Shoot me some advice for holiday family issues. For instance, what to do about the “one” relative in the family that no one likes but is forced to tolerate? I have one that “acts” like everything is just fine, then when I’m out of the picture, it’s back to normal, of complaining about everything under the sun that I did to piss them off.
Actually, I have 2 relatives like this. All nice to your face, then the minute they’re on their own turf and your not around, suddenly they had a problem with you? And it’s not limited to only holidays or special occasions, it’s all the time. To me they just seem like they have no courage and aren’t solid in their own “reasoning”?
I was wondering if I was going to get a question like this to kick off the holiday season. First, this is the dynamic in so many homes during the holidays. Why? It’s simple, we all have people in our family that ACT that way, so in a sense, we deal with that phuckery all year long.
My mother used to tell me that “any dog that brings a bone will carry one”, so the way I have come to view people who behave that way as being “just the way they are”. If you have pissed them off in the past, you will do so again the future. No two people think alike and that’s how it goes, you just focus on being you, consider yourself lucky, I think that when one takes the time to gossip about me, they are using up their time and energy on me instead of addressing issues in their own life.
I have also come to believe that people who act this way have things going on in their life that they choose not to deal with and by talking about others, it keeps their mind occupied and manages to also keep them the center of attention, even if it’s for only a few minutes.
Long story short, you already know they are not going to act right but it’s important to your family to spend the time together and to enjoy each other for a few hours, and that’s all it is, a few hours. Unless they are being disruptive, I’d really not pay them any mind and would interact more with people who are there for the purpose of hanging out with family and not trying to get ish started. If you choose to come out of your face because someone is doing something that they do on a regular basis, you can bet your last dollar that the family will remember this Thanksgiving as the holiday that YOU showed your ass regardless of the reason, consequently, giving that difficult relative something to run their mouth about during future family get togethers.
Tess, life is too short to invest positive energy into negative people, share that love, warmth and positivity with those who appreciate it. Have a happy holiday and let me know how it went.
Gun-Rights advocates in Virginia are gearing up to challenge the current background check requirement to purchase a handgun. Gun-Rights advocate want to loosen criteria that are a part of the criminal background check. Here’s the gist of the article I read:
Virginia’s criminal background check system for gun purchases, the first of its kind in the nation, is being targeted for elimination, reports the Norfolk Virginian-Pilot. Gun-rights advocates have lobbied Gov. Bob McDonnell to scrap the program, arguing that it is redundant because a federal background check system can replace it. Gun-control groups say doing so would take a valuable law enforcement tool away from state police and undermine state gun laws.
Efforts to cancel the state’s 22-year-old background check system, known as the Virginia Firearms Transaction Program, could be debated in the coming legislative Assembly session. Republicans will control state government for the first time since 2001 and a push to loosen state gun laws is expected. Some of those supporting looser controls on guns are the National Rifle Association, which has urged Virginians to lobby McDonnell on background checks, and the Virginia Citizens Defense League. The original “long” article can be found HERE.
I am a huge supporter of the 2nd amendment which reads:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” (Findlaw)
Okay, so here’s my spin. The Gun Control Act of 1968 restricts gun ownership for the following groups:
Persons under indictment for, or convicted of, any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding on year;
Fugitives from justice;
Persons who are unlawful users of, or addicted to, any controlled substance;
Persons who have been declared by a court as mental defectives or have been committed to a mental institution;
Illegal aliens, or aliens who were admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa;
Persons who have been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces;
Persons who have renounced their United States citizenship;
Persons subject to certain types of restraining orders; and
Persons who have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. (About.com)
I think that background checks to purchase a firearm actually infringes on the right of a U.S. citizen and is therefore a violation of the U.S. constitution. I know that statement sounds like I have lost my damned mind but rest assured, there is method to my madness.
A background check can locate information such as whether or not one has a felony conviction, if a person has specific kind of restraining order, if a court has ruled that a person has a mental disorder, one’s immigration as well as one’s citizenship status and one’s military discharge information. Although those seem like very valid issues to investigate, people who fall into those areas are still going to get a firearm if they wish to carry. The stipulations listed in the Gun Control Act only apply to weapons shops that sell their merchandise in accordance with the federal laws, not those who are involved in the illegal gun trade industry.
As far as mental illness is concerned, unless the court system has cause to document that one has a mental illness, one’s mental health status is not available though a standard background check. One of the reasons that one’s mental health status is not available in public record is the Health Insurance Privacy And Portability Act (HIPPA). HIPPA is very specific regarding the sharing of medical records, so if a person chooses to seek help for mental health issues or treatment for substance abuse, that information will not come back on the background check.
My point is, long story short, gun control laws technically only apply to law abiding citizens. those who don’t meet the criteria for legal possession of a firearm, will find other means to purchase a weapon and live their life in the spirit of the 2nd amendment. Furthermore, it’s my belief that gun control laws restrict the rights of those who follow the law and will have no bearing on the person who carries an illegal weapon unless they are caught.
I was doing some research for my homework when I ran across this article and I think that it raises a very good question, should the media coverage of criminal cases focus on the defendant? Legal journalist Robin Barton has this to say:
To describe the recent U.S. and international media coverage of the Amanda Knox case in Italy as intense would be an understatement. One of the key criticisms of this coverage was that it primarily focused on the defendants—or at least one of them—with the victim, Meredith Kercher, almost forgotten.
So that raises the question: when covering criminal cases, should the focus be on the defendant or the victim?
To review: Knox, or “Foxy Knoxy” and “Angel Face” as she was dubbed in the press, and her boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito were convicted of killing Kercher, Knox’s roommate, on Nov. 1, 2007, in a drug-fueled sex game gone bad. At the time of the killing, Knox was 20 years old.
During both the original trial and the appeal, Kercher’s family rightfully pointed out that the victim had essentially been “forgotten.” As her sister Stephanie said, “There are no photos of Meredith in the papers or on the TV—it’s all on Amanda and Raffaele.”
However, being the focus of the media cuts both ways. While the press in the U.S. largely sided with Knox, the media in the U.K. and Italy were much harder on her.
British journalists were obviously more sympathetic to Kercher because she was British. As for the Italian press, the media there have a different approach to criminal trials.
As an American journalist writing for the Guardiannoted, investigative journalism isn’t practiced in Italy as it is in the U.S. or Great Britain. And, the journalist noted, Italian reporters may have been afraid that if they deviated from the prosecutor’s version of the events, they’d be arrested or harassed by the police—which actually happened.
The Knox case is hardly the first in which the attention has been on the defendant rather than the victim.
The O.J. Simpson case is a good example. Most people probably know that one victim was the former football star’s ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson. But how many can name the male victim? (It was Ron Goldman.)
Frustration with the criminal trial and its outcome eventually led Goldman’s family to set up the Ronald Goldman Foundation to assist people who’ve been victims of crime and their families.
The Phil Spector case is another example. Spector was convicted of shooting actress Lana Clarkson to death in a game of Russian roulette. Articles on the case nearly always mention Spector’s career as a music producer and some of the famous musicians he worked with, such as the Beatles, Tina and Ike Turner and the Ronettes. The victim’s name was included almost as an afterthought.
Of course, the O.J. and Spector cases involved celebrities. And when celebrities are involved in a criminal case, rightfully or wrongly, they become the focus—whether they’re the victim or the defendant.
In fact, such cases likely get a lot of press coverage in the first place because someone famous is involved.
But celebrity wasn’t an issue in the Knox case. Everyone involved was unknown before the crime. So why did Knox become a cause célèbre for the media? Was it simply because she was a young, attractive American in a foreign land?
Or were claims that the crime was the product of a sex game too titillating to ignore?
I think a key factor in the media’s focus on Knox was the fact that her family was a very vocal advocate for her, which in turn drove a lot of the coverage.
While Kercher’s family kept a fairly low profile, Knox’s parents hired a public relations firm, which arranged for them to appear regularly on U.S. morning talk shows and news programs.
I’d also like to think that part of the appeal for journalists was that this case arguably involved innocent defendants wrongfully convicted of a crime they didn’t commit. Certainly, much of the American media coverage of the case during the appeal suggested that an injustice had been done when Knox and Sollecito were initially convicted.
I don’t think there is a right answer as to where the focus should be when covering a criminal trial.
Every case is unique. And although crime victims deserve to be remembered, innocent defendants also have a right to have their stories told. At the end of the day, the focus of the coverage will likely be on the aspects of the case that interest the public the most.
Robin L. Barton, a legal journalist based in Brooklyn, NY, is a former assistant district attorney in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office and a regular blogger for The Crime Report.
Although the article discusses the question, I think that the fact that the question even came up tells us that courtroom media has changed the scope of how criminal trials are conducted. The media’s job is to find the most “entertaining” aspect of a trial, whereas the court’s obligation is to make sure that all of the evidence is presented within the manner prescribed by law and to make sure the constitutional rights of the accused are not violated.
I say that to say, the media is not concerned about where the focus should be, they tend to take the side of the person whose story is the most interesting. I am glad that the victim is not forgotten in the media but the media is the outlet that is responsible to disseminate information to the court of public opinion. I think that the trial focus needs to be on the offender and less on the victim, the victim is not on trial and shifting the focus from the suspect and the victim can greatly jeopardize one’s chance to a fair trial under the constitution.
It’s days like today that make me really glad that I have a journal. This day was not fit for man nor beast, let alone me. It actually started Monday night when my insomnia kicked in and I was still up on Tuesday morning when the sun showed up. As it got later in the morning, I just decided to go ahead and fix my breakfast and get my day started. My day was pretty much planned out and looked like this:
Get started on homework.
Take my dalmatian to the groomer
Come home and wait for my UPS package (I <3 new phones)
Go pick up my BFF from the train station
Stop by Walgreen’s and Petsmart
Come home and call my vet about my dalmatian’s degenerative joint disorder
Now, remember, I was sick the past few days so I had to make sure I got this stuff done. That all sounded orderly enough and should not be too much of a problem, so I thought.
The first glitch in my day (after staying up all night the night before) was that it started to rain. So, I called and cancelled the grooming appointment and got on the homework. The light rain turned into a thunderstorm which, in the middle of my homework, knocked out my internet connection. I called AT&T (did I mention I can’t stand those folks?) and they assured me that it would be up in a few hours (in dog hours).
I looked at my watch, my bff was due in at the train station in about an hour and UPS had not showed. The douchebag that has my route will not ring the doorbell, he knocks like a half a knock and then leaves (with his lazy ass), I didn’t want to miss the package, so my dad came out to door-sit until I got back from the train station.
I grabbed her from the train station and went to the pet store only to find that the food I give both of my dogs had gone up about 5.00 per bag….oh well, shit happens. I grabbed what I needed and headed back to the house to relieve dad from his post…lol. When I got home, I still had no internet connection (I am glad I queued blog stuff the night before) and UPS had not arrived. That is when my dad let me know that I have a crack somewhere in the foundation of my house and I have water in the basement (this day just keeps rockin on huh?).
So, I figured I’d call the vet and see what else we could do about my dalmatian’s (her name is Scamp) joint disorder. I was crushed when I found out that the vet and myself were having the “quality of life versus the quantity of life” conversation. The sparks notes version of the deal with my dog is that when she had her 6 and 9 week puppy shots, she got insanely ill which caused major joint damage. Back then, I refused to put her down and here I am, 11 years later, with a beautiful dog that is just in too much pain. I have done everything I can for her, it’s just that time, and it’s killin me.
Moving forward, I called AT&T back, come to find out, my service had BEEN back up, someone on THEIR end managed to reset the modem settings and the issue was simply that the wireless connection needed to come back up. So, I had to work with their tech support and needless to say (since most tech support departments are not in the U.S) I had to deal with someone who spoke some random variation the English language that I did NOT understand. His English was so bad that he’d have to get better for it to improve to the status of “broken English”, if that’s not bad enough, he had the nerve to talk to me like I was stupid. That call went on much longer than it had to (mind you, UPS still had not arrived).
FINALLY, at like 7:30 pm, UPS shows up and just as I had expected, he did NOT ring the doorbell, I just happened to hear him and as I opened the door, he was on his way back down the walkway. I yelled at him and made him get his work done and deliver my sh!t.
So, I did manage to grab a nap for about 2 hours or so and now, here I sit, wide awake… rambling on and on about something that doesn’t mean anything to anyone but me, but hey, that’s why we have journals right?? I’m sure I will have another one of these ramblings on Monday, after I show my Scamp the ultimate act of love and compassion.
I think that this song sums up my whole day in about 3 minutes and 46 seconds…..lol
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide the constitutionality of sentencing juveniles as young as 14 to life without parole in homicide cases.
The justices granted review of appeals in two cases involving 14-year-olds, one in Alabama and one in Arkansas, who are serving such sentences. Both are represented by the Equal Justice Initiative, a Montgomery, Ala., group that argues such sentences are “cruel and unsual punishments” prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.
The Supreme Court, in a 2005 decision in Roper v. Simmons, prohibited the death penalty for offenders who committed their crimes before age 18. In a 2010 ruling known as Graham v.Florida, the court held that a sentence of life in prison without parole for a juvenile offender in a non-homicide case was unconstitutional.
The recent cases on juvenile sentencing have been watched closely by many educators and child-development experts because they have turned to some degree on advances in knowledge about adolescent brain development.
“Developments in psychology and brain science continue to show fundamental differences between juvenile and adult minds,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the court majority last year in Graham. “Juveniles are more capable of change than are adults, and their actions are less likely to be evidence of irretrievably depraved character than are the actions of adults.”
“Under this court’s reasoning in [Roper] and Graham, the identical analysis which led to the results in those case logically compels the conclusion that consigning a 14-year-old child to die in prison through a life-without-parole sentence categorically violates the Eighth and 14th Amendments,” said Bryan A. Stevenson of the Equal Justice Initiative in one of the briefs.
Stevenson stressed similar themes in urging the high court to take up the issue of life-without-parole sentences in the juvenile homicide cases, Miller v. Alabama (No. 10-9646) andJackson v. Hobbs (No. 10-9647).
“Relative to the cognition of adults and even older adolescents, young teenage judgment is handicapped in nearly every conceivable way,” Stevenson said. “Young adolescents lack life experience and background knowledge to inform their choices; they struggle to generate options and to imagine consequences; and, perhaps for good reason, they lack the necessary self-confidence to make reasoned judgments and stick by them.”
The Alabama case involves Evan Miller, who was 14 in 2003 when he was convicted with another adolescent of starting a fire that killed a neighbor with whom he had an altercation. Miller was convicted as an adult of capital murder and sentenced to life without parole.The other boy received a lesser sentence in exchange for testifying against Miller.
The Arkansas case involves Kuntrell Jackson, who was 14 in 1999 when he participated with two older boys in the robbery of a video store. Although it was one of the other boys who shot and killed a store clerk with a shotgun, Jackson was convicted of capital murder and aggravated robbery, and the trial judge was legally barred from considering his level of involvement, so Jackson received a life-without-parole sentence.
The appeal on Jackson’s behalf asks the high court to consider whether a state’s mandatory sentencing policy for accomplices to murder violates the Eighth Amendment when it is imposed on a 14-year-old.
Both Alabama and Arkansas urged the court not to take up the cases.
Alabama said in a brief that last year’s Graham ruling was “of sufficiently recent vintage” that no consensus has developed in the states about the imposition of life-without-parole sentences for juvenile homicide offenders.
Stevenson said in his briefs that Miller and Jackson are two of 73 juveniles who are serving such sentences nationwide, and 18 states have imposed such sentences on children 14 or younger.
“Internationally, the United States is the only country in the world where death in prison sentences have been imposed on young adolescents,” he says in the brief.
The cases will likely be argued next spring and decided by the end of June.
I’m not sure how I feel about this yet. I am a huge proponent of the 2nd Amendment and I believe in our right to bare arms, but if students feel as if they need to carry guns, then it seems to me that security is failing miserably.
Liberty University has liberalized its gun policy to allow visitors, students and staff who have concealed weapons permits to carry guns on campus, reports the Lynchburg, Va., News & Advance. The policy, announced to students this week, replaces a complete ban of firearms on university grounds. Visitors are now permitted to store their weapons in locked cars, while students can apply for permission from campus police to carry a gun on the outdoor grounds or in a locked car. Guns in campus buildings are generally prohibited, although the policy permits some faculty and staff to carry weapons inside buildings with permission by campus police.
Liberty now has the most lenient firearms policy among local colleges and universities. Liberty Chancellor Jerry Falwell Jr. said the new policy will enhance campus safety while increasing convenience for visitors and students who have the proper permits. Richard Hinkley, Liberty’s chief of police, said while he supports the policy, it has raised some concerns among his officers. Lifting Liberty’s firearms ban has been a hot-button issue in recent years, especially after the Virginia Tech massacre in April 2008 that left 33 dead. A small but vocal band of LU students who align with the activist group, Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, raised the issue with the student government association at least two times in the past three years.
I think we all have those people in our lives that we wish we had never given our phone numbers to. For a while, I had so many that I just finally set up a Google voice account to manage that phuckery.
Anyhew, this guy that I talked to years ago just popped up like toast in my text messages the other day and asked me for a “sexy pic” , the exchange went a little something like this:
Him: I want a sexy pic of you!
Me: How does it feel to want?
Him: Lol nice
(Pause when I didn’t reply)
Him: Come on
Me: Why do you keep bothering me?
Him: Cause I like to lol
Me: Like I’ve asked to you before, just lose my number
Him: Oh stop u big baby
Me: Look, you’re a nuisance. If I wanted to stay in touch with you, I would have.
Him: Well I know you want to deep down inside
Me: Nothing runs that deep
Him: Lol awe
Him: You know I intrigue u lol
Me: No, actually, you annoy the piss outta me
Him: Whatever ur psyco
Psycho? Seriously? I am not going to blame all men of behaving this way but this is not the first time that I am aware of a man calling a woman psycho because HE can’t get any conversation.
In my opinion, guys who go there for that reason have some really distorted view of themselves. I believe that there are men out there who think that a woman who denies him attention must be crazy because “any woman would feel honored” that he gave her some attention. FAIL!! That is not the case, the case is, she just wasn’t interested for whatever reason and on the real, she doesn’t have to give one. Not being interested is her choice, just like it’s a guy’s choice to not be interested in a particular woman for whatever reason.
Look, there is a huge difference between someone being a challenge and a person being a total pain in the ass. If someone lets you know that they are not interested in you, just be like Lupe Fiasco, just “Kick, push, and coast…..”
Ugh, I hate being sick when I have homework to get done, laundry to do and have a house to clean. Oh well, like I tell other people to do, I’ll just suck it up, buttercup and put my big girl panties on to deal with the world =)
Oh, before I get started on my mindless rambling, there are new photos in the gallery…. enjoy.
Okay, I have been asked what my thoughts were on the whole Sandusky (Penn State) issue. I know that I have refrained from talking about it and I think it’s because I just think that everybody and their momma is on some kind of bandwagon. I finally decided that I can give my own 2 cents without it getting too wordy, drawn out or rehashed.
I loathe people who mistreat children, that said, Sandusky needs to just face his charges like the man he’d like be and be accountable for his behavior. As far as Paterno goes, he did what he had to do legally (I’ll get to all of that in a second), he failed miserably as a human being (as far as I’m concerned) by allowing those vile acts of human suffering to continue on his watch. Paterno is morally, socially and humanly bankrupt and I’m sure hell has a special place all picked out. He sold his soul for the all mighty dollar, and at 80 years old, his dance with the devil may come a lot sooner than his repentance. Paterno is, however going to have to testify and that’s on him, he gets no sympathy from me (like he gives a damn right?).
On to Mike McQuery … He’s got a seat reserved in hell that is even deeper than Paterno’s. McQuery saw the rape of a kid, and had the nerve to say ”I did stop it, not physically … but made sure it was stopped when I left that locker room … I did have discussions with police and with the official at the university in charge of police …. no one can imagine my thoughts or wants to be in my shoes for those 30-45 seconds … trust me.” Source Article
I hope McQuery doesn’t hope any of us (especially me) feels sorry for him. It was mighty right of him to make sure the RAPE had concluded before he left the locker room. *Rolls Eyes*. It’s still up in the air as who who he told, if anyone…. so for now, I am content to think that he’s lower than rat sh!t …… I’m sure I can think of other things to call him as the story progresses….
The ONLY positive thing that I can see coming out of this WHOLE thing, may be the better protection of Pennsylvania children. Back in the early days of the U.S., children were treated as property or “little adults” instead of children who are in need of protection under the law. In at least 40 other U.S. states, mandated reporters of child abuse are required to call the child abuse hotline and report the incident, unless the policy where they work says differently (like report it to the supervisor and the supervisor makes the call). Pennsylvania’s law only requires that abuse be reported to one’s immediate supervisor. Makes me wonder, how many other abused children are there out there whose cases have gone without being addressed. I would hope that this situation has shed some light on the piss poor laws that Pennsylvania has regarding the protection or lack thereof, of children. It’s just very sad that it took a case of this magnitude to bring attention to their child protection laws, but I hope that when (and I’m sure it will happen) the laws change, that they will better work for the protection of children instead of in the interest of those who abuse them.
Below is a list of mandated reporters in the state of New York (source), this list is pretty typical of all states with a mandated reporter law:
Oh and before I forget, New York is a state that has introduced a bill in legislation to add coaches to this list, I lump them in with school personnel such as teachers but whatever it takes to get the job done.
I met this girl and took her out a few times. She cool and everything but I ain’t neva dated a white girl befoe. The girl is bangin but my peeps are trippin. They think I should date a black woman cause if I date a white girl it looks l ike I’m tryin to be on the come up. I love black women damn I just love women but I’m feeling some kinda way about this new chick. Got anything good for me?
Troy – DC
I do have something for you actually. You’re a grown ass man and can date whomever you want. Even though it is important what family and friends think, it matters the most what you and she thinks.
Interracial dating may be unfamiliar with your family and or friends and I know that their feelings are important to you but you feelings should be important to you as well. If you think about it, all you really ask from them is that they treat the woman with respect when you bring her around.
As far as dating a white woman and being on the come up goes, whoever is talking that madness is apparently not on the come up since they can’t seem to let that mess go and just be happy for you.
The bottom line is that you have to do what you think is right. Just follow your gut and date the person (people) that you like being around, don’t let other people choose your woman for you.
The first time I tried to make this announcement, it sounded like a PR release and that’s not what I had in mind. Due to creative difference, I have decided it best that I move Ask Stang back to one of my own blogs. I had a great time working with Def Glam but some things don’t necessarily work out the way it’s planned.
I am moving it back here to the Stang’s Journal, as I think it would just be a better fit rather than trying to combine it with the Odd News and Ramblings on the Stangzine site. My journal is a more personal place for me and I think that the column would be best suited for this part of my network.
So, beginning today, Ask Stang will post on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, right here in the journal. I promise, I won’t be moving it again and I thank you so much for stumbling through this with me.
I do have some irons in the fire regarding being a contributor for other networks, but we will just have to play that by ear.