Category Archives: bullying

Rihanna

by

I usually try not to comment on stars, but this is just too much and I have to say something.

I would think that community service would be better spent working in a domestic violence shelter.  Or some other service that actually would have an impact on him, because as the article states, he still has a violent temper and is not addressing it.  He just doesn’t get it.

The article states that he had logged 701 hours in seven months.  701 divided by seven means he had to have performed 100 hours of service in each month–the equivalent of three hours per day, roughly.  Yeah, I’d be a questioning the truth of that, also.

The article goes on to say that peace officers had verified the work done.  So there’s obviously a disconnect somewhere…

Going on to the bigger issue of domestic violence~~

Report on Rihanna. This report says “Robyn” so I presume that Rihanna is a stage name? Photo of her face after the beating.

Rihanna has probably convinced herself that he “didn’t mean to do it” and “he’ll never do it again” and “he said he was sorry and it was because of blah, blah,blah that he got so mad….”  (You can tell this by the above link to his demanding respect that he is playing the victim and blaming everyone and everything else for his behavior.  He is in no way taking responsibility for his actions.  )

Like every woman ever subjected to domestic violence, she is probably blaming herself.

She tries really hard to please him.  He calls her stupid, lazy, worthless.  She tries harder to please him, but every day he finds something to criticize about her.  She tries harder and is walking on egg shells trying not to displease him.

But she can never achieve that because he will always find fault with her.  It’s his way to control her.

And if she does find even an ounce of self-worth and begins to stand up for herself…

…that’s when the beatings begin…for backtalking him.  For telling him, no, I don’t want to cook that meal again, or I don’t want to watch that movie or I don’t want to spend money on that or whatever the circumstance is…

And he’ll justify the beating for her disobedience.  And she’ll think that he’s right because she got out of line…

Sadly, I don’t have a lot of hope for Rihanna because the flags are up all over the place.  I am afraid for her.

It is a very difficult situation.  He may have a good side and that’s the side she loves, which makes it hard for her to leave.

It is said that it often takes several times for a woman to leave a relationship for good.  And it’s also the most dangerous time for her.  Women have been killed trying to leave their abuser.

And he won’t change unless he sees that his controlling behavior is a problem.  He won’t change unless he wants to.  No one can make him–it has to come from within.  He has to want to change.  Most abusive men don’t see that they are the problem.  They see *everyone else* as the problem.

And this cuts across all socioeconomic levels–professionals as well as blue collar; whites as well as blacks; judges, doctors, police, and politicians….there are no boundaries.  And someone who could seem so “nice” in public can be a monster in private….

Here’s the national domestic violence hotline.  800-799-SAFE.

Domestic Violence Statistics.

Here’s a recent story on a young boy who shot his father as a result of domestic violence.  Incredibly, they aren’t seeing this as self-defense, even though the father was beating the children.

And another story that may not seem related to this, but is–a young 5 year old girl in a California day care was having oral sex with the boys there.  That child had to have seen that somewhere because five year olds are too young to engage in that behavior unless they had exposure to it via p_rn or,  as I suspect, being molested.  I fear that she was subjected to this at home, and was acting out.  I can only hope that someone recognizes this and will get to the source of her abuse and get her the appropriate help.

What a troubled world.

 

Slamming the Poor

by

Our local station, at wane.com, had a slam piece on the poor this week (I was just on their website, and there is nothing up for me to reference).  They were running promo ads all last week…and I was dreading what was to come, but I held out hope that the promos were just to draw people in, but the story would present both sides of the issue without judgment.

Ha.

Adam Widener, the reporter, is probably patting himself on the back for the “outstanding” piece of *cough* reporting he did.

Okay, I’ll start from the beginning segment:

Widener doesn’t present himself as a reporter, rather, he walks up with hot cocoa and a fast food bag to these folks who are standing on street corners  holding up signs: at shopping malls:   “Disabled, need money” or something like “unemployed” or other messages.  He gets information out of them without telling them he’s a reporter and there is a concealed camera taping the whole conversation.

Next, he asks them about how much they make in a day, why they’re begging for money, etc.  He also follows them to their homes without their knowledge or consent.

One man claims to be disabled and walks with something of a limp.  He stands out in the rain begging for money from strangers.  Widener follows him as he walks home:  three miles and he walks without a limp as he’s going to his home.  Widener finally identifies himself and asks about the disability and about how many beggers are scamming.  The guy is probably the worst example of those folks–he probably isn’t disabled, and then he characterizes the others as being fakes, with only 5% of people begging being legitimate.   He is the poster child for the repub party, who *love* to point to people like him as a reason not to give to anyone.

Which is what Widener does in his *cough* reporting…even though the other folks he interviews have legitimate reasons for begging:  one guy is unemployed and trying to hold onto his house; another is also unemployed (probably 60 years old) and also in need of money.  He does interview a man who works in a convenience store that one of them frequents and the man says in a sarcastic tone, “He always has wads of cash…I’m going to quit my job and start begging on the corner.” (Widener states during the piece that the most they make is $50 a day…this is while standing for at least three hours and sometimes eight hours in the cold and rain.)

Widener goes to the local Christian Rescue Mission, to one of the coordinators, who—even though she did not meet these people—was quick to judge them and say that beggers use the money for drugs or alcohol.  And to drive the point home, Widener interviews a man staying at the Mission who used to beg and use the money for drugs and also automatically assumes these folks are using the money for things other than food or shelter or other basic needs. Widener repeats many times that these folks are using the money for cigarettes.

The Mission coordinator stated that people should not give money to these folks for the above reasons.

It never ceases to amaze me how people who claim to be rescuing people in Jesus’ name are mean, judgmental and punitive.–which goes against what Jesus taught.

It also never ceases to amaze me how shortsighted folks are—the poor need cash for toilet paper, shampoo, bath soap, dish detergent, trash bags, laundry soap, and even money for the laundry because, and I know this is hard for repubs to believe, but these items are not covered on food stamps.  And even if it did, people still wouldn’t be able to afford them and pay for food on the amount given per month.  (For me, I wash most of my clothes in a bucket in the bathtub to save money–it’s economical and I’ve gotten it down to a science where I do a pretty darn good job.)

But our friend Widener isn’t done yet….

Next he goes to the FW police and talks with the public relations director, who informs him that unless a property owner calls her, the police generally do nothing about it.

Widener can’t get over that.

He goes to a city councilman, Tom Didier, who bless his heart, actually shows compassion and says that there was a law on the books that made begging illegal, but they dissolved the law in 2010.

Widener brought up that another town (forget which one he said) had made it so that a person would have to register in order to beg.

Widener was aghast that Didier laughed when this was told to him.

This story is evil in that it actually twists things around so someone feels self-righteous about not helping the poor–they’re “helping” this person by not contributing to their drug or alcohol problem.

Even alcoholics and druggies need to be warm and safe and dry with food on the table.

This story fell soooo far short of the depth that this story requires.  Why did these people beg?  What circumstances in their life brought them to this place?  Were they working in a job that didn’t pay enough so they could have something to fall back on when hard times hit?  Did they have health issues that contributed to job loss?  How can we help, besides the immediate cash?

Freedom town

by

Jon Stewart takes a look at the Freedom Towns being promoted by the fundamentalist/conservatives.  Wow.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-29-2013/america-2–now-with-more-freedom—a-glenn-beck-holiday

In the beginning of this segment, when they are just outlining what it is about, I’m thinking….they’re talking Communes?

Well, okay, not exactly communes, where everybody is supposed to share food and chores and stuff, but yeah, this comes pretty close to it, by demanding residents adopt the same narrow view.

The thing is…it’s not that far from Communism, which requires everyone be the same—by discouraging independent thought and creativity and action.  (And I wonder what they do with someone who loses their job and becomes homeless in this Utopia? Or *gasp* someone who develops an independent thought and starts expressing liberal ideals…?)

And to link into the previous post on the Fourth Amendment–it along with the First Amendment are parts of the Constitution that kept us from becoming Communist China, Communist Russia, and Nazi Germany.  Without them, we’re toast.

So…..you would think that the conservatives would be fighting like the despised liberals to preserve them.

Why aren’t they??

The right to privacy

by

…is slowly being eroded, we know, but then there are among us the rebels who won’t go quietly.

Oh, the imagination is running into overdrive with all the fun I could have of this…but I want to keep this blog, um, family friendly. haha.

From Cornell Law:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

~~~~~

I have a Paralegal Certificate and my professor told me that this means that if a police officer pulls you over, you have the right to refuse to give your name or any information unless you are put under arrest.  And with my experience with this, you don’t even have to be in suspicion of a crime–you just have to be in the area–doing your job–to be treated like you were a criminal.

Inquiry into Swartz case

by

Two members of Congress have asked what reasons the DOJ had for so zealously going after Aaron Swartz.  (Be sure to click on the link to Wired).  I hope this isn’t just a we’ll pretend to be interested in fairness and justice...

I checked at Marcy Wheeler’s site, but nothing up about this.

Aaron Swartz

by

I found this interesting post on Aaron Swartz, which raises more questions than it answers…

I found another post on this site Saturday, but couldn’t find it again looking today.  It mentioned a post by Marcy Wheeler on what was going on with Aaron Swartz and his suicide after being hounded by authorities.  (Be sure to click on the NY Times link, which explains a little better.)  More here.

This chills one to the bone.  And what exactly was he downloading that caused such concern?  The articles dance around it. Anyway, Aaron Swartz believed that the information out there that was paid for by taxpayers deserved to be easily accessed–that is, without paying high $$ to join JSTOR or any other program to gain access.  It was noted that many documents are being electronically copied with limited access to the public.  This is incredibly disturbing, as everyone knows that Information is Power. And knowledge can inform the American citizen what their government is doing. (This is why stuff like Kindle worry me–taking information off of physical books and putting them in electronic gadgets that require a battery and software to view is dangerous in that if either of those fail to work, the information is inaccessible.  One can easily see how this can turn into denial of information–book burning a la the information age.)

The thing is…Swartz had legal access to the information, via Harvard!  He had the legal right to access. He was trying to make a point that the copyright laws protected electronic information that the taxpayers paid for, but were denied access to.  Now, think of the library books one checks out…they are copyrighted materials, but one can still access the information via a library card.  I think Swartz was applying those same principles to his providing this information.  Note that JSTOR refused to prosecute him once they learned he had legal access.

 

Martin Luther King, Jr. and Beyond Vietnam

by

Susie Madrak has a post up on MLK’s birthday celebration.  This is my view, too, on how everybody brings up “I Have a Dream” speech, and then fail to acknowledge his “Beyond Vietnam” speech (which he gave a year to the day before his murder).

He was expanding from the Civil Rights protests towards protesting the condition of the poor and of the terrible consequences of war.  This was more of a threat to the status quo than anything he had done prior.  Indeed, even his friends that had supported him during the Civil Rights era were abandoning him when he started advocating for the poor and protesting against war.  According to those that knew him, he never felt so alone.

He knew that advocating those positions was dangerous.

And he did it anyway….