Over the last couple o’weeks I’ve been around/involved in/have overheard/etc. plans dealing with weddings, birthdays, funerals, retirement parties, etc. Two things all these celebrations seem to have in common:
1. They all have to do with a single person (i.e. the birthday person, retiree, etc.) or single select group (i.e. the wedding couple, the family of the deceased, etc.).
2. The planning of said … celebrations? (a rather inappropriate title for a funeral, I realize, just bear with me) … wind up having nothing to do with the wishes and feeling of those for whom the entire occasion is supposed to represent!
What do I mean? Okay, let’s say you’re getting married. You’re going to have an actual wedding. You and your soon-to-be have all these grand ideas of how you want things to go. You have your guest lists (which you manage to hopefully condense into one list without breaking the engagement). You have, perhaps, your own vows written. You’ve picked out your music and have burned a stack of CDs full of same. You know what pictures you want taken and how you want everyone posed. This is, after all your day … right? Ah, but then the parents get involved and they know what’s best. The priest/preacher/chaplain/minister/boat captain/pilot/justice-o’the-peace/president/grand-poo-bah-of-marital-bliss steps in with they way he/she/they have always done it, and thus is how it shall be, forever, and ever, amen (alternately, “Ar! Walk th’ plank if ye don’t agree, me hardy! I be the cap’n o’this here boat!”). The photographer decides what pictures he thinks are nice. The music director no one remembers hiring tosses your CDs in the trash because he, after all, knows best what music to play. Next thing you know, Dear Aunt Tilda-May, a life-long spinster decides that everyone is wrong and she, quite obviously somehow an expert at weddings, having avoided her own for 60+ years, demands that everything be done her way.
Next thing you know, you are, on your day, on the day folks are supposed to come together to celebrate your union, being ordered around by parents, ministers/captains/grand-pooh-bahs, /Dear Aunt Tilda-May, etc. You find yourself being yanked from place to place by a pushy photographer, whose orders you cannot hear over the blaring crap the music director is blaring out over the building’s tinny sound system. With your day thus stolen, you can at least, in the inevitable times of trouble ahead, look at each other and say with some honesty, “Look, if we survived our wedding and managed to not kill any of our loved ones, we can work through anything!”
Okay, what about birthdays, retirements, and similar celebrations? They are, in general, about one person. Okay, there’re the occasional multiple births, and sometimes more than one person retires from a firm on the same date. But still, even then, you’re dealing with a celebration for each of the individuals, no matter how many are crammed into the same room wearing idiotic cone-shaped hats and eating food they’ll need six months of dieting to overcome. These days are supposed to be about celebrating the achievement(s) of the (wo)man of the day, right? Well … yes, supposedly so. But, once again, everyone starts making plans for where they’ll hold the party, who will be invited, what presents are or are not appropriate, where we all go for dinner, … Then next thing you know the celebration is no longer about the birthday boy, retiree, employee-of-the-month, or whatever. No, it’s about the person-of-the-day submitting to everyone else’s whim.
Go back and read that last bit again. Think about it. Yes, it becomes a day dedicated to the main celebrant having to submit to everyone else’s whims. Even if anyone bothers to ask what the subject of the celebration wishes, or I he manages to voice a meager protest, his words will be in vain. The Planners know what is best. Do not question them. Just grit your teeth, locate all emergency exits, and count the minutes as they fly by like hours … slow hours … swimming through thick molasses … in January.
This brings us ‘round to the solemn subject of funerals. What the HELL gives ANYONE the right to dictate how a grieving loved one must act? What if I just want to be alone with my grief? Huh? What then? What if I just want to have a quiet gathering of only a tiny handful of the deceased’s closest loved ones at grave-side? Everyone else can gather together somewhere and support each other, right? I mean, why do I, while trying to control my own miserable grief, have to deal with the melo-dramatic bleating of someone who couldn’t bother to come see this loved one when they were bloody alive but show up at the funeral and do their dead-level best (no pun intended) to jerk tears out of everyone else?! I just LOVE the comment made by some aunt or other that I overheard to the shattered teenage daughter of a lovely lady taken by cancer. There, in front of her open casket, just as the young lady had managed to bravely compose herself, this over-perfumed hippopotamus wrapped her in a crushing hug, managed to wring out a few tears of her own, and blubbered, “Oh! It’s soooo sad! You’re mother will never see you graduate school, marry, or give her grandchildren! You must be so sad!” Thankfully there were several people between me and the blubbering hippopotamus so there was not, in fact, a need for a second funeral.
Ah, then, of course, we have the funeral director/minister/priest/ necromancer/whatever. Why, oh why do these people feel like it is their solemn, sworn duty to further upset everyone present? First they insist on playing fecking sad, stupid dirges. Okay, we’re not upset enough. Our loved one has died, they’re gone, they are no longer here, we must shuffle on through Life without them. I think that point is abundantly clear. In case anyone forgot why we’re all here wearing black and it’s not a Goth party, why, there’s the corpse lying in state right in the front of the room. Yeah. I think we all know why we’re here, thank you. If we are not personally upset by the loss, then we are present to comfort those we love who are devastated. So, with that in mind, why on God’s Green Earth do these fecking vultures feel the need to play the saddest, most tear-jerking songs ever written? Then they’ll get up in front of the grieving family and see how much more emotional damage they can render upon them. There, they should offer a brief litany about how good a life the deceased has led, how we’ll all miss them, sure, but they are beyond pain now, and would, no doubt, berate us at this moment for being so sad … etc., etc. Do they do this? No. Instead they look at those in the audience who are already hysterical or very close there to and begin firing off painful quip after barbed dirge. This minister will look at the deceased’s son, a young man barely holding it together and trying to keep his own children from hysterics, and he will then begin to relate the saddest tale he ever heard about the young man’s childhood. I’ve found that making a clear, steely-eyed promise of the most painful death that can be envisioned will often silence such a man … but it often upsets other present. Oh, well, can’t win ‘em all, right?
So, what’s this social commentary and rant all about, then? Just that, as food for thought, consider the next time you are in a position to plan some activity on the behalf of another’s accomplishment/celebration/grief, that perhaps, just perhaps, since this day belongs to them, it is they that should get first choice at what transpires. Oh, and take your birthday gag gifts, embarrassingly sexual wedding presents, etc. and stuff ‘em where the sun don’t shine. Donate that money to some charity in the honorary’s name instead. We’ll all feel better then, m’kay?
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Well 'tis that time of year again. Time for the yearly list of the top most dangerous toys. Okay, I'll give you that a few of them, most notably those coming from China present some poisoning dangers. I mean, c'mon, who the hell thinks it is at all acceptable to put lead in a child's toy? And those "Aqua Dots?" Why on Earth would anyone make a toy for children that is so toxic (can reportedly break down in the digestive tract and have an affect similar to the drug GHB). So, yeah, I agree there are some hidden dangers out there that everyone needs to be aware of. Still, though, as usual, the rallying cry "for the children!" hath been uttered and with it, common sense hath flown the coop.
One of the top "offenders" on the list? A spinning wrist dagger thingy based on the ever popular Pirates of the Carribean toy line. The complaint? It's a bit stiff and, yes, "you could put an eye out with it!" Seems like I've seen a warning video wherein one of these was stabbed into an apple. My inner child was thinking, "Alright! I gotta get me one of those!" So, yeah, okay, don't give one to your five year old. If your kid is a bit irresponsible, maybe don't give him one at all. But hell, when I was in my later single-digit years, one of my toys was a great uncle's 1917 Enfield bayonet that he used in WWI. So happened that it fit nicely onto the bayonet lug on my one of my toy rifles. So long as I was playing alone and not wandering too far from the house, I was allowed to get the two foot long bayonet from my room (yes, I kept it there, along with a couple of billy clubs, dozens of toy guns [some fired stoppers, oh, my!], toy swords, etc.) and go play soldier. Note, please that I managed to not impale myself or indeed anything that I should not. I respected the damage it could do as I respected the fact that my father would be a bit perturbed should I misbehave with it.
Ah, but that was then. No, wait. See I remember when this "dangerous toy" list came out back then. I remember being maybe 8 or 9 and horrified to hear some of my favorite toys that I either already had or wished to soon be given were "too dangerous for kids." Yard jarts were definately a no-no on that list. Remember yard jarts? Lawn darts? Those pointy metal things with fins that one threw in the air trying to ring a plastic circle? Oh, my! The fear was that some kids might throw them at objects other than sweet Mother Earth and thereby risk injury to themselves, other children, and pets. My question, even back then was that if some kid did this, where the heck were their parents? My father thought that an excellent question. Indeed, we agreed even way back then, that the problem with nearly all the "dangerous" toys was a lack of training by the parents, supervision by the parents, and/or the parents' judgement in giving such items to an untrustworthy kid. In fact, the only time I ever say lawn darts being misused, even with all the goofy kids I knew, were when the 18 - 20 crowd got their little mits on them. Sure, everyone knew someone who's cousin's friend's eight year old neigbor got a yard dart stuck in their head, but none could honestly confess seeing this.
Like I said, though, there are certainly a few dangers that all parents should be made aware of. Flammable bedclothes, electronic toys with bad wiring, toys with poisonous paint or other such issues. Still, call me old-fashioned, call me out of touch with today's liberal society (I hope!), but I think it is still the parents' responsibility to ensure their child's safety with the spinning wrist daggers, lawn darts, BB guns, stopper pistols, baseball bats, hockey sticks, wooden swords, etc. Problem is, just like with hurricanes, it has somehow become public opinion that it is our goverment's job to protect us, to regulate us, to save us. Um ... no. See, we are a Republic. In our republic, though we elect officials to respresent us (hence it being a republic and not a democracy), WE THE PEOPLE are the real government. Certainly I have no problem with regulations agains hidden dangers like lead-based pain in kids' toys, or GHB-like glue in childens' art kits (and, oh, wow, check it out, it appears they both come from China, hmm... more on that at a later date, perhaps). What I DO have a problem with is the government being expected to tell me what I can and cannot buy, how I can raise my kids, what I can teach them, what I cannot, and even what toys they can see on store shelves. The goverment, remember, is all too willing to come in to handle your private affairs once invited, but seldom is the government so willing to leave once it gets in. Think about it.
No, really, think about it. In the 1930's we wanted them to regulate guns because there were bad guys running around armed. So, the National Firearms Act was formed and the dreadded Tommy Gun and other "dangerous" firearms were restricted. Funny, that, since hardly anyone could afford them anyway, and let's not forget that the criminals by their very nature have no problem breaking laws. Look where we are today. Whole cities and even states wherein only the criminals are well armed.
We let them regulate automobiles ... Go read your state Rules of the Road. It's damn near impossible to leave your driveway without breaking some law. Of course that helps us a whole lot when it comes to drug enforcement.
We let the government declair a "War on Drugs." Now, we all know, drugs are bad. Well, bad drugs are bad. I say that last b/c I have had to point out to young kids who have had the "Drugs are Bad" speech in Kindergarten or First Grade that it is, in fact, okay to take their cold medicine, and it's okay if Mommy has an Advil and Daddy has a beer. However, in war, as we all know now, certain things are allowed that are usually not tolerated. We let the goverment go all ga-ga on drug enforcement and now look how full the prisons are. Look at the entire culture that has grown up unafraid of prison, the police, even death. Drugs are a prime example of where a little government regulation and enforcement is good, but a lot is very bad.
Where am I going with this (as if it isn't obvious)? Well, quite simply, as disturbed as I was while watching a news feature about the dangers of "Aqua Dots" (the little beads ... from China ... that if swallowed have a glue or some such that can act like GHB), I was horrified when I heard this woman say, "I think the goverment should do something about it, y'know? It's for our children!" (emphasis added). Once again the "For Our Children!" banner is being waved and with it we willingly surrender a wee bit more of our freedom as parents. Yes, yes, Aqua Dots should be removed from the shelf. Yes people should be warned. Hey, wait, that's already been done. What is it, exactly the goverment is supposed to do? Let's see ... they already require you, under penalty of jail and having your kids removed from your sight, to send them to state-ran schools (don't fool yourself, even private schools must follow the state-mandated formats). You must thereby submit your kids to being programmed to being gun-hating, religion-fearing, pacifistic conformists. And if your kid happens to ... oh, ... let's say draw a picture of a gun (like kids do), or is a bit bored with school (as the smart ones are), he or she might wind up suspended or expelled (must cast out the non-conformists, after all) and you can be turned over to the state prosecutor, be investigated by child welfare, etc. Yes, it can all happen. And we not only allow this to go on, but some of us, like the above-quoted lady, encourage it!!!
New set of rules proposed:
One of the top "offenders" on the list? A spinning wrist dagger thingy based on the ever popular Pirates of the Carribean toy line. The complaint? It's a bit stiff and, yes, "you could put an eye out with it!" Seems like I've seen a warning video wherein one of these was stabbed into an apple. My inner child was thinking, "Alright! I gotta get me one of those!" So, yeah, okay, don't give one to your five year old. If your kid is a bit irresponsible, maybe don't give him one at all. But hell, when I was in my later single-digit years, one of my toys was a great uncle's 1917 Enfield bayonet that he used in WWI. So happened that it fit nicely onto the bayonet lug on my one of my toy rifles. So long as I was playing alone and not wandering too far from the house, I was allowed to get the two foot long bayonet from my room (yes, I kept it there, along with a couple of billy clubs, dozens of toy guns [some fired stoppers, oh, my!], toy swords, etc.) and go play soldier. Note, please that I managed to not impale myself or indeed anything that I should not. I respected the damage it could do as I respected the fact that my father would be a bit perturbed should I misbehave with it.
Ah, but that was then. No, wait. See I remember when this "dangerous toy" list came out back then. I remember being maybe 8 or 9 and horrified to hear some of my favorite toys that I either already had or wished to soon be given were "too dangerous for kids." Yard jarts were definately a no-no on that list. Remember yard jarts? Lawn darts? Those pointy metal things with fins that one threw in the air trying to ring a plastic circle? Oh, my! The fear was that some kids might throw them at objects other than sweet Mother Earth and thereby risk injury to themselves, other children, and pets. My question, even back then was that if some kid did this, where the heck were their parents? My father thought that an excellent question. Indeed, we agreed even way back then, that the problem with nearly all the "dangerous" toys was a lack of training by the parents, supervision by the parents, and/or the parents' judgement in giving such items to an untrustworthy kid. In fact, the only time I ever say lawn darts being misused, even with all the goofy kids I knew, were when the 18 - 20 crowd got their little mits on them. Sure, everyone knew someone who's cousin's friend's eight year old neigbor got a yard dart stuck in their head, but none could honestly confess seeing this.
Like I said, though, there are certainly a few dangers that all parents should be made aware of. Flammable bedclothes, electronic toys with bad wiring, toys with poisonous paint or other such issues. Still, call me old-fashioned, call me out of touch with today's liberal society (I hope!), but I think it is still the parents' responsibility to ensure their child's safety with the spinning wrist daggers, lawn darts, BB guns, stopper pistols, baseball bats, hockey sticks, wooden swords, etc. Problem is, just like with hurricanes, it has somehow become public opinion that it is our goverment's job to protect us, to regulate us, to save us. Um ... no. See, we are a Republic. In our republic, though we elect officials to respresent us (hence it being a republic and not a democracy), WE THE PEOPLE are the real government. Certainly I have no problem with regulations agains hidden dangers like lead-based pain in kids' toys, or GHB-like glue in childens' art kits (and, oh, wow, check it out, it appears they both come from China, hmm... more on that at a later date, perhaps). What I DO have a problem with is the government being expected to tell me what I can and cannot buy, how I can raise my kids, what I can teach them, what I cannot, and even what toys they can see on store shelves. The goverment, remember, is all too willing to come in to handle your private affairs once invited, but seldom is the government so willing to leave once it gets in. Think about it.
No, really, think about it. In the 1930's we wanted them to regulate guns because there were bad guys running around armed. So, the National Firearms Act was formed and the dreadded Tommy Gun and other "dangerous" firearms were restricted. Funny, that, since hardly anyone could afford them anyway, and let's not forget that the criminals by their very nature have no problem breaking laws. Look where we are today. Whole cities and even states wherein only the criminals are well armed.
We let them regulate automobiles ... Go read your state Rules of the Road. It's damn near impossible to leave your driveway without breaking some law. Of course that helps us a whole lot when it comes to drug enforcement.
We let the government declair a "War on Drugs." Now, we all know, drugs are bad. Well, bad drugs are bad. I say that last b/c I have had to point out to young kids who have had the "Drugs are Bad" speech in Kindergarten or First Grade that it is, in fact, okay to take their cold medicine, and it's okay if Mommy has an Advil and Daddy has a beer. However, in war, as we all know now, certain things are allowed that are usually not tolerated. We let the goverment go all ga-ga on drug enforcement and now look how full the prisons are. Look at the entire culture that has grown up unafraid of prison, the police, even death. Drugs are a prime example of where a little government regulation and enforcement is good, but a lot is very bad.
Where am I going with this (as if it isn't obvious)? Well, quite simply, as disturbed as I was while watching a news feature about the dangers of "Aqua Dots" (the little beads ... from China ... that if swallowed have a glue or some such that can act like GHB), I was horrified when I heard this woman say, "I think the goverment should do something about it, y'know? It's for our children!" (emphasis added). Once again the "For Our Children!" banner is being waved and with it we willingly surrender a wee bit more of our freedom as parents. Yes, yes, Aqua Dots should be removed from the shelf. Yes people should be warned. Hey, wait, that's already been done. What is it, exactly the goverment is supposed to do? Let's see ... they already require you, under penalty of jail and having your kids removed from your sight, to send them to state-ran schools (don't fool yourself, even private schools must follow the state-mandated formats). You must thereby submit your kids to being programmed to being gun-hating, religion-fearing, pacifistic conformists. And if your kid happens to ... oh, ... let's say draw a picture of a gun (like kids do), or is a bit bored with school (as the smart ones are), he or she might wind up suspended or expelled (must cast out the non-conformists, after all) and you can be turned over to the state prosecutor, be investigated by child welfare, etc. Yes, it can all happen. And we not only allow this to go on, but some of us, like the above-quoted lady, encourage it!!!
New set of rules proposed:
- Get to know your kid. Know what he or she can be trusted with. Give them some room, let 'em prove themself to you. Reward and punish reasonably.
- Supervise your kids. Give 'em some room to screw up, but keep 'em in eye-sight so their mistakes aren't life-threatening. See #1 above.
- Insist the government give you back control of your children. You produced them, you pay for them, you love them, YOU, therefore should be the one in charge. Oh, and see # 1 and #2 above. No sense giving the gov't any ammo.
- Teach your children that safety and success is their responsibility; it is not the Government's responsibility to keep them safe, make them successful, or bring down anyone more successful than they are. Life is not fair. Teach them that. Treat "fair" like any other curse word. I recommend soap and a toothbrush. Teach your kids to be responsible for themselves and each other. Review #1, #2, & #3.
- The next time some liberal eejit shouts out the "For the Children" cry, duct tape their mouth shut. THAT's for the children, per #4 above! Oh, and see #s 1-4.
Okay, enough o'my ranting for now. I think my kids' X-box might have lead paint on it ... I'd better go confiscate it and do a few hours of "safety testing." ;)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)