Psych Lit wrote:

---

BoxDog wrote:

---

-- Edited by Psych Lit at 23:49, 2009-01-16

---

First off, "boogey woogey lesbian? had no idea...

uh huh. i was kind of uber butched out... <Psych



ewwwoooooooooo!!! <ewg>

 because of the temps and that often scares het monsters so i attributed it to that however my daughter who is here for the weekend suggests it was the balaclava with the glasses <Psych


You were wearing Greek pastry with eyeglasses? I'd be nervous too!

(I know, I know, lol ... I just couldn't resist, though, and that really IS how I read it the first time)


that might have done it. she says weirdo alert! lol.  i was wearing a similar thing when i just came in from shoveling last nights 12 inches and she was trying to take my pix with my camera but the camera kept going to video instead of the pix. anyone know how to fix that?


Don't know your camera well enough -- for me, it's usually a matter of the knob not being on the photo option well enough, but ....

---

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 at 13:32, 2009-01-18

MyCat8it wrote:

---

 

---

What an interesting song that is for the time period.

"Both mother and daughter working for the Yankee dollar."

"(From someplace to another that ends in 'Isle') Native girls dance and smile, help soldier celebrate his leave, make every day like New Year's Eve."

Well, it makes me want to visit Trinidad! LOL

I, too, have always loved the Andrews Sisters. I couldn't believe I found a video on YouTube. Although, the sound is off just a tad, didja notice?

---

sounded pretty good on this end. i wonder if it was already digitally enhanced?


-- Edited by MyCat8it at 13:05, 2009-01-18

 

---

 

Night

---

Psych -- I ... feel compelled to note that I didn't use "dyke" as a derogatory term (hope you already know that about me.) I did hesitate for a moment before typing is, and then went ahead. I just sometimes use it as shorthand with lesbian (when only one syllable is required, mostly.)

no worries.i view it as a coopted word and i self id as a dyke:) and im not particularly thin skinned anywho.  about, i dunno 15 years ago maybe? a friend sent me a funny about how to tell the difference between a lesbian and a dyke. i thought it was spot on and funny and placed it on my fridge but my partner at the time thought it was classist and she asked that i take it down so i did.  there are class differences in the lesbian community and as much as id love to see those walls disintegrate i think first we gotta own them.

 

I have the original "Run and Coca Cola" sheet music from '44 with the Andrews Sister's photo on the front, and oddly, a map which includes South America. (?) (It was Mom's.) Did you know Morey Amsterdam of "The Dick Van Dyke Show" fame wrote the lyrics to "Rum And Coca Cola"?

really? how cool! and no i didnt know that! id think the sa was maybe something to do with rum? but do they make rum in south america? lol

<veritable font of worthless trivia>

---

 

---

 

MyCat8it wrote:

---

 

You can't really blame the parent for a kid of 14 or 15 going out in freezing temperatures in a t-shirt. Chances are, she snuck out of the house without anyone seeing her, because she knew Mom or Dad would stop her in her tracks and insist on a coat, probably a hat and gloves, too.

mebbe. they were waiting for some parental unit to pick them up and somebody must have dropped them off. and even if that parent belonged to one of the other 2 kids im thinking you parent the kiddos friends like you would your own. and if you know you dropped the kids off for a movie and one is coatless and in skimpy clothes and you think oh well theyll be inside anyway why then be 30 min late leaving them standing outside like that? i think thats irresponsible.

i went thru that coat thing with my kids too. the boys not the girls. apparently its a macho thing to go coatless in freezing temps or more macho than wearing a coat. when did coats become uncool? sigh. and you do the best you can with boundaries with them. no coat no go. but youre right you cant always be there and sure they will sneak and do stuff when they are out of your sight and thats where its important to know the parents of your kids friends and be on the same page about certain stuff. in that kind of weather you dont even go off in a car without thinking ahead to whether or not the car will die along the route and you might have to get out and walk or wait for a tow truck. the final temp that night was -19. in my entire life in this region ive never seen a temp that low. a bit further north in maine it dipped to -57 and those arent wind chill temps thats the real thing. there was a strong wind that night too since a storm had just passed thru. add another 10 degrees to how that feels. i was also appalled by the behavior of the cinema management who told the kids to wait out there. im astounded that any rational human being would send a kid outside to wait in those temps. and thats how they ended up outside. the cinema was closing and people had to leave.  sure in the literal sense of the world they are not responsible for the kids bad choices but human to human? i think that sucks. i mean if they were in that much of a hurry to go home call a police car to deal with the situation but dont send another human or even an animal out into weather like that unprepared.

---

 

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

 

MyCat8it wrote:

---

Oh, and I think this is officially my 100th post.



Happy Anniversary!

adding my anniversary wishes as well!



So, to add to Owl's post, here's a treat for y'all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wiVkdVPGoY

kewl

---

i love the andrews sisters. i have a few of their songs on the mp3.  theres a local band around these parts that does a lot of their stuff as well as others from that same time period. they incorporate a lot of the dance as well. its a real treat to see them.

 

---

 

Psych Lit wrote:

---

 tonight i went to pick up my daughter at work to bring her here for the weekend and i waited outside watching 3 girls standing in front of the building. id say they were 14 or 15 and they were waiting for a ride. two were dressed sensibly given the -13 degrees with wind chill factors but the third was standing outside in a thin t shirt and spandex pants. she looked like a hooker tho its more likely she was dressed to impress as they say and wearing a jacket to cover the sexy garb wouldnt be cool. i wondered what kind of parent would let their kid go out on a night like this wearing that and since she was repeatedly calling some number on her cell phone its prolly safe to assume that it was the same parent who would leave the kid standing in front of a closed business, for at least the 30 min i was waiting outside, in a t shirt. i couldnt leave the kid standing there like that. i offered them a ride home but i think the boogy woogy lesbian thing scared them but she did take the sweater i offered her. im feeling a bit guilty that i only gave her a sweater. i had a jacket in my car but didnt give her that. even in a sweater she could get hypothermia on a night like this.

---

You can't really blame the parent for a kid of 14 or 15 going out in freezing temperatures in a t-shirt.  Chances are, she snuck out of the house without anyone seeing her, because she knew Mom or Dad would stop her in her tracks and insist on a coat, probably a hat and gloves, too.

My kids used to do the same thing when they were young.  It's just not cool to wear a hat.  Now, that I'm much older, I think it's less cool to have frostbite, so, I'd take the hat these days.

Oh, and I think this is officially my 100th post.  So, to add to Owl's post, here's a treat for y'all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wiVkdVPGoY

Psych Lit wrote:

---

meanwhile on the bad parenting front. im watching ole nancy graces show about casey anthony. she prolly did kill her child but im really bothered by this focus by one or two of these news shows that assume her guilt and are trying her in the court of public opinion. they scrutinize and diagnose every word out of this womans mouth. i doubt that she can get a fair trial anywhere in america. these people have kept this whole thing on the front burner so to speak for ratings not justice of course. i find these particular news people to be ugly in the worst sense of the word. if it turns out that they are wrong i wonder what they will say?

and in the other bad parenting moment in the news. there is a 6 year old missing in florida. apparently the kid has the mental capactiy of a 2 year old and yet somebody let the kid play outdoors with other 6 year olds. whats that about? im not hearing ms grace and her crew ripping this mother a new one despite the grandmother letting him go out without aduilt supervision. would anyone let their  2 year old play outside  unattended?  geesh.

---

s



-- Edited by Psych Lit at 23:49, 2009-01-16

---

First off, "boogey woogey lesbian? had no idea...

Anyway, as for Nancy and her "style" there has been a dramatic shift toward an odd moment, unpredicatable spark of emotion and sensitivty. Probably a post partum condition at any rate. She actually shed tears, seemingly real ones, a week or so ago when discussing the Caylee case. Andersons family backed and eager pro-bono fame seeking "dream team" will never find a change of venue where the case has not been heard of or pre-judged, but 12 people still have the capacity to sort through what's presented them, fairly and according to the law. Last, to your note of what will happen if they're wrong? To bad we can't ask Melinda Duckett who killed herself one day after being "tele-bitchslapped" by Grace, killed herself and ultimately exonerated by law enforcement from any wrongdoing. I don't think anyone goes on her show and comes out innocent. Anyone. Including her guest contributors, other attornies, law enforcement agents and psychologists. She has few friends. She's a model American lawyer. Greetings from Florida, Sunshine and Missing Children State.

Anonymous wrote:

---

I do have a semi-retraction to my previous cake comments. If the supermarket is the type that advertises will put anything on your cake, I have to say that's definitely the lottery for the Campbells. Anything, surely means anything, distasteful or not. I don't imagine there aren't many Jewish lawyers that'll likely touch the case, but everyone should have their day in court. The ACLU will surely have a conflict when presented that argument, for the cake.

---

I can't imagine there's any case here -- don't know what it would be, if there were. Private business can discriminate if they want. The most I could see ACLU doing, in this instance, is filing an amicus brief, but if so, it would be on behalf of the supermarket -- and not because that would be the "popular" side, but because that is the "right" side.

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 at 15:28, 2009-01-16

Anonymous wrote:

---

Psych Lit wrote:

---

And, taking those children from the home won't change their name. What are we trying to accomplish here - Preventative maintenance on what the parents may or may not teach the children in the future about white supremacy.

this is the place i believe hes pushing the agenda. freedom to hold opinions and beliefs that are outside of the norm and yet protected speech. but what if he were teaching his children to murder? or what if someone were to give their kids book lessons on creating a meth lab or some other sort of criminal behavior. hate crimes are criminal behaviors and teaching kids to hate prepares them to commit those crimes as surely as someone condoning and teaching how to create a meth lab.

.

---

---

In respect to rearing kids I have one hope. That someone is teaching equal, even more, amounts of children how not to hate, not to hit, and not to judge. The name is a name. A well adjusted, child will mature into an adult that isnt looked at as a carrier of hatred based on their name or clothing or lack or or sufficient means, education or weapons, but of what they do and how they behave in society. A global one. A newborn, or young child named Hitler is of no more harm than any other child. Not inherently. And really, there was a birthday cake involved, there may even be hope for Heath. 

---

By mature, reasoning adults, maybe.

Seen any of them lately?
See ... if you don't agree with Stravinsky's notion that more barriers and obstacles in life are essentially good for us, then this sort of handicap inflicted upon a child for no reason other than what I think to be parental abuse isn't really acceptable on any level. I mean, really, that (Stravinsky) would be the only justification for such an act, right?

Subtle things make kids stand out anyway. Subtle things. I remember a partner talking about how ostracized she was because as a little girl her clothes were all hand sewn. I've sort of abandoned, as I've grown older, the notion that "that which doesn't kill only you makes you stronger." I flat out don't believe that. Maybe a little bit, at first, but we as human beings do have emotional limits, and breaking points, regardless of personal resolve, or will power. Sometimes, you tug on those bootstraps and they break. I don't know what the future holds for this kid as far as loss, poverty, disability, etc. I DO know, though, that he has had an OPTIONAL hardship placed upon him, and I don't much like that. No, more than "don't like," really. I tend to lean towards some sort of general intervention  to prevent this happening from other children. Again, I hate that I feel that way, but I do. This is just cruelty, and disregard for a child's welfare. These parents couldn't more handicap this child if they sent him to school every day in pink diapers. The child is an innocent, and I think sometimes society needs to protect the innocents, even at the slippery slope expense of personal liberty. There are lines which need to be drawn, and not crossed, and the welfare of children falls on one distinct side of that line, IMO.

MyCat8it wrote:

---

 

---

Better hands? I hope the state has a better reason for taking those babies away from their parents than their birth names. Of course, they're not saying what that reason is.

yep. tho court records are public arent they? i suppose someone will get the info tho if kids are involved it might be sealed.  the part of this that bothers me is that this behavior reminds me of someone one of my relatives was married to. the guy was, imo, a jerk. he would throw his infants high in the air to get a reaction from relatives and when asked to stop he would laugh and continue. he was going for the reaction of others and the hell with what he was doing to the kids. i rememer saying to him. youve heard of shaken baby syndrome havent you? if you do that again i will call the police and have you arrested. he literally sneered at me and went to pick up the kid again and i reached for the phone and he stopped. i have no doubt that he played this scene out in other places where he wasnt stopped. people who use their kids to promote their own personal agenda or to act out their various mental illnesses need to be stopped in any way that will stop them. if mr campbell uses his kids to provoke a reaction from others then he is not acting in their best interest and that to me is child endangerment. add to this that he prolly named them those names because he is a white power fanatic. not just someone who has an appreciation or a belief id bet. by naming those kids with those names and trying to get a reaction with the birthday cake incident etc he appears to be someone who is pushing that agenda at the expense of those kids. imo its abusive to teach children to hate. where can that possibly lead other than to the commission of some hate crime later in life.  but i do think that hes prolly welcoming this because it gives him a platform to further push his agenda and get publicity for it.

Did these people name their kids just to gain attention to themselves and their cause? Possibly. Did they make a federal case out of the birthday cake ordeal to gain national attention? Probably. Did it work? Absolutely.

And, taking those children from the home won't change their name. What are we trying to accomplish here - Preventative maintenance on what the parents may or may not teach the children in the future about white supremacy.

this is the place i believe hes pushing the agenda. freedom to hold opinions and beliefs that are outside of the norm and yet protected speech. but what if he were teaching his children to murder? or what if someone were to give their kids book lessons on creating a meth lab or some other sort of criminal behavior. hate crimes are criminal behaviors and teaching kids to hate prepares them to commit those crimes as surely as someone condoning and teaching how to create a meth lab.

.

 

---

 

Anonymous wrote:

---

"The father.....Heath". lol.

---

Yeah. Seems it would have been a more kind, in the parental sense, to, if the parents felt so strongly about Aryian power to have had their names changed, and given their old ones to the kids.

CDC is way over-taxed as it is -- kids are being abused in horrible horrible ways every day, and there's simply not enough agency strength to either take the kids, or place them. And in Arkansas, the placement pool is at least ten percent smaller than it was in October.

I agree that a private business should have the right to refuse to make the "Happy Birthday Adolf Hiter Campbell" cake. First of all, that's way too many letters for a cake, anyway.

That said ... "Adolf/Adolph" alone isn't that bad a name, really. Of course you wouldn't want to be Adolf Merckle, and be jumping in front of trains, or anything ...

I wonder what would have happened if they'd named that boy Judas  Iscariot Campbell, instead.

One country (I forget which, now) has a law about just making up names for babies. You have to prove that someone before actually had that as their name. If no one was previously named "Bologna" or "ESPN" (Pronounced "Espin") then you can't hang that albatros on your kid. Of course there was an Adolf Hitler, so that wouldn't hold here.

I think for me, the question is about what these parents wanted for their kids. I mean ... what kind of life experience are they hoping for them? Kids are innocents -- maybe there should be some sort of law about this, although that's difficult for me to even type, let alone entertain as an action.

There's some thought that the kids may have been endangered because of the death threats that "Heath" had been receiving due to the birthday cake incident. I would think just giving your kid that name endangers the kid somewhat, physically, socially, and psychologically, wouldn't you?

There are rules about personalized license plates for vehicles. Maybe there should be one about names for kids, too. Geez, a part of me hates that, but what are you going to do with the jerk who thinks it funny to name their kid "Saddam Hussein" or  "Phuck Ewe"?

"And what's your name, little girl? Hmmm??"

"Phuck Ewe"

Chances are, that kid is gonna get smacked in the face. Should that be legal? Again: if you want to have your name changed to that, then go for it, but to put something like that on a child?? Isn't that just inviting/inciting violence against the child? Shouldn't there be some sort of line we draw in that situation for the safety of the child? Little Adolf Hitler Campbell may be OK right now -- he's only three, but what happens when he goes to kindergarten, and his parents insist he be called by his full name? How, as a teacher, administrator, or school psychiatrist, would one even begin to deal with that? 

The civil libertarian in me is really torn on this one, frankly. Seems naming your kid "Adolf Hitler" is impeding upon his constitutionally affirmed right to "the pursuit of happiness" in a lot of ways, and I think emotional scars take a lot longer to heal than do physical ones, although this child is destined to receive more than his fair share of both in later years.

Should the state take that kid out of his home because of his name? No, I don't think so, but much as I hate this, I'm really leaning towards the state stepping in and drawing a line on what people may name their children. And believe me -- it chills me to the bone to even write that, let alone suggest it. 

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 at 09:46, 2009-01-15

Psych Lit wrote:

---

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

I suppose naming your child "Adolf Hitler Campbell" could technically be considered child abuse.

Then again, if there is no other cause for the removal of these kids, other than the names their parents gave them, are we really comfortable with that kind of governmental intrusion? Should we also "save" the kid named "ESPN," or "Unique?" How about "Apple?"

I saw this earlier today and its been running around in my head all day. at first glance id think the naming of those kids is a symptom of a lot of other not so desireable parental traits. the kids were prolly not removed for the names alone. maybe they were exposed to other kinds of activities. but lets say it was for the name. a case could be made that the names were chosen to reflect an honoring of white pride or more likely aryan pride. how is that different from an african american naming their child louis farrakahn jones or malcolm x jones. or someone naming their kid osama even. its a slippery slope really and i wonder how this would play out in the courts? a few years ago 20/20 did a study on names and jobs and they found that names that were distinctly african american were a detriment when job seeking. would those parents then be subject to having thier kids pulled because theyve handicapped them?  all that said, im thinking lil adolph and his sisters are prolly in better hands now.

---

Better hands?  I hope the state has a better reason for taking those babies away from their parents than their birth names.  Of course, they're not saying what that reason is. 

Did these people name their kids just to gain attention to themselves and their cause?  Possibly.  Did they make a federal case out of the birthday cake ordeal to gain national attention?  Probably.  Did it work?  Absolutely.

Is this child abuse?

If we allow these kids to be confiscated by the state because of their birth name, where does it end?  Will every parent who names their child Osama or Saddam run the risk of losing their child? 

And, taking those children from the home won't change their name.  What are we trying to accomplish here - Preventative maintenance on what the parents may or may not teach the children in the future about white supremacy. 

I hope they have a better reason for taking those kids.