Be afraid. Be very afriad.
I just finished reading Jeff Sharlet's book, The Family. He chronicles the establishment and rise of a fundamentalist organization which has ties to many people in our government and in governments around the world. It seems that the Family doesn't have a theology, more like a love of power. They like being movers and shakers with our Presidents, our Congressional members, and even moving and shaking dictators around the world.
I was raised Baptist. Time was the Baptists were all about the separation of church and state. You know, like in our Constitution. Roger Williams, the Baptists' Founding Father, started the denomination because he didn't like the Puritan theocracies which governed Colonial America. Due to the Family and a certain evangelist named Billy Graham (you have perhaps heard of him?), Baptists nowadays aren't all that particular about a divide between church and state. That is, as long as it's the Baptist/Protestant church being all into state business.
(Billy Graham served as Father Confessor to a number of our Presidents, including Richard Nixon, the crook, who was "forgiven" by Graham for having caused the Constitutional crisis fondly known as Watergate.)
Members of Family prayer cells were instrumental in adding "under God" to our Pledge of Allegiance and the words "in God we trust" to our coinage. I used to think those peculiar phrases were instituted back in the days of our founding. I was surprized to find that it was a Family member of Congress who put those into common usage in the 1950's.
George W. Bush is a member of a Family prayer cell. They have cells, just like Al Quaida, all over the world. They sponsor the National Prayer Breakfast and prayer cells which meet in the halls of the Capitol. Yeah, that self-same Capitol with an O, which was built and is maintained by our government, our tax dollars, is the site of several prayer cells sponsored by the Family.
Bush was all "let's give money for social services to 'faith-based' organizations." Our tax dollars going to church organizations. Now, church organizations already enjoy some federal largesse in the form of tax-exemption. They are 501(c)3 organizations which are precluded from politicking or lobbying. That's news to me, since they appear to lobby all the time.
Planned Parenthood, however, is precluded from receiving federal funding for family planning in poor, third-world countries because PP performs abortions here in the US. Abortions paid for with private funding. Gee, we'd rather some poor woman in Africa have a dozen kids, despite the fact that she can't afford to feed them, than give her proper medical care. Because let's face it, family planning is medical care.
I have a problem with any legislation which denies abortion funding because some tax payers don't want their money going for abortions. Okay, let's use that argument on another line item in our budget. I'm against war and don't want my tax dollars going to pay for war. Why don't I get to make the same argument? Can you name any other line item in our huge budget where some tax payers have veto power because of their religious objections? I can't.
The Mormon church and some megachurches in California spent a bazillion dollars on California's challenge to the legally legislated gay marriage act. So now California has to say that they will honor the marriages that were performed when they were legal, they just won't perform any more. Huh? Sounds like church-based lobbying to me.
Did you catch the small news item about the Catholic bishops being asked to write the anti-abortion language in the House's Health Care Reform bill? What??!! Catholic bishops, being as how they are members of a religious organization, got to write a portion of our legislation. It doesn't matter whether this particular bill passes or not. Religious organizations shouldn't be allowed to write legislation. It's literally un-Constitutional. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Tea Baggers!
Anyway, George II decided to drop his idea about giving faith-based organizations money to provide social services after some Buddhists and some Wicca organizations applied. Better to not give any money out (and therefore deny social services to the needy) than to risk having Buddhists or Wiccans having tax dollars in their coffers. Was he afraid that those organizations might recruit or evangelize the clients they were serving? Was he unaware that Catholic Social Services and soup kitchens based in church basements regularly evangelize the clients they serve? What's good for the goose is good for the gander, or so I'm told.
Several years ago, the Kansas Board of Education decided, under pressure from the Intelligent Design folks, to rewrite our natural history by decreeing that Creationism, not Evolution, would be taught in high school biology classes. I think they had to drop that idea because a) their graduates were being denied entrance into college because they weren't prepared for college biology, and b) they couldn't find any textbooks which were Creationism oriented, and c) they became the laughing stock of the nation.
The lines of separation between church and state have long been blurring, but church-dictated governance has become so commonplace that the church no longer feels the need to hide their presence within our Government.
I don't know about you, but I am very afraid.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Curling
Forgive me for being stupid.
I'm really trying to get into watching the Olympics. I guess I should understand why, in order to watch three figure skaters (my fav), I have to sit through hours of two-man (or -woman) bobsledding and extreme skiing and curling. (I have a hard time discerning the difference between extreme skiing and regular, old, ordinary skiing...I mean, it's a guy or gal pelting down hill at a zillion miles an hour on two skinny boards risking life and limb...how extreme can you get?).
I understand most of the other sports, despite the fact that the racing sports seem to be decided on things like a difference of 1/1000th of a second, or being disqualified for having a coach who is a total dolt.
I'm not getting curling. With all the nonsense the commentators spew (see my blog "On Sports"), you'd think they could perhaps spend some time explaining some of the esoterica of the game. I've heard the announcers say, "the US is down by 1 with the hammer in the 6th end" Huh? What's "the hammer"? Sounds really serious. I don't see any hammers on the court.
The bobsledding announcers are bad enough. Witness: "You do not want deficit air". I would understand "deficit air" if it referred to a diner choking on a bit of steak or a man hanging by the neck until dead or even to an asthmatic. I don't understand "deficit air" when it refers to a bobsled. Bobsleds don't breathe, do they?
I also don't get the colors of the uniforms. Time was a team dressed in its national flag colors. Canada dressed in red and white. Germany dressed in black, gold and red. The US team dressed in red, white and blue. These days, the Germans dress in yellow and fuchia, the Canadians dress in black and red, and the US team dresses in delft blue. Not navy. Not midnight. Delft. No red to be seen. Don't get me started on the Norwegian team and their "argyle" pants. But I digress.
I don't understand curling scoring. It took me several attempts to understand what an "end" was. The "rocks" or "stones" look like tea kettles to me and, at least for the women teams, curling seems to be incredibly sexist. Here these women are, sliding tea kettles and using brooms to madly sweep the court clean. They seem hell-bent on performing housekeeping really, really well. Or is the curling area even called "court"? Must be a very dirty court, or whatever it's called.
It looks a little like shuffleboard on ice. Except there is something called a "T line". I'm assuming that's what crosses the "button" even though it looks more like a + sign. Why can't the announcers explain a little about the scoring? There's a 4-foot circle and and 8-foot circle. That I understand. But I don't understand why the opposing team is able to influence our team's rock by sweeping madly as our rock crosses toward the rear of those circles. Isn't that like receiver interference in football? I don't understand what "frozen" to the other rock means, though I guess it could mean that they are literally frozen, the tea kettles being on ice and all.
And evidently, even if our team gets their tea kettle onto one of the circle thingies, it doesn't count, especially if the other team knocks the tea kettle out of the circle thingy. Does the score not count, even on the button, until the "end" is over? These types of questions keep me up at night, which isn't fair, considering I'm only watching to get eventually to watch figure skating.
Instead of explaining the scoring, the announcers tell us about how rigorous the training is ("they spent 2,214 hours lifting weights" Huh?). It doesn't look very rigorous to me, except for the broom guys. They look like they have spent a great deal of time sweeping madly. I bet you could eat off their kitchen floors.
"He's taken his own stone out of the house" is another statement which makes no sense. "Go ahead and take your two"..."It's important for the rock to stay around". I'll say! There appears to be some sort of strategy involved, though I'll be blessed if I can figure out what it is. The players yell unintelligible things at the stones, or maybe they are yelling at their sweeping teammates which seems incredibly unfair, considering they are the one who threw the stone in the first place. One can't really tell.
Evidently, "icing" isn't about birthday cake, nor is it the same as "icing" in hocky. I really don't know icing at all.
Most inexplicable of all is the fact that there are actually "professional curlers". One thinks the phrase "professional curlers" would be used to described those sausage-shaped items one might encounter in a beauty salon.
So someone explain to this stupid, non-Northern woman, how does one score in curling? By hitting the button? By hitting one of the circle thingies? By hitting the other team's rock out of the circles? Explain to me, who understands the terms "quantum physics" and "opus" as it refers to composers and "dangling participle". I know if someone taps it into my hand, I'll get it.
I'm spending way too many brain cells pondering these mysteries.
I'm really trying to get into watching the Olympics. I guess I should understand why, in order to watch three figure skaters (my fav), I have to sit through hours of two-man (or -woman) bobsledding and extreme skiing and curling. (I have a hard time discerning the difference between extreme skiing and regular, old, ordinary skiing...I mean, it's a guy or gal pelting down hill at a zillion miles an hour on two skinny boards risking life and limb...how extreme can you get?).
I understand most of the other sports, despite the fact that the racing sports seem to be decided on things like a difference of 1/1000th of a second, or being disqualified for having a coach who is a total dolt.
I'm not getting curling. With all the nonsense the commentators spew (see my blog "On Sports"), you'd think they could perhaps spend some time explaining some of the esoterica of the game. I've heard the announcers say, "the US is down by 1 with the hammer in the 6th end" Huh? What's "the hammer"? Sounds really serious. I don't see any hammers on the court.
The bobsledding announcers are bad enough. Witness: "You do not want deficit air". I would understand "deficit air" if it referred to a diner choking on a bit of steak or a man hanging by the neck until dead or even to an asthmatic. I don't understand "deficit air" when it refers to a bobsled. Bobsleds don't breathe, do they?
I also don't get the colors of the uniforms. Time was a team dressed in its national flag colors. Canada dressed in red and white. Germany dressed in black, gold and red. The US team dressed in red, white and blue. These days, the Germans dress in yellow and fuchia, the Canadians dress in black and red, and the US team dresses in delft blue. Not navy. Not midnight. Delft. No red to be seen. Don't get me started on the Norwegian team and their "argyle" pants. But I digress.
I don't understand curling scoring. It took me several attempts to understand what an "end" was. The "rocks" or "stones" look like tea kettles to me and, at least for the women teams, curling seems to be incredibly sexist. Here these women are, sliding tea kettles and using brooms to madly sweep the court clean. They seem hell-bent on performing housekeeping really, really well. Or is the curling area even called "court"? Must be a very dirty court, or whatever it's called.
It looks a little like shuffleboard on ice. Except there is something called a "T line". I'm assuming that's what crosses the "button" even though it looks more like a + sign. Why can't the announcers explain a little about the scoring? There's a 4-foot circle and and 8-foot circle. That I understand. But I don't understand why the opposing team is able to influence our team's rock by sweeping madly as our rock crosses toward the rear of those circles. Isn't that like receiver interference in football? I don't understand what "frozen" to the other rock means, though I guess it could mean that they are literally frozen, the tea kettles being on ice and all.
And evidently, even if our team gets their tea kettle onto one of the circle thingies, it doesn't count, especially if the other team knocks the tea kettle out of the circle thingy. Does the score not count, even on the button, until the "end" is over? These types of questions keep me up at night, which isn't fair, considering I'm only watching to get eventually to watch figure skating.
Instead of explaining the scoring, the announcers tell us about how rigorous the training is ("they spent 2,214 hours lifting weights" Huh?). It doesn't look very rigorous to me, except for the broom guys. They look like they have spent a great deal of time sweeping madly. I bet you could eat off their kitchen floors.
"He's taken his own stone out of the house" is another statement which makes no sense. "Go ahead and take your two"..."It's important for the rock to stay around". I'll say! There appears to be some sort of strategy involved, though I'll be blessed if I can figure out what it is. The players yell unintelligible things at the stones, or maybe they are yelling at their sweeping teammates which seems incredibly unfair, considering they are the one who threw the stone in the first place. One can't really tell.
Evidently, "icing" isn't about birthday cake, nor is it the same as "icing" in hocky. I really don't know icing at all.
Most inexplicable of all is the fact that there are actually "professional curlers". One thinks the phrase "professional curlers" would be used to described those sausage-shaped items one might encounter in a beauty salon.
So someone explain to this stupid, non-Northern woman, how does one score in curling? By hitting the button? By hitting one of the circle thingies? By hitting the other team's rock out of the circles? Explain to me, who understands the terms "quantum physics" and "opus" as it refers to composers and "dangling participle". I know if someone taps it into my hand, I'll get it.
I'm spending way too many brain cells pondering these mysteries.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
On Sports
A sport is commonly defined as an organized, competitive, and skillful physical activity requiring commitment and fair play. - Wikipedia
I admit I'm a fair-weather sports observer. I don't particularly like watching sports on TV but I do occasionally watch, since I only have to watch the Olympics every two years. My two favorite sports to watch are basketball and soccer. All those tight little butts in shorts. Plus, I understand them better. I watched the Super Bowl while reading a book, looking up whenever I heard a shout from the stands, signifying there was something worth watching. Because every play is now instantly replayed from several different angles, you don't miss what the shouting is all about.
In general, I find football boring. Sacrilege, you shout! At least in basketball or soccer, an hour is really an hour, not three. The action in football seems to be 15 seconds of play followed by 2 1/2 minutes of measuring yardage and those black-and-white garbed guys talking to each other. Not my idea of real action.
I'm watching Olympic speed skating as I write this post. Fortunately for the Dutch, a Dutchman named Kramer won the gold, because as the commentators pointed out, ad nauseum, the Dutch would have considered a bronze or silver medal a loss. (They didn't make any literary references to Hans Brinker) How stupid can you get? Last time I checked, a medal means you are the second- or third-best in the world. If I were the second- or third-best reader or knitter or seamstress in the world, I'd feel pretty good about myself.
That may be why I don't watch sports much. The commentators are incredibly inane. I'm a big fan of figure skating, but the commentators make me crazy. "Oh, she really missed that quadruple axle and her timing was off on the landing," some yahoo in a gold blazer says. "Let's see how well YOU perform a quadruple axle," I yell at the TV.
I've watched exactly one hockey game in real life. St. Louis Blues. 1969. Some player got kicked in the head with a skate blade and the blood on the ice was copious. Pretty color, but a little sickening. I did watch the US hocky team win the Olympics way back when, just because they weren't expected to win and they kicked Russia's butt. I have to admit I liked watching Russia's butt get kicked.
Another reason I don't watch sports on TV is that I find it hard to follow the ball, literally. I have a golf-nutty family, who think Sunday afternoons are high holy days for golfers. You see the guy "address" the ball (Hi, ball. How are ya doin'?), then he swings, a swing that looks just like every other swing by every other golfer. (The commentators tell me it's his signature swing, but who can tell?)
The camera follows the ball, or at least I THINK that's what it's doing because I see an expanse of blue sky for several seconds, then the camera comes down on the greeny part. I sometimes wonder if the cameraman isn't having us on...maybe he just swings his camera lens to the sky and the ball isn't really in the frame. He counts to three, then swings his lens to the greeny part, hoping that that's where the ball will come down. 'Cause I sure as heck can't see a golf ball in the frame.
During the Olympics, the commentators are even worse. They have endless details that one doesn't really need to know. Case in point: in the past hour, I have learned the population of a skater's home town, the age of another's daughter, the composition of the special high-tech fabric in their outfits (high-tech fabric????), how they performed at the last Olympics and the fact that the Russians train in Italy, the Ukrainians train in Colorado and the Chinese train in Germany. (Can they honestly represent their country if they need to go somewhere else to train?)
Way too much information. Shut up and let me watch, already.
I enjoyed the parade of First Nations during the opening ceremonies in Vancouver, but am confused about what the First Nations have to do with sports. I enjoyed the dancers way more than I enjoyed the speed skaters. Some guy on skates going around in circles 1/100th of a second faster than some other guy.
Pro sports are the worst. Because, in addition to telling the viewer way too much information about the players' background, stats and personal home life, commentators are also obligated to tell us their legal status, how much bail was and when their court date is. I realize most pro sports figures don't behave badly, but there are enough badly behaving sports stars that the sports portion of the evening news begins to sound a lot like the police blotter. This one had a gun in the locker room, that one beats up his girlfriend for fun, the other one is involved in dog fighting.
I guess the main reason I watch at all is so I'll at least be able to carry on a decent conversation with a sports nut. One feels badly if someone says, "How 'bout that Gretsky?" and one says "What's a Gretsky?" Too bad sports nuts don't have the same level of social responsibility. Can you imagine one of them watching ballet so they can carry on a decent conversation with me?
There's a team here in North Carolina that calls themselves the Tarheels and I find myself pondering what a tarheel is and doesn't it sound derogatory. But at least here in North Carolina, they are REALLY into basketball. All those tight butts in shorts. I'm happy.
I admit I'm a fair-weather sports observer. I don't particularly like watching sports on TV but I do occasionally watch, since I only have to watch the Olympics every two years. My two favorite sports to watch are basketball and soccer. All those tight little butts in shorts. Plus, I understand them better. I watched the Super Bowl while reading a book, looking up whenever I heard a shout from the stands, signifying there was something worth watching. Because every play is now instantly replayed from several different angles, you don't miss what the shouting is all about.
In general, I find football boring. Sacrilege, you shout! At least in basketball or soccer, an hour is really an hour, not three. The action in football seems to be 15 seconds of play followed by 2 1/2 minutes of measuring yardage and those black-and-white garbed guys talking to each other. Not my idea of real action.
I'm watching Olympic speed skating as I write this post. Fortunately for the Dutch, a Dutchman named Kramer won the gold, because as the commentators pointed out, ad nauseum, the Dutch would have considered a bronze or silver medal a loss. (They didn't make any literary references to Hans Brinker) How stupid can you get? Last time I checked, a medal means you are the second- or third-best in the world. If I were the second- or third-best reader or knitter or seamstress in the world, I'd feel pretty good about myself.
That may be why I don't watch sports much. The commentators are incredibly inane. I'm a big fan of figure skating, but the commentators make me crazy. "Oh, she really missed that quadruple axle and her timing was off on the landing," some yahoo in a gold blazer says. "Let's see how well YOU perform a quadruple axle," I yell at the TV.
I've watched exactly one hockey game in real life. St. Louis Blues. 1969. Some player got kicked in the head with a skate blade and the blood on the ice was copious. Pretty color, but a little sickening. I did watch the US hocky team win the Olympics way back when, just because they weren't expected to win and they kicked Russia's butt. I have to admit I liked watching Russia's butt get kicked.
Another reason I don't watch sports on TV is that I find it hard to follow the ball, literally. I have a golf-nutty family, who think Sunday afternoons are high holy days for golfers. You see the guy "address" the ball (Hi, ball. How are ya doin'?), then he swings, a swing that looks just like every other swing by every other golfer. (The commentators tell me it's his signature swing, but who can tell?)
The camera follows the ball, or at least I THINK that's what it's doing because I see an expanse of blue sky for several seconds, then the camera comes down on the greeny part. I sometimes wonder if the cameraman isn't having us on...maybe he just swings his camera lens to the sky and the ball isn't really in the frame. He counts to three, then swings his lens to the greeny part, hoping that that's where the ball will come down. 'Cause I sure as heck can't see a golf ball in the frame.
During the Olympics, the commentators are even worse. They have endless details that one doesn't really need to know. Case in point: in the past hour, I have learned the population of a skater's home town, the age of another's daughter, the composition of the special high-tech fabric in their outfits (high-tech fabric????), how they performed at the last Olympics and the fact that the Russians train in Italy, the Ukrainians train in Colorado and the Chinese train in Germany. (Can they honestly represent their country if they need to go somewhere else to train?)
Way too much information. Shut up and let me watch, already.
I enjoyed the parade of First Nations during the opening ceremonies in Vancouver, but am confused about what the First Nations have to do with sports. I enjoyed the dancers way more than I enjoyed the speed skaters. Some guy on skates going around in circles 1/100th of a second faster than some other guy.
Pro sports are the worst. Because, in addition to telling the viewer way too much information about the players' background, stats and personal home life, commentators are also obligated to tell us their legal status, how much bail was and when their court date is. I realize most pro sports figures don't behave badly, but there are enough badly behaving sports stars that the sports portion of the evening news begins to sound a lot like the police blotter. This one had a gun in the locker room, that one beats up his girlfriend for fun, the other one is involved in dog fighting.
I guess the main reason I watch at all is so I'll at least be able to carry on a decent conversation with a sports nut. One feels badly if someone says, "How 'bout that Gretsky?" and one says "What's a Gretsky?" Too bad sports nuts don't have the same level of social responsibility. Can you imagine one of them watching ballet so they can carry on a decent conversation with me?
There's a team here in North Carolina that calls themselves the Tarheels and I find myself pondering what a tarheel is and doesn't it sound derogatory. But at least here in North Carolina, they are REALLY into basketball. All those tight butts in shorts. I'm happy.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Kids as Hookers
Am I the only person who is having a problem with the poor kid in Brazil who has been chosen the "Queen of Carnival"?
I don't have a problem with the girl, 7 years old, who wants to dance the Samba (her country's national dance) at Carnival (her country's annual pageant...think "Mardi Gras"). What I DO have a problem with is the costume, just as I have a problem with most tyke beauty pageants in this country. Kids in our country dress up like little miniature hookers, complete with dresses cut to the navel and false eyelashes.
There is a big hoopla, both in this country and in Brazil, about the appropriateness of having a 7-year-old dance in a provocative manner, in a provocative costume. So would it be the same if the kid danced in an up-to-the-chin, longed-sleeved, down-to-the-ankles dress? I think not.
My business is making children's clothing, so, despite the fact that I had boys who wouldn't be caught dead within 5 miles of a pageant, I think I have some authority here. I've been on-line for those US pageant web sites and I'm here to tell you, they are a child molester's dream.
Brazil reportedly has a problem with child sexual trafficking. A judge has been determined to be the best arbiter of whether this girl in Brazil can dance at Carnival. (And we've all seen how competent the courts in Brazil are when it comes to "what's best for the child."
It's the Jean-Benet Ramsey syndrome. Dress a young girl up in provocative clothing, make her think that pleasing adults and looking beautiful/sexy are appropriate goals for a young girl and look what happens. Though the Ramsey case has never been solved, it's my humble opinion that her death was, at least indirectly, caused by her participation in these baby hooker pageants.
Just as the parents of Michael Jackson's victims willingly handed over their sons to an almost certain molestation, for the purpose of being able to sue Jackson later, these pageant parents are setting their little darlings up for, at the very least, being ogled at by some very nasty pervs. Who doesn't think that child molesters slather at these photos on-line?
Just to be fair, some pageants (Bumble Bee and others) emphasize the kids being themselves and ban teeth capping, plastic surgery and hair weaves. But many other pageants do not. Children are beautiful all by themselves and they don't need all the add-ons.
I think my main beef is the way the kids are dressed. (Of course, being a children's clothing designer, I have an admitted bias!) There are size 7 jeans at WalMart with "Pussy" emblazoned on the rear! There are young girls performing a strip-tease for their "talent" at pageants! (And no, I'm not referring to a movie. Watch "Toddlers & Tiaras" on TLC sometime.)
I've been accused of being one of those wild-eyed maniacs who secretly have some rather perturbing fantasies. I'm not. I think sex education should be taught in our schools because, in part, it teaches children to protect themselves from child molesters and perverts.
I'm instead one of those people who believes that, at the very least, child molesters should be locked up for life. I believe kids should be kids AND DRESS LIKE KIDS. Is it any wonder, with parents dressing up baby whores, that kids are becoming sexually active at younger and younger ages? The message to the kids is, "It's all right to dress and behave sexually when you are 6", leaving them open to the perverted amongst us.
So for those in the US who are against a mini-Brazilian 7-year-old doing a bump-and-grind, let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
I don't have a problem with the girl, 7 years old, who wants to dance the Samba (her country's national dance) at Carnival (her country's annual pageant...think "Mardi Gras"). What I DO have a problem with is the costume, just as I have a problem with most tyke beauty pageants in this country. Kids in our country dress up like little miniature hookers, complete with dresses cut to the navel and false eyelashes.
There is a big hoopla, both in this country and in Brazil, about the appropriateness of having a 7-year-old dance in a provocative manner, in a provocative costume. So would it be the same if the kid danced in an up-to-the-chin, longed-sleeved, down-to-the-ankles dress? I think not.
My business is making children's clothing, so, despite the fact that I had boys who wouldn't be caught dead within 5 miles of a pageant, I think I have some authority here. I've been on-line for those US pageant web sites and I'm here to tell you, they are a child molester's dream.
Brazil reportedly has a problem with child sexual trafficking. A judge has been determined to be the best arbiter of whether this girl in Brazil can dance at Carnival. (And we've all seen how competent the courts in Brazil are when it comes to "what's best for the child."
It's the Jean-Benet Ramsey syndrome. Dress a young girl up in provocative clothing, make her think that pleasing adults and looking beautiful/sexy are appropriate goals for a young girl and look what happens. Though the Ramsey case has never been solved, it's my humble opinion that her death was, at least indirectly, caused by her participation in these baby hooker pageants.
Just as the parents of Michael Jackson's victims willingly handed over their sons to an almost certain molestation, for the purpose of being able to sue Jackson later, these pageant parents are setting their little darlings up for, at the very least, being ogled at by some very nasty pervs. Who doesn't think that child molesters slather at these photos on-line?
Just to be fair, some pageants (Bumble Bee and others) emphasize the kids being themselves and ban teeth capping, plastic surgery and hair weaves. But many other pageants do not. Children are beautiful all by themselves and they don't need all the add-ons.
I think my main beef is the way the kids are dressed. (Of course, being a children's clothing designer, I have an admitted bias!) There are size 7 jeans at WalMart with "Pussy" emblazoned on the rear! There are young girls performing a strip-tease for their "talent" at pageants! (And no, I'm not referring to a movie. Watch "Toddlers & Tiaras" on TLC sometime.)
I've been accused of being one of those wild-eyed maniacs who secretly have some rather perturbing fantasies. I'm not. I think sex education should be taught in our schools because, in part, it teaches children to protect themselves from child molesters and perverts.
I'm instead one of those people who believes that, at the very least, child molesters should be locked up for life. I believe kids should be kids AND DRESS LIKE KIDS. Is it any wonder, with parents dressing up baby whores, that kids are becoming sexually active at younger and younger ages? The message to the kids is, "It's all right to dress and behave sexually when you are 6", leaving them open to the perverted amongst us.
So for those in the US who are against a mini-Brazilian 7-year-old doing a bump-and-grind, let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)