Showing posts with label Facebook. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Facebook. Show all posts

Sunday, December 16, 2012

In Reply: The "Now is not the time" / "Don't politicize the tragedy" Waiting Period

In reply to the following comment I received on Facebook, which in turn was a reply to a share of the following tweet:



"Can we start by enforcing the laws we already have? Adding new ones is pointless if none of them are enforced. We also need to close the gun show loopholes."
---
I'm with you on all points... I just want there to be an intelligent conversation about all of the issues involved, including the mental health and family/societal issues you posted about on your wall. I believe we probably ought to reinstate the automatic weapons ban--it wasn't a factor in this massacre, but those weapons have played a part in others--and maybe do something to limit large magazines/clips, too, but aside that I don't have any real suggestions or answers.

My goal in signing this petition was to combat the ever-present bullshit about "it being too soon to talk about it" and admonitions against "politicizing the tragedy," both of which impose "waiting periods" that always seem to last just long enough to get us to the next tragedy that some would have us not talk about or politicize, either.

I don't know whether or not there are any new laws that could minimize the number of mass shootings in this country or the number of victims of them when they do occur... but I believe it's high time we stop waiting until the moment is perfect--it never will be--start talking about it and exploring the issues now, before the next mass casualty gun massacre occurs, and the "now's not the time"/"don't politicize the tragedy" waiting period clock starts all over again.
---

(Ironically, I accidentally posted about the White House petition twice; Once via the tweet, and once by sharing the link at the petition site. The friend who commented chose to do so at the tweet share, rather than at the link share to the petition, to which I'd added the following note in the first place):

This petition is a little vague, but because it's being featured at Memeorandum, it's likely going to get the signatures. I DON'T want to blindly limit access to guns across the board. But I would support waiting periods, more thorough background checks, closing gun show loopholes, and limiting access to weapons of war. No, you can't prevent every crime, and yes, a person determined to kill who cannot get a gun will probably use a knife or a bat. But if the killers at Va Tech (or Aurora, or Columbine, or ..., or ...) had been murdering with knives, far fewer would've died. We can talk about limiting access to knives when homicide by blade even begins to approach the numbers of those murdered by firearm.
---

Immediately address the issue of gun control through the introduction of legislation in Congress. | We the People: Your Voice in Our Government

Friday, August 13, 2010

In Reply: "Things pretty much are what they seem..."

In reply to (a Facebook conversation I don't have permission to post the other half of... ...though I think the gist is pretty apparent, just from my end...)
---

No one who reads the stuff I write can credibly suggest that I go in much for sweeping generalizations. (In fact, I'm often arguing against ones being made by others... ...like the one you make about the lamestream/mainstream media and the "too stupid to think for themselves" American public, later in your rant.)

Do I think that the bigoted signs at tea parties are being held by liberal infiltrators? For the most part, no. Maybe one out of fifty, just as there were a very few right wing infiltrators at liberal protests.

I'm not much for elaborate conspiracies... I see a racist sign at an event, I believe the guy holding the sign is at the event because he supports the cause and that he means to say whatever it is his sign says.

I don't believe that the "infiltrator" excuse holds water, given that two major players in the tea party movement have been implicated in clearly bigoted actions. (Look up Dale Robertson and Mark Williams, and please don't claim that they're not REAL tea party people, because no REAL tea party person is a bigot.)

Now, does that mean that all tea partiers are bigots? Of course not. But those two--and most, if not all, of the folks pictured in that video holding bigoted signs--are.

Far too many of us (Americans, though I've no doubt it's more widespread than that) talk about "the right" or "the left" or "The Tea Party" or "Progressives" as though they're all one monolithic block. Anyone who suggests that Dale and Mark prove the tea party is racist is wrong, and probably has an agenda. Anyone who suggests that Rangel and Waters prove that Democrats are corrupt is just as wrong, and just as likely has a different agenda.

I think we need to learn to talk about people as individuals more often, rather than as representatives of the groups to which they belong. (If you ask me, our failure to do so is where bigotry and the divisive political partisanship you so decry in your rant begins. When we talk about Mark Williams (or Charlie Rangel) rather than "the tea party" (or "Democrats"), we can get to the business of discussing their behavior(s), rather than engaging in divisive partisanship based on what we falsely claim these individuals say or show about the groups to which they belong.)

I don't believe the American public is as stupid as you say they are. I don't believe that the American media is as liberal or biased as you believe it is, either. (I know who owns much of it, and who just works there, and therefore who calls the shots.)

Now when it comes to blind partisanship, I'm with ya, at least as far as that portion of the electorate who enjoys politics is concerned. Too many see it as a zero sum game and root for their team like it's a sporting event. The horse race "who's up, who's down" takes up too much of the news. And based on what I said above, you can see where I don't think it's a good thing.
However...

...I'm not so sure whether they're leading us, or reflecting us back at ourselves. While it is kinda sad, America does like a good horse race, and some believe it's the only reason some Americans pay any attention to politics, at all.

...I don't believe that the portion of the electorate that enjoys politics is very large. Most folks read the paper or watch the news a little more in the week or so before an election, and then goes and votes. The rest of the time, they have families and jobs to take care of... (There's even a good argument to be made that those people aren't right; all the protesting and letter-writing and caring about every little thing in the space between elections doesn't change all that much, in the end...)

So, to wrap up, Deb, I believe my own eyes, as far as these things go. A guy holding a bigoted sign is a bigot. The news is the news (though I do suggest getting one's news from a variety of sources, including one or two that you believe might be "biased" against your political/social beliefs.) The American people are made up of all kinds of people, but by and large ain't baby birds compliantly being fed by a corrupt media (or political party, or corporate entity.)

Things pretty much are what they seem and, while some of the truth probably is out there, some of it is in here, plain as day, as well... YMMV...

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

In reply: The Mosque at Ground Zero, or "A muslim isn't an extremist; A mosque isn't a terrorist cell"

In reply to a facebook conversation I've been having about the following local news item:

Landmarking status could complicate plans by Muslim groups to build a mosque at the former site of the World Trade Center.

(07/13/10) NEW YORK (AP) - Dozens of opponents to a mosque planned near the former site of the World Trade Center have attended a raucous hearing about whether the building should become a New York City landmark.

Rick Lazio - the Republican candidate for governor - was among the witnesses testifying Tuesday in support of landmark status for the building near the site of the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks.

He said the building was "a place of deep historical significance" because it was struck by airplane debris on Sept. 11.

Landmarking status could complicate plans by Muslim groups to develop a community center and mosque at the site.

Nearly 100 people attended the hearing in Manhattan.

The city's Landmark Preservation Commission was not expected to rule Tuesday on whether the building should become a landmark.
The story has generated many comments, almost all of which support blocking the mosque. Here's a representative sample:
Good. Let's throw the legal loopholes out there. Why don't they ask the relatives of the people who died there if they want a mosque there.

There is NO WAY a Mosque should be built anywhere near the World Trade Center. We are only asking for more trouble. Not that they are all bad, BUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Building a Masque there would nothing else but a mockery. I am praying that this does not get done.

A slap in the face to the over 3000 casualties of that awful day!

On Sept. 12, 2001, the USA should have flown overseas to those sandbox countries & eliminated all the evil that exits over there. Then this 'mosque' proposal b.s. would not be an issue today.

Disgusting. I seriously feel a little sick right now. Is this what we've come to? Are we going to allow the people who planned and executed the attack on the WTC to build a mosque on the site, so they can sit inside and laugh at us while they plan the next attack? Really??


B.V.: Good. It should not be built there. Take a good look at the man who wants the site built. He believes that Sharia (sp?) Law can easily be implemented in the United States and stand alongside our own laws. Scary stuff, people.
(I marked that last one because he is one of the people to whom I responded, in particular.)
And yes, there were other comments (15, up to the point of my first reply) all expressing similar thoughts.
---

My initial reply:

I'm obviously in the minority here, but I seem to recall that there were many innocent muslim Americans who died at the site on that day, as well... I would no more wish prevent a mosque near ground zero than I would a temple or a church. (In fact, I think it would be good to have as many--and as many different--houses of worship near this hallowed site as there were people of those faiths/sects/denominations killed or injured on that day.)

There's a difference between "Muslims" and "extremists," and we're not true to the ideals that founded this country if we fail to recognize and at the very least, take a "live and let live" attitude toward our fellow citizens who practice the muslim faith, unless and until one of them gives us a reason to react differently toward that individual "extremist" muslim. (But to treat ALL muslims based on the bad behavior of that INDIVIDUAL muslim... ...well, there's a word for people who make those kinda sweeping generalizations about whole groups of people, based on their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc... 'nuff said...)
---

Some more color, and two replies specific to me and my point of view:
And let me guess....the Mosque, since it is a house of worship, then qualifies for tax-exempt status???? So they pay no taxes on the property and it comes off the tax rolls??? Or doesn't it work that way in NYC??? Personally, I think they should re-build both towers exactly as they looked before. Then Osama Bin-Farten and all his Tali-Bananas can say.... WTF!!!!!!!!!!!

why do they even want a mosque there??? dont they know what hatred their religion has shown us??? Its very spiteful and vengeful... I hope it gets burned down, or someone flys a plane into it, if they do get permission to build one.

what are you fucking kidding me...send em ALL back where they belong get all of them outta here.


T.K.: ‎@[repsac3] - We all remember that some Muslims died in the attack. We also remember that it was Muslims who carried out the attack. We understand that 90% of Muslims are NOT extremists and don't agree with terrorist attacks. BUT THAT MEANS THAT TEN PERCENT OF THEM DO. There are an awful lot of Muslims in the world. Ten percent is a lot of people, and they're the ones running the mosques. It's all very well and good to say, let's be tolerant of Muslims. But that ten percent are not tolerant of any of us, not even a little bit. Are we not allowed to protect ourselves? Are we not permitted to say, these people are bad and we don't want them here, spitting in the faces of the 9/11 victims' families by building one of their cells on the site where those people lost their lives?

B.V.: No, it's not 'enough said'. I urge you all to read this and then decide what you think about the WTC Mosque:

A Shrine to Sharia
My second reply:

‎@T.K.: I don't know where you got your percentages from or whether they are correct, or why, even if they are, you believe that it's the extremists rather than the moderates running the mosques here in the US (where I would have to assume that even you'd agree the percentage of extremists in the American muslim population is lower than it likely is worldwide), but I do know that discrimination against 100% of US muslims based on the behavior of even 10% (again, assuming that number is even accurate, in the first place) is still discrimination.

America was in part founded on the right to practice one's religion free of government intrusion. I don't have to like or agree with anyone who doesn't practice the religion I do, but my right to worship as I choose is built upon your right to worship as you choose, and her right to worship as she chooses, whether you're a hassidic jew, I'm unitarian universalist, that guy over there is a sikh, she's an atheist, or the guy in the coffee shop is a muslim. Saying that this house of worship cannot be built there because "that" faith has no right to worship on "that ground" is flat out discrimination. (While I'd still be opposed, it'd be slightly different if the argument was that no houses of worship should be built there... But the argument so far seems to be that only THIS one faith should be forbidden.

We are certainly permitted to point out and do everything in our power, legally, morally, and every other way, to prevent individual extremist muslims from getting a foothold here in our country or to commit bad acts. But stopping the building of mosques and preventing muslims from gathering and worshiping isn't the way to do that, IMHO... A muslim isn't an extremist; A mosque isn't a terrorist cell...

Mr V, sir: Respectfully, I do understand where Frank Gaffney is coming from and the brand of thinking he represents, and because of that, I don't see him as an honest and dispassionate broker of information. I'm not saying the facts he presents in that TownHall article are absolutely not accurate, but I'd prefer to read them from a person and a site less biased...
---

Muslims, like all other religions should have a place to pray, but.... NOT DOWN AT THE WTC SITE....

Mosques should be built at the foot of every important monument in the United States. Then maybe terrorists won't bomb those sites. Problem solved.

what ever muslim stands there should be shot in the head ! or better yet decapatated


B.V.: [repsac3]; I agree with you that we should not say that ALL Muslims are extremists. However, the reason I chose THAT article is to show that this particular Imam - in my and others opinion - is not to be trusted. The reason I chose that article is because of the website I found it on. That website is not a Right (or Left) wing website. That is why I urged you all to read it, because if the Assyrian people agree with this writer, then it deserves some thought.
To which I replied:
@Mr V.: So you're saying you'd be ok with a mosque being built near the site, as long as it was run by an imam with no hint of controversy? If so, I believe that that is a more defensible position to take, though I fear that saying so puts you far closer to the position of Larry and I than your fellow patriots here might think appropriate. (and the next thing you know, they may find you too controversial to hire to do your job...)

The article was written by Frank Gaffney, a well-known American neocon, and first appeared at TownHall.com. Both that gentleman and that site are far from unbiased.

AINA is a news source for Americans of Assyrian descent, based in Chicago. While the site seems to be unbiased (except perhaps toward Assyria and Assyrians), the article is not. I don't agree that the fact that the article was reposted on that site in any way says or suggests that ANIA endorses or agrees with what Mr Gaffney wrote, any more than Facebook or News12 necessarily endorses or agrees with my (or your) position on the subject at hand, just because our thoughts appear at this post on this site. Rather, I see it as more of an opinion piece, posted to generate thought and reflection, both for and against. (How many times have we seen controversial or outright contrarian (to the general tilt of the publication/site, I mean) opinion pieces printed at both unbiased and at partisan sites and publications, for exactly that purpose? It's far from uncommon.)

Again, I'm not saying Mr Gaffney's opinions or facts are necessarily wrong, but I would like to see reporting on this imam and his connection to this project in general done by people with less of a partisan axe to grind. Taking any single source as gospel fact is a bad idea, and sometimes (such as when you know the bias of the writer) it's an even worse idea.

In the meantime, I welcome your seeming admission that it isn't the mosque itself or it's location to which you're opposed. That is a small step toward greater tolerance, which is what I've been advocating, here... I'm all for preventing terrorism and rooting out extremists, but I just don't believe one does that by opposing the building and use of mosques (or any other houses of worship, for that matter...)
---

One more exchange (as of now, anyway)
TDD says: I'm so happy to see people uniting together about this-and although some comments made are slightly offensive, I think we have moved from worrying about beling politically correct in the interest of self -preservation-that is preserving what America stands for and what we as Americans believe in. Its Un-American to build these places of worship at the site-because a TRUE AMERICAN who understands and felt the pain of the horrible devastation on 9/11 would not approve of this. ONE NATION, UNDER GOD!!!!!! I don't care who its run under-imam, umam, obama, whatever-NO MOSQUE AT GROUND ZERO!!!!
To which I replied:

‎"...preserving what America stands for and what we as Americans believe in." - except perhaps for those pesky Muslim Americans (but then, are they really TRUE AMERICANS like the rest of us, anyway?) - and of course, those like me who believe that America was in part founded on and based upon the freedom not to have the government interfere in mine, yours, or anyone else's religious faith (say, by passing statutes against building a particular kind of house of worship at a particular location, because the majority does not approve of "that" faith at "that" location). I mean, isn't protection from "the tyranny of the majority" and simple mob rule the reason the founders rejected direct democracy in favor of a republic, when forming our system of government? Are there not some God-given/natural and inalienable rights too important to be put to a simple majority, winner take all vote?

And while some may feel all too comfortable questioning the patriotism or "American-ness" of those who simply worship according to a different faith or interpret what the founders intended and the Constitution says about religious freedom differently, I find that kind of behavior pretty shameful. Dissent (whether your opinion from mine, mine from yours, or either of ours from our elected government) is another founding principle and everlasting ideal that makes our country the greatest on earth, and I would not so casually claim that those with whom one disagrees politically or socially are in any way less American than you are yourself.
---

I'll update this post, should there be any further exchanges...

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

CENSORED Needs Your Vote!!

UPDATE 5/26/10: Due to unforeseen circumstances involving CENSORED's job, she is unable to compete in the contest this post was about, and has requested that her friends sever all photos, videos, and other links between her and anything involving the contest in question. While I think it's a damned shame, I have no choice but to comply out of loyalty to her.

While I'd like to say plenty more about the backward-ass, holier-than-thou individuals and groups who are making this necessary, I shall refrain, again out of loyalty to my friend.
---

If you dig the pretty pictures, please help this beautiful lady by casting your vote for her in the LINK CENSORED contest.

VIDEO CENSORED

While some of the professional models and post-teen teasers are pretty, my buddy CENSORED is the real-deal gal next door, and the only one in the contest who 1) entered herself, 2) owns the car she's enhancing with her presence, and 3) had her photos taken by the lucky bastard who married her.

And yes... While I think she's smokin' hot, period, she really is a "granny," too... ...so seeing her win this thing against all those professional lookers and college girls would be extra special sweet.

So please... Enjoy the pictures, and then click that CENSORED link. Vote early, vote often. Vote. You know you want to... Do it. Vote.

Saturday, December 19, 2009

Shellie Ross, Twitter, and The 'Right' Way to Grieve

I just read this story on American Power, and it got me thinkin'

USATODAY.com lays out the story:

MERRITT ISLAND, Fla. — As Shellie Ross waited in a hospital for word on her son, Bryson, she posted this note to the social networking site Twitter.com: "Please pray like never before, my 2 yr old fell in the pool."
She found out 19 minutes later that Bryson was dead.

Ross' decision to broadcast that message Monday night to more than 5,300 people who follow her posts on Twitter has unleashed torrents of support and derision. Social networking experts and friends said Ross was right to reach out for help, while critics questioned whether her son would be alive if she spent less time online.

Ross, 37, is a blogger — blog4mom.com — and a prolific poster on Twitter. She has two other sons, ages 18 and 11, and her husband is an Air Force sergeant.

She tweeted throughout Monday. At 5:22 p.m., she posted a message about the fog that rolled in as she worked in her chicken coop.

The emergency call to police came at 5:23 p.m., from Ross' 11-year-old son Kris, said Joe Martin, Brevard County homicide investigator. Ross and her son found Bryson at the bottom of the pool. While Kris was on the phone, Ross performed CPR on Bryson, Martin said.

Bryson was taken to Cape Canaveral Hospital where he was pronounced dead at 6 p.m. Ross was notified at 6:31 p.m., Martin said. At 6:12 p.m. she posted to Twitter, asking for prayers.

"Her tweeting had nothing to do with what happened with regard to her son. It was an accident," Martin said, adding that no charges will be filed.

More info from ABC News:

The Brevard County Sheriff's office told ABCNews.com that Ross' 11-year-old son called 911 after they discovered the toddler's body floating the pool. According to Public Information Officer Lt. Bruce Barnett, the mother and older son had been cleaning out a chicken coop while the toddler was playing in the backyard.


Ross had asked her older son to turn off a hose inside the pool enclosure, and the gate behind him evidently did not close properly, said Barnett.

"When [Ross] finished cleaning she went inside and was looking for the 2-year-old, who she thought was with her 11-year-old, and wasn't able to find him and started to panic," he said. "That's when she found him floating."

Barnett said that Ross estimated her son was in the pool for "maybe five minutes," and performed CPR on her son for the duration of the nine-minute 911 call.

"Weird and deeply troubling" for American Power's Donald Douglas & others are Shellie Ross' tweets. First, there is the number of them, and the fact that Ms. Ross was likely tweeting at the same time Bryson was in the pool drowning, from which some infer that Ms Ross was neglecting her child.

Blogger Madison McGraw, a woman with no connection to Ross who read about this tragedy on the internet, is a prime example:
"She had been tweeting from 8:37 in the morning, right on thru while her son fell into the pool, and continued to tweet even after his death - which I find ironic because maybe if she wasn't tweeting, her son might still be alive."
and later
"Between the hours of 8:37 a.m. and 5:22 p.m (her first and last before son was found drowned in pool) she tweeted 74 times.

If a babysitter had been tweeting all day long while in charge of a 2 year old and he drowned while she was tweeting, I doubt that the parents would say, "It's okay, the babysitter feels guilty - we'll let it go."

Don Douglas is more circumspect, only saying:
"Now it turns out that Shellie Ross, whose 2 year-old son drowned on Monday, was tweeting at the time of the accident and sent a message just 19 minutes before her son's death: "Please pray like never before, my 2 yr old fell in the pool."

Of course what they don't say--because they don't actually know, and can only imply the worst--is whether or not Ms. Ross actually was the slightest bit negligent, here. How do these Monday morning quarterbackin' critics know that her son wasn't sitting on her lap, or doing a puzzle on the floor a few feet away for 70 or so of those 74 tweets? What makes them believe (or even want to believe) that she didn't have someone (one of the other kids, or dad) watching her son for the vast majority of the time she was distracted by twitter (or TV, or doing the dishes, or the bathroom, or anything else that might briefly take one's focus away from one's kids, for that matter)? The answer, of course, is nothing at all... Just speculation, and a cynical "build themselves up by knocking others down" attitude.

And as for the proximity of the tweet about the fog (5:22 p.m), to finding her son and trying to save him (5:23 p.m.), it also really doesn't say a thing.

People are always somewhere doing something in the minute before the proverbial blackout hits and leaves them in the dark. If she believed the gate to the pool was locked and Bryson was safely in her yard with her 11 year old, does it really matter what she was doing in that minute prior to realizing that all was not well? Would these people be cruelly second guessing her every move and implying she was a bad mother if instead of sending a tweet, she'd been leaving the bathroom, stirring the soup on the stove, or doing any one of a hundred other little things that parents--including these holier-than-thou critics who're attacking her, I'm sure--do when they think their kids are safely in the yard playing with their siblings? Correlation does not imply causation. And while I'm pulling out the truisms, how about this one. Let he whose kid has never suffered an injury of any kind while they were the adult in charge cast the first stone. (Any parent still holding a rock is either a damned liar, or is raising their kids in a mythical world built by nerf.)

I once had a friend who was in her kitchen doing the dishes while her 9 & 4 year old boys were in the front yard playing with a playground ball, a thing they'd probably done 50 times before. Their mom could see them through the kitchen window, and there was a chain link fence with a gate--latched, she thought--keeping them in the yard. But all she could do was watch in horror as the ball went over the fence and into the street, her 4 year old ran through the gate & into the street after it 20-30 seconds later, and was hit and killed by a passing car.

All these critics who think they know how this happened, feel some perverse need to second guess this mother's every move leading up to her losing her son and cruelly blame her for what happened--you really needn't bother. Just like my friend, Linda, Ms. Ross--and her whole family, probably--is doing plenty of that to themselves, without your help. Yes, there are probably 100 things that Ms. Ross or one of her other kids could've done differently to prevent this tragedy--and I'm sure they would've done them all, if they had the benefit of the hindsight that they, their supporters and friends, and all these nasty people attacking her, unfortunately have now.

The second issue--& the one I find more interesting, really--is the reaction to her tweet while her son was in the hospital being worked on, and the ones (there are two that people mention, though there may've been others) after she knew her son had died.



Why is this a problem for anyone? Who are these people to say they know better than the rest the "right" way to react to tragedy or death in another person's family? What gives them the right (moral, not legal) to pass judgement on another person's methods for reaching out for support, and furthermore, to get on the internet and express their views about it to everyone, including the grieving mother herself? Do they not realize how hurtful they are, or do they just not care about anything other than expressing their own opinions on the subject, regardless of who they may hurt in the process?

Shellie Ross wanted to solicit prayers and good wishes for her son while he was being worked on by the medical professionals, and she turned to a whole lotta people on her twitter feed. I see very little difference between this and those who have intercessions made in church to pray for "congregant such-n-such's mother, who is going in for heart surgery on the 12th" or those who post blurbs on their blogs and facebook pages, requesting prayers for all manner of things from good resolutions to medical issues, to passing the final exam, to the safe return of a soldier (& spouse, sibling, best friend or guy who works in my office) shipping off to Iraq or Afghanistan. I just don't see how the immediacy of the emergency changes the equation, prayer-wise. If anything, I'd think it would make the need for prayer, support, and good wishes more necessary, not less.

Turning to my nemesis Donald Douglas again, he doesn't come right out and express an opinion (I think he likes to see which way the wind blows, sometimes), but two things give us a clue. He quotes pretty heavily from this awful woman, MADISON MCGRAW, who is altogther very critical of of Ms Ross, scolding her for the amount of her tweets in general, and the propriety of the ones closest to her son's death.
ABC News reports that Shellie Ross was tweeting about the fog rolling in and her chickens going back to the coop while 911 was called by her middle son @ 5:23 to report that his 2 year old brother was floating in the pool. Ambulance arrives at 5:38 to find child in cardiac arrest. At 6:12 pm Shellie tweeted and asked for prayers for her son. She had been tweeting from 8:37 in the morning, right on thru while her son fell into the pool, and continued to tweet even after his death - which I find ironic because maybe if she wasn't tweeting, her son might still be alive.
After this tragedy, Shellie Ross has spoken and continued to Tweet, calling people assholes, hoping they rot in hell...but not once has she said, "I take full responsibility and I wish I could take that day back. I feel horrible and am so, so, sorry."

But then again, even if she did say that, I guess actions speak louder than words. And her actions leading up to and after her son's death speak volumes. She was twittering while her child died and she continues to Twitter, telling people to "Go Get Bent" and "Fuc* Tards."

If your child died because you were twittering, wouldn't that be the LAST place on earth you'd want to return to? If this was such a terrible time and you wanted people to 'leave you alone' why wouldn't you at least make your Twitter stream private?
I have no doubt it's only days before Ms. Ross appears for interviews and of course, people are already setting up donations.

I wish we could start a donation in Bryson Ross's name to sue his mother for negligence.

Why aren't people asking more questions about this? Do people not care about children and their safety at all? Who is looking out for children?

Lovely, woman, huh..? Her family must be so proud to've raised such a heartless, judgmental, holier-than-thou being. Obviously she's being criticized by others in ways that must seem all too similar to the way she criticized Ms Ross because in her next post, she responds with some of the same kind of sentiments she complains about Shellie Ross using. A study in hypocrisy, this one.:

"So, if those things make me evil and horrible - so be it.

One thing I know is, I haven't lost a child because I was updating my Twitter status.

So, call me anything you like.

Just don't call me Shellie Ross.

And with that - I'm done with this story. Because if the world doesn't give a shit that a 2 year old died a senseless meaningless death b/c his mom couldn't tear herself away from her online friends and she continues to remain online - then why should I?

ps-leaving shitty Reviews on Amazon for my books doesn't bother me. You MommyBloggers are so Mean Girls! Only older and haggard. With Coupons. LOTS and LOTS of coupons."

The thing Madison McGraw fails to realize, is that it's far more likely the Grace of God that's kept her from being in Shellie Ross' shoes than anything she or Shellie did or didn't do. Rather than kicking a grieving mother when she's down, McGraw ought to be thankful that she's been spared a similar fate, thus far.

This article (and Conor's below) make the most sense to me.:
About the story in general:
"If there's one truism about experiencing death, it's that every person deals with it differently. Some people might collapse in tears. Others might reach for a drink. Maybe some people would cook, or tidy up. Some people might burst out laughing. That's the thing about shock, about right? You never know. To attack someone for their reaction to such a tragedy, well, that's not very nice, to say the least. And, as Ross herself put it, "small minded."

And about the reaction of this unpleasant woman, McGraw, in particular.
"Explaining herself to ABC News, McGraw, a former paramedic and mother of three, said 'I thought, 'Who would tweet that her son just drowned?' I couldn't believe it… I've seen people react [to death], but they're screaming their heads off, crying and they don't know what to do. They're not on Twitter. I've never seen that before and I was just shocked.'

She was shocked. And she immediately tweeted about it. Huh."

One wonders whether she (& the rest of those complaining) even stopped to say a prayer for the child before hittin' the internet to rip into the mother... For the life of me, I just don't understand some people...

The second clue as to Donald's thoughts are contained in his derisive reference to the blog post of one of his "enemies", Conor Friedersdorf:
"Conor Friedersdorf blogged on this, at the Daily Dish no less, saying it's no big deal:

Isn't this just the latest example of people becoming insanely judgmental about a fellow citizen merely because she conceives of technology differently? It is unimaginable to me that people would react this way if Ms. Ross shouted over the back fence in the middle of the crisis to ask all in earshot to pray, and five hours later, still in shock, mechanically composed a letter to friends lamenting her loss.

But doing what amounts to the same thing on Twitter? It provokes vitriol that I find every bit as inexplicable as I do the Tweeting of a child's death. In this moment of utmost gravity, you're criticizing her approach to social media? "This woman is a perfect example of where humanity is heading as it becomes more enslaved by technology," one commenter said. In fact, the callousness strangers direct via Internet at a grieving mother is a far more dire harbinger of where we're headed.

Hmm. I wonder if he'd be saying the same thing if that was Trig Palin floating in the water? Somehow I doubt it."

Leave it to Donald (& at least one of his echoing sycophants, obviously) to use this story to score political hits.

Reading between the lines, it seems that Donald thinks tweeting about the death of one's son IS a big deal, though he fails to explain why... (I guess everyone is just supposed to "know," and anyone who doesn't, obviously isn't a part of the hive.)

I did find a woman, another blogger, who offers some explanation (though I believe that like McGraw, she makes some pretty big assumptions that she has no way of confirming, but on which she bases much of what she believes, anyway.)
The Drowned Boy & How He Changed Social Media - cara ellison:
"My feeling is that she is not in her right mind right now. She has no idea what she’s doing, and I give her miles and miles of latitude for that. This isn’t a personal failing at all. It’s just a fact; she has no way to process this. If her instinct is to be ‘alone’ while on the computer where she can receive free, safe condolences on the web, that is probably a pretty comfortable place to be.

Sometimes if neither side is safe, the safest place is the wall. For Shelli, I believe the Web is the wall. She doesn’t know me, or probably most of the people whose hearts ached for her in that moment, and it was a confirmation that yes, people are “out there”, and yes, some care, even if they can’t calm the cracking ache in her own heart. If she has no family with her, then I understand being on the web even more. If her family is there, it is quite possible she doesn’t want to talk to them, or see their grieving faces.

My heart goes out to Shelli. I think it was odd that she Tweeted the drowning of her son – the very worst, absolute worst, thing that could ever happen to any parent. But I also think the very fact of its awfulness excuses her insanity for doing it."

The same author later wrote a second post, PostScript To The Shellie Ross Twitter Story. And while I disagree with some of her assumptions and the conclusions they lead her to, I think she discusses the situation with all the grace & compassion missing from McGraw & Douglas, and I recommend both of her posts to anyone interested in this story.

As I said above, I don't understand why it's so insane (or weird or deeply troubling) for a person to reach out in the face of personal tragedy. I think it's what many of us do, one way or another. Had she used the keys on her phone to dial & talk to someone while she was in the hospital waiting room, no one would've said a word, but because she spoke more publicly, people are oddly offended.

The first experience with blogging & death I can recall was last spring, when the troubled son of a blogger I'd never before read committed suicide while in jail. (The father is the internet equivalent of a "FoaF," an online friend of an online acquaintance of a blogger I used to read pretty regularly, and one post led me to another, to his.) He wrote and posted this very soon after being notified by the police, and I can recall reading it the next day and crying for this stranger's loss and for the promise and potential of a 20 year old life snuffed out so long before it's time, and the feelings of desperation and despair that must precede such an act. I teared up again re-reading it now.

Yes, perhaps people could ask the same questions of this man that they're asking of Shellie Ross. Where was this man's wife while he was writing this, and why wasn't he with her? I don't know, but as with Shellie, I'm not prepared to assume the worst and scold him for not being where my assumptions tell me he should've been. I'd like to think she wanted to be alone, or to take something and try to sleep, to lessen the pain. But even if Chuck should've been with his wife and wasn't, that's between he and his wife, and I would no more write a post attacking him for it--especially while he was so obviously grieving--than I would step between an arguing couple in the supermarket, telling one spouse why I thought the other was right. Sometimes, it's just none of your business--even when you're invited to share in another's personal life.

More recently, a blogger who I only know as Old Soldier posted about losing his wife of 40 years three days earlier, and losing his sister-in-law (his brother's wife) the night before.

Kyle Liese was the younger brother of a guy I went through Jr high & high school with. We were never close, and I barely knew his brother at all--I have some vague recollection of him trying to sell me tickets for a ski trip upstate back in jr high, & honestly, I'm not even positive it was him (though I DO remember that a bunch of the kids who went got busted for drinking, and had to have their parents drive 2-3 hours each way to pick them up)--but I still paid my respects at the blog post, and never once considered the propriety of there being a blog about his death.

And while it wasn't about something so final as a death, Donald himself recently posted something about his home life as a kid that I found quite personal. And no matter what I think about Donald as a person, or his politics, or even the way he treats others--I'm thinking here of what he'd likely do, if the shoe was on the other foot--I would never use the personal narrative he made public, against him. In fact, while I don't blame those who choose to put such situations behind them and keep them private, I see those who choose to reveal their history of abuse as brave. I think it really encourages current abuse survivors when they see people they respect saying it happened to them, too.

When people open up their hearts and share something personal and painful in their lives, as Shellie, and Chuck, and "Old Soldier" and the friends of Kyle Liese, and even Donald did, I don't believe it is an invitation to stick the knife in, even if you happen to believe they in some way "deserve" to be stabbed. To me, it doesn't matter whether or not you support any one of their decisions to reveal themselves as they have, or think that you'd do better living their lives than they have... Common decency says you treat them with respect & compassion in public, and if you must trash them at all, do so in private. Contrary to what some seem to believe, the world doesn't need to know every nasty thought and opinion that enters your head. There's something to be said for discretion.

And for those to whom this matters:
Yes anonymous, Shellie looks to be a conservative.
But those attacking her; Madison, Donald, the NYPOST (& to some extent, Cara) are also hardcore conservatives.
Those coming to her defense (Conor and I) are further to the left. (Conor identifies right-of-center, but Donald has a whole series of posts saying different; and there should be no doubt that I'm a liberal.)

Chuck is a Democrat.

"Old Soldier" is a conservative.

I'm sure there are many who'll counterweigh my unscientific sampling here, (& I don't really think there is a political aspect to the story or to the motivations of anyone involved, aside Don and anon, who manufactured one in an all too obvious attempt to use this sad event to score a cheap point) but since that anonymous ass at Donald's blog saw fit to try to make it political, saying:
"Her husband is in the military and she asked for prayer.

How do I know already, even without reading another thing, just what is going to be said about her by the dark, dreary, dank leftard wing of the political spectrum."

he deserves a response:

No, rightard... It isn't "the left" who's mistreating the grieving military wife who asked for prayers for her dying son. It's your fellow conservatives. It's Donald Douglas, the author right there at the blog where you posted your comment.

If you insist on making sweeping generalizations about people, you might at least do yourself the favor of actually reading & comprehending the words contained in the post to which you're replying, so you don't look like a complete moron, while doing so.

And finally, since Madison McGraw was so fascinated by Shellie Ross' tweet stream, I went to take a look to see how her's compared. Madison McGraw (madisonmcgraw) on Twitter. Predictably, her feed is now protected, leaving her free to toss her stones from the safety of her newly encased glass house. Perhaps while she's hold up in there, she can stretch her shoes, rescrew her head so it's on correctly, and grow her terrible awful tiny grinch heart, before coming back out and speaking in public anymore. Yeesh.
----------

Revising & Extending:
12/20/09, 8:20 AM: Another post that gets it right (In far fewer words than I did, too):
Blogging mom criticized for tweeting after son’s death
12/20/09, 6:25 PM: Looks like someone went to the trouble of writing an expose of Madison McGraw's tweeting, after all... (& dig the title, too. Exactly right.)
BUT FOR THE GRACE OF GOD GOES MADISON MCGRAW - KillTruck
12/21/09, 2:12 PM - Be Careful When Assembling an Angry Lynch Mob.. - white and black - Open Salon

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Roundup and Commentary - 4/27/09

Commentary:

Dictionaries, and the definition of marriage: The Joan of Arc, and/or Joe the Plumber of the Anti-Gay Marriage Movement

Conversation (to which I cannot link):

He said:
"The hands that help are better far than the lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll


She said:
"And you shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free." actually trumps this one.....

He:
They express different sentiments, and have the added benefit of not expressing mutually exclusive thoughts. There is no need to make a contest of them or choose one over the other... Both can be true and worthy messages at the same time, don't you think?

By the same token, each can stand alone, and express their sentiments just as forcefully without the other...

It's a crapshoot, in the end... I post ones that hold meaning for me, and hope others will take from them as much or as little as they want and need.


She:
I'm not making a contest over them....I am simply saying that many people would disagree with you and that humanly power pales in comparison to divine power. What we choose to do with our hands as people is insignificant compared to the power of a miracle, for example.

He:
I'm virtually certain many people do disagree (though I wouldn't necessarily say it's me they're disagreeing with, but the quote.) That different people have different beliefs about humanity and spirituality is one of those things that makes the world go 'round, especially here in America, which is in part founded on our right to worship as we each choose, or to not worship, at all, if that's what we choose... (a God-given right for many who believe, and a natural right for many others, including many who don't believe.)

Whether one quote "trumps" another is a matter of one's personal faith, opinion, and a sense (God-given or psychological) that the words "speak" to a "need" within that person. So for that matter, is whether a sacred quote or idea "trumps" a secular one (or v/v), AND as the certainty with which the very faithful and the very faithless believe that the fact of one trumping the other is so obviously the case.

Human power pales in comparison to divine power, and human action is insignificant compared to the power of a miracle... ...but only if you believe that.

To anyone who doesn't believe in God--or doesn't believe that God meddles in human affairs--or believes that God WANTS us to use the human power he gave us, and WANTS us to use our hands to help ourselves and others, even if it means we have less time or energy for prayer and supplication to Him, and that miracles come more easily to those who are willing to work for them--(I suppose you can put me into that last group, should anyone need to pigeonhole me)--the whole human power/action vs God power/miracle thing is less of an issue.

At any rate, I support the right of others to work their way toward their everlasting bliss (or punishment) however they see fit. At times I may invite others onto my path, but I recognize everyone's right to follow their own path instead, without my judgement.

Nerd Score (Do nerds score?)