Friday, June 25, 2010

This is another article I need to copy and paste in it's entirety from CNN.

"Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick urged a school district to revise its policy allowing students as young as in elementary schools to get condoms if they are believed to be sexually active.

'It is simply not age appropriate to have a program in place for such young children, not to mention not having parents of such young children involved,' Patrick said in a statement.

'Comprehensive reproductive health education needs to be done in an age appropriate manner.'

"The policy -- passed this month -- has no minimum age on supplying condoms to students. It allows nurses to give condoms to students they think are sexually active after counseling and education without informing their parents.

"Provincetown school district superintendent, Beth Singer, who wrote the policy, said she wanted to ensure students of all ages requesting condoms get information on their use. (This broad is CRAZY.)

'Sex has no age limit. It's an individual scenario for each person," Singer said. "We can't put out an age for using condoms.' (Ummmm, so if a third grader admits he's sexually active with the little girl he sits next to in class, I guess Singer thinks that's okay. "Here is your condom, Billy. We need to get a banana from the cafeteria to teach you how to put it on!")

"Singer said the policy is being misunderstood and was never intended for elementary school students.

"It makes it clear that "we are against (students) being sexually active," she said.

"The superintendent urged parents to discuss sex issues with their children, including letting them know that abstinence is the only safeguard.

"A Provincetown school committee voted unanimously for the policy June 10. It was due to go into effect in the fall, but the committee plans to re-examine its wording amid the concerns.

"Some parents in the school district decried the policy, saying it encourages children to be sexually active.

'This policy is stripping children of their innocence and making them more vulnerable to sexual predators,' said Sherri Smitt, whose daughter graduated from Provincetown High School.

"Evelyn Reilly of the Massachusetts Family Institute called the policy "absurd" and said it does not give parents a say.

"'Sex ed allows parents to make the decision to opt their child out, this policy is essentially saying it's not the parents business if their child is having sex,' Reilly said.

OMG, you have to be shitting me. I watched the video on the page where Singer was interviewed. She admitted the parents have no RIGHT for their public schooled children to NOT receive condoms, no matter their age, if they ask for them. She wrote the policy like that on purpose. I guess she thinks she knows what's better for the students than their parents do. Okay, so she said the reason for that is so the parents will teach abstinence at home. But do we really need to start discussing abstinence with elementary students?

I always thought not. The first student that got pregnant while I was in school was in 8th grade. That was a shocker at the time. She kept the baby and had two more by the time she graduated.

But here's a real shocker...I sent this article to a friend of mine and she told me when she was in 5th grade, one of her classmates became pregnant!!!! I'm still reeling over that revelation.

So is Singer right on the free condom distribution, or do parents need to have a say in it? I think it needs to be repealed for the elementary and middle students, and possibly kept for the high school students. However, whether it's kept in place as is or not, the parents MUST be given the right to have their children opt out of this program. They are given permission forms for Sex Ed and even field trips, but condoms are somehow supposed to be exempt? I think not.

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

The Greatest Video on You Tube

I actually found this video several years ago online, first on eBaum's World and more recently on You Tube. I giggle like an idiot every time I watch this!

This little man is lucky he doesn't get his ass beat for what he's doing!

Monday, June 21, 2010

Cuccinelli: Google collected personal data while mapping streets

This June 18th article from the Virginian-Pilot is exceedingly frustrating to me. It’s a short article so I’m going to paste it here.

“Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is warning residents about protecting their computer networks to keep their personal information safe.

“Cuccinelli says the warning comes in light of recent admissions by Google that the company has collected personal data from unsecured wireless networks while mapping out its Street View service.

“He says Google acknowledged gathering information from networks while driving around the country.

“Cuccinelli is working with Google find out about any activity conducted in Virginia and is asking the company disclose the nature of any data collected from Virginia residents.

“The attorney general's office says that computer users should install and maintain antivirus software on their computers and set up password protections.”

Now, as someone who feels that keeping computers and their peripherals running correctly is a foreign language, I still have to say there is no reason to allow your networks to remain unprotected. If you can’t do it yourself, then you need to hire someone to do it for you! Hell, my husband speaks this foreign language very fluently and I know our whole system is secure.

But the real outrages to me are these:
1. When did this collection take place and for how long? According to this blog, it was done sometime in 2008. The Virginian-Pilot agrees with that, saying the Hampton Roads street image maps were introduced in June 2008. Why are we just hearing about it now?

2. How many households were at risk during this time?

3.“Cuccinelli is working with Google find out about any activity conducted in Virginia and is asking the company disclose the nature of any data collected from Virginia residents.” He shouldn’t have to ASK. He should just demand to know, and if need be, back it up with the correct legal paperwork to know what Google found out.

4.Why did Google need to collect that personal data while working on street views? Did they do it on purpose? If it was an accident, then so be it.

I’m not much of a Google fan (I’m still a Yahoo! user) but when I’m at work, I can’t access Yahoo! If I were a Google user already, I think this might make me want to switch what search engine I typically use. I don’t want to support Google because this whole collection thing seems shady to me.

A New Level of Ridiculousness

The White House is beating back Republican charges that President Barack Obama is taking too many breaks during the ongoing oil disaster off the Gulf coast…The comments came a day after Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele issued a strongly worded statement condemning the president for playing a round of golf Sunday, attending a baseball game Friday, and recently hosting Paul McCartney at the White House.”

Seriously? Obama shouldn’t golf until the oil spill has been stopped? Or maybe we the American public should insist that Obama not golf until ALL the oil has been cleaned up.

Again, in this what seems to be another Obama-hating moment, Obama is NOT directly to blame for this oil spill. He didn’t cause it and he’s not responsible for cleaning it up. Although in this moment in time, he could probably do a better job of getting it taken care of if we could get BP out of the friggin’ way and make them financially responsible for the mess THEY caused.

Hey BP…we are keeping track here. 60+ days. WTF are you guys doing down there?

Anyway, let’s go one better: no more meals with his family until this mess is taken care of; that way, his mind can totally concentrate just on the Gulf conditions. Never mind what is going on in the Middle East, gay marriage, off shore drilling, or any other topic that comes along for his consideration. All oil, all the time.

Personally, I realize the White House, much like the POTUS and the FLOTUS, has a life and an image all its own. The Paul McCartney performance may have been more about playing at the White House, rather than playing for the Obama’s. I wonder where Michael Steele gets his information from. According to CBS News, the White House performance was actually billed as an All Star White House Tribute to Paul McCartney. “The whole night was built around Obama's presentation to McCartney of the Gershwin Prize for Popular Song, awarded by the Library of Congress.”

“After a week where the president was taking on the oil spill; got a historic agreement with BP to put aside $20 billion to pay claims; after a day on Friday when he strengthened lobbying and ethics rules in the White House; after going to Ohio to talk about the economy and see the progress that is being made in some of those stimulus projects that are happening around the country; all the different issues that the president is dealing with, I think that a little bit of time to himself on Father's Day weekend probably does us all good as American citizens that our president is taking that time," said Burton.’”

But what really kills me about all this is the fact Michael Steele is bitching about Obama’s (mental) involvement right now. What about Steele himself? I want to know if he is doing anything to actively try and help the oil spill situation. Has he donated any money? Has he been down there to talk to the people? I doubt it, so this is turning into a case of the Republicans vs. the Democrats.

I don’t have a problem with Obama out playing golf. I would think the change of scenery would do him good and help to keep him from getting mentally bogged down. But then again, I know from personal experience that I do some of my best thinking when I’m totally distracted by something else and the problem I’m mulling over isn’t right in my face. Besides. I'm pretty sure being POTUS is NOT a 9-5, M-F kind of job. He's got to get his time off whenever he can. Look at it this way...Obama's pretty much on call for the entire nation 24-7.

Sunday, June 20, 2010

More Crocheted Baby Clothes

I just got done with crocheting some more baby clothes. They weren't for my sister's baby this time, but for another friend. I'm not going to "out" her and her husband here, since they seem to be keeping the adoption somewhat mum online. But the clothes and other baby-needs have already been received.

These pieces weren't necessarily made to go together. In fact, I tried to do them in a variety of little sizes, because this baby was just as small as my niece was when she was born: just under six pounds!

The hat is the SLK Baby Hat by Susan L. Kraus. I made in with a G sized hook with Premier Yarns Angel Self Shading in Peach Candy (#63-201). This might be the prettiest yarn I've seen in a long time, with shades of light lavender, peach, light pink and white. The trim on the hat is some extra eyelash yarn I had here at the house.

The dress is again one of the angel shell dress designs, also made with a G sized hook and same yarn as the hat. I made this one a little longer in the top than the pattern calls for because I felt like it. :) It has one simple cameo styled button on the front for looks, and two plain white buttons on the back for closures.

This little hat is of the same design as the first one, but made with Lion Brand Baby Soft in Candy Print (#217). This reminded me so much of a confetti type pattern.

I used the Baby Soft again to make a small sweater, based on Rima's original sweater pattern. It was also made with a G sized hook, and I added three little multicolored buttons, two little pockets (who knows what little treasures a baby might have to tuck away!) and some leftover longer eyelash yarn for the trim in silver.

My friend said that already, the baby seems to enjoy her original creations! :) Much thanks to Rima for sharing her pattern online. This is the second sweater I've made like this.