Yet another beautiful toddler has gone missing. Haleigh Cummings lived with her younger brother "Junior" (I am not making that up - although Bubba would have been better) and her father in a double wide mobile home located near a body of water in a secluded area in Florida. I am unsure if this was a mobile home park or if they lived on private land. 24 year old Ronald Cummings had a 17 year old girlfriend (Misty) who had been living with them for about 4 months. Ronald worked nights and his girlfriend watched the children for him at night. She said she was lying in bed with Haley and when she awoke a few minutes before Ronald was due home, Haley was gone and the back door to the trailer was propped open with a cinder block.
When dad got home and noticed Haley gone and the back door open, he called 911 and when they kept asking him questions (as they always do), he became irate when they suggested maybe she wandered outside. He vehemently denied that she would do that because she was afraid of the dark.
According to Police Report, Haleigh has Turner Syndrome. I cannot comprehend this (uneducated)Father and a 17 year old girlfriend dealing well with a condition such as this. I am also having a problem with the conflicting stories from Misty and Ronald. Crystal Sheffield (Haleigh and Junior's biological mother) is 19 which means she was 14 and Ronald was 20 when their daughter was born. Apparently this man has a history of statutory rape. Based on this, my gut would tell me that something is not right here. However, that gut instinct would be coming from a person raised in an upper middle class (and intact)family.
My grandparents had tons of sharecroppers (for those of you who don't know what that is - look it up) who lived on their lands the whole time I was growing up. I had occasion to observe them, interact with them (on a very limited basis) and I listened to my parents and grandparents talk about them. Although I'm not an expert on this breed of people (and they are a different breed all into themselves), I think I know enough about them to realize that their culture (if you will) and mine are vastly different.
In their cultures young girls either find a man to move in with who will support them, become waitresses at a truck stop, sell drugs, prostitute or have a passel of kids for the welfare checks. Those are their options.
As for the men, especially the ones with kids to raise, they latch on to the first warm body they can find to move in with them so they will have a full time (and virtually free) babysitter, cook, maid, and lover.
Misty probably comes from a family that is so dysfunctional (and probably abusive) and poor that living with Ronald in a double wide was like moving to a penthouse in Manhattan would be for me.
It should also be pointed out that in their culture girls grow up MUCH faster than in mine. They have absolutely NO choice in the matter. Do you think for a second that any one of them daydreamed about living in a trailer taking care of 2 children when they were kids?? Hell, no! They had the same dreams that we all have. It's just when you live in that culture you learn quick and early that in order to survive, you have to do what you have to do.
When I was 17 I was going to proms and stressing out about if I could get an appointment with my favorite beautician to get my nails and hair done before going home to beg my parents for permission (and money) to go to the mall and hang out with my friends. Moving in with a much older man to be his lover was the furthest thing from my 17 year old mind. I shudder to even imagine telling my parents that I was packing up to go live in a double wide with a man!! LORD help me!
Ronald Cummings had just been issued a court summons because little Haleigh (in Kindergarten) had been absent so much from school. DHR was also involved for this reason. The police state there have been no reports that they have had to visit the property in the past for any reason.
Remember Misty has only been living with them for a short time and she is only 17. If dad has to work nights getting home in time (and with enough energy) to get Haleigh up out of bed, washed, dressed, fed and off to school may just be more than this man of humble origin can handle which would explain her lengthy absences from school. Men of this nature don't value education much anyway (especially for girls) so in his mind, what's the big deal if she misses kindergarten? Misty probably stays up till all hours of the morning watching MTV and can't be bothered to do it for him so Haleigh stays home that day.
I'll eat crow if I have to later, but I don't think it's the dad. I think people are too eager to leap to that conclusion because these people appear low-class and have some dysfunctions. The man we heard on that 911 call was not trying to make himself look good -- he was venting uncontrolled frustration and rage. Plus, to the police he blamed "my dumb bitch girlfriend" for leaving the door open, and I'd think if they were in on it together they'd support each other a bit better. In two different pleas to the kidnapper, he's stressed that he doesn't want revenge. That makes me think he really believes someone out there has Haleigh and he is trying to affect how that person thinks and acts.
Reports that Misty and/or Ronald may have killed Haleigh out of frustration that she wet the bed again could not have happened according to the girlfriend's family and some AC guy that all say were at the home the afternoon before the disappearance from like 5pm to 5:30pm. After that time Dad went to work and work says he was there the whole time.
One of the weird things is that the girlfriend just happened to wake up 5 minutes before the Dad came home from work and find Haleigh missing. I think it is possible that the girlfriend went to a neighbors house or outside to meet someone for some reason. (Don't want to sound harsh but knowing the general area, the age of the girlfriend and the general circumstances of the living arrangements) the girlfriend may have gone out to smoke pot without the Dad. She probably would have left the door open so she wouldn't get caught coming in or so she could hear the kids if they needed her. She came back in before the Dad came home only to find Haleigh gone. She is trying to cover her tracks because she wasn't even in the house when she should have been.
I know not everyone in rural north central Florida gets high but MANY do and she fits the stereotype and if you factor this in then you see why some things just don't look right.
There have been reports that in excess of 25 convicted and registered sex offenders live within 2 square miles of that trailer. 25! Remember Jessica Lunsford? She was abducted from her grandparents trailer in the middle of the night as they all slept and of course, her family were prime suspects. They later found her body buried in a shallow grave under the front porch of one of their neighbors - a convicted sex offender.
Or what about Cynthia and David Dowaliby? On September 14, 1988, 7 year-old Jaclyn Dowaliby was kidnapped from her bed and the working class Dowaliby's were actually tried for her murder! David was convicted, their remaining children taken away from them (one within hours of its birth) until Cynthia got a law professor involved and they were able to prove David's innocence.
It's dangerous ground when we judge folks by what they do for a living or where they live. Especially when we are accusing them of murder. Maybe Ronald and/or Misty did indeed kill little Haliegh - but then again - what if they didn't???
But that's just me.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Nadya Suleman
Hmmm. I hate to jump on bandwagons. I really do. It upsets the image I hold of myself as an independent thinker and champion of the underdog.
However, this situation is BIZARRE. Nadya holds a bachelor in early childhood development, she adores children but has never been able to have kids on her own and doesn't want to be married. Okay. That all sounds fine.
Then Nadya has 6 children by invitro. Okay. I guess that's her business. Too many for a single mother trying to get her master's degree but what business is it of mine? Then she gets impregnated yet again and has 8. 14 children for a single woman trying to get her master's, unemployed and living in a small 3 bedroom house with her parents? That's too much for anyone. Absolutely too much.
When asked how she afforded all these invitro sessions, she stated in an interview that she was "paid" to have the other children by invitro. She didn't go on to elaborate. Paid? What? Was she paid to have these as well? She must have because I saw an invitro specialist on a news show who estimated that these 8 babies probably cost in excess of $150,000 just to conceive them and at this time are costing in excess of $100,000 per day per child for their medical treatment. Who is paying for this?? She doesn't have health insurance so who is footing this enormous bill??
That is one of my issues with this entire thing. The Duggar family over in Arkansas who have 18 (or 19) children, although I think they are out of their minds, are a good example of what you do when you want a BUNCH of kids. They have never received any amount of public assistance. They struggle and sacrifice to pay cash for their vehicles, furniture, house. I know they had help finishing their house up by an HGTV show but still, the public was never taxed with having to support them in any way. Having said that, if they want to have 30 kids, as long as they take care of them, don't abuse them, and I don't have to pitch in to help support them, I am fine with it.
Nadya is another story. There is NO way that she can support these kids without public assistance. There is certainly no way that she can pay these medical expenses without public assistance.
She hasn't been so much of a planner apparently. She has depended HEAVILY on her parents for support and from the sounds her mother is making, I think that gravy boat has sailed. Her mother issued a statement yesterday that said when Nadya came home from the hospital, she was on her own because grandma didn't want her to have these 8 extra kids anyway. Go grandma!
Another issue I have with this is, how is she going to take care of them?? I had 2 children who were 3 years apart. If I hadn't had my parents and my sister to help me when they were growing up, I would have jumped off a bridge. Back to the money thing, kids are expensive. They eat, they wear clothes, they have to have a place to sleep, toys, space, privacy, entertainment, outings, birthday parties, school lunches, school trips, school supplies, medicine (not just prescription but stuff that health insurance won't pay for like bandaids and aspirin and cough syrup). Then there is the actual physicality of the situation. I don't know about California but where I come from, there are state laws about how many people can live in a house. It's some formula equating to so many square feet per person and judging from the looks of that house, it won't work.
Then you have just the basics of life. How do you possibly give each of them the attention they deserve and need when you have this many? Do you turn the older kids into nannies and caregivers and maids? How do you keep an eye on that many children? How do you make sure that many children have done their homework, brushed their teeth or even that they are present and accounted for??
I think the doctors who allowed this are at best, irresponsible. One of them stated on TV that they are not "baby police". No, I agree. However, ethics have to come into play at some point. And allowing an unemployed single mother of 6 who lives in a small house with her parents to carry 8 babies to term goes far beyond irresponsible.
My last reason that this was such a bad idea is the health issue for the children. When a baby is born at the weight that her children were born with (a little over a pound each)there are health issues. Underdeveloped vital organs such as lungs, hearts, kidneys. And most importantly brains. How many of these children are going to be "retarded"? It is reported that one of her other children has autism. How many of these babies are going to be besieged with seizures (another potential byproduct of very low birth weight)? How about the ever present asthma or bronchial and/or ear infections that babies like this face? Or a plethora of other very serious health issues that accompany low birth weight?
Again, I am back to health insurance and money. There is no way in the world that a single woman with this many children can work outside the home. For one, who will hire her? For another, how long will she be employed before she gets fired for excessive absences?
As stated, I had 2 children and there were many many times that I could not come to work because one or both of them were sick. There were many many other times that I had to leave work because one of them was sick or their school got out early due to inclimate weather or whatever. How many days will she have to miss with this many children? Especially since my bet is, these 8 babies will have TONS of health issues that will either never go away or will not decrease in frequency until they are well into their elementary years or older.
If ever an agency needed to keep an eye on kids, this is one of them. The Department of Human Services (yep, taxer payer money) needs to keep a very close eye on this situation because however good intended Nadya may be, there is NO way that she will be able to care for this many children either financially, emotionally or physically. There is just NO way.
But that's just me.
However, this situation is BIZARRE. Nadya holds a bachelor in early childhood development, she adores children but has never been able to have kids on her own and doesn't want to be married. Okay. That all sounds fine.
Then Nadya has 6 children by invitro. Okay. I guess that's her business. Too many for a single mother trying to get her master's degree but what business is it of mine? Then she gets impregnated yet again and has 8. 14 children for a single woman trying to get her master's, unemployed and living in a small 3 bedroom house with her parents? That's too much for anyone. Absolutely too much.
When asked how she afforded all these invitro sessions, she stated in an interview that she was "paid" to have the other children by invitro. She didn't go on to elaborate. Paid? What? Was she paid to have these as well? She must have because I saw an invitro specialist on a news show who estimated that these 8 babies probably cost in excess of $150,000 just to conceive them and at this time are costing in excess of $100,000 per day per child for their medical treatment. Who is paying for this?? She doesn't have health insurance so who is footing this enormous bill??
That is one of my issues with this entire thing. The Duggar family over in Arkansas who have 18 (or 19) children, although I think they are out of their minds, are a good example of what you do when you want a BUNCH of kids. They have never received any amount of public assistance. They struggle and sacrifice to pay cash for their vehicles, furniture, house. I know they had help finishing their house up by an HGTV show but still, the public was never taxed with having to support them in any way. Having said that, if they want to have 30 kids, as long as they take care of them, don't abuse them, and I don't have to pitch in to help support them, I am fine with it.
Nadya is another story. There is NO way that she can support these kids without public assistance. There is certainly no way that she can pay these medical expenses without public assistance.
She hasn't been so much of a planner apparently. She has depended HEAVILY on her parents for support and from the sounds her mother is making, I think that gravy boat has sailed. Her mother issued a statement yesterday that said when Nadya came home from the hospital, she was on her own because grandma didn't want her to have these 8 extra kids anyway. Go grandma!
Another issue I have with this is, how is she going to take care of them?? I had 2 children who were 3 years apart. If I hadn't had my parents and my sister to help me when they were growing up, I would have jumped off a bridge. Back to the money thing, kids are expensive. They eat, they wear clothes, they have to have a place to sleep, toys, space, privacy, entertainment, outings, birthday parties, school lunches, school trips, school supplies, medicine (not just prescription but stuff that health insurance won't pay for like bandaids and aspirin and cough syrup). Then there is the actual physicality of the situation. I don't know about California but where I come from, there are state laws about how many people can live in a house. It's some formula equating to so many square feet per person and judging from the looks of that house, it won't work.
Then you have just the basics of life. How do you possibly give each of them the attention they deserve and need when you have this many? Do you turn the older kids into nannies and caregivers and maids? How do you keep an eye on that many children? How do you make sure that many children have done their homework, brushed their teeth or even that they are present and accounted for??
I think the doctors who allowed this are at best, irresponsible. One of them stated on TV that they are not "baby police". No, I agree. However, ethics have to come into play at some point. And allowing an unemployed single mother of 6 who lives in a small house with her parents to carry 8 babies to term goes far beyond irresponsible.
My last reason that this was such a bad idea is the health issue for the children. When a baby is born at the weight that her children were born with (a little over a pound each)there are health issues. Underdeveloped vital organs such as lungs, hearts, kidneys. And most importantly brains. How many of these children are going to be "retarded"? It is reported that one of her other children has autism. How many of these babies are going to be besieged with seizures (another potential byproduct of very low birth weight)? How about the ever present asthma or bronchial and/or ear infections that babies like this face? Or a plethora of other very serious health issues that accompany low birth weight?
Again, I am back to health insurance and money. There is no way in the world that a single woman with this many children can work outside the home. For one, who will hire her? For another, how long will she be employed before she gets fired for excessive absences?
As stated, I had 2 children and there were many many times that I could not come to work because one or both of them were sick. There were many many other times that I had to leave work because one of them was sick or their school got out early due to inclimate weather or whatever. How many days will she have to miss with this many children? Especially since my bet is, these 8 babies will have TONS of health issues that will either never go away or will not decrease in frequency until they are well into their elementary years or older.
If ever an agency needed to keep an eye on kids, this is one of them. The Department of Human Services (yep, taxer payer money) needs to keep a very close eye on this situation because however good intended Nadya may be, there is NO way that she will be able to care for this many children either financially, emotionally or physically. There is just NO way.
But that's just me.
Blog Update
An update on Mr. Drew Peterson. I'm sure everyone knows by now that it would appear that Mr. Peterson's engagement to Christina Raines is off. Did his 23 year old mother of two sweetheart decide that he was too "scary" to marry? Did she decide that perhaps her children would be safer NOT living in the same house as Drew? (although they are just engaged, she moved herself and her children into his home). Nope. Drew gave an interview to ABC (which I watched) wherein he stated (in short) that he simply cannot remain faithful to any woman and doesn't even want to try.
He admitted that after a short time, he becomes bored and moves on to greener pastures. (duh!) SO, honey of the month called the police and had them at Drew's house while she packed up their stuff and moved back into her parents house. Of course, she and her father showed up wired with microphones and accompanied by a bevy of reporters and camera crews. When Drew saw the circus he shut the door on them and refused to allow anyone inside his home. The police eventually entered Drew's house and got Christina's stuff and placed it on the curb.
Her father said that since she has been living in Drew's house, he has called the police on at least 2 occasions to have them do a welfare check because he couldn't get in touch with her and panicked. Yeah, I completely understand that. I can imagine not being able to sleep at night wondering if Drew was putting my daughter's body in the trunk of his car at that moment. I would probably camp outside his house. What a nightmare for a parent. What a stupid, stupid, stupid girl! (Those of you who know me personally know that stupid is a word I don't allow spoken in my house so for me to call someone stupid - it's serious.)
Apparently Ms. Raines has a long history of dating (and reproducing) with crazy men. Her first (her babies daddy) was reportedly abusive, her second (the one she dumped for Drew) she lived with until the day she moved into Drew's house. He admits to peeking in Drew's windows to "check on Christina" and according to Drew, he was abusive to her. Christina is 23 and already, according to her and Drew, she has had an abusive marriage, an abusive boyfriend and now Drew? Girl needs medication.
Now Drew is sad. The pool of 20 something girls must be drying up for him. Since Stacey's disappearance he has had 2 of them actually living with him and God knows how many on the side. The boy is getting some action.
Of course, Kim Mazurka didn't stay there long. Once she was hauled before the Grand Jury and pumped for information by the police, she backed away rather quickly.
Speaking of Drew, I will say one thing positive about him. I liked his reply when asked why he is not participating in the numerous searches for Stacey's body, he replied, "because I know they won't find her". Now HE says he means they won't find her because she's not dead but - you know I'm thinking he really means they won't find her because she has been ground up into hamburger meat and fed to the dogs or something.
I should add a disclaimer of sorts to this update about Drew. I have blogged about Carl Rodgers earlier on and in that blog I have ranted and raved about people assuming he was guilty when there was no evidence to support their suspicions. Let me explain why I feel justified in branding Drew a murderer. His third wife, with whom he had children (3?) died in a bathtub accident that was later declared to be murder (he hasn't been charged - I don't know why). Coincidence only goes so far.
Now, having said that, Drew could very well be innocent and I just don't like him. Could be. I state that in every blog about Drew. Also, if the police are so certain that he is guilty of the murder of his third and fourth wives, why haven't they charged him?
I would also like to know what became of the rectangular blue plastic container that Drew's step brother swears he helped Drew remove from his master bedroom on the night that Stacey disappeared??
The step brother actually attempted to commit suicide the next day because, as he stated to a friend, he thought "I just helped hide Stacey's body". He also said that Drew left him for a few minutes in a coffee shop and gave him his cell phone instructing him not to answer it no matter who it was. Within a minute or two, the phone rang and the caller I.D. stated it was Stacey. Then they went to his house and moved the container. He said the container weighed probably 110 pounds (Stacey weighed 100 pounds) and that it was warm to the touch. I think a normal person would have demanded to know what was in that container before they helped him move it. I would. I'm not about to be a party to covering up a murder. Well, not for free anyway. (That was a joke - seriously).
Drew Peterson is/was a cop. He wasn't just a patrolman, he was a Sergeant. He has escaped 2 murder charges (at this point), would he be so simplistic as to pull this type of stunt off? OR, is he betting that because his step brother has a history of mental instability that he is the perfect one to help dispose of the body because he would be easily discredited in court? Is that it? So this scenario would be perfect in that situation. Come to think of it, that would make sense.
I applaud the police for waiting until they feel they have enough evidence to convict because as we all know, should they jump the gun and he gets acquitted, the show's over. Except for the civil case which is easier to win because it requires less "preponderance of evidence". But then, collecting is a real bitch. By the time you hire a firm to follow his income and assets and then file motions in court to seize or levy against those assets and income, you are probably going to be in the hole rather than ahead. Plus, it takes an enormous amount of energy to stay on top of it all which further victimizes the family of the lost one. While the suspected killer goes on with his/her life, the family of the lost one is reminded each and every day as they continue to attempt to collect on their judgment. Personally, it wouldn't be worth the effort to me. Getting the judgment would be but I would then want to move on with my life and not be bound to this person forever. I would want to be able to step back from the trauma and begin to remember my lost one and celebrate his/her life without having the suspected killer in the mix.
At any rate, innocent until proven guilty. Like it or not. That's the way it works.
But that's just me.
He admitted that after a short time, he becomes bored and moves on to greener pastures. (duh!) SO, honey of the month called the police and had them at Drew's house while she packed up their stuff and moved back into her parents house. Of course, she and her father showed up wired with microphones and accompanied by a bevy of reporters and camera crews. When Drew saw the circus he shut the door on them and refused to allow anyone inside his home. The police eventually entered Drew's house and got Christina's stuff and placed it on the curb.
Her father said that since she has been living in Drew's house, he has called the police on at least 2 occasions to have them do a welfare check because he couldn't get in touch with her and panicked. Yeah, I completely understand that. I can imagine not being able to sleep at night wondering if Drew was putting my daughter's body in the trunk of his car at that moment. I would probably camp outside his house. What a nightmare for a parent. What a stupid, stupid, stupid girl! (Those of you who know me personally know that stupid is a word I don't allow spoken in my house so for me to call someone stupid - it's serious.)
Apparently Ms. Raines has a long history of dating (and reproducing) with crazy men. Her first (her babies daddy) was reportedly abusive, her second (the one she dumped for Drew) she lived with until the day she moved into Drew's house. He admits to peeking in Drew's windows to "check on Christina" and according to Drew, he was abusive to her. Christina is 23 and already, according to her and Drew, she has had an abusive marriage, an abusive boyfriend and now Drew? Girl needs medication.
Now Drew is sad. The pool of 20 something girls must be drying up for him. Since Stacey's disappearance he has had 2 of them actually living with him and God knows how many on the side. The boy is getting some action.
Of course, Kim Mazurka didn't stay there long. Once she was hauled before the Grand Jury and pumped for information by the police, she backed away rather quickly.
Speaking of Drew, I will say one thing positive about him. I liked his reply when asked why he is not participating in the numerous searches for Stacey's body, he replied, "because I know they won't find her". Now HE says he means they won't find her because she's not dead but - you know I'm thinking he really means they won't find her because she has been ground up into hamburger meat and fed to the dogs or something.
I should add a disclaimer of sorts to this update about Drew. I have blogged about Carl Rodgers earlier on and in that blog I have ranted and raved about people assuming he was guilty when there was no evidence to support their suspicions. Let me explain why I feel justified in branding Drew a murderer. His third wife, with whom he had children (3?) died in a bathtub accident that was later declared to be murder (he hasn't been charged - I don't know why). Coincidence only goes so far.
Now, having said that, Drew could very well be innocent and I just don't like him. Could be. I state that in every blog about Drew. Also, if the police are so certain that he is guilty of the murder of his third and fourth wives, why haven't they charged him?
I would also like to know what became of the rectangular blue plastic container that Drew's step brother swears he helped Drew remove from his master bedroom on the night that Stacey disappeared??
The step brother actually attempted to commit suicide the next day because, as he stated to a friend, he thought "I just helped hide Stacey's body". He also said that Drew left him for a few minutes in a coffee shop and gave him his cell phone instructing him not to answer it no matter who it was. Within a minute or two, the phone rang and the caller I.D. stated it was Stacey. Then they went to his house and moved the container. He said the container weighed probably 110 pounds (Stacey weighed 100 pounds) and that it was warm to the touch. I think a normal person would have demanded to know what was in that container before they helped him move it. I would. I'm not about to be a party to covering up a murder. Well, not for free anyway. (That was a joke - seriously).
Drew Peterson is/was a cop. He wasn't just a patrolman, he was a Sergeant. He has escaped 2 murder charges (at this point), would he be so simplistic as to pull this type of stunt off? OR, is he betting that because his step brother has a history of mental instability that he is the perfect one to help dispose of the body because he would be easily discredited in court? Is that it? So this scenario would be perfect in that situation. Come to think of it, that would make sense.
I applaud the police for waiting until they feel they have enough evidence to convict because as we all know, should they jump the gun and he gets acquitted, the show's over. Except for the civil case which is easier to win because it requires less "preponderance of evidence". But then, collecting is a real bitch. By the time you hire a firm to follow his income and assets and then file motions in court to seize or levy against those assets and income, you are probably going to be in the hole rather than ahead. Plus, it takes an enormous amount of energy to stay on top of it all which further victimizes the family of the lost one. While the suspected killer goes on with his/her life, the family of the lost one is reminded each and every day as they continue to attempt to collect on their judgment. Personally, it wouldn't be worth the effort to me. Getting the judgment would be but I would then want to move on with my life and not be bound to this person forever. I would want to be able to step back from the trauma and begin to remember my lost one and celebrate his/her life without having the suspected killer in the mix.
At any rate, innocent until proven guilty. Like it or not. That's the way it works.
But that's just me.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
How NOT to discipline your child - Lesson 1
By now you all know that the news that grabs my attention is not what Jessica Simpson is wearing today (or dating) or whether Oprah did some cocaine at a party years ago (which according to the tabloid covers has Stedman seeing RED). Yes, I do confess to a slight addiction to the Enquirer. LOVE that mag. It has the most fantastical articles and is a great read when there's nothing worth watching on TV and I am just not in the mood for a book. Although the black and white rags that feature cover stories of alien babies and 110 year old women who give birth to sextuplets are a very close second. So there. Confessed.
However, when it comes to reading actual news put out there by actual reporters, I pass over the fluff and get down to the matter! I'm not really into reading about the Middle East problems (the Middle East to me is like Africa - they have always had major issues and they will always have major issues. Not going away. Same story - different decade).
What really catches my eye are the stories about murder. The who, where, why and how of them. Mostly the why and how of them.
So, it should come as no surprise that I am following the case of the mother and stepfather down in Galveston who murdered little Riley Ann Sawyers. The why and how is really beyond my comprehension. Thus the title of this blog "How not to discipline your child".
For a little background for those of you less morbid than myself, Riley Sawyer was found floating in the Galveston Bay area in a plastic container partially filled with concrete. She had multiple fractures to her skull and had been dead for a while.
The police put out an artist sketch of what little Riley may have looked like and low and behold, Riley's paternal grandmother up in Ohio contacted them and said it looked like her grand daughter whom she had not seen in a while and was told had been taken away from her mother by the department of human services.
This lead them to the mother and stepfather down in Texas who had met while playing games online.
Apparently mom and step had devised a list of things to teach little Riley and had "discipline sessions" whenever Riley was "bad". Now exactly how bad can a 2 year old be that she requires "discipline sessions"??
The police found this list in their home after their arrest. It contained nine things that 2-year-old Riley Ann Sawyers' mother and stepfather wanted to teach the toddler to help her behave better.
The list, called "Rules for Riley," included such things as "being polite," "behaves in public," "toys stay in her room" and "listen to mom & me." Sounds innocuous enough. These are all things we want to teach our children.
"But as the capital murder trial of Riley's mom, Kimberly Dawn Trenor, resumes, her attorneys will continue arguing before jurors that a discipline session to teach the child these behaviors spun out of control and their client never intended for her daughter to die as a result". I would ask, how can a discipline session spin out of control on a 2 year old? Did she grab a gun and threaten to shoot her mom? (no, but she should have).
Both Trenor and Riley's stepfather, Royce Clyde Zeigler II, were charged with capital murder for the child's death. Prosecutors are arguing both Trenor and Zeigler are equally responsible for Riley's death on July 25, 2007.
After Riley was killed, the couple bought a plastic container, partially filled it with cement, stuffed her beaten body inside and stored it in a shed at their home before dumping the remains in Galveston Bay in September 2007, according to authorities.
Even though Zeigler is set to be tried later, he has been constantly referenced during Trenor's trial.
Trenor, in a four-hour videotaped statement to police that was played in court earlier this week, admitted to whipping Riley with a belt and helping to repeatedly dunk her head in a bathtub of cold water.
But she said the discipline session was Zeigler's idea and the three skull fractures that resulted in the toddler's death were caused by him when he threw the child across a room in their home after getting frustrated that the discipline session wasn't working.
"The discipline session wasn't working". When you are beating a child and dunking her head in a bath tub of cold water, do you honestly expect the child not to cry and struggle? How exactly did they know the discipline session wasn't working on a 2 year old? What did they expect her to do exactly?
Another problem I have with the mothers "defense" is her saying she shouldn't be charged with capital murder because the discipline session was her husband's idea and she only "helped" dunk Riley's head in the tub "repeatedly". OOHHHH. That makes all the difference in the world. Uncuff that woman and set her free!!
Now students, if you want your child to behave (i.e. stop crying, stop struggling, stop gasping for breath, stop bleeding, etc.) you should first and foremost NOT BEAT HER, THROW HER AGAINST A WALL AND DUNK HER HEAD IN A BATH TUB! OR allow anyone else to do it either.
I would probably just give her a time out or at the most extreme slap my hand on her little butt a couple of times. Yes, students, I spanked my son when he was growing up. Now, I never spanked my daughter. Not because I loved her more than him or because she was perfect (nearly, but not quite). I just didn't have to spank her. She would respond positively to a time out whereas my son would only use that time to color on the walls, or sing a song, or (if I put him in a time out in his room) play with his toys. Time out to him was fine. Sometimes when I went to get him after his time out was over, he would beg for me to shut the door and leave him in time out longer.
She, on the other hand, would cry as if her heart was broken in two. She hated to get in trouble. He, didn't phase him ONE iota.
She responded to time out. He responded to getting his little butt spanked. Plain and simple.
Now back to Riley. Killing her is bad enough and both the mother and stepfather deserve death row because of it but if you have to allow one of them to live, I say let the stepfather get life in prison but definitely put the mother down!
Why would I say that if the stepfather is the one who actually caused her death by throwing her against the wall fracturing her skull in 3 places?? Because the mother bore 100% responsibility for her daughter's protection and safety. The mother should die before allowing her child to be harmed by anyone in any way. That is the way it is. She refused to do this in order to keep her man and she needs to die because of it.
Anytime a parent (mother OR father) allows their child to be abused, neglected or harmed in any way, they should die.
Had the step father kidnapped both the mother and child and was holding them hostage and took Riley out away from the mother and did this to her so the mother couldn't intervene, then there might be a touch of mercy afforded to the mom. However, that wasn't the case was it? She was there. She was in a position to have protected her child and she made a conscious decision not only to not protect her child but to actually participate in the torture and murder of her child. She needs to die.
And if participating in the torture and murder of her child wasn't bad enough, she assisted her husband in hiding the body and then threw it in the ocean like some bag of garbage. I don't care if Riley was the worst child in the universe, NO child deserves to be discarded like trash. Especially after you have put her through the terror of torturing her and murdering her.
THEN (it just keeps getting worse) she STAYED WITH THE STEP FATHER! She continued to live with him of her own free will. She continued to keep her mouth shut about what they had done of her own free will. She continued to have sex with him and go out on the town with him and bought him Christmas presents and did his laundry for him and in all reports given by their neighbors and "friends" they had a relatively happy marriage after this event.
She's whining that he "forced" her to keep quiet about it. He "threatened" her. She was "afraid" of him. PLEASE!
She was afraid of going to prison and possibly getting the chair (or whatever they give you now - "getting the injection" just doesn't sum it up like "getting the chair" does).
Had she AT ANY POINT during this nightmare walked into the police station and told the police what happened and where little Riley's body was, I might recommend showing her mercy. But she didn't do that did she?
She continued to love the man who murdered her daughter and only spoke ill of him after she was arrested and is now in a fight for HER life.
I swear, there are some people in this world who need to be fixed. They should never have children. Women like her seem to have the idea that so what if one of them gets murdered. If I miss them at all, I'll just have another one and maybe this one will be better behaved. OR, at least with the next one, I'll know not to throw them against the wall.
In closing, I sum it all up with this...........NO MERCY!
But that's just me.
However, when it comes to reading actual news put out there by actual reporters, I pass over the fluff and get down to the matter! I'm not really into reading about the Middle East problems (the Middle East to me is like Africa - they have always had major issues and they will always have major issues. Not going away. Same story - different decade).
What really catches my eye are the stories about murder. The who, where, why and how of them. Mostly the why and how of them.
So, it should come as no surprise that I am following the case of the mother and stepfather down in Galveston who murdered little Riley Ann Sawyers. The why and how is really beyond my comprehension. Thus the title of this blog "How not to discipline your child".
For a little background for those of you less morbid than myself, Riley Sawyer was found floating in the Galveston Bay area in a plastic container partially filled with concrete. She had multiple fractures to her skull and had been dead for a while.
The police put out an artist sketch of what little Riley may have looked like and low and behold, Riley's paternal grandmother up in Ohio contacted them and said it looked like her grand daughter whom she had not seen in a while and was told had been taken away from her mother by the department of human services.
This lead them to the mother and stepfather down in Texas who had met while playing games online.
Apparently mom and step had devised a list of things to teach little Riley and had "discipline sessions" whenever Riley was "bad". Now exactly how bad can a 2 year old be that she requires "discipline sessions"??
The police found this list in their home after their arrest. It contained nine things that 2-year-old Riley Ann Sawyers' mother and stepfather wanted to teach the toddler to help her behave better.
The list, called "Rules for Riley," included such things as "being polite," "behaves in public," "toys stay in her room" and "listen to mom & me." Sounds innocuous enough. These are all things we want to teach our children.
"But as the capital murder trial of Riley's mom, Kimberly Dawn Trenor, resumes, her attorneys will continue arguing before jurors that a discipline session to teach the child these behaviors spun out of control and their client never intended for her daughter to die as a result". I would ask, how can a discipline session spin out of control on a 2 year old? Did she grab a gun and threaten to shoot her mom? (no, but she should have).
Both Trenor and Riley's stepfather, Royce Clyde Zeigler II, were charged with capital murder for the child's death. Prosecutors are arguing both Trenor and Zeigler are equally responsible for Riley's death on July 25, 2007.
After Riley was killed, the couple bought a plastic container, partially filled it with cement, stuffed her beaten body inside and stored it in a shed at their home before dumping the remains in Galveston Bay in September 2007, according to authorities.
Even though Zeigler is set to be tried later, he has been constantly referenced during Trenor's trial.
Trenor, in a four-hour videotaped statement to police that was played in court earlier this week, admitted to whipping Riley with a belt and helping to repeatedly dunk her head in a bathtub of cold water.
But she said the discipline session was Zeigler's idea and the three skull fractures that resulted in the toddler's death were caused by him when he threw the child across a room in their home after getting frustrated that the discipline session wasn't working.
"The discipline session wasn't working". When you are beating a child and dunking her head in a bath tub of cold water, do you honestly expect the child not to cry and struggle? How exactly did they know the discipline session wasn't working on a 2 year old? What did they expect her to do exactly?
Another problem I have with the mothers "defense" is her saying she shouldn't be charged with capital murder because the discipline session was her husband's idea and she only "helped" dunk Riley's head in the tub "repeatedly". OOHHHH. That makes all the difference in the world. Uncuff that woman and set her free!!
Now students, if you want your child to behave (i.e. stop crying, stop struggling, stop gasping for breath, stop bleeding, etc.) you should first and foremost NOT BEAT HER, THROW HER AGAINST A WALL AND DUNK HER HEAD IN A BATH TUB! OR allow anyone else to do it either.
I would probably just give her a time out or at the most extreme slap my hand on her little butt a couple of times. Yes, students, I spanked my son when he was growing up. Now, I never spanked my daughter. Not because I loved her more than him or because she was perfect (nearly, but not quite). I just didn't have to spank her. She would respond positively to a time out whereas my son would only use that time to color on the walls, or sing a song, or (if I put him in a time out in his room) play with his toys. Time out to him was fine. Sometimes when I went to get him after his time out was over, he would beg for me to shut the door and leave him in time out longer.
She, on the other hand, would cry as if her heart was broken in two. She hated to get in trouble. He, didn't phase him ONE iota.
She responded to time out. He responded to getting his little butt spanked. Plain and simple.
Now back to Riley. Killing her is bad enough and both the mother and stepfather deserve death row because of it but if you have to allow one of them to live, I say let the stepfather get life in prison but definitely put the mother down!
Why would I say that if the stepfather is the one who actually caused her death by throwing her against the wall fracturing her skull in 3 places?? Because the mother bore 100% responsibility for her daughter's protection and safety. The mother should die before allowing her child to be harmed by anyone in any way. That is the way it is. She refused to do this in order to keep her man and she needs to die because of it.
Anytime a parent (mother OR father) allows their child to be abused, neglected or harmed in any way, they should die.
Had the step father kidnapped both the mother and child and was holding them hostage and took Riley out away from the mother and did this to her so the mother couldn't intervene, then there might be a touch of mercy afforded to the mom. However, that wasn't the case was it? She was there. She was in a position to have protected her child and she made a conscious decision not only to not protect her child but to actually participate in the torture and murder of her child. She needs to die.
And if participating in the torture and murder of her child wasn't bad enough, she assisted her husband in hiding the body and then threw it in the ocean like some bag of garbage. I don't care if Riley was the worst child in the universe, NO child deserves to be discarded like trash. Especially after you have put her through the terror of torturing her and murdering her.
THEN (it just keeps getting worse) she STAYED WITH THE STEP FATHER! She continued to live with him of her own free will. She continued to keep her mouth shut about what they had done of her own free will. She continued to have sex with him and go out on the town with him and bought him Christmas presents and did his laundry for him and in all reports given by their neighbors and "friends" they had a relatively happy marriage after this event.
She's whining that he "forced" her to keep quiet about it. He "threatened" her. She was "afraid" of him. PLEASE!
She was afraid of going to prison and possibly getting the chair (or whatever they give you now - "getting the injection" just doesn't sum it up like "getting the chair" does).
Had she AT ANY POINT during this nightmare walked into the police station and told the police what happened and where little Riley's body was, I might recommend showing her mercy. But she didn't do that did she?
She continued to love the man who murdered her daughter and only spoke ill of him after she was arrested and is now in a fight for HER life.
I swear, there are some people in this world who need to be fixed. They should never have children. Women like her seem to have the idea that so what if one of them gets murdered. If I miss them at all, I'll just have another one and maybe this one will be better behaved. OR, at least with the next one, I'll know not to throw them against the wall.
In closing, I sum it all up with this...........NO MERCY!
But that's just me.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Actors and Musicians
I'm going to use my blog today to rant and rave about the "entertainment" industry. Remember when you could go to the movies, get popcorn AND a drink all for under $5? Well, I do. I also remember when you could get every channel available AND the premium movie channels all for under $100 a month. That actually wasn't really all that long ago.
PART 1: MUSICIANS/MUSIC INDUSTRY
Let me start this part by stating that just because you sing a song that someone else wrote (and produced)and you can get on stage and do a good rendition of that song, it does NOT make you an artist. It makes you a good entertainer or a good musician or a good vocalist, a good interpreter, but not an artist. That word is pretty much useless these days. Brittney Spears has been called an artist (???) I don't wince whenever I hear Prince called an artist because, let's face it, the guy is a musical genius and he does actually create his work from beginning to end. But Brittney? Celine? Cher? Kelly Clarkson? Michael Buble? Or any of the other too numerous entertainers to mention who don't create their music are interpreters at best.
Why is it that Diana Ross or the Temptations (as examples)are considered artists but Holland-Dozier-Holland are considered "song writers"? Holland-Dozier-Holland were three guys who pretty much created the Motown sound and kept it going for all those years. Look on practically any Motown song and the chances are you will find they wrote them. They are artists. They created these great songs out of nothing. That is the definition of artist. Creating something out of nothing. Diana Ross and the Temptations interpreted THEIR creation and probably did it with a LOT of direction from the producers and writers. From that point on, all they had to do was sing it as they had instructed them to sing it. That's not being an artist. That's being an entertainer.
Prince; Paul Simon; Elton John & Bernie Taupin; Billy Joel; Dan Fogelberg; Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young; Pink Floyd; John Lennon; Paul McCartney; Johnny Cash; Garth Brooks; Mozart; Beethoven; Joni Mitchell; Carole King - THESE are artists. You may not like some (or all) of their creations but they CREATED what they sang. They are artists. Beyonce, Brittney, Cher, Michael Buble, Frank Sinatra, Elvis (no death threats please), The Temptations, Diana Ross, Celine (why are there more girls than guys in this equation?). THEY are entertainers. Albeit great ones - but entertainers none the less.
Let's take Beyonce and Brittney for a second. They have it written into their contracts that they must have their names included as partial contributors to any new songs that are on their albums so they will get writing royalties. This is apparently a growing scheme with entertainers who don't write their own music. As a result of this the Academies have instituted a rule that if a song wins an award only the first two writers will receive that award. Hmmm?
Beyonce and Brittney are puppets. They sing what others have written for them. They sing it the way their producers tell them to sing it. They then have choreographers who tell them where to stand and how to stand. Where to dance and how to dance. They then have costumers who design their outfits for them. Why would they be considered artists??? They should be labeled mannequins.
Remember when you could buy an album for $4.99?? AND you only had to buy it once because you could record it onto as many tapes as you wanted to AND put it onto your computer and it never stopped you?? Now, you have to buy CD's and most of them these days are programmed to only allow you to record their contents once or twice (if you're lucky) then they won't record anymore.
Remember when they were changing the format from Albums/cassettes to CD's? I do. They marketed these new CD's as being virtually indestructible! Completely scratch resistant, heat resistant, unbreakable. Wow! That sounded so much better than my albums plus I didn't have to get up and turn the record over to hear the other side AND I could search and only play what I wanted to hear! AND they took up less space? I was pumped!
Then I started buying them (or I should say I was forced to buy them because they stopped making vinyl albums - didn't have a choice). Let me just say, I HATE, LOATHE, ABHOR CD'S! I have yet to buy a CD that I haven't had to throw out within 6 months and replace because they do indeed scratch, they do indeed break (rather easily) and they most certainly are NOT highly heat resistant. NOTE: If you buy your albums from Europe you can still get them in vinyl, they just cost more.
And those "covers"?? Open them more than once and they break apart! And when you have to throw the cover away and unlike albums that were clearly marked with its contents printed directly on the vinyl, you don't know what's on that CD without the cover - if you can read print that small!
People like me who loved vinyl albums (I own in excess of 300 of them) are very particular with them. I have them standing up on their sides (always so they won't warp) and in their original dust covers (both of them - for those of you who aren't vinyl lovers there are two dust covers per album) and I am extremely picky about who touches them and how. Everyone that I ever knew who collected albums were the same way. I have albums from the mid-1960's and not a scratch or warp on any of them. The sound quality might not be as good as CD's but I can record them onto my computer and clean up the sound quality and be just fine. AND I can do it as many times as I want.
So now I understand. Everyone involved in making vinyl were actually losing money because we only had to buy ONE of them ever!
Musicians whine constantly about the lack of sales (the lack of money) they are getting and how no one should be allowed to share music anymore. Because it belongs to THEM!! I truly feel that unless I am selling their music, once I buy the album/CD, I should be able to do with it as I please.
The radio stations are now all programmed. They buy entire blocks of music at a time. The companies they buy them from determine the content. That is why on the very extremely rare occasions that we hear a new song, we have to google part of the lyrics in order to find out who the hell it was so we can go out and buy the CD. The "DJ's" don't tell you anything about the song that just played or the one coming up. That is also why we hear the very same song 100 times a day (filler).
The DJ used to be our music education back in the day. He (or she) was the guy who introduced us to new acts and told us the behind the scenes stories about the artists and the making of that particular album. Sure there was a little bit of fluff during his shift but the majority of his shift was spent talking about the music he played and the artists who made it. Now, it's all about their kids, their religions, stupid phone calls and them advertising a restaurant or car lot with about 10 minutes an hour worth of repeated music thrown in for good behavior.
This is exactly why new bands have to pay to have their albums cut and they have to market them independently. The days when a band could throw a bunch of their albums into the trunk and visit each radio station passing them out and trying to get them played are gone.
Before I leave the subject of musicians, let me say that they wouldn't be struggling for album sales IF they allowed us to share their music. This is how, since the beginning of time, that they have received free marketing. Ever gone to a house party packing an album or tape filled with your favorite songs? Sure you have. Ever have anyone at that party ask you who that band was?? Sure you have. Ever recorded a mixed tape of your favorites and given it to someone as a gift? Of course. Did they ever ask you about any of the songs on that tape? Sure they did.
This is how I was introduced to my personal favorites. Dan Fogelberg (received a mixed tape with Wisteria on it and then went out and bought his Home Free album and every album he put out afterwards). Leon Russell (same thing). This was FREE marketing for these guys! It's as if they don't have confidence in their music.
If I hear a song that I love, I will buy the album to discover more music by this musician and if the rest of the album is good, I am hooked. I will buy every album that they put out from that point on (stinker and all). If a musician has confidence in their music, if they think their music will speak for itself, then what's the problem with allowing the songs to be shared? NOT sold, I completely understand that. But what's the harm in a DJ playing one of their songs in a club or at a party without paying them or them royalties? It is free marketing and when the DJ's have to pay to play a musician's music, they will simply go with the free ones.
ACTORS AND ACTRESSES
Lord please! If I hear ONE more actor/actress calling themselves an artist, I think I will puke.
Did they invent their characters? I especially felt sick to my stomach that actors who portray real people get Academy awards. Ben Kingsley for Gandhi?? That was the year I stopped watching the awards shows. How hard is it to watch footage and mimic a real person? How hard is it to interview folks who knew him and read his writings and then mime the man? How about Joaquin Phoenix getting a nod for Johnny Cash and Reese Witherspoon winning for June Cash?? Dear God! Same thing!
Miming does not make you an artist. IT DOES NOT! Play acting does not make you an artist. I used to play dress up as a child. I used to pretend I was Diana Ross and my two neighbors were the Supremes and we would mime them in my carport on rainy days. We were damned good too! However, we weren't artists! We were playing dress up!
These people forget what their job is!! It is always so refreshing to hear any of them talk about their "art" as a job. Angelina Jolie (put the daggers back girls) is one of these. She doesn't call herself an artist. She plainly states that acting is what she does for her job and freely admits that she is paid outrageously for what she does. Everything else aside, I have a great amount of respect for her because of that.
Then you have Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins. Excuse me just a second while I get some Pepto.
These two people literally make me sick to my stomach. They have the attitude that they are so far above the rest of us. They are SO much smarter and aware than anyone else. They have this attitude that their opinions (on ANY subject) are so far above our comprehension that we should just bow to them and kiss their feet.
When did being an entertainer make you smarter than everyone else? When did being an entertainer make your opinions more important or thought out than mine? A short list of pukable entertainers that I lump in with Susan and Tim would be: Tom Cruise, Oprah (only because she is SO easily led by the nose by her "adviser of the month"), TINA FEY (GOD I hate her!) and last but certainly not least, Jane Fonda. Jane is fodder for a blog all to herself as she is the biggest puppet I have ever heard of and I doubt she has EVER had a single independent thought in her life. She is a lemming of the highest degree. Oprah is second only to Jane in that category.
There are a couple of entertainers who, although I usually disagree with their political views, appear to have put in the work to qualify their opinions and normally do not appear to hold themselves out to be the Gods and Goddesses of opinion (unlike Susan and Tim). These would be Sean Penn, Bruce Sprinsteen, George Clooney, Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt. These entertainers appear to do their homework, make up their own minds and act accordingly. They actively support their political views but don't shove them down anyone's throats or denounce those that don't agree with them as being stupid (unlike Susan and Tim).
To close this tirade, let me state this. If I buy a car from Ford, it's my car. If I choose to use it in a movie they don't get a royalty off of it. If I choose to turn it into a taxi - no royalties to Ford. If I choose to sell it, no royalties to Ford. I understand the difference between a car and "intellectual" property. However, I think it's crap for the most part. I think as long as I'm not making a profit off their music or movies, then as long as I pay for the CD or Video, it should be mine to do with as I please. If I want to copy it and give it to my best friend for Christmas, then that is my business because I OWN the CD.
Who knows that my friend isn't going to get hooked on the actor or musician and become their biggest fan buying all their future, CD's/movies and going to all their concerts/movies?
It is for certain that these "artists" are losing a lot of their fan base through their greed. We hear how they have sued to stop DJ's from spinning their records at clubs one day because of the $.99 royalty owed to them on that particular song and then the very next day we see a photo spread in People or Time magazine that shows their private jets and their multi-million dollar vacation homes in the Bahamas. And they're bitching about $19.99 for a CD/video??
I am sick to death of this. This is all about entertainment. Their greed is exactly why movie theaters are closing in record numbers. Why record stores are out of business and why radio stations are playing CRAP (over and over and over).
So I say, let's support the indies. Let's not buy CD's from the top dogs or go to movies made by the top dogs. The last movie I ever saw in an actual theatre was the Sixth Sense (long time ago). I paid $8 to see that movie and another $12 to get popcorn and a coke. I walked through the sticky residue of spilled coke and after squeezing past other customers to get to my seat had to watch the movie trying to hear it above the constant noise of the teenagers behind me. Now back in the day when I could have gotten all of the above for $5 or less, it wouldn't have mattered. But for $20 I want quiet and space and clean for my money.
I now watch movies once they have hit the small screen or I will get them on Netflix or Fancast and will watch them in the controlled environment of my home. I realize they will still get paid a small amount for my watching them on HBO or ABC or whatever BUT not nearly as much as if I watched it in a theater.
I will buy my vinyl albums from England or France and will pay the extra shipping to be able to have the vinyl and record it as many times as I please and I will NOT support the likes of Susan and Tim by contributing to their already massive fortunes. After all, why should they make money off stupid people like me?
But that's just me.
PART 1: MUSICIANS/MUSIC INDUSTRY
Let me start this part by stating that just because you sing a song that someone else wrote (and produced)and you can get on stage and do a good rendition of that song, it does NOT make you an artist. It makes you a good entertainer or a good musician or a good vocalist, a good interpreter, but not an artist. That word is pretty much useless these days. Brittney Spears has been called an artist (???) I don't wince whenever I hear Prince called an artist because, let's face it, the guy is a musical genius and he does actually create his work from beginning to end. But Brittney? Celine? Cher? Kelly Clarkson? Michael Buble? Or any of the other too numerous entertainers to mention who don't create their music are interpreters at best.
Why is it that Diana Ross or the Temptations (as examples)are considered artists but Holland-Dozier-Holland are considered "song writers"? Holland-Dozier-Holland were three guys who pretty much created the Motown sound and kept it going for all those years. Look on practically any Motown song and the chances are you will find they wrote them. They are artists. They created these great songs out of nothing. That is the definition of artist. Creating something out of nothing. Diana Ross and the Temptations interpreted THEIR creation and probably did it with a LOT of direction from the producers and writers. From that point on, all they had to do was sing it as they had instructed them to sing it. That's not being an artist. That's being an entertainer.
Prince; Paul Simon; Elton John & Bernie Taupin; Billy Joel; Dan Fogelberg; Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young; Pink Floyd; John Lennon; Paul McCartney; Johnny Cash; Garth Brooks; Mozart; Beethoven; Joni Mitchell; Carole King - THESE are artists. You may not like some (or all) of their creations but they CREATED what they sang. They are artists. Beyonce, Brittney, Cher, Michael Buble, Frank Sinatra, Elvis (no death threats please), The Temptations, Diana Ross, Celine (why are there more girls than guys in this equation?). THEY are entertainers. Albeit great ones - but entertainers none the less.
Let's take Beyonce and Brittney for a second. They have it written into their contracts that they must have their names included as partial contributors to any new songs that are on their albums so they will get writing royalties. This is apparently a growing scheme with entertainers who don't write their own music. As a result of this the Academies have instituted a rule that if a song wins an award only the first two writers will receive that award. Hmmm?
Beyonce and Brittney are puppets. They sing what others have written for them. They sing it the way their producers tell them to sing it. They then have choreographers who tell them where to stand and how to stand. Where to dance and how to dance. They then have costumers who design their outfits for them. Why would they be considered artists??? They should be labeled mannequins.
Remember when you could buy an album for $4.99?? AND you only had to buy it once because you could record it onto as many tapes as you wanted to AND put it onto your computer and it never stopped you?? Now, you have to buy CD's and most of them these days are programmed to only allow you to record their contents once or twice (if you're lucky) then they won't record anymore.
Remember when they were changing the format from Albums/cassettes to CD's? I do. They marketed these new CD's as being virtually indestructible! Completely scratch resistant, heat resistant, unbreakable. Wow! That sounded so much better than my albums plus I didn't have to get up and turn the record over to hear the other side AND I could search and only play what I wanted to hear! AND they took up less space? I was pumped!
Then I started buying them (or I should say I was forced to buy them because they stopped making vinyl albums - didn't have a choice). Let me just say, I HATE, LOATHE, ABHOR CD'S! I have yet to buy a CD that I haven't had to throw out within 6 months and replace because they do indeed scratch, they do indeed break (rather easily) and they most certainly are NOT highly heat resistant. NOTE: If you buy your albums from Europe you can still get them in vinyl, they just cost more.
And those "covers"?? Open them more than once and they break apart! And when you have to throw the cover away and unlike albums that were clearly marked with its contents printed directly on the vinyl, you don't know what's on that CD without the cover - if you can read print that small!
People like me who loved vinyl albums (I own in excess of 300 of them) are very particular with them. I have them standing up on their sides (always so they won't warp) and in their original dust covers (both of them - for those of you who aren't vinyl lovers there are two dust covers per album) and I am extremely picky about who touches them and how. Everyone that I ever knew who collected albums were the same way. I have albums from the mid-1960's and not a scratch or warp on any of them. The sound quality might not be as good as CD's but I can record them onto my computer and clean up the sound quality and be just fine. AND I can do it as many times as I want.
So now I understand. Everyone involved in making vinyl were actually losing money because we only had to buy ONE of them ever!
Musicians whine constantly about the lack of sales (the lack of money) they are getting and how no one should be allowed to share music anymore. Because it belongs to THEM!! I truly feel that unless I am selling their music, once I buy the album/CD, I should be able to do with it as I please.
The radio stations are now all programmed. They buy entire blocks of music at a time. The companies they buy them from determine the content. That is why on the very extremely rare occasions that we hear a new song, we have to google part of the lyrics in order to find out who the hell it was so we can go out and buy the CD. The "DJ's" don't tell you anything about the song that just played or the one coming up. That is also why we hear the very same song 100 times a day (filler).
The DJ used to be our music education back in the day. He (or she) was the guy who introduced us to new acts and told us the behind the scenes stories about the artists and the making of that particular album. Sure there was a little bit of fluff during his shift but the majority of his shift was spent talking about the music he played and the artists who made it. Now, it's all about their kids, their religions, stupid phone calls and them advertising a restaurant or car lot with about 10 minutes an hour worth of repeated music thrown in for good behavior.
This is exactly why new bands have to pay to have their albums cut and they have to market them independently. The days when a band could throw a bunch of their albums into the trunk and visit each radio station passing them out and trying to get them played are gone.
Before I leave the subject of musicians, let me say that they wouldn't be struggling for album sales IF they allowed us to share their music. This is how, since the beginning of time, that they have received free marketing. Ever gone to a house party packing an album or tape filled with your favorite songs? Sure you have. Ever have anyone at that party ask you who that band was?? Sure you have. Ever recorded a mixed tape of your favorites and given it to someone as a gift? Of course. Did they ever ask you about any of the songs on that tape? Sure they did.
This is how I was introduced to my personal favorites. Dan Fogelberg (received a mixed tape with Wisteria on it and then went out and bought his Home Free album and every album he put out afterwards). Leon Russell (same thing). This was FREE marketing for these guys! It's as if they don't have confidence in their music.
If I hear a song that I love, I will buy the album to discover more music by this musician and if the rest of the album is good, I am hooked. I will buy every album that they put out from that point on (stinker and all). If a musician has confidence in their music, if they think their music will speak for itself, then what's the problem with allowing the songs to be shared? NOT sold, I completely understand that. But what's the harm in a DJ playing one of their songs in a club or at a party without paying them or them royalties? It is free marketing and when the DJ's have to pay to play a musician's music, they will simply go with the free ones.
ACTORS AND ACTRESSES
Lord please! If I hear ONE more actor/actress calling themselves an artist, I think I will puke.
Did they invent their characters? I especially felt sick to my stomach that actors who portray real people get Academy awards. Ben Kingsley for Gandhi?? That was the year I stopped watching the awards shows. How hard is it to watch footage and mimic a real person? How hard is it to interview folks who knew him and read his writings and then mime the man? How about Joaquin Phoenix getting a nod for Johnny Cash and Reese Witherspoon winning for June Cash?? Dear God! Same thing!
Miming does not make you an artist. IT DOES NOT! Play acting does not make you an artist. I used to play dress up as a child. I used to pretend I was Diana Ross and my two neighbors were the Supremes and we would mime them in my carport on rainy days. We were damned good too! However, we weren't artists! We were playing dress up!
These people forget what their job is!! It is always so refreshing to hear any of them talk about their "art" as a job. Angelina Jolie (put the daggers back girls) is one of these. She doesn't call herself an artist. She plainly states that acting is what she does for her job and freely admits that she is paid outrageously for what she does. Everything else aside, I have a great amount of respect for her because of that.
Then you have Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins. Excuse me just a second while I get some Pepto.
These two people literally make me sick to my stomach. They have the attitude that they are so far above the rest of us. They are SO much smarter and aware than anyone else. They have this attitude that their opinions (on ANY subject) are so far above our comprehension that we should just bow to them and kiss their feet.
When did being an entertainer make you smarter than everyone else? When did being an entertainer make your opinions more important or thought out than mine? A short list of pukable entertainers that I lump in with Susan and Tim would be: Tom Cruise, Oprah (only because she is SO easily led by the nose by her "adviser of the month"), TINA FEY (GOD I hate her!) and last but certainly not least, Jane Fonda. Jane is fodder for a blog all to herself as she is the biggest puppet I have ever heard of and I doubt she has EVER had a single independent thought in her life. She is a lemming of the highest degree. Oprah is second only to Jane in that category.
There are a couple of entertainers who, although I usually disagree with their political views, appear to have put in the work to qualify their opinions and normally do not appear to hold themselves out to be the Gods and Goddesses of opinion (unlike Susan and Tim). These would be Sean Penn, Bruce Sprinsteen, George Clooney, Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt. These entertainers appear to do their homework, make up their own minds and act accordingly. They actively support their political views but don't shove them down anyone's throats or denounce those that don't agree with them as being stupid (unlike Susan and Tim).
To close this tirade, let me state this. If I buy a car from Ford, it's my car. If I choose to use it in a movie they don't get a royalty off of it. If I choose to turn it into a taxi - no royalties to Ford. If I choose to sell it, no royalties to Ford. I understand the difference between a car and "intellectual" property. However, I think it's crap for the most part. I think as long as I'm not making a profit off their music or movies, then as long as I pay for the CD or Video, it should be mine to do with as I please. If I want to copy it and give it to my best friend for Christmas, then that is my business because I OWN the CD.
Who knows that my friend isn't going to get hooked on the actor or musician and become their biggest fan buying all their future, CD's/movies and going to all their concerts/movies?
It is for certain that these "artists" are losing a lot of their fan base through their greed. We hear how they have sued to stop DJ's from spinning their records at clubs one day because of the $.99 royalty owed to them on that particular song and then the very next day we see a photo spread in People or Time magazine that shows their private jets and their multi-million dollar vacation homes in the Bahamas. And they're bitching about $19.99 for a CD/video??
I am sick to death of this. This is all about entertainment. Their greed is exactly why movie theaters are closing in record numbers. Why record stores are out of business and why radio stations are playing CRAP (over and over and over).
So I say, let's support the indies. Let's not buy CD's from the top dogs or go to movies made by the top dogs. The last movie I ever saw in an actual theatre was the Sixth Sense (long time ago). I paid $8 to see that movie and another $12 to get popcorn and a coke. I walked through the sticky residue of spilled coke and after squeezing past other customers to get to my seat had to watch the movie trying to hear it above the constant noise of the teenagers behind me. Now back in the day when I could have gotten all of the above for $5 or less, it wouldn't have mattered. But for $20 I want quiet and space and clean for my money.
I now watch movies once they have hit the small screen or I will get them on Netflix or Fancast and will watch them in the controlled environment of my home. I realize they will still get paid a small amount for my watching them on HBO or ABC or whatever BUT not nearly as much as if I watched it in a theater.
I will buy my vinyl albums from England or France and will pay the extra shipping to be able to have the vinyl and record it as many times as I please and I will NOT support the likes of Susan and Tim by contributing to their already massive fortunes. After all, why should they make money off stupid people like me?
But that's just me.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Fallen Clergy
Anyone who knows me knows that I dislike (to put it very mildly) organized religion. I have a great disdain for it (read my very first blog if you doubt this). However, today, there was yet another article in the news about the Rev. Haggard. Geez! Enough already!
So, I started thinking. How many high profile religious leaders have fallen in recent times? Just the Christian ones, I'm not concerned about the Jewish Rabbi who is serving life because he had his wife murdered so he could be with the church secretary or the Buddhist (whatever they are called) who while mandating that all of his priest(?) live a life of poverty was raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars a year at their expense for his own pleasure. No, I wanted to look for the Christian leaders who have fallen. Maybe because there are more of them? Maybe because they are certainly more colorful and WAY flashier. Maybe because they are just closer to home for me since I was raised Christian? Who knows, don't really care. I was just curious and the list below represent just the ones I could remember or find. I truly have to take a class on my keyword abilities because they really do suck.
You won't be surprised to find out that I actually knew 2 of them.
Now this list contains several who actually went to prison but most of them just got canned from their day job (preaching) for a spell with very few of them out of their chosen line of work permanently. (that's the great thing about being a Christian preacher. Get fired? Heck, no problem. Found a different church and call it something else and you are right back in business!)
YEAR: CLERGY: OFFENSE:
1972 - Jerry Falwell - Greed (phony bonds)
Jerry Falwell was on the board of directors for a company I worked for years ago. I was so prepared not to like him. However, I did. As much as I vehemently disagreed with every view in his peanut head and every word that came out of his narrow bigoted mouth in public, I couldn't help but love his personality away from the press. He was hilarious and I looked forward to chatting with him at every meeting.
1987 - James Bakker - Sex and Money (did prison time - has a new church in Branson, MO)
1988 - Jimmy Swaggert - Sex
1988 - Marvin Gorman - Sex
Now this one is funny actually. Marvin and Jimmy were competitors for the all mighty TV dollars. Marvin found out about Jimmy's honey and went to the press with it which temporarily toppled Jimmy's empire. But don't shed any tears for Jimmy - he hired a private investigator who followed Marvin around and got photo's of Marvin with prostitutes in New Orleans. When was the last time you heard Marvin's name?? Still remember Jimmy though don't you ?
1991 - Robert Tilton - Money
1999 - Henry J. Lyons - Sex & Greed (sentenced to 5 years in prison)
I knew Henry Lyons as he served on the same Board of Directors for a company I once worked for. (The same one that Jerry Falwell sat on. Seeing a pattern here with this company??) I was required to attend the Board meetings so we interacted on several occasions. I did NOT like Henry. I found him to be extremely rude, sexist, racist and overbearing. However, Henry had the nicest wife. A long suffering woman with a heart of gold. However, one day she discovered that while Henry refused to put their child into a private university and the entire time that Mrs. Lyons was pinching pennies and trying to be the good Bishops wife, he had a multi-million dollar home on the water down in Florida that he shared with his much younger mistress. Mrs. Lyons promptly went to that house and finding her husbands vehicle parked in the driveway tried to get him to answer the door. When no one would come to the door, Mrs. Lyons set the house on fire. THEN they came outside (for sure). Come to find out, both the house AND the mistress were being paid for by the church coffers. He went to prison and Mrs. Lyons got a divorce.
2002 - Father John Geoghan - Sex with underage boys
2002 - Cardinal Bernard Law - Covering up priests sex with boys
2003 - Terry Hornbuckle - 3 counts of rape - currently in prison. But his wife is now the senior pastor at their church raking in nearly $24K a month. Not a bad gig for her.
2005 - Father Paul Stanley - Sex with underage boys
2006 - Warren Jeffs - Sex, kidnapping and intimidation (the list goes on and on - currently in prison)
2007 - Ted Haggard - Sex
2007 - Richard Roberts - Greed
2007 - Lindsey Roberts (the wife) - Greed
2007 - Kenneth Copeland - Greed
2007 - Creflo Dollar - Greed
2007 - Benny Hinn - Greed
2007 - Eddie L. Long - Greed
2007 - Joyce Meyer - Greed
2007 - Paula White - Greed - All of 2007's batch - except for Teddy - stem from the misappropriation of the donations coming into the coffers at the Oral Roberts University. I'm not talking about keeping the money from the candy sales here. I'm talking about stuff like the University paying for Richard Roberts daughter (and all of her friends) to go to the Bahamas on spring break in the University's private jet all expenses paid by the University. I'm talking about Lindsey Roberts teenage boyfriend getting a free ride at the University including clothes, new sports car and vacations all at the University's expense. All of the Robert's children's friends getting full ride scholarships at the University regardless of aptitude or participation (as in actually going to class). I'm talking about numerous multi-million dollar mansions for the Roberts all over the country. That kind of stuff. When asked what he thought about this entire situation, Eddie Long replied "well, Richard was raised wealthy. His idea of frugal and your idea of frugal are probably very different". Yeah, that's true.
2008 - Terry MacAlmon - Sex
2008 - Todd Bentley - Sex
To sum it up, in a religion that publicly places so much emphasis on wealth, rewards and riches, the accompanying downfalls regarding the abuse of sex and power/money is not at all surprising but inevitable.
In the end, are they fallen or just plain found out?
But that's just me.
So, I started thinking. How many high profile religious leaders have fallen in recent times? Just the Christian ones, I'm not concerned about the Jewish Rabbi who is serving life because he had his wife murdered so he could be with the church secretary or the Buddhist (whatever they are called) who while mandating that all of his priest(?) live a life of poverty was raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars a year at their expense for his own pleasure. No, I wanted to look for the Christian leaders who have fallen. Maybe because there are more of them? Maybe because they are certainly more colorful and WAY flashier. Maybe because they are just closer to home for me since I was raised Christian? Who knows, don't really care. I was just curious and the list below represent just the ones I could remember or find. I truly have to take a class on my keyword abilities because they really do suck.
You won't be surprised to find out that I actually knew 2 of them.
Now this list contains several who actually went to prison but most of them just got canned from their day job (preaching) for a spell with very few of them out of their chosen line of work permanently. (that's the great thing about being a Christian preacher. Get fired? Heck, no problem. Found a different church and call it something else and you are right back in business!)
YEAR: CLERGY: OFFENSE:
1972 - Jerry Falwell - Greed (phony bonds)
Jerry Falwell was on the board of directors for a company I worked for years ago. I was so prepared not to like him. However, I did. As much as I vehemently disagreed with every view in his peanut head and every word that came out of his narrow bigoted mouth in public, I couldn't help but love his personality away from the press. He was hilarious and I looked forward to chatting with him at every meeting.
1987 - James Bakker - Sex and Money (did prison time - has a new church in Branson, MO)
1988 - Jimmy Swaggert - Sex
1988 - Marvin Gorman - Sex
Now this one is funny actually. Marvin and Jimmy were competitors for the all mighty TV dollars. Marvin found out about Jimmy's honey and went to the press with it which temporarily toppled Jimmy's empire. But don't shed any tears for Jimmy - he hired a private investigator who followed Marvin around and got photo's of Marvin with prostitutes in New Orleans. When was the last time you heard Marvin's name?? Still remember Jimmy though don't you ?
1991 - Robert Tilton - Money
1999 - Henry J. Lyons - Sex & Greed (sentenced to 5 years in prison)
I knew Henry Lyons as he served on the same Board of Directors for a company I once worked for. (The same one that Jerry Falwell sat on. Seeing a pattern here with this company??) I was required to attend the Board meetings so we interacted on several occasions. I did NOT like Henry. I found him to be extremely rude, sexist, racist and overbearing. However, Henry had the nicest wife. A long suffering woman with a heart of gold. However, one day she discovered that while Henry refused to put their child into a private university and the entire time that Mrs. Lyons was pinching pennies and trying to be the good Bishops wife, he had a multi-million dollar home on the water down in Florida that he shared with his much younger mistress. Mrs. Lyons promptly went to that house and finding her husbands vehicle parked in the driveway tried to get him to answer the door. When no one would come to the door, Mrs. Lyons set the house on fire. THEN they came outside (for sure). Come to find out, both the house AND the mistress were being paid for by the church coffers. He went to prison and Mrs. Lyons got a divorce.
2002 - Father John Geoghan - Sex with underage boys
2002 - Cardinal Bernard Law - Covering up priests sex with boys
2003 - Terry Hornbuckle - 3 counts of rape - currently in prison. But his wife is now the senior pastor at their church raking in nearly $24K a month. Not a bad gig for her.
2005 - Father Paul Stanley - Sex with underage boys
2006 - Warren Jeffs - Sex, kidnapping and intimidation (the list goes on and on - currently in prison)
2007 - Ted Haggard - Sex
2007 - Richard Roberts - Greed
2007 - Lindsey Roberts (the wife) - Greed
2007 - Kenneth Copeland - Greed
2007 - Creflo Dollar - Greed
2007 - Benny Hinn - Greed
2007 - Eddie L. Long - Greed
2007 - Joyce Meyer - Greed
2007 - Paula White - Greed - All of 2007's batch - except for Teddy - stem from the misappropriation of the donations coming into the coffers at the Oral Roberts University. I'm not talking about keeping the money from the candy sales here. I'm talking about stuff like the University paying for Richard Roberts daughter (and all of her friends) to go to the Bahamas on spring break in the University's private jet all expenses paid by the University. I'm talking about Lindsey Roberts teenage boyfriend getting a free ride at the University including clothes, new sports car and vacations all at the University's expense. All of the Robert's children's friends getting full ride scholarships at the University regardless of aptitude or participation (as in actually going to class). I'm talking about numerous multi-million dollar mansions for the Roberts all over the country. That kind of stuff. When asked what he thought about this entire situation, Eddie Long replied "well, Richard was raised wealthy. His idea of frugal and your idea of frugal are probably very different". Yeah, that's true.
2008 - Terry MacAlmon - Sex
2008 - Todd Bentley - Sex
To sum it up, in a religion that publicly places so much emphasis on wealth, rewards and riches, the accompanying downfalls regarding the abuse of sex and power/money is not at all surprising but inevitable.
In the end, are they fallen or just plain found out?
But that's just me.
Caylee update
As you all know by now, they have released the facts that Caylee was found with duct tape on her mouth and on that tape was a star sticky. Does that sound like a random pedophile to you? Not to me. It sounds like something that an immature adult female would do (Casey). It also would dispel the common thought a lot of folks have that Casey gave her too much cough syrup to make her sleep and accidentally overdosed her. (She was known to do this whenever she wanted to party and Caylee was getting in her way).
Like everyone else, I have had numerous chats with my friends over this case. Most of my friends believe 1 of 3 scenarios.
1. Casey did it to rid herself of an unwanted child that severely handicapped her social life and dumped the body herself before being arrested or during the short period of time she was out on bail, (Remember her parents had "forced" her into not having an abortion and raising her child),
2. They believe that Casey did it and her mother hid the body to protect Casey (didn't do a great job of that).
3. They believe that one of Casey's men friends killed Caylee and Casey hid the body and came up with this conspiracy story that she has brandied about for months and months.
I believe Casey did it and when her mother called the police and started putting the pressure on her, Casey spilled the beans to her and grandma put the body in the woods to get it off of her property.
The area where the body was found was perfect for this as you can go from Casey/Caylee's backyard through the woods and right to the place where they found the body without ever having to be observed from the road. Perfect if you are being watched by the media and/or the police and you just want the body off your property before someone finds it.
Another reason I believe grandma is deep into this (well, more than one reason) is:
1. She called the police and was all about "Where is my grand child?" then all of a sudden she is Casey's biggest advocate. Seemingly she has swallowed each and every crazy story that has come out of Casey's mouth no matter how insane and contradictory it sounds. Not even the most hopeful of mother's would fall for the crap spewed out of Casey's mouth. Not even.
2. It has been reported that during all of the searches for Caylee's body that have occurred (and there have been many), grandma comes and talks with the press and then goes home. She doesn't beat the bushes looking for her grand daughter. Now that tells me one of two things. Either she just doesn't care enough about finding her to participate in the search and is only showing up for the press OR (and this is my bet) she knows full well that they won't find her because SHE knows exactly where the body is.
I go with the second reason. Most normal grandmothers would be out there beating the bushes back until it became so dark that she couldn't see any longer and to hell with the press.
This morning I read through the timeline of this case and it surprised me to find out that the grandfather tried to commit suicide last night.
He took photo's of his family and a lot of medication and went to a hotel room where he texted his wife and told her he didn't want to live any longer. The police found him and he is currently doing 72 hours on sucide watch at a local hospital.
When this whole thing started, apparently, Casey's car was impounded (I don't know why) and George Anthony, a former cop, and his wife, Cindy Anthony, went to pick it up.
He later told the police and the press, (and I quote), “I had bad vibes the very first day when I got that car," he told investigators on July 24, adding: "I don’t want to believe that I have, have raised someone, and brought someone in this world that could do something to another person. I don’t want to believe that."
The former cop told police that he was concerned about a familiar odor wafting from the trunk of his daughter's Pontiac Sunfire. As a former investigator, he said, he recognized the smell of death.
George Anthony's wife Cindy, who told the media the smell was that of decomposing pizza, noticed the odor in their daughter's car too, he said in interviews with detectives.
"After we pulled inside the garage ... her exact words were, ‘Jesus Christ what died?’" George Anthony told police. "That’s exactly what she said. But then she said it in a way, she says, ‘George, it was the pizza right?’ And I said, 'Yeah, it was the pizza.’
"And that’s what I left it go at that, but, I’m sitting here as the grandfather, as the father, as George Anthony and as a guy who smelled the smell before years ago, and you just never forget it. I even stuck my nose down on it and I’m, I’m concerned."
Forensic tests confirmed that hair found in the trunk of the vehicle came from a decomposing body. DNA evidence suggests a corpse had been in the car's trunk.
Personally I believe that Cindy Anthony did not participate in Caylee's death but through some misguided guilt over feeling she forced Casey to keep the baby or that she didn't protect Caylee enough or that she raised a monster or whatever, has decided to lie and obstruct justice for her daughter and has done just that.
I firmly believe that George Anthony knows FAR more than he is saying and simply couldn't take it anymore.
In previous blogs, I have talked about this case and the oddness in the fact that George Anthony stopped speaking publicaly to the press or to his daughter once she was arrested. I have spoken of the video's released from their prison visits where George is sitting there quietly and Cindy and Casey are doing all the talking. I think that is how he has handled this entire ordeal.
He sits back, keeps his mouth shut and his ears open and tries to pretend he isn't even there. That none of this is happening. He doesn't want to participate in bringing his daughter and wife down but at the same time, I don't think he is going to cover for them either. He is just going to let the police do their thing and let the chips fall where they may.
I can see how he would feel that way. However, it makes him just as culpable as Cindy in this matter by virtue of his silence. Actually it makes him MORE culpable because they are seriously deranged and have excused their behavior to the point that they don't think they are doing wrong. They think what they are doing is absolutely right and justifiable. Mr. Anthony's weak bid at suicide shows me that he, on the other hand, knows that this is wrong and not justifiable and is wracked with guilt over it. He apparently still have some control over his faculties to the point that he knows right from wrong. Having said this, he needs to go to the police and spill his guts to them. He needs to tell them each and every inconsistency he has heard or witnessed. He needs to cooperate with them fully and completely.
Of all the players, George is the only one who can really truly get to the bottom of this entire mess by the simple fact that he is a former cop who is trained in the investigation of crimes and in getting to the truth of the matter.
He is Caylee's only hope in getting justice for her murder.
If Cindy and/or Casey Anthony are innocent, then no harm done but if they are not, it's not his fault if they get caught. At least he will be able to live with himself if he does the right thing. How can he ever live with himself if he remains quiet and they get off scott free? Or, God forbid, someone else is convicted for the murder?
Let them be forced to take responsibility for their actions. They are grown after all.
I really feel badly for him. I think he is stuck in a very bad place in his life. At the same time, I feel that a part of him created the monster that is his child. I think Cindy is the one who groomed Casey to be the egotistical narcisist that she is but I also think that George sat back and watched and allowed it to happen.
STAND UP TO THEM GEORGE!!
But that's just me.
Like everyone else, I have had numerous chats with my friends over this case. Most of my friends believe 1 of 3 scenarios.
1. Casey did it to rid herself of an unwanted child that severely handicapped her social life and dumped the body herself before being arrested or during the short period of time she was out on bail, (Remember her parents had "forced" her into not having an abortion and raising her child),
2. They believe that Casey did it and her mother hid the body to protect Casey (didn't do a great job of that).
3. They believe that one of Casey's men friends killed Caylee and Casey hid the body and came up with this conspiracy story that she has brandied about for months and months.
I believe Casey did it and when her mother called the police and started putting the pressure on her, Casey spilled the beans to her and grandma put the body in the woods to get it off of her property.
The area where the body was found was perfect for this as you can go from Casey/Caylee's backyard through the woods and right to the place where they found the body without ever having to be observed from the road. Perfect if you are being watched by the media and/or the police and you just want the body off your property before someone finds it.
Another reason I believe grandma is deep into this (well, more than one reason) is:
1. She called the police and was all about "Where is my grand child?" then all of a sudden she is Casey's biggest advocate. Seemingly she has swallowed each and every crazy story that has come out of Casey's mouth no matter how insane and contradictory it sounds. Not even the most hopeful of mother's would fall for the crap spewed out of Casey's mouth. Not even.
2. It has been reported that during all of the searches for Caylee's body that have occurred (and there have been many), grandma comes and talks with the press and then goes home. She doesn't beat the bushes looking for her grand daughter. Now that tells me one of two things. Either she just doesn't care enough about finding her to participate in the search and is only showing up for the press OR (and this is my bet) she knows full well that they won't find her because SHE knows exactly where the body is.
I go with the second reason. Most normal grandmothers would be out there beating the bushes back until it became so dark that she couldn't see any longer and to hell with the press.
This morning I read through the timeline of this case and it surprised me to find out that the grandfather tried to commit suicide last night.
He took photo's of his family and a lot of medication and went to a hotel room where he texted his wife and told her he didn't want to live any longer. The police found him and he is currently doing 72 hours on sucide watch at a local hospital.
When this whole thing started, apparently, Casey's car was impounded (I don't know why) and George Anthony, a former cop, and his wife, Cindy Anthony, went to pick it up.
He later told the police and the press, (and I quote), “I had bad vibes the very first day when I got that car," he told investigators on July 24, adding: "I don’t want to believe that I have, have raised someone, and brought someone in this world that could do something to another person. I don’t want to believe that."
The former cop told police that he was concerned about a familiar odor wafting from the trunk of his daughter's Pontiac Sunfire. As a former investigator, he said, he recognized the smell of death.
George Anthony's wife Cindy, who told the media the smell was that of decomposing pizza, noticed the odor in their daughter's car too, he said in interviews with detectives.
"After we pulled inside the garage ... her exact words were, ‘Jesus Christ what died?’" George Anthony told police. "That’s exactly what she said. But then she said it in a way, she says, ‘George, it was the pizza right?’ And I said, 'Yeah, it was the pizza.’
"And that’s what I left it go at that, but, I’m sitting here as the grandfather, as the father, as George Anthony and as a guy who smelled the smell before years ago, and you just never forget it. I even stuck my nose down on it and I’m, I’m concerned."
Forensic tests confirmed that hair found in the trunk of the vehicle came from a decomposing body. DNA evidence suggests a corpse had been in the car's trunk.
Personally I believe that Cindy Anthony did not participate in Caylee's death but through some misguided guilt over feeling she forced Casey to keep the baby or that she didn't protect Caylee enough or that she raised a monster or whatever, has decided to lie and obstruct justice for her daughter and has done just that.
I firmly believe that George Anthony knows FAR more than he is saying and simply couldn't take it anymore.
In previous blogs, I have talked about this case and the oddness in the fact that George Anthony stopped speaking publicaly to the press or to his daughter once she was arrested. I have spoken of the video's released from their prison visits where George is sitting there quietly and Cindy and Casey are doing all the talking. I think that is how he has handled this entire ordeal.
He sits back, keeps his mouth shut and his ears open and tries to pretend he isn't even there. That none of this is happening. He doesn't want to participate in bringing his daughter and wife down but at the same time, I don't think he is going to cover for them either. He is just going to let the police do their thing and let the chips fall where they may.
I can see how he would feel that way. However, it makes him just as culpable as Cindy in this matter by virtue of his silence. Actually it makes him MORE culpable because they are seriously deranged and have excused their behavior to the point that they don't think they are doing wrong. They think what they are doing is absolutely right and justifiable. Mr. Anthony's weak bid at suicide shows me that he, on the other hand, knows that this is wrong and not justifiable and is wracked with guilt over it. He apparently still have some control over his faculties to the point that he knows right from wrong. Having said this, he needs to go to the police and spill his guts to them. He needs to tell them each and every inconsistency he has heard or witnessed. He needs to cooperate with them fully and completely.
Of all the players, George is the only one who can really truly get to the bottom of this entire mess by the simple fact that he is a former cop who is trained in the investigation of crimes and in getting to the truth of the matter.
He is Caylee's only hope in getting justice for her murder.
If Cindy and/or Casey Anthony are innocent, then no harm done but if they are not, it's not his fault if they get caught. At least he will be able to live with himself if he does the right thing. How can he ever live with himself if he remains quiet and they get off scott free? Or, God forbid, someone else is convicted for the murder?
Let them be forced to take responsibility for their actions. They are grown after all.
I really feel badly for him. I think he is stuck in a very bad place in his life. At the same time, I feel that a part of him created the monster that is his child. I think Cindy is the one who groomed Casey to be the egotistical narcisist that she is but I also think that George sat back and watched and allowed it to happen.
STAND UP TO THEM GEORGE!!
But that's just me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)