may be on a jury when a loved one of yours is on trial. They'll be the only ones left. And if you refuse to serve b/c you just find it so inconvenient & you just "have to get out of it" then NEVER EVER complain to anyone about a stupid jury verdict. The system only works when we, the people, make it work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
