Dear Prudence vs. the Halloween Snob
I read the article in “Dear Prudence” from the woman who is supposedly part of the super rich 1% and doesn’t want scroungy underprivileged kids taking advantage of any more of her resources than she already provides through her tax dollars.
Some are saying this is a hoax or a fake letter, that no one “that rich” would bother writing into “Dear Prudence”. To that, I roll my eyes so hard that they almost get stuck inside my head. Since when does being rich have anything to do with civility or common sense; since when does it mean that money keeps people from saying stupid things? Just look at any of the hundreds of news sources covering celebrities, politicians and CEOs, and you will see just how stupid and callous some seriously rich people can be.
Many people are defending her, saying that what she really meant was that Halloween should be a community event and not overrun with strangers, that it would be more fun if everyone knew each other. People are coming up with horror stories of bussed-in teenagers that wreak havoc on the neighborhood, vandals who egg their houses, and even harassment of non-participatory households.
You know what? Those are all perfectly valid points of view. There is nothing wrong with wishing Halloween was more community-oriented like it used to be. There is nothing wrong with bemoaning the bad apples that ruin it for everyone, or not enjoying the hordes of teenagers that sometimes can be rude and entitled. But none of that is what she said, and those points are not even close to what could be inferred from her actual words.
Dear Prudence vs. the Halloween Snob: Halloween is not charity!
She specifically complained about less fortunate kids to whom she was expected to show charity by giving out candy on top of all her tax money that pays for the social services that they so obviously are using. Specifically complained. In writing!
Is this story real? I can’t prove it either way. But are there people out there who actually think this way? You’d better believe it! I have actually heard people muttering under their breath about how their tax-to-welfare dollars were wasted on a costume for this or that kid they assume to be needy.
So, hoax or real person, here is what I have to say:
How dare you snidely classify everyone that is not in your neighborhood as “less fortunate”. If it’s true that you do live in one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the country, then, by default, nearly everyone is less fortunate than you are. Your choice of words does not imply that you simply feel lucky that you are wealthy and feel empathy for those that are not. No, your words are tiptoeing around what you really want to call them, which is “poor”, “low-class”, or “trashy.” You’re about one step away from requiring last year’s 1040 to be produced before you decide which children are worthy of your candy and which ones are not.
How dare you immediately assume that if a child doesn’t live in your “wealthiest neighborhood” that they are in need of, or even using, the “social services” that your precious tax dollars are paying for? Do you have even the slightest clue about the world outside your little community? You do realize that millions of people live happily and comfortably without ever using a single government social service, despite not living in your neighborhood? That number includes people of every race and color. I am not going to fall into the racist accusation trap, but could it be that these “less fortunate” kids that you assume are eating up “social services” just happen to be a different color than you are?
You are right about one thing: Halloween is not a social service or charity. In fact, I am not aware of a single social service/charity that does nothing but dole out candy. If the “overflowing cars” were full of starving children begging for food scraps and you deigned to give them some food, then perhaps you could view yourself as charitable. But they’re not, and you’re not, so don’t flatter yourself. Trust me, you are not, in any way, a charity.
Halloween is a bit of a free-for-all to find the best neighborhood in which to trick-or-treat. It has been that way for decades. It is not because they are looking to gawk at and take advantage of your wealth, rich lady. Parents are looking for well-lit, safe, easy-to-walk areas where they don’t have to worry about busy roads/traffic, drive-by shootings, drug dealing, or other assorted dangers and crimes. They are looking for places with homes close together so their little kids can pop around without having to walk a half-mile between homes. Maybe they are also taking into account the quality of the candy their children will receive. What they are not doing, however, is mapping out the best places to go to get free handouts for their starving kids to supplement their food stamps.
Quit complaining about kids spending a couple hours in a neighborhood that makes them feel safe and happy. If you’re rich enough to live in that neighborhood, you’re rich enough to spend a few bucks on extra candy. If you don’t like it? Then turn your porch light off and spare everyone the unpleasantness of your company.
Modern Kindergarten: Searching for the Appropriate Halloween Costume
“Modern Kindergarten” is a tongue-in-cheek series based on my experiences as a new Kindergarten Mom.
If there is any holiday that has the potential to beat Christmas in the battle for kids’ favorite day of the year, it is Halloween. And why not? Candy! Parties! Costumes! (Even Christmas doesn’t have costumes!)
The classroom Halloween party is now on the list of highly-anticipated events, right behind trick-or-treating. This is partly because any variation from the daily grind of learning is always welcome. After all, what kid doesn’t love to hang out at school with their friends and not have to be learning? Mostly, though, the Halloween party at school is the best way for kids to show off their costumes to each other. Trick-or-treating is usually with family, especially at a younger age, and it’s dark and chaotic. But that classroom party is brightly lit and filled with a captive audience to whom a kid can showcase their chosen costume for that year.
Since my daughter goes to a Catholic school, there are a few guidelines around what types of costumes are not allowed for the Halloween (aka All Hallow’s Eve) Party:
– Nothing “evil” (zombies, serial killers, other assorted bloody things)
– No monsters (see above)
– Nothing with weapons
– School appropriate (nothing revealing, must be modest, etc.)
Awesome. Well, that sounded easy enough, especially with a daughter that isn’t really into any characters that would violate those rules. I asked her what she wanted to be this year and she excitedly told me: a cheetah.
I should have guessed it. She is into everything cheetah-print right now. She wants to be a vet/zookeeper and loves cheetahs. But…a cheetah costume? For a girl? That is school appropriate?
Do you see where I’m going with this?
I literally groaned. I began to search online, and then I groaned even more.
A Google search for ‘little girls cheetah costume’ brought up this:
Cheetah Halloween costumes? For a “little girl”?
I mean, I fully expected it, but I still had to shake my head when I saw some of these. #2 and #3 are kind of cute, but they are ridiculously glamorous and would never stand up to multiple wearings. #4, #5, #6, and #7 — those are the results when looking for costumes for little girls? And only 4 out of all those images are even actual cheetah costumes; the rest are just, well, clothes in a cheetah print. Boring.
So, back to searching I went, keeping a tab open with #8 as the best possibility. I will admit, some of the cheetah-print tutu costumes are pretty cute, but those aren’t fun! Dressing up like a cheetah is fun! Have you ever tried to find a little girls’ costume that isn’t a) way too grown-up in style (think fishnets, short skirts, and fitted tops); b) a princess dress; or c) containing a tutu? Try it sometime. It’s really…frustrating.
This year’s Halloween costume: the leopard (sssh…I mean, cheetah)!
Finally, I threw up my hands and went back to my saved tab with #8 on it. According to the description, it’s actually a leopard, but who can tell the difference, right? As long as there isn’t a person with animal print reference cards hovering around, my daughter will never know that she is a leopard-impersonating-a-cheetah. My husband gave it his stamp of approval (which is pretty good, because he’s more of a prude than I am). I showed it to my daughter and she immediately and enthusiastically said yes.
It’s actually quite a nice little costume. The great part is that there is room to put layers under it to protect against the frigid Halloween temps here in the northern climes, but the layers won’t cover the costume itself. Win/win!
So, another year of costume-hunting is in the books. We have a costume that should weather all the Halloween events pretty well. And I did not have to spend a fortune to accomplish this.
Bring on Halloween. We are ready!
This costume remains in first place for my favorite costume of all time.
John Grisham Defends Old White Men Who View Child Porn
“We’ve gone nuts locking up sex offenders.”
Oh, John Grisham. [shaking my head]
I just cannot express my disappointment enough…but I will try.
One the eve of publishing his new legal thriller, which frankly I was looking forward to, John Grisham has managed to alienate a large percentage of his readers and come across as a creep, all at the same time.
He spoke out about how unfortunate it is that older men are receiving prison sentences that are too harsh for their crime. What is the crime? Accessing child porn. Yes, that’s right. Mr. Grisham is not in favor of men his age and older receiving 10 years in prison for browsing and downloading child porn.
John Grisham on old white men who view child porn: “They haven’t hurt anybody.”
“There’s so many of them now. There’s so many ‘sex offenders’ – that’s what they’re called – that they put them in the same prison. Like they’re a bunch of perverts, or something; thousands of ’em. We’ve gone nuts with this incarceration.” Grisham went on to tell a story of a “good buddy” who got caught in a child porn sting. Apparently, “His drinking was out of control, and he [the harmless old white guy] went to a website. It was labelled ‘sixteen year old wannabee hookers or something like that’. And it said ’16-year-old girls’. So he went there. Downloaded some stuff – it was 16 year old girls who looked 30.”
DOWNLOADED SOME STUFF? There is a major difference between accidentally viewing a site and clicking off it quickly when you realize you stumbled upon something illegal, and actually looking around and downloading?
How can he say they have not hurt anybody? How can he say that? Does he not realize that the images on child porn sites are REAL? That REAL children were raped and tortured for the entertainment of sick evil people! And he says just looking at it should not have such a harsh sentence because they really “haven’t hurt anybody?”
*Pause for a moment while I attempt to not throw up from disgust and rage*
I’ve been browsing the Internet for years; sometimes distracted, sometimes while tired, sometimes while drinking wine, and never EVER have I accidentally stumbled across child porn. It is NOT that easy to find unless you’re looking for it. Do you know what I would do if I somehow did “accidentally” stumble across child porn? I’d have the FBI on the phone in seconds, alerting them to what I’d found. Seconds!
Let’s address the topic of inconsistent sentencing. First, I highly doubt that “prisons are full of 60-year-old white men” who just happened to click accidentally on a child porn site. Even if I were drunk and stupid, I would still know that a child porn site is NEVER okay, and if I found one, I certainly would not surf around on it and download stuff. (see what I would do in previous paragraph) Those old white men who are in prison are there because they deserve it, not because they’re just a bumbling old fool who did not know better.
I do agree that there is a major disparity between the 10 years minimum that people get for viewing child porn when others who are physically assaulting/raping children sometimes get only a slap on the wrist. THAT is the problem, though. It isn’t that child porn viewers are punished too harshly, it’s that other sex offenders aren’t punished harshly enough!
To be honest, I would 100% support a life without parole sentence for anyone involved in the rape/molestation/violent assault of a child. That includes playing any part in child exploitation for sex and child porn. 100%
All people who look at and download child porn are “a bunch of perverts.” They are sex offenders. They are inherently dangerous. And they belong in prison. There is no question about it.
And John Grisham, I am sad to say that you have lost a fan.
Women Voters Should Feel Insulted
I spent some time today reading all the articles I could find that were about getting the women to vote and how vital it is. Article after article encourage women to hit the polls and cast their vote in support of women’s rights. Then I ran across this statement : “In the end, the results of the 2014 midterm elections will serve as a test of how much voters, and candidates, really care about women’s rights.”
I find it incredibly insulting that it is assumed that I will vote for a certain candidate simply because I am a woman. The theme that “women voters are vital to success” is coming pretty solidly from one side. I resent the implication that if I vote for a different candidate, I am anti-women’s rights. And really, talk about dumbing down the collective mentality of the voting public, specifically the women voters. Forget researching all of the issues, forget making an informed or educated decision on who your leaders will be; nope, all that your vote, your voice, will say is that you are either for or against women. And women? It’s apparently assumed that you will vote for the “pro-women” side. After all, if you don’t, you are clearly saying that you want all women to be oppressed, subjected to the whims of men, lose all say over what happens to your body, and never make any decent money.
Voting for one candidate does not automatically mean that you are against everything the other candidate represents. The world is not that black and white. The scope of the work that needs to be done by our elected officials is broad and vast; it is irresponsible to take one piece of that, like women’s rights, and elevate it in importance above everything else. Look, it should never simple to decide who to vote for in an election; it’s not supposed to be. I could easily just check the box to vote Republican or Democrat on every candidate, but political party affiliation is not enough to ensure that they will be a good leader. Voting for someone based on a single issue is not how to choose a leader. You wouldn’t hire someone to be the CEO of your corporation based solely on a single skill; you wouldn’t hire them simply because they’re a mom, or because they do or don’t use birth control. Of course not. You would find someone who has the most qualifications for the job. Why is choosing our state and federal leaders and representatives any different?
I do not vote for someone because a twisted political message or expensive television ad tells me to. I do not vote for someone simply because they’re a man/woman/crocodile. I certainly do not vote for someone because my gender, race or people of the same sexual orientation tell me that I should. Let me tell you how I do vote. I vote in favor of a candidate that I feel has the qualifications to manage thousands of diverse people, an entire state, or this giant country. I look for fiscal sense, business acumen, military and foreign policy management, and understanding of the law. I look for someone who speaks with confidence and intelligence and not in talking points and clichés. I do my best to filter out the ridiculous generalizations like “he is against women” and “hey, I’m a mom too!” that are a good 80% of political campaigns this time around. Show me how you will be the best person to be elected, and I will vote for you.
Thank you for that little pep talk. Will there also be someone outside the polling station, clapping her hands encouragingly, and calling out “Ladies! Thank you for coming, ladies! Head right on in and vote for women’s rights!” Honestly, that is what all these constant calls for women to get out and vote sure sound like. Telling women that all they have to do is show up [and we will help you vote!] is exactly the opposite of empowering them. It is a step backwards. It is assuming that women couldn’t possibly want to vote their own mind, or even know how to, and therefore need manipulation and help to do it properly.
Women voters can make up their own minds!
Women should get out and vote, but for no different reasons than why anyone else should. Women voters don’t need the issues boiled down to one all-inclusive catch phrase to know which direction to cast their support. Give them some credit and let them make their own choice. Stop making the election be about absolutely nothing except them. Women, please, you are allowed to have more issues that you find important other than the over-politicized plight of your gender!
As for me, I will exercise my power, not as a woman, but as an American. I will do more than just “show up.” I will vote for the candidate(s) who I feel will work hard to do what is best for everyone. The list of problems in this country is a mile long, and I am perfectly capable of researching the issues at stake and making an informed choice. It is my responsibility to do so. I can decide for myself, thank you. Please do not insult me by assuming that I cannot.
The Sayreville Horror: Focus on the Real Problem!
Police in Sayreville, New Jersey, have arrested seven football players in connection with the allegations of hazing that went beyond just a “rite of passage” and instead became outright sexual assault and rape. Details are still emerging of the horror the victims were forced to endure for a time period of possibly up to a year, each new detail more disturbing than the last.
I wrote about this a few days ago when there wasn’t a lot of confirmed detail and the whole affair was still just being called “bullying”. Parents and students were bemoaning the loss of their football season and very few seemed to grasp just how bad this situation really is.
Middlesex County Prosecutor Andrew Carey said three of the players had been charged with aggravated sexual assault, aggravated criminal sexual contact, conspiracy to commit aggravated criminal sexual contact, criminal restraint, and hazing for engaging in an act of sexual penetration upon one of the juvenile victims. One defendant and four others were charged with various counts including aggravated assault, conspiracy, aggravated criminal sexual contact, hazing and riot by participating in the attack of some of the victims. (source)
Students at Sayreville High School in shock as details of sexual assault horror emerge.
The indignation over the cancellation of the football season has suddenly seemed to die down. To their credit, perhaps people finally are starting to realize that what was done to those victims and how it was even allowed to happen is so much more important than a bunch of silly football games. An atmosphere of shock, disgust, and uneasiness seems to have fallen over the school now. No one can believe what has been happening all this time.
One of the worst parts of this is that the coach himself has yet to show any remorse or any compassion for the victims. I haven’t even read yet any statement where he expresses any outrage at his players for what was done. His whole attitude seems to be that of just shrugging this off and not taking any responsibility for what happened under his charge.
“There will be a time and place when I have something to say, but now is not the time,” he said. “I need to sit down with the administration.”
Really, Coach? That is all you have to say? I have a feeling that he has been legally advised to say nothing due to the very real possibility that he will soon be facing some sort of criminal charges himself. I just don’t see how he couldn’t be held accountable for something. In the meantime, he continues to remain quiet as the public demands for his firing and/or arrest get louder and louder.
One thing that is really getting to me is the constant talk of “we need to review the anti-bullying law”. Really? Last I knew, sexual assault and rape already have laws against them, laws that are pretty black and white. Is it really necessary to waste time creating a new law that says sexual assault and rape are illegal specifically if done in a bullying or hazing situation? It’s already illegal in ANY situation! Lack of governing law is NOT the problem here. Do not focus on “oh, how can we legislate this better”; focus on the culture in that locker room (and most likely in locker rooms all over the country) that allowed this to happen in the first place. Focus on the culture that makes students believe that the law does not apply to them. Focus on the culture that made the witnesses and victims believe that they could not report this stuff for fear of not being believed, or worse.
I have the utmost respect for the student who made the first accusation, which gave the other victims the courage to also come forward. My heart goes out to those victims and their families for what they’ve already endured and for what they will continue to endure both in the immediate future and for the rest of their lives.
Sayreville High School: Student Safety Outweighs Football
(Warning: graphic details)
The hazing would begin with a howling noise from a senior football player at Sayreville War Memorial High School, and then the locker room lights were abruptly shut off. In the darkness, a freshman football player would be pinned to the locker room floor, his arms and feet held down by multiple upperclassmen. Then, the victim would be lifted to his feet while a finger was forced into his rectum. Sometimes, the same finger was then shoved into the freshman player’s mouth. (source)
There have been no comments from the coach or coaching staff about the details, but sources claim that this may have been going on for up to a year. A year! At least three football players have come forward with the accusations of sexual assault, claiming that it happened almost every day. You can’t possibly ask me to believe that something like this was going on and none of the staff and most of the team did not know anything about it. This wasn’t happening in an abandoned warehouse somewhere; it happened loudly (“howling”) and with lights going on and off in the locker room of the high school, a place that is not normally deserted, especially during football season.
“The whole thing is tearing this town apart,” said the parent of a senior football player…“We are being painted as barbarians and Neanderthals. We don’t think this is more important than football. But why can’t we wait for the facts to emerge and the investigation to be completed? Nobody is saying that something terrible may not have happened, but look at the collateral damage. Our kids are collateral damage.” (source)
Now, I agree that automatically casting blame on every member of the team is not fair or right, but suspending the season is not saying “all students are guilty.” What it is saying is “There is enough evidence against the culture of the football program and the staff in charge to warrant suspension of the program until the investigation is complete.” You want to blame someone for the “collateral damage” of your kids? Look at the program, the culture, and the people who were in charge and make them answer for what is happening.
High School Football is a Privilege, Not a Right
More than a hundred Sayreville residents have tried to get the school board the change its mind. Parents and players alike are frustrated and angry about the season being cancelled. After all, Sayreville High School has won the state championship three out of the last four years! They’re a powerhouse that should not be stifled! Parents have even gone so far as to hire lawyers.
Look, I understand that the players who had nothing to do with this would be upset to lose their season. Football is fun; it’s almost cult-like in some areas of the country. Maybe, for a few, college scholarships are hanging in the balance. Naturally people will not be happy that it’s shut down for the season. But high school football is a school-run extracurricular program. It is not a guaranteed right. Those kids are not on a contract. The law cannot force the school to have a football program. It’s within the jurisdiction of the superintendent and the school board, and they have made the decision they believe to be in the best interests of the students and their safety. Superintendent Labbe has said the time has come for students and others to step forward when bullying is occurring. Support the decision, hate it, get mad about it…but don’t waste your money suing over it. If this hazing did happen almost daily, and it happened on school property, and it involved 5 or more students and victims, there is almost no chance that others did not know this was happening, yet no one reported it. Direct your outrage at fixing the problem, and stop with the self-righteous indignation at the plight of your poor sons who can’t play football this year.
Sexual assault is not okay. Ever! Nobody yet knows for sure the extent to which the hazing went or confirmed the number of victims and perpetrators. If you had a son in that program, why on earth would you want him in that locker room without knowing if he will be the next victim or not? Why would you want to risk his safety, risk him being sexually assaulted…just so he can play football?
Sayreville High School: Alleged hazing was sexual assault; vigil planned (Image courtesy Facebook)
Sayreville resident Maureen Jenkins has set up a Facebook page Support anti bullying and support the Victims to organize a peaceful vigil for Sunday at 6 pm, across from Sayreville High School. The purpose is to show support for the victims, their families, and the decision of the school board, as well as to support anti-bullying. Jenkins has stated that until criminal charges are filed, she will continue to refer to the alleged hazing as “bullying in the worst form.”
New Ghostbusters Movie with “Hilarious Women”: Show, Don’t Tell
The official word is out: there will be a new Ghostbusters movie.
After years of constant rumors, half-written/rejected scripts, and lukewarm talks with the original cast, director Paul Feig, who brought us the sometimes-humorous Bridesmaids, confirmed that he is making a new Ghostbusters.
Paul Feig confirmed via Twitter that he is making new Ghostbusters
As far as the all-female cast, I am not really for or against it. After all, this isn’t a remake, it’s a reboot, or a sequel. If Feig has a solid idea and can make it work, then it really doesn’t matter what gender happens to hold the top billing. However, if “all-female” is not meant to be a gimmick, it is a little tiresome that it’s in the description of the movie every time someone talks about it. Probably because it is a great eye-catcher. The original four were all males, so making the new four all females and constantly talking about it is a perfect way to get more publicity. Tiresome, but reality. Again, I don’t care if actors or actresses, play the title roles; just write a good movie and quit dwelling on it.
The term “hilarious women” is a little more irritating. It just immediately makes me feel that they are going to try TOO hard for laughs. Seriously…if you have to tell your audience that something is hilarious, it probably isn’t. One of the great things about the original Ghostbusters was that the humor was subtle most of the time; it was built-in and quirky. It wasn’t in-your-face joke after joke. It wasn’t obnoxious and slapstick. Again, don’t tell me about the hilarious women in the movie; just write a great movie!
I am honestly hoping for a humorous and exciting movie that proves women can actually carry a plot without it devolving into “chick flick” territory. If Feig and Dippold can manage to write characters that are entertaining and real, and stay away from the “overcame gender odds”, “girl-power”, and “loud and crude tough lady” clichés, the movie might have a chance of winning over the critics. Stay true to the original concept; keep the foul-mouthed nonsense at a minimum and make the humor subtle and fun. The loud, crude, obnoxious woman with something to prove has been done to death. Constant vulgarity and expletives are not replacements for clever wit and comical lines.
Yes, there will be a new Ghostbusters movie!
The original Ghostbusters took a great idea and created characters that could believably bring that storyline to life. Ghostbusters was funny, and not because a lot of ridiculous funny things happened. It didn’t have to rely on hilarity, because, unlike most current comedies that are basically just supposedly-funny stuff happening to semi-funny characters, Ghostbusters had a mostly straight script with straight dialogue, but little bits of humor were constantly injected throughout. That is what gave the movie its charm.
The likelihood of the new movie script being written AROUND the actresses instead of the actresses bringing their own personality to already-written characters seems extremely high. The up-front statement that the cast will be all “hilarious women” when the story line isn’t even developed yet makes me worried that they are going to throw the top four comedic actresses into a sub-par plot and hope that star-power alone will carry the movie. Settle down on the gimmick-teasers, Paul Feig, and just focus on writing a solid, entertaining, and humorous script that the actresses’ personalities will enhance, not overpower. Comedic actresses can shine! Don’t clutter up their characters with stereotypes or agendas; just let them be Ghostbusters! Modernizing the ghost-busting crew with new technology and pitting them against scarier ghosts sounds like it could be a pretty cool movie. If Feig pulls off what he is intending to do, perhaps this reboot won’t be a disaster.
Honestly? I am not yet excited about this movie being made; in fact, at this point I kind of dread it, but not any more than the level of dread I feel when any classic is tampered with. Probably a good 80-90% of the comments I have read on the Internet indicate that most people feel the same way. It will be interesting to watch as more information is released about the cast and plot line. It really does have the potential to be a good movie. Right now, though, the overwhelming majority in the court of public opinion appears to be a big thumbs-down.
No Results Found
The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.