Bounty Hunters, Lawyers, Media Deals, Is there a wonder why there are Protesters?

Once again the case of missing toddler Caylee Anthony brings more and more headlines. Not because of the family or her mother relentlessly searching for her, no, quite to the contrary, it remains a 'hot' story because of the constant grandstanding of lawyers for both the grandparents and Casey, not to mention the leaks to the media in regards to big bucks being offered for the story.

Just who has come out of the woodwork to get their names and images connected to this tragic story? Oh, we have quite the cast of characters:

High profile Bounty Hunter, with his bail bondsmen nephew; One hardly known lawyer, that now is as common a household name as any on the OJ Dream Team, and of course a high profile defense attorney for the grandparents....Oppies...almost forgot to mention the PR firm that is also throwing their hat into the circus created by the Anthony family, all on under the guise of the search for an innocent missing child.

Still not one member of this family can keep their story straight, not the grandparents, and absolutely not Casey.

So is there any wonder why we have protesters, and that those protesters are quickly becoming more and more aggressive?

Now, before the horrified gasps, of my excusing the protesters, let me be clear on a few things:

1. I don't think it is wise or completely responsible to bring children to such a potentially dangerous event.

Having said that, I understand the reasoning:

The Anthony's have used, yes, used the image of Caylee as a way to gather sympathy for their plight, to tap in on the emotion most humans have in regards of innocent children lost in the world; how more to drive the disgust home to that family than to bring their own beloved children out, to offer the visual of knowing where your children are, and not buying anymore into what amounts as media hype from the family.

2. I don't think children should talk rudely to adults, and feel that the parents of those children should correct them, under normal circumstances.

This is anything but a normal circumstance. These children are most likely parroting what they have heard their parents say, not only that, Cindy is a rude, nasty person, that verbally attacked the parents of the children that made comments back--it is natural for a child to defend a parent.

The protesters are a by-product of what have been offered to the media, and that offering has come directly from the Anthony family. It is my opinion that most of America feels betrayed. We fell in love with Caylee, we prayed for her, those that could have donated time and money in search efforts, and for that, what was received in return has been rude comments, lies, and rhetoric from the family that only has offered lip service in the search for a precious missing child.

One family that protested, and went right to the door, are parents of a missing child, they I am willing to bet, did not get one-tenth of the media coverage or help in the attempts to locate their child; why wouldn't they be enraged? How many of you, God forbid, if suffering a missing child would not be likewise enraged when resources that where not available, or for some reason, did not meet 'media' standards was wasted, on a family that refuses to offer any legitimate lead?

People tend to fear and be angered by what they don't understand. This is a classic example. Do any of us really understand why all the lies? Do we understand the support of Casey by her parents, in public, when in private they have warned people to stay away from her? That Cindy claims that Casey was a wonderful mother, but now we find out Cindy was going to attempt to take Caylee from her?

How can we forget that Cindy, herself wanted Casey arrested...but for what? Theft, not for Caylee, that is clear, because regardless of Casey's lies, she fights to keep her daughter out of jail...So if Cindy and George are fighting for Casey, who is left to fight for Caylee.

That is why, the protesters are there, right or wrong, their purpose is to be the voice that is lost, and that is the voice of Caylee.

If any protesters should stumble across this blog, while I understand why you are there, your purpose is done, take that energy and turn it into another positive way to get Caylee's voice heard. Organise searches, candle light vigils in a neutral place. Caylee's image and name has already been distorted to bring sadness to those strangers that fell in love with this child, do not let the injury of another child further become part of Caylee's legacy; Those of you that have your heart in the right place, let's create a legacy for Casey about the community and the love that brought so many of us together, in safety and peace.

How far would you go to protect your child?

As most of America and dare I say the world, I have been following the Caylee Anthony case.

The very first emotion was horror that a child could be missing for so long without the mother of that child reporting it; it was further a horror to watch the pain of the grandmother on national television begging for the country to take notice of this missing child, to find her, and bring her home to their loving arms.

Then, the 911 calls came out, the discrepecies, the out and out lies spewed to the media, which was hungry to eat them up, until the media began to make those areas clear, and those of us watching would shake our heads in disbelief.

As I sit back and reflect a bit on this case, I have to say, I feel as though it is Deja Vu. Those of us crime watchers have seen this same case over and over again with just a few variations.

Diane Downs, reported a 'Bushy Haired Stranger' that shot her children.
Susan Smith reported a 'Black male' car jacked her car with her two toddler sons trapped inside.

Charles Steward claimed a 'Black male' murdered his pregnant wife.

And then of course there is Melinda, that claimed her child Trenton was taken while she sat watching TV with two friends, and then killed herself when the questions got too tough.

Why do I bring up such cases? Well think about the first few, Diane and Susan both played the media, using descriptions that would shock and terrorize in their parts of the country. Charles Steward murdered not only his wife and unborn son, but likewise used that primal fear,target those that are different than the victim, to attempt to hide in plain sight.

Melinda offers the clear and present problem we have in society, the desire to believe in that maternal instinct that the majority of women cultivate soon after birth, if not at conception of a wanted and desired child; Melinda it seems never acquired this basic instinct, and she took the mystery of Trenton with her.

What I find interesting, in a sad way, is that Melinda's family and the Anthony family seem to share one very twisted trait......The both choose to blame the media for the tragic events that they experience.

Melinda's family has filed a lawsuit against Nancy Grace, and CNN for wrongful death, because in their twisted opinion, Nancy Grace by asking Melinda the 'tough' questions in regards to her son's disappearance caused her suicide.

SWELL.

Can someone explain to me, why on earth her own family never asked and demanded answers to those 'tough questions'

Perhaps the Anthony's can offer insight, as they too, attack the media, the Sheriff's Department, and TES, while all the while sheltering and protecting the last person that was with Caylee.

So how far would you go to protect your child? Would you help them hide a petty crime? Would you offer an alibi that is untrue? Would you conceal or destroy evidence? Would you give false information to law enforcement and the media if another life was at stake? Would you hide the body?

I am of the personal belief that the Anthony's' are not in denial, they are well aware of what really happened to Caylee, and they are covering for their daughter, it is my opinion they are doing so not so much for Casey, but to protect their status in the community, their careers, and I also think they are considering the possible financial advantage that could arise from this tragedy.

Say a prayer for justice tonight, because Caylee deserves in death, what she never got in life, those that put her first, and not their selfish desires or needs.

Teen Violence:

Girls and Violence:

Just recently in my hometown, a young girl, only seventeen, lost her life. It was not due to a wild night of parties, or driving drunk, it was an act of violence, she was stabbed to death, just minutes after existing the bus after school.

The first thing that springs to the minds of most is that this most likely was a jilted boyfriend, an act of ‘passion’ as it is often described, though honestly, I never considered the murder of a woman or man by a person that at one time claimed to love him or her, passion, but another issue for another time.

Well, this was not the act of a angry ex-love, rather the act of another teenaged girl, eighteen, that in a matter of hours became an alleged murderer.

I guess this should not come as a surprise, that the sub-culture of girl on girl violence is becoming increasingly rampant in our society. I am sure we all remember the horrific taped gang beating of the cheerleader/honor student, but when it hits this close to home, suddenly it is not just an isolated issue, it is clearly, quickly becoming a wide spread issue, that could touch each and everyone of our lives.

So what has happened to society that girls are becoming progressively more violent with each other at young ages? Is it that we are so concerned with our careers as parents we are leaving the parenting to television, movies, music, and their peers? Is it because we have taught our daughters to be to equal to their male counterparts and slowly through cultural evolution they are loosing that nurturing and empathic trait that was normally synonymous with the female gender? Make no mistake about it, I feel that any woman is equal to any man, but there are basic emotional differences between the genders, this does not mean better or worse, just in general the fact.

Girls have always fought, of course. Most of the time girls would resort to words, or the ‘shunning’ of the chosen ‘outcast’ on the occasion when it did get physical, it would usually amount to a lot of circling, name calling, lunging, hair pulling, and the ever so popular, ‘turn your head and slap at each other, in a paddle like fashion’ which has been often been used in choreographed form for situation comedy. I also realize that there has always been the extreme exception to the rule, but from what we are seeing in the last fifteen to twenty years, the extreme exception to the rule is not as extreme, it is becoming common place.

Perhaps the most well known case of girl on girl violence was back on October 1,1985 when Missy Avila went missing. Missy was a pretty, well liked sixteen year old girl, that many said was a loyal friend. Her loyalty would prove to the death of her, three girls that she considered to be friends lured her out in a wooded area, where they beat her, cut her hair, and held her under water until her body was lifeless; to ensure she would never get up again, they struggled and laid a 150 pound felled tree over her.

I remember this story, vividly, because I was just eighteen myself, and the memories of high school friendships still dramatically played through my mind. Most of us girls remember those days of being best friends one day, and bitter enemies the next, only to find yourself once again best buddies not even remembering what we first caused the rift; but never had it ever crossed my mind that murder could work its way into the equation. This again is where boys tend to be different in their friendships, they tend to remain friends easier than most girls at the same age. Perhaps it is something that is linked to that competition that we as women tend to thrust ourselves into with every other female on the planet, to be the thinnest, the prettiest, the cutest, the scholar, the adorably clueless; while the male of the species, again in general seems to ‘hang with’ those that they feel comfortable enough not to rely on such matters for self worth, rather spend their time discussing conquest of the female gender, computer geeks, or the jock.

Like with the murder of Missy, the girl that I opened this blog with was friends, at least at one time with her alleged murderer. According to local reports they began having a fall out roughly six months ago, and the day of the incident, apparently they were arguing on the bus, and continued the verbal mutual assault as they were walking towards each of their homes. Sometime in these final moments, the alleged perpetrator said something that caused the victim to turn and move towards her, just minutes later, the victim lay bleeding on the street, a single wound to her throat, the alleged perpetrator, left her there, and from what is known now, did not make an effort to summons help.

With the advent of YouTube, it seems everyone wants to be famous. Is that the new American dream, to have your fifteen minutes in the spot light. But at what cost? The girls involved with the gang like attack before mentioned, planned to post that beating on YouTube; which begs the question, did they not realize that what they were doing was a crime? A crime punishable with jail time?

Where they counting on the ‘no snitch’ rule that goes on in schools? I know it was alive and well when I was a teenager, but that dealt with some kid cutting class, or shooting spit balls or some other equally lame thing. The most serious it got at my rural school was the ‘bad kids’ that where smoking behind the bleachers, or the occasional ‘stoner’.

So what is the bottom line? Is it the lack of families being able to be families? Has keeping up with the Jones’ clouded the responsibility with keeping up with our children? Has societies ideas of a unisex culture created a backlash in regards of the emotional development of the younger generation?

Or, is it just the sad state of affairs, that have evolved our society into the belief that really nothing is OUR fault, it is because our parents were to busy, working to care; we watch slasher films, play violent video games, listen to violent music, eat junk food, and well, damn, I will not be ‘DISSED’.

What do I think? I think it is because we have lived in an apologist culture that has grown out of control. Personal responsibility is not an option, rather, the only reality is that what I do, is not the fault of a character flaw, or a lack of human decency, it is because the only real VICTIM is me, the poor misunderstood, emotionally retarded individual that has no choice but to do whatever it takes to make me feel powerful and special at the time……

Now, before I get jumped and horrified comments, I do recognize that there is true and honest mental illness, there are those that truly ‘hear voices’ or are suffering from some chemical imbalance; however, folks, it can’t be every single person that chooses, yes, chooses to enact or extract their own ‘idea’ of justice, revenge or in most cases just acts of hideous violence, to make themselves ‘feel’ better.

The girls that murdered Missy, thought she was ‘flirting’ with their ‘men’. The girls that beat down and videoed that cheerleader/honor student, ‘thought’ she was ‘talking smack’, but they planned to publish on the internet just a beating, for the world wide web to ‘enjoy’.

Heather Valdez, the young, beautiful, talented and promising young woman, who at seventeen was stabbed in the throat and left to die in the street, on June 5, 2008, in Clearlake California, was killed because she got into a shouting and pushing match with another young woman, who at eighteen brought a knife.

There is an old saying, you don’t bring a knife to a gun fight, and in this case you don’t bring a knife to a shoving and shouting match…so what was the reason?

Currently, the subtle spin is the alleged, Gabrielle Varney, was bullied and picked on…is that excuse expectable for the Columbine shooters? Is it excusable for the Virginia Tech shooter?

Of course not, but for those that would excuse Varney, but not excuse either of the others mentioned,(Varney in our system of justice is innocent until proven guilty, these comments are directly related to what has been published in local papers) the only thing missing from the scenario is body count…and I personally will not judge the value on one human life less important than the horrific numbers we saw in the other cases mentioned.

Heather Valdez will not make national media, this story was not even picked up by ‘local’ big city stations, like San Francisco, but make no mistake, though she was the ‘only’ victim in this case of violence, she like those that lost children in similar senseless acts, are not considering the newsworthiness of this horrible loss…they don’t have time, they are grieving and hoping for justice for their forever lost child.

So parents, hug your children a little tighter tonight, if you over hear, or they share the problems they have with another student, don’t shrug it off as ‘kid stuff’ because it may not just be the ‘kid stuff’ we all remember, and grimace, it may be a matter of life and death.

Blessings and Prayers to all those victims of violent crime, to the living and those passed; now, for us, we have a responsibility to reeducate our youth, that nothing, not words, boys, or being ‘dissed’ is enough to end a life, and those they loved, or destroy your own and the lives of those you love.

I will be following this case, and am hoping for justice for Heather’s family, friends, and healing for our community.

For more information about the tragic murder of Missy Aliva:

http://www.today.com/view/michelle-%E2%80%98missy%E2%80%99-avila-children-who-kill/id-402244/

http://www.amazon.com/Missys-Murder-Karen-Kingsbury/dp/0440207711

Can there be justice with media hype?

I know I am not the first person to consider this particular subject, it has been addressed, but because of so many recent cases, where the media has swooped in, many times giving either shaky preliminary information, or simply editorializing rather than actually reporting facts, It is my opinion that this issue should be readdressed.

We all want the news, we want to be able to make informed opinions regarding the facts that the new media has the responsibility to provide us; but what can we do when that responsibility is abused, and becomes, instead, hype for high ratings.

I am going to once again focus on the media attention given to the raid at the FLDS compound, simply because I believe that the media has been very irresponsible in its reporting. So irresponsible, that, in my opinion, it could actually hurt the case, and if children have been systematically abused, the actions of both the media and CPS officials could very well result in these children being put back in a possibly harmful environment.

So what exactly makes this story such a hot topic? Could it be because of the practice of polygamy? Or is it the religious aspect that makes for good 'print' that created a feeding frenzy? Could it be that with so many children taken away from families without obvious or documented abuse, that CPS leaked information, in order to turn public opinion to the 'weird religious beliefs' rather than the authority they had to make such a sweeping raid?

It does concern me that the hype started almost immediately. The media, offered snippets of their 'investigation' that when later found to be incorrect, the original reporting media glossed over the errors, or completely ignored them.

Case in point, the first reports claimed that dozens of girls as young as 13 were pregnant....that nearly 60% of young girls taken from the ranch, were forced into marriage and forced to become pregnant.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080516/ap_on_re_us/polygamist_retreat

Now, the reports are very different, and CPS had to admit that they were simply wrong, but after what damage?

Of course the excuse is that those from the ranch would not be 'honest' but how does that justify the leaks to the media? How did these leaks benefit those in custody, or those accused? And of those accused, how would such leaks ensure a fair trial?

But what made this story so much more interesting than the other raid in Texas that has brought not even a slight interest in the main media:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/13/national/main4094446.shtml

The House of Yahweh Is said to be even a 'darker sect' than FLDS, as this group also has weapons, and is preparing for the nuclear baby that will destroy the earth, leaving only those that are believers alive, further the allegations of child abuse, child labor, polygamy, including the deaths of two sect members, one a seven year old boy, the other a pregnant woman during child birth.

So where is the media blitz on this group? Isn't the recorded deaths of two people a bit more 'proof' than the latter case?

I can't help but wonder if it is because the 'traditions' of the FDLS is more unique to what we are used to, the prairie dresses, the uniformed hairstyles, they stick out more than the House of Yahweh followers and therefore make for better fodder in the media. I have yet to see a report on Nancy Grace that does not mention their style of dress; which makes me wonder if the media is not more interested in the way the people 'look' than the possible crimes perpetrated.

Of course the house of Yahweh, denies polygamy, while the FLDS admits that they believe in the principle, because of the 'prophet' as well as the writings of the Old Testament of the Bible.

The house of Yahweh, also has an offical website:

http://www.yisraylhawkins.com/

Unlike the FLDS, the house of Yahweh is hiding in plain sight, and obviously doing a wonderful job of it.

So back once again to the FLDS, and the reasoning of CPS to leak information to the media. Was it for justice and protection of the children? Or was it for justification and protection of those that perhaps rushed to judgement, and felt that once the public saw just how 'odd' the beliefs were, they would support the action, and not question the validity of it?

If one thing history has taught us, it is easy to distrust those that are different, to set those that are out of the norm of societies culture in another catagory of due process, and that is justice lost.

Same Sex Marriage: Equal Rights vs. Religion & ICK Factor

Here is a shocker, I have been reading the boards regarding this issue, and as expected, at least for me, it boils down to just two issues:

Religion and the dreaded, ICK FACTOR.


Well, Religion is moot. My Religion has no problem with Homosexuals, so since my religion is just as protected as any other, according to the United States Constitution, this entire premises cancels out.

Now, as far as the ICK factor, I find it completely ICKY when some old guy marries some young woman, or when some old woman marries a young guy, or when a short fat guy marries a willowy gorgeous woman, or when a gross hag marries some Fabio knock-off, or when two trolls that look like they just slithered off the set of 'The Hill's have Eyes' Marry......and even plan to reproduce...ICK
So, should my ICK factor be considered when the application for marriage licenses are given?

Of course not.

But I do have a solution:

IF you don't want to marry someone of the same gender, don't. If you don't want to attend the wedding that is same gender, then don't. If you don't want to consider them married, then don't.
If you don't want to attend churches that preform same gender marriages, then don't.

Yeah see, that is what freedom and equality is all about, and isn't that what this is really about? Isn't the right to Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness really what we are talking about?

But another important 'DON'T' is don't take the rights away from those that want the very thing you want, to marry and make a LEGAL commitment to the person they love.

So to those that find this so horrible, you are free in our system to refer to it as you wish, but long ago, we have learned that 'separate but equal' is not viable, but because this great country of ours also offers freedom of speech, and expression, you have the RIGHT to refer to same sex/gender marriage as a civil union, but under the LAW, they are married and have all the benefits, pros, cons, ups, downs, sickness and health, all the things that make a
MARRIAGE.

California Court makes progress for equal rights.

Well, it happened, and I was very happily surprised that a four to three decision reversed the ban on same sex marriage, opening the door for same sex couples to marry in the state of California, thirty days from the date of the ruling.

I have been of course discussing this decision on the internet and am rather shocked to see the same tired arguments against this basic human right, and when I say tired arguments, I am actually saying the same old religious opposition that some use to validate discrimination.

It really is not shocking that religion is the corner stone of the opposition, religion has been used throughout history to validate and justify evil doing for centuries, and before someone starts smacking their computer screen, no I am not referring to just the Christian religion, I am referring to any and all that use their beliefs and their religious teachings to stifle the basic rights that every human being should be entitled.

That is the issue, regarding this subject, it is equality. Equality in law, equality in protection under the law, so while some say to compare this ruling to other rulings regarding equality is fallacy, I of course disagree; just as I disagree that the other commonality in this rulings and those of the past, religion, or the twisting of religion was used as a spring board to justify the denying civil rights to those that are not in the majority.

When women wanted the vote, it was heresy, because by definition a woman was a second class citizen, and if married the property of her husband, her opinion regarding voting issues, was of course moot, as her husband would vote, and his vote as the head of the family would naturally speak for his spouse.

Numbers:


30:12 But if her husband hath utterly made them void on the day he heard them; then whatsoever proceeded out of her lips concerning her vows, or concerning the bond of her soul, shall not stand: her husband hath made them void; and the LORD shall forgive her.
30:13 Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may establish it, or her husband may make it void.

Inter-racial marriage was a crime, yes a crime that could make you subject to arrest, those that supported that the races should not 'breed' again took this from the Bible to justify the fighting this right of marriage:

Numbers:

25:6 And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, who were weeping before the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
(25:6-9) And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand;
25:8 And he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel.
25:9 And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand.

So when it is said this issue is unlike the other issues that have been submitted to a vote, and then over turned by the courts, I submit, that since the same basic argument is offered in all these issues of civil rights, they are all branches that grow from the same tree.

I know some of you are thinking, that if in the start I stated not just Christian faith, but took examples only from the Bible, I am picking on Christians, this is not the case, however, in our country regarding these issue, it is the Christian faith that has opposed, far more so than any other religious sect, and perhaps just as importantly have had the membership and the power to use that particular faith as a political tool.

I made a promise to myself when I began this blog, not to post about the continuing saga of Anna Nicole Smith....but I GIVE UP....

The current ridiculous lawsuits filed in behalf of Virgie Arthur really get stuck in my craw...(hence the stork on it's back), because this is just a bully tactic by a big law firm, that has it's claws deep in the legal system of Texas.

Now, let me be completely clear. The only person that made me think less of Virgie in this case is Virgie, herself.

I didn't follow Anna Nicole, I didn't watch her show, and to be completely honest, I found her a beautiful woman, but a bit shall we say......flamboyant for my taste, I respect and enjoy women that have a bit more classical traits, the hint of sexuality, rather than slamming it in your face...so Anna, while I enjoyed some of her screen antics, felt she was someone that I could never truly relate to...

Then, Daniel died, and my heart went out to her, because though not a fan, one could not be touched by the horrible events, that followed what should have been an occasion of joy and celebration; a daughter born, and a son lost...truly a tragic event of biblical proportions, much like the trials of Job...in the wake of something perfect, the loss of part of that perfection in life, a child.

So, yes, I did casually follow the media coverage, but not with much vigor, until one day watching Ablow, (I saw him on CTV, and was giving his show a try) and lo and behold, the guest is none other than the very private, retired mother of Anna Nicole Smith.

Okay, hmmmm...so while posting on CTV, primary on the religion boards, I watched, and listened, and due to that show, I have devoted nearly a year and a half to my life to this continuing saga, for that I should hire my own lawyer and sue Virgie Arthur.

I watched a grieving Virgie, say the most slanderous things about the daughter she claimed to love, who is herself grieving for her son, to a national audience.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0611/14/sbt.01.html

So for the record McCabe I made my opinions of Virgie Arthur long before bloggers, TMZ or ART HARRIS.

Many people drew their opinions on Virgie due to her willing interviews, and actions in this case. I find it insulting that we (the public) are perceived as being so stupid that a TMZ article or blogs by people that we don't even know would force us to have an opinion.

No one forced Virgie to:

1. Go on Ablow, Grace, and Greta, not to mention local stations.

2. Walk out of a courtroom arm in arm with Howard Stern and Larry Birkhead, only to file an appeal after making a statement to the contrary.

3. To file a last minute appeal in the Bahamas, keeping her beloved daughter's funeral on hold.

4. To support the biological father, Larry Birkhead, then file an appeal, to keep him from taking his daughter from the Bahamas.

Now that is the short list, I can by request go into more detail.

But regardless where one sits on this very twisted fence, the reality is that FREEDOM OF SPEECH and FREEDOM OF DISCUSSION, is being put on trial in this case that the glorious lawfirm on O'Quinn has brought.

Think about this seriously. How many of you have called defendants 'murders' before they went to trial? How many of you posted that the Duke team should be drawn and quartered before the evidence was in? How many of you posted that those that have been found 'not guilty' should have been convicted?

I truly respect those that support Virgie, but she is not beyond the public life she chose to thrust herself into and this nonsense about a conspiracy to take her down is ludicrous, she really is not that important, this case will not change anything socially, morally, or politically, this is about power and money, nothing more and nothing less.

Well since I went there I will post a follow up, should comments warrant, if not, I , like my posted graphic will just lie on my back and twitch regarding this topic and move on to others.

Freedom of Religion

I have been doing a lot of thinking on the subject of religious freedom since the raid on the Polygamist sect in Texas.

Now, first let me be very clear, I do not support the abuse of children, or forced child brides; however it seems that the basics of the outrage is in regards to more than one woman being married to the same man.

There is also the misconception that only those that are called FLDS practice plural marriage. I think first we should define what exactly plural marriage is, and those different religions that do practice, even if not in a commune type setting.

There are Christian polygamists, as well as those that practice the Muslim faith, this of course is not to say all in either group embrace this practice, but the for some it is acceptable.

http://christianpolygamy.com/

http://www.ezsoftech.com/omm/polygamy.asp

Now, the reason the raid is concerning to me, it seems that the main reason this group was targeted is because of the practice of plural marriage. I have come to this conclusion based of several other abused children cases that dealt with religious beliefs have not been handled in such a dramatic, far reaching way.

Dateline August 22, 2004

A young Amish girl listens while her brothers are sentenced for her repeated rapes.

http://www.amishabuse.com/byler.htm

This girl goes on to tell authorities about other abuses of young girls in the Amish community, seemingly mostly by their own male family members, yet, the Amish community was not raided, children where not taken in mass from their families while an investigation was under way.

Why is that? Is it because the general public considers the Amish a quaint people? Did the authorities not worry for the children that were left in a possible dangerous condition? Remember, in this case unlike the Texas case, a real witness was present, and a real conviction was handed down by the court, but no follow-up or investigation was done concerning the other young girls left in the Amish community.

The following link offers information about those for reasons of religion have allowed their children to die, by refusing medical care:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/medical8.htm

Yet, I have never heard of other members of these churches loosing their children even after the deaths of other children in this sect; even when other members with children were present when a child died after being refused medical care.

Okay, so I have pretty much offered my concerns regarding the treatment that FLDS is getting as opposed to the treatment other that use religion as shield to do harm to those members in their charge.

Now let's move on to the subject of Polygamy:

The first argument is normally, Polygamy is illegal.

Now, let's again think on that for a moment. Legally one can only be married to one person, simple enough, but the belief in polygamy is a religious practice, and the other wives, while not legally married to the husband, they, spiritually believe themselves to be married.

That seems to be the very basic of freedom of religion, the right to practice a religion, according to the calling you believe you have from your god.

I find the basic illegality of Polygamy to be rather ridiculous because, it is not illegal for a man to be married to a woman, and have sex with another woman, or father her children, or even to live in the same house with him and his wife, it only becomes illegal, theoretically, when they refer to themselves as married.

Now, before someone comments about under aged girls being forced to marry some old coot, that is not what I am referring to in this blog; likewise, those that choose to practice polygamy have a responsibility to support themselves and their wives, and children without abusing social programs, or tax fraud. However, if they do choose to defraud the government by doing so, what they should be charged with are those crimes, not because they believe that plural marriage is desired, or required by their god.

So back to the Texas raid. I do believe that the main reason it was done, and the support that CPS in Texas is getting stems from the distaste many have regarding plural marriage.

This is not to say they will not find proof of abuse, that very well could be the case, but one has to ponder why this case has been the 'media darling' for weeks when the other cases offered via links on this blog have been ignored, especially when you consider that these cases had the physical evidence of raped girls and dead children.

As far as the question of polygamy, even if you don't think it is right, should the government be able to make a law that stunts your ability to practice your faith? Especially, when you consider we do not arrest or put men in jail for fathering children with women other than his legal wife.

I ask those that read this blog to try and separate the horror stories regarding polygamy from the practice by some, and for those Christians, remember some of the greatest prophets of the Bible had not only multiple wives, but concubine as well.

I have to also say, no I am not a polygamist, my husband can hardly handle me, two would put him in an early grave.

Empathy lost

It has long been said to those less seasoned posters, not to give too much personal information on message boards because some people will take from those heartfelt posts and use them later to attack that poster's position on an unrelated issue.

I am a rather open person, and since as before stated, have a number of interests, have posted on many different forums and different threads on different issues, so I guess I should have not been surprised when someone grabbed a post I made on a entirely different subject, on an entirely different forum to become a twisted internet doppelganger for the soul purpose of harassing me because of my opinion on a case.

Now, aside from the fact that this person not only poked fun of my faith and my marriage, she also exploited the deaths of my inlaws, whose death is just this month only two years ago.

This got me thinking about the lost of empathy that some display while posting on topics. Is there nothing that should be avoided when in the heat of a discussion? Or is it all fair in love and war, and those emotionally injured by such antics just casualties of the attackers fighting the good fight?

I will draw a line in the sand at this point. It is my opinion, that it is far different to call names, or use what could be considered foul language at an opposing poster, than to dig into other topic threads to find 'ammo' to blast the differing posters opinion.

For example:

poster one: You are a foul, wannbe leech that enjoys keeping their nose up the ass of so and so.

poster two: You are so twisted and vile, I bet you live in a trailer and are just jealous of so and so, because you couldn't get laid without a bag over your nasty head.

While neither of the posters are being very 'debate like' I put those posts in a different class than something like the following:

poster one: Are you crazy? That is not the way it happened, you need learn reading comprehension.

poster two: I have no doubt to why your son killed himself, with a bitch like you for a mother, he would rather be dead!

Think those two scenarios are far off base? Nope, seen it time and time again; further what is worse, those on the 'side' of poster two, will defend that type of attack.

Now, you may wonder, how would poster two know about the suicide of poster ones' son?

Here is your answer, many of us have only one moniker, we have posted on support threads, or prayer threads, and when we dare venture off to a hot topic subject those that are stuck in attack mode will troll around looking for a weakness to exploit and then attack.

Which brings me to the topic of Empathy.

Since I began posting, I have seen the passing of many posters on various boards. Just recently, a poster that was a fierce adversary passed, and a thread was set up for the purpose of offering condolences to her family and friends.

I noticed many from both 'sides' offer their deepest sympathies, regardless of the 'heated' debates, the reality that a real person passed, and left behind real family and friends superseded the differences, and even those that differed with this person chose to offer comfort.

Then it came to the attention of many of us that did offer condolences that another blog site, in memorial for the same poster, used this tragic loss to attack many of the same that put the discord aside. I am not sure of the purpose, other than an excuse to mock others, but in a time of mourning, it seemed to be in poor taste, to use a death as a opening to focus on those of opposing view.

Is anything scared anymore? or have we become typing cyborgs that are so tunnel visioned, that we see the pain of those that differ from us as the proverbial 'Achilles heel' that will silence the opposition.

We have all heard the terms 'sticks and stones' and for the most part, that is the way to handle some posts when the topic grows out of control; but is there some level of human decency that can be shared that certain parts of human suffering are off limits?

Is it acceptable to use the death of a person, or the illness to attack someone that has a different view?

Is it because one cannot physically see the pain they inflict when resorting to such tactics make them able to chuckle as they type, and sleep well that night?

Should the line be drawn as a cyber community?

Yes, in my opinion, not through censorship, but through the basic ability to empathise with those sitting much like you are, anonymously at a keyboard.

It is only then that ones' inner power and peace can be found.

What does the Blog Title Mean?

I have posted on message boards now for about five years. In this time I have posted on many subjects, religion, politics, social issues, but never have I seen such hatred and venom as I have since I have become a 'regular' poster on the continuing tragic saga of the Anna Nicole Smith case.

I have seen what I at one time considered reasonable, intelligent debaters on other subjects lower themselves to nasty comments, not limited to personal attacks on the illnesses, deaths, and sorrows in the real lives of those they disagree with; sadly most of the time, only a germ of truth is offered by the attacker, twisting and spinning the rest of the story in an attempt to silence and emotionally wound those that dare have a difference of opinion.

I named my blog Well Behaved Women Rarely Make History, because one of the most pathetic attacks against me personally was the complete ignorance of this statement in my signature line on a message board I am a member.

This statement was made by a highly educated woman that believed in the rights and the equality of women:

Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, is a feminist and a professor, she is not insulting women with this comment, as one particular poster is determined to believe, rather, she is referencing those women that broke the rules to create change in a male dominated society.

For more information on this amazing woman:

http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~amciv/faculty/ulrich.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurel_Thatcher_Ulrich

Think about the women in history that brought change; many of them risked their own personal reputations, safety, and freedom to give to the future generations a world to be proud of, and it is up to us, as women to carry that work forward; to do so may mean we also have to break that mold that society pigeon holes women in; therefore the statement, and hopefully finally it will put this issue to rest.