The 3 Stooges & The Federal Government
Here is a commentary made by Bill O'Reilly that Conservatives, Liberals, Democrats and Republicans can all agree with.A new Zogby poll asked Americans a number of questions about pop culture as opposed to how the country works.
The results were predictably not pretty. Here's the best example. Seventy-four percent of us can identify the long-dead Three Stooges: Moe, Larry and Curly. But only 42 percent of Americans could name the three branches of government: the executive, the president; legislative, Congress; and judicial, the courts.
Ridiculous? Well, some might say the Three Stooges are well represented in our branch* of government. You make the call.[Quote Source]
*I think that Bill meant to say branches.
Bill's comment reminds me of a line in a cartoon. In that cartoon, a male clown is describing his and his clown wife's search for their missing clown son.
Clown: "We looked everywhere. We even looked in Congress. It was full of clowns, but none of them were funny."
Nyuk! Nyuk! Nyuk!
Posted by Dodo David at 07:13 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Please Explain the Difference
This story is sick:
ST. CLOUD, Fla. -- An anonymous tip led animal control officers to a shocking case of animal cruelty. A puppy was found buried alive in a yard near New York Avenue and 192 in St. Cloud. Osceola County Animal Control said they had never seen anything like this.
...
A piece of wooden fence was placed on top of the puppy and he was placed in a hole with the wood weighing down on him. Animal Control believes the dog was buried like that for a day. There was only enough room for him to breathe, but not move.
[Shawn] Longfellow is charged with animal cruelty, a third-degree felony, and he was cited with a $500 fine. Now Animal Control has to petition for custody of the dog before he's available for adoption. That could take several months.
Somehow I don't think Animal Control will have much trouble winning its petition. This is the way it should be.
Now, why is it that children who are known to have been brutally mistreated by their parents are sometimes returned to them, as in this story from last week:
A Far Rockaway father who fought successfully to gain custody of his 7-year-old daughter has now been accused of beating her to death, in a case that raises new questions about the city agency charged with protecting children under its care.
The father, Russell Roberts, is accused in the Oct. 25 death of Sierra Helena Roberts, which was classified a homicide on Tuesday by the medical examiner. An autopsy concluded the 50-pound child had died of blunt trauma to the torso, and had an injury so severe that her small intestine was lacerated.
If a parent has been known to beat his/her child, I cannot for the life of me understand why that parent would be allowed to have the child back. We take abused animals away for good. Why not abused children?
UPDATE: Thinking more about this post after having written it, I realize that child was taken away because she tested for cocaine after birth, not because of being beaten, so perhaps it wasn't the best example to use. (Being born with drugs in the system is abuse, though. Red flag alert!) However, we know there are cases where a child is beaten and is given back to the birth parents and ends up dead, so I still have the same question.
UPDATE II (8:53 p.m.):
Aaron e-mailed me with an interesting comparison. Remember Jessica Lunsford, the 9-year-old who was buried alive after being raped by John Evander Couey? Couey was a registered sex offender who was initially arrested because he violated probation by not reporting to authorities the fact that he had moved. Here's the kicker: Couey had been arrested 24 times in the past 30 years. Why was he still walking free? Experts say sex offenders usually strike again. Lunsford's death prompted a Florida lawmaker to introduce a bill requiring convicted sex offenders to wear a permanent electronic tracking bracelet. Meanwhile, our dog-burying friend Longfellow will likely have the book thrown at him the first time.
Why does it seem that the safety of animals is more important than the safety of children?
*I seem to have lost the link for the puppy story...I'll try to retrieve it.*
Posted by Pam at 05:28 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Do Not Engage
I usually don't like to get into preachiness about sexual activities of others (i.e. teens). But I have been reading a lot by Rebecca Hagelin, author of Home Invasion : Protecting Your Family in a Culture that’s Gone Stark Raving Mad, lately and she is making a lot of sense. From the interviews I've heard on television and radio--this is no sanctimonious look at our culture. It is a thoughtful handbook for anyone raising children.
In her latest column, she really hits home in showing the hypocrisy of the anti-abstinence crowd:
When it comes to drug abuse, underage drinking and smoking, recent years have seen the arrival of much-needed media campaigns and school programs designed to let kids know flat out: Do not engage. Of course, we still have much to do to curb the use of illicit drugs, but at least most adults are committed to telling kids the behavior is unacceptable.
So why should this rule not apply when it comes to teen sex?
Suddenly, the adults who were so quick, so adamant about condemning drugs, drinking and smoking begin to stammer and look at the floor. Sure, it’s not good for teens to be having sex, these adults will allow, but c’mon -- they’re going to do it anyway. So, they say, let’s tell the kids not to do it. But let’s also give them some condoms and other birth-control devices and tell them how to use them. You know, just in case.
To be consistent, then, we should also give kids clean syringes, low-tar cigarettes and tips on avoiding hangovers. But we don’t, do we? And why? Because we know perfectly well that it would undermine our message that the behavior in question is unsafe -- no ifs, ands or buts. Why should it be any different when it comes to teen sex?
Exactly.
Posted by Aaron at 07:26 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Neigh Means No
This is one that I'm sure Professor Shade would have included in a Friday Softcore Surfing post if he weren't too busy enjoying his honeymoon:
King County sheriff's detectives are investigating the owners of an Enumclaw-area farm after a Seattle man died from injuries sustained while having sex with a horse boarded on the property.
Posted by pat at 03:35 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack