Thoughts of the recently engaged...

... so I became engaged over this Christmas, and while it was totally one of the happiest moments of my entire life; the whole wedding planning and ensuing nonsense is truly for the birds.

First and foremost, if one more broad tells me that I HAVE to call boyfriend "my fiancee" now, I will alternatively scream and envision punching her repeatedly. Am I the only one who finds the term "fiancee" outdated and pretentious? Is it seriously just me? He's my boyfriend, we're engaged, whatever... at some point he will be my husband, and then I will start calling him that. In between, I will call him what I please, and you can butt your head out of it friends-of-friends (who are really the only people giving me any flack)... when your SOs get you a shiny diamond, you can call them your fiancee, or "affianced" or "betrothED" or whatever archaic term you please... but butt your meddling heads out of my engagement.

Also - in regards to receptions, I feel like businesses hear "wedding" and internally hear "CHA-CHING!" ... for serious, as I scope out wedding halls, photographers, DJs, etc. etc. etc. They have ONE price for parties and ANOTHER price for weddings

(edit - except my newly hired photographer - who is the best woman on the fact of the earth)

It makes me want to get married in the church, and then change into a prom dress and call the reception a "birthday party" with open bar and dancing. It would literally cost HALF of what a "wedding" reception costs.

Well that's it for me for the moment. But it really gets my goat that people use one of the most joyous occasions in life as an opportunity to price gouge. GAH!

Watch out world: your 4 yr old can now be sued!

Yep, as of Oct 1st, when Justice Paul Wooten of State Supreme Court in Manhattan, found a young girl accused of running down an elderly woman while racing a bicycle with training wheels on a Manhattan sidewalk two years ago can be sued for negligence.

The judge did not find that the tyke was liable, merely that she can be sued.

The relevant facts are as follows... In April of 2009, Jacob Kohn and Juliet Breitman, both 4, were racing their bicycles on the sidewalk of East 52nd St, while being watched by their mothers, Rachel Kohn and Dana Breitman. At some point in their race, they struck an 87-year-old woman, Claire Menagh, who was walking in front of the building and was subsequently “seriously and severely injured,” suffering a hip fracture that required surgery. She died three months later of unrelated causes, and her estate then brought a suit against the kids and their parents.

The Breitmans lawyers argued that the girl was not “engaged in an adult activity” at the time of the accident and was too young to be held liable for negligence. The Kohns did not try to dismiss the action against them. But, the judge found that while "infants under the age of 4 are conclusively presumed incapable of negligence" Juliet was 3 months shy of her 5th birthday, and there is no bright line rule for those over the age of 4.

He went on to say “A parent’s presence alone does not give a reasonable child carte blanche to engage in risky behavior such as running across a street,” the judge wrote. He added that any “reasonably prudent child,” who presumably has been told to look both ways before crossing a street, should know that dashing out without looking is dangerous, with or without a parent there. Judge Wooten state that the crucial factor is whether the parent encourages the risky behavior; if so, the child should not be held accountable. Here, however, Mrs. Breitman was not cheering her tyke on as she crashed into an elderly woman.

I find it a bit scary that 4 year olds can be held liable. But it seems a sign of the times, our kids have to grow up faster than ever before. Liable at 4 and potentially sexting or drinking by 12... it's a scary, scary world these days.

Obama Streaker Update

So apparently the Obama streaking does not count. WHAT? According to SiFy news, Alki David does not want to pay unless the White House acknowledges that Obama saw Mr. Rodriquez's nasty bits. Really? REALLY? You want the WHITE HOUSE to acknowledge that the PRESIDENT saw a naked man? First and foremost, the White House is not going to comment, and good for them for not descending to your asinine level Mr. David; second - pay the man the million dollars, he was naked within 10 ft of the president.

Apparently instead, in exchange for an undisclosed sum, Juan Rodriguez has agreed with Alki David to try to streak again, in front of another undisclosed head of state. David apparently spoke with Rodriguez directly, and told the NY Post "Mr. Rodriguez agreed that he was not able to complete all the criteria of the challenge. But he came so very close, and his personal story about why he decided to take such a risk for his family, moved me to provide him with a generous consolation prize."

My thoughts are - you're settling with him Mr. David, you're settling with him so he doesn't sue for the promised $1 million AND damages. However, David has said that despite the "failed attempt," (his words) he has agreed to pay all Rodriguez's sister's hospital bills, Rodriguez's rent for the next year and will provide him with an additional undisclosed amount of cash. This is not too bad, because the rent is supposedly $1,600 a month, and medical bills can get quite, quite costly, so hopefully Rodriguez recovers a couple hundred thousand. It's the least, the very least, Mr. David can do.

Additionally I think Mr. David should pay all of Rodriguez's legal bills. But that may just be me, the rest of you may feel that Rodriguez should pay for his own stupidity.

Obama Streaker Shouldn't Be the One to Pay!

So as most of you probably know, President Obama got to see a naked man the other day. Not that its likely that he had any desire to see Juan James Rodriguez's manly bits, nor is it likely he had to see them long before Rodriguez was hauled off by the cops, but still nudity occurred.

And Mr. Rodriguez got certainly more than he himself bargained for. Roidriguez was egged on by a website, which stipulated it would pay US $1,000,000 to anyone who streaked in front of the president, with the website name written on his or her chest and shouted the website's name 6 times.

However, instead of an easy million, Rodriguez was arrested, charged with indecent exposure, public lewdness, and disorderly conduct and only released on $10,000 bail. He also claims he spent $1,300 of his own money for the prank, some of it on the specially designed tear-away T-shirt and shorts he wore. Now, regardless of the validity of his own spending on his pre-nudity costume, it is likely that he will have to shell out quite a bit in legal fees and court fees in order to keep himself out of serious trouble.

However, the internet mogul Alki David, who's promoted this insane act, is now saying he's not sure Rodriguez met the terms of the wager. "It's a lot of money," David is quoted as saying. "We're not going to give the money away lightly." WHAT?!? You'll advertise that you give away this money lightly, and it didn't strike you as a lot of money when you put the offer up on your website. And seeing all of the stupid things people are willing to do on TV for far less money, you HAD to have a reasonable suspicion that someone would follow through on this nonsense.

Not only do I believe that David should have to pay up, and soon, I also believe he should share in the legal repercussions. He knows that being fully nude is pretty much illegal in all of the States, and he knows that conducting nonsense around and near the President of the US is also pretty much always illegal. He point blank incited illegal activities, and I don't think that Rodriguez should be the only one to suffer. You shouldn't be allowed to pull ridiculous pranks just because you are rich and escape scott-free.

A car that drives me? Sign me up!

Google CEO Eric Schmidt recently announced that the search engine giant is actively testing autonomous cars and has already logged 140,000 miles with its test autos.

The way these cars work is through the use of sensors, video cameras and laser range finders in tandem with info collected by manually driven vehicles that Google has sent out to various map routes. The automated cars is then relayed the info gathered by the other cars after it is processed at Google’s data centers.

One of the primary goals of these cars is to, not only, cut energy consumption but to also cut the amount of deaths currently caused by traffic accidents (roughly 1.2 million people per year). Google hopes that with these cars, traffic accidents can mostly be avoided; because even when a human doesn’t see something coming, the car will and will then act accordingly.

Although these vehicles are self-driving, none of them have yet to make a journey without a driver present to take over and additionally, police officers have always been told as to what is going on when tests have been conducted.

If you're interested in more info, you can read more about it here - LINK! And although skeptics think that a fully automated car is a long way off, I'm still hopeful, I would love to be able to sleep my way through my commute.

This week in stupid lawsuits: Paris Hilton vs Hallmark

This just in, Paris Hilton and Hallmark have finally settled their lawsuit over the use of the catchphrase "that's hot."

Hilton recently sued the Kansas City greeting card maker for portraying her as a waitress in a diner handing a patron a plate and using her "trademark" "that's hot" line. I find the lawsuit completely ridiculous in that Hilton is far from the first person to ever utter the phrase, which she unsuccessfully tried to claim as a tradmark in 2007.

Hallmark argued the card was in the "public interest," which is laughable since Hilton hasn't been of public interest (minus recently being declared persona non grata in Japan) since before her suit was filed in 2007.

The terms of the settlement are unknown and not released by either party, but Hilton had been demanding $500,000. The only word out of Hallmark is the settlement was from the Judge, in that it was a "mutually acceptable conclusion," which hopefully means Hallmark won't be producing any more Hilton cards. And hopefully no one else will for that matter.

Capital Punishment Thoughts

So last Friday morning at 9am, the State of Virginia executed its first woman prisoner since 1912. Teresa Lewis, 41, was put to death for plotting the murders of her husband and stepson with two accomplices. Lewis was convicted of "masterminding" the affair in which two accomplices actually committed the murder. The accomplices received life in prison (where one of them committed suicide) but Lewis will be executed, as the Supreme Court has refused to hear her case, and the governor did not pardon her.

What's sad is that later evidence has shown that Lewis had somewhat diminished mental capacity, even though she meets the level to stand trial in VA, and it really looks as if she was manipulated in the whole sorry state of affairs.

The crucial piece of evidence that her attorneys wanted considered by the Supreme Court was a letter from one her 22 year old co-conspirators who she had entered into an affair with before agreeing to the murders. Matthew Shallenberger, who killed himself in jail in 2006, wrote a suicide note, in which he claimed full responsibility for the murder plot and suggested that he pushed Lewis into it. It read ... "From the moment I met her I knew she was someone who could be easily manipulated," he allegedly wrote. "Killing Julian and Charles Lewis was entirely my idea. I needed money, and Teresa was an easy target."

However, this evidence wasn't heard, and Lewis had a lethal injection. I feel bad for her. I'm not saying that she shouldn't have spent the rest of her life in prison, but I feel that if the men who committed the actual murders got life in prison, then it's a little unfair to execute a conspirator who didn't pull a trigger.

But I guess I feel that the whole capital punishment in unfair across the board. A couple of years ago, I went to a panel discussion on it, and met both the brother of the unibomber and the brother of Manny Babbitt, a Marine Corp, Vietnam Vet. The brother of the unabomber, who caused untold pain, managed to avoid the death penalty, whereas Babbitt didn't.

Babbitt earned a Purple Heart for courage under fire in the Vietnam war. He was hit by rocket shrapnel that opened his skull, he lost consciousness and was thought to be dead. He was loaded onto a pile of corpses by helicopter operators where he later regained consciousness, surrounded by severed limbs and bodies. He returned from Vietnam suffering from PTSD, exhibiting bizarre and violent behavior. Eventually he broke into the home of Leah Shendel, an elderly woman, and beat her. She later died of a heart attack.

His brother, Bill, turned him in, fully expecting that the war-hero brother would get all of the medical attention he clearly needed and deserved. But instead, not long after being awarded his Purple Heart, Manny Babbitt was executed one minute after midnight, May 4, 1999, in the state of California, on his 50th birthday.

I just remember thinking at that conference... "How ridiculously unfair!" One man who was a national hero, and suffering from mental illness and despair, who should have been sent to a psych ward for life, was killed, and another, who really shouldn't be allowed to live any longer, still publishes books from jail.

And now this Lewis case... I used to think that I was for capital punishment, that some crimes were so heinous that the accused did not deserve ANY chance of ever being able to hurt people again. But... the way the system works currently, the punishment isn't meted out in a fair way, and I think that if Babbitt and Lewis are the people we're executing and Ted Kaczynski is not, then perhaps we shouldn't be executing anyone.

Let's Hear it for the Strippers

"Thou shalt not strip." ... Funny, I didn't think that was among the ten. But pastor Bill Dunfee of New Beginnings Ministries in Warsaw, OH seems to think that he can add on. That the 10 Commandments are kind of like the Bill of Rights, and he can add amendments as we move along.

Pastor Bill and his flock regularly picket the a strip club about 9 miles down the road from their church. Not only do they picket the club and harass those just trying to go in and see a naked lady, but for the past FOUR YEARS, the flockers have photographed license plates of the club's patrons and asked them if their mothers and wives know their whereabouts.

Recently, the strip club owner and strippers decided to fight back. And I say good for them. The Lord Jesus was friends with out and out prostitutes, and if he could get over that, Pastor Bill should be able to get over ladies taking their cloths off to make a buck. At least these ladies are not on the wellfare system. So that's two points in their favor as far as I am concerned.

Jesus never forced his views on anyone, and in fact, I believe he said something along the lines of "let he who has not sinned cast the first stone." And not since the Virgin Mary has anyone been born sinless Pastor Dave, so I think you should get off your high horse and start trying to be helpful instead of hurtful.

DEA wants to hire ebonics translators.

Recently, CNN reported recently that the DEA, the Drug Enforcement Agency is looking to hire ebonics translators. My only thought was REALLY? I'm not even sure how that would work. Is ebonics even a consistent language? If I were asked, I would definitely describe it as street slang, which constantly changes and adapts with the times.

Reportedly, the DEA is looking to hire ebonics translators because they feel there is a need due to people trying to use ebonics to evade detection, while trafficking in drugs. The DEA recognizes that it's spoken all the time, like Spanish and Vietnamese, but is becoming more prevalent in drug dealers trying to avoid detection.

I'm not sure that a translator's translation could hold up in court. As of yet, I don't know that there is an ebonics dictionary, and that ebonics doesn't vary from city to city. Is ebonics the same in New York as it is in Los Angeles? Goodness know the English language isn't the same in Boston as it is in SoCal or Austrailia or South Africa for that matter. Is there a reliable source on the nuances and differences of ebonics throughout the world?

The term "Ebonics" -- a blend of "ebony" and "phonics" -- became popular in 1996, when the Oakland California School District proposed using it in teaching English. When the school board came under fire for this decision, it voted to alter the plan, which then recognized Ebonics as a distinct language. Today it is most commonly referred to as "urban language" or "street language" which has crossed over geographic, racial and ethnic backgrounds."

But while the language may be getting more recognition, I'm of the opinion that "translating" it in court could prove troublesome and lead to confusion. As CNN points out, there was controversy during the Black Panther trials in the 1970s, when there was debate over whether the saying, "off the pigs," was an actual threat to kill police officers or more metaphorical. I feel like using ebonics translators hired by the DEA could lead defense teams getting their own ebonics "experts" and suddenly the cost of drug trials goes up and up.

Similiar tragedy, less giving...

In an article posted yesterday, by the Canadian newspaper the Globe and Mail, it was laid out that Western donors are giving less toward the most recent world tragedy than they have toward other world catastrophic events.

The reason? The most recent catastrophe occurred in Pakistan. It seems that one week after launching fund-raising efforts to help the victims of Pakistan’s recent devastating floods, a coalition of Canadian charities raised only $200,000 for the region. While some might say that this is a substantial fund-raising effort, it pales in comparison to a week after the tragedy of January’s Haitian earthquake, when more than $3.5-million had been raised in the same time period.

More glaring proof can probably be found in the fact that I can't recall having seen a single television commercial here in the U.S. about the floods. When the earthquake occurred in Haiti, you couldn't watch television for more than 10 minutes without seeing at least 3 commercials detailing how you could help. Text message donations were made available, where one could donate $10 by merely texting the word "Haiti" to a certain number. But for Pakistan, not even a commercial with a mere mention of a group, that one could look up, if one were even interested in helping.

If you are interested, I've just discovered you can donate $10 to Pakistan flood relief by texting "SWAT" to 50555. Or, you can check out Save the Children, which is coordinating relief efforts. Or, if you prefer UNICEF is also sponsoring fund-raising relief efforts.

And quite possibly the most offensive part of all this business are the comment's left on the article published by the Globe and Mail. How people can find derogatory things to say and reasons not to donate to needy children is absolutely beyond me. People are people, regardless of where they are hurting, and you can bet that the people who make decisions to start or continue wars, are not the same people who are starving and homeless due to this tragedy. That's like stating that one should not have helped Katrina victims because Americans stick their nose in everyone's business.


------------------ CHART COURTESY OF THE GLOBE AND MAIL--------------------------------

How far the fundraising for Pakistan is lagging

	Total Funding as of Aug. 16/10	Affected population	Funding per affected person
Pakistan floods	$229-million (U.S.)	14 million	$16.36
Haiti earthquake (2010)	$3.3-billion (U.S.)	3 million	$1,087.33
Kashmir earthquake (2005)	$1.2-billion (U.S.)	3 million	$388.33
Indian Ocean earthquake/tsunami (2004)	$6.2-billion (U.S.)	5 million	$1,249.80