America May Strike Syria for Suffocating Those Kids With Sarin Gas ... But There's No Rush

maandag 2 september 2013

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
by Cynthia Dermody Yesterday at 12:09 PM

 

Tensions are really escalating in Syria, and yesterday President Obama dropped a bombshell news that cranks the urgency to deal with the situation over there up a few notches. Remember that attack last week that killed hundreds of Syrian children? It turns out the chemical that was used was sarin gas. Sarin is an odorless liquid nerve agent. It stops your muscles from working properly, namely your lungs, so that you suffocate to death. Just think of all those beautiful children, and over a thousand adults, suffocating to death. I'm sure Obama has, and is as horrified as the rest of us are, which is why yesterday he issued this statement:

Here’s my question for every member of Congress and every member of the global community: What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price? Make no mistake — this has implications beyond chemical warfare.

Exactly -- what kind of message does it send? That the rest of the world is a bunch of wimps for letting them get away with it, that's what. Why can't England take a stand first? Or any one of those other Arab countries around there? Of course, as always, it's falling to America to be the one to act first, like it always does. That way it's much more convenient for other high-and-mighty countries to criticize and blame us when something goes wrong. Because nothing in war ever goes right.

Obama's inclination to take action is right -- but his decision to let Congress decide if we do or don't is wrong. He's the president, if he feels we need to make a short-term strike, he should have the backbone to make that call and not pass the buck. Waiting till Sept. 9, when all Congresspeople return from the last of the their summer vacations at the beach with their families, is an eternity for all the Syrian people whose lives are at stake.

The extra time is exactly what Obama wants -- time to find allies and support around the world, because at this time, he's pretty much got nada. No one wants to get involved in another war, especially so soon after the mess of the last one. Even many Republicans and Democrats are divided. This could be one of the most defining points of Obama's career -- it could make or break his legacy -- and he an his administration well know that. So they are treading very carefully here.

The next couple of weeks are going to be very interesting for this president and for international relations around the world. I just hope as they do all their negotiating, political positioning and strategizing, they keep that video of all those children front of mind.

Do you think we should wait till Congress takes it's sweet ole time to decide whether to strike against Syria?

Image via Freedom House/Flickr

?

reacties | | Read More...

Fat Babies Are on the Rise in America: Guess How Much They Weigh?!

maandag 19 augustus 2013

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
by Mary Fischer 5 hours ago

So, you know how there have been babies born recently who are a whole lot bigger than your average newborn? Like the 13.47-pound infant who was born in Germany last month? Or the 15-pound, 7-ounce boy who arrived back in March in the U.K.? (Yowza.)

Yeah, well now doctors are getting concerned about women having bigger newborns. There has been a 15 to 25 percent increase in "oversized" babies in developed countries (including the U.S.), which they attribute to more moms being obese.

And as you will hear in this video, they've now come up with a new "cutoff" weight as far as what constitutes a newborn being considered a fat baby.

OMG, 8 pounds, 13 ounces?!? That's it?

My little guy weighed in right at 8 pounds, 1 ounce, so I guess he made the cutoff, which means despite the fact that I put on 50 pounds while pregnant with him, I must not have been obese. (Winning.) But even so -- all I heard from people after his birth were things like, "He's HUGE! What the heck did you eat for those nine months?"

And up until that point, I never really considered an 8-pounder to be a big baby, but apparently in the city of Denver where I delivered, that's basically gigantic. (Because of the altitude and super healthy people and all.)

Yes, a 15-pound baby is probably cause for concern -- but should doctors really be getting bent out of shape about babies roughly half that size? (Personally, I don't think so.)

And hasn't it been hammered into our brains for years that a "big, healthy baby" is a good thing? This cutoff number just seems so contradictory, and I'm guessing it's going to wind up confusing a lot of people.

With how weight obsessed our society already is, I worry that the new fat baby number is going to freak out new moms who happen to have infants who aren't teeny-tiny. They really don't need something extra to stress over during those first few weeks.

Ugh. I can picture it now. Some poor new mom is going to bring her 9-pound baby home from the hospital, hear this report, immediately panic, and call the pediatrician wondering if her newborn needs to go on a diet. And then he'll tell her "absolutely not!" because she needs to be breastfeeding that baby every two hours so he'll get the nutrition he needs to put on weight and then she'll be totally confused.

Unless babies are outrageously huge -- can we go ahead and drop the "fat" label, or at least up the number just a little bit? (Like maybe 11 pounds?)

How big was your baby at birth?

Image via Mary Fischer

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Mary Fischer

is the writer behind The Mommyologist, and the mom of a future famous comedian. Her current loves include cosmopolitans, reality TV, and shoes that don't pinch her feet.

More
?

reacties | | Read More...

Rodeo Clown Wearing Obama Mask Didn’t Do Anything Illegal But Still Shamed America (VIDEO)

woensdag 14 augustus 2013

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
by Adriana Velez 1 hour ago

You've heard about the Missouri rodeo clown who wore an Obama mask, right? Over the weekend at the Missouri State Fair, a clown wore a rubber Obama mask with a broom for a tail as an announcer asked over the PA system who wanted to see the president "run down by a bull." Photos and video popped up all over the Internet. And the Obama mask-wearing rodeo clown got a lifetime ban from the Missouri State Fair. We could call this story: How a rodeo clown embarrassed the state of Missouri.

But let me play Devil's advocate for a minute here. What's the big deal? Rodeo clowns have impersonated sitting presidents before, and the nation didn't go up in flames as a result. And what about free speech? What, we're going to start censoring rodeo clowns now? CLOWNS? Well nation, it's not quite that simple. Here's why I think this rodeo incident is such a big, messy problem.

Let's get the free speech argument out of the way, first. Yes, of course people have the right to spout off like assholes so long as they're not threatening anyone and it doesn't veer into hate speech or incite a mob. But this isn't about rights. This is about responsibility. The officials who banned the clown are responsible for maintaining a certain level of respectability. They are also partly responsible for Missouri's image -- and that state's image was definitely damaged by this event. And they're responsible for the tone set at their state fair.

We're living in the age of social media, so whatever people got away with in the past isn't necessarily going to fly now. Maybe 10 years ago you could've done this, and there would have been some local outrage. Now the outrage is worldwide, and Missouri's humiliation is that much greater.

Just because it's happened in the past doesn't make it acceptable. As Missouri state representative Steve Webb said, “Since I’ve been in the legislature, we’ve seen a lot of things with a lot of racial undertones. But nothing’s ever done about it. There has to be consequences at some point.”

And that tone? Some witnesses said they felt like they were at a Klu Klux Klan rally. (That not EVERYONE felt that way doesn't invalidate the feelings of the people who did.) Things got ... creepy. Another rodeo clown reportedly bobbled the lips of the Obama clown, which is a pretty blatant racist gesture. I doubt there were any racist gestures or sentiments expressed when that same rodeo clown impersonated President George Bush nearly a decade ago. And that matters. It's one thing to mock a president. It's another thing to denigrate an entire group of people by mocking a president. Get the difference?

Basically, this rodeo clown brought out the worst in the crowd. Whatever racist feelings people were harboring were given free reign because it's not really the president, we're just joking around here, it's not real. You don't have to be the one wearing a mask to suddenly feel like all the normal rules of polite social behavior have been lifted.

So drop the free speech grand-standing for a moment. No one was arrested or otherwise penalized by the law. This is about ... decency. This is not about what we have the "right" to do. This is about what kind of environment we want to bring our children into, and the values we want to pass on.

Do you think Missouri State Fair officials were right to ban the rodeo clown?

Image via KansasCityStarVideo/YouTube

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Adriana Velez

is a staff writer who dabbles in food, parenting, news, entertainment, molecular biology, and anything else that that pops into her head. She lives with her elementary school-aged son in Brooklyn, land of urban farms and artisan everything.  

More
?

reacties | | Read More...

Gwyneth Paltrow Is Moving Her Kids Back to America -- For Now

woensdag 31 juli 2013

AppId is over the quota

Incoooooooming! Gwyneth Paltrow está moviéndose hacia los Estados Unidos, y ella va a traer a los niños con ella! Nine-year-old Apple y Moses 7-year-old tendrán la oportunidad de aprender lo que es ir a la escuela con los niños que hablan más a mamá que papá.

Pero ellos no te acostumbres. Gwynnie al parecer no ser dejando sus hijos ir a la escuela secundaria aquí en América. Se dirigen a jolly vieja Inglaterra cuando llegue el momento para eso.

Sí, tienes razón. Paltrow está moviendo a dos niños en todo el mundo, haciéndolos dejar atrás amigos y empezar en una nueva escuela, sólo para recogerlos y hacerlos hacer todo de nuevo en unos pocos años.

Y no puedo ayudar pero siento un poco mal por sus hijos.

Soy bien consciente de que los niños mueven todo el tiempo. Mira a los niños en las fuerzas armadas. Tienen suerte si consiguen dos años en un solo lugar.

No estoy aquí para decirle a una mamá militar que es mala en lo que hace. Ella está haciendo lo que tiene que hacer, y es mi sombrero a ella (y a los papás militares también, por supuesto).

Pero Gwyneth Paltrow no es una mujer cuya vida depende de mover cada dos años. Ella es una mujer con un millón de dólares a su disposición que podría muy, muy fácilmente permitir que sus hijos se queda en un lugar por mucho tiempo.

Y todo lo que he leído sobre niños moverse con frecuencia indica que no debes hacerlo a menos que absolutamente debes.

Las frecuentes pueden afectar todo, desde la autoestima del niño a su capacidad de llevarse bien con otros niños, de su éxito académico a su capacidad de formar relaciones por el camino.

No digo esto para asustar a los padres, pero lo digo con cierta autoridad. Por lo menos un adulto que sé--podrá llamarlo M--fue movido mucho, incluyendo alrededor de los años de Apple y en el comienzo de la secundaria. Ya en el lado tímido, los movimientos fueron agonizantes, el efecto sobre sus relaciones un problema permanente. El problema con los movimientos en estas etapas en particular es que es bastante difícil ser una interpolación y entonces un adolescente, añadir en ser el chico nuevo, y en serio puede traumatizar a un niño.

¿Harías si no tuvieras que hacerlo? ¿Si usted no se mueve por algo absolutamente necesario?

Gwyneth se muda a Los Angeles con los niños a estar más cerca de sus padres de crianza, sus abuelos--una razón totalmente comprensible, pero su razonamiento para volver a Inglaterra en unos pocos años, según informes, es porque la educación es mucho mejor.

¿Como si ella no puede permitirse contratar a tutores para sus hijos aquí en los Estados? ¿Como si ella no puede encontrar alguna manera para no desestabilizarlos todo otra vez?

Confieso que no me muevo como un niño. Mis padres aún viven en la casa que compraron antes de que mi madre quedó embarazada de mí. Así que admito un poco de un sesgo contra móviles.

También admito que la historia de M y los de otros niños que se mudó con frecuencia, junto con los datos que he leído durante años acerca de cómo mover los niños, ha hecho me tomo muy en serio la idea de lo que la próxima década o así será como con mi hija. Si puedo evitarlo, no nos movemos.

No somos ricos... no Gwyneth Paltrow y Chris Martin ricos seguro... pero al menos por ahora las razones sólo mi marido y yo pudimos ver para moverse son acerca de nuestras propias comodidades personales y deseos. Para nosotros, eso no es suficiente.

Los adultos necesitan moverse a veces, pero necesitan pensar seriamente a través de sus razones para mover antes de caer algo tan enorme e inquietante en sus hijos.

Francamente, yo no ser fragmentación en Gwyneth aquí si ella decía que estaba mudando a los niños una vez. Es que ya tiene planes para moverlos atrás que realmente me puso en alerta.

Esencialmente está diciendo no echar raíces, no para hacer amigos o estrechas relaciones porque, lo siento chicos, tendrás que dejarlas en un par de años y pasar por el mismo trauma exacto de que has sido a través sus hijos.

Para los adultos, es bastante difícil. Para los niños, eso es cruel.

¿Te mueves con frecuencia con tus hijos? ¿Cuántas veces has transferido?

Imagen via noticias de la costa del Pacífico

reacties | | Read More...