- bang goes the gavel

December 18, 2011

 

I average about 20 hits on my blog each day.  Compared to most that I read, 20 is nothing.  On a recent day I had 52, so I wondered what might have happened.  The only other time I had that many in one day was when I wrote something not very flattering about the town of Haddonfield, NJ, and it spread amongst the snooty residents quickly and unhappily.  I supposed just this statement alone might rekindle that, but probably not.

The recent 52 might have coincided with something else though: the day after my ex-wife was served with papers showing that I am trying to get my daughter to come and live with me.

What’s the connection?  First, I know that her lawyer hates me, so he was probably scouring my blog looking for information he could use against me.  Maybe statements, blog entries, such as the one in which I said that marijuana should be legalized, so he could use that to convince a judge that I’m not fit to be a custodial parent.  Of course my answer would be, “If you really think I’m not fit to take care of my kid, then why did you wait until now to pursue that angle?  Why have you let me spend time with my kid thus far and only now, while I’m trying to get more time, you’re claiming I’m unfit?”

The judge sent a letter to my and my ex-wife’s attorney’s asking each of us the same question:  why do you deserve what you want, and why should the other not get what they want?  That seems pretty simple, but it also seems like he wants us to do his job for him.  My ex claims that in a judgement from a few years ago I agreed not to seek any more increases in parenting time with my kids.  She’s not wrong, on paper.  However, where she IS wrong is that, logistically, I’M not seeking more time.  My daughter is.

What some people fail to recognize is the wants, needs, and pursuits of the children.  My daughter has asked for years to spend more time with me, but her mother has always maintained two things:  1. “of course, Rose.  Just tell me when you want to see your Dad, and we’ll work that out.”  and 2. “No, Rose, it’s just not a good day for you to go see your Dad.”

My kid is brave.  She’s standing up to her mother, knowing fully well that her mother can be tough.  The kid has been yelled at, cursed at, had tv remotes and chairs thrown in her direction, been mislead, swindled, and just plain lied to.  I don’t know how she maintains the toughness to keep going, but I’m damn lucky she’s doing it.

Several seasoned lawyers have all agreed that even if you have the most perfect and logical argument entirely spelled out for the court,  you’re still at the mercy of whatever mood the judge is in on that day.  I’ve seen it happen – I think.

I’ve been before judges about five times in my life.  Not once has it worked out in my favor.  However, this is probably the most important of them all.

Leave a Comment » | ex-wife, haddonfield, kids, parenting | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by brainsnorts

- the second amendment

April 3, 2011

Article the Second

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I’m not against guns.

I’m against idiots with guns.

I’m not against the right for citizens to own and keep guns.

I’m against citizens owning and keeping guns like AK-47’s that have only one purpose: to kill as many people as possible in as little time as possible.

I’m not against gun ownership.

I’m against irresponsible gun ownership, such as the people who allow children to get hold of loaded weapons to the tune of 500 kids killed a year through gun accidents, not including homicide or suicide.

I don’t argue with the idea that “guns don’t kill.  People kill.”

I do argue that it’s a lot harder to kill someone without a gun.

All that being said, let’s look at the long-standing disagreement about the interpretation of the fourth amendment, which reads above:

A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

For those who support the NRA and love to play paintball so you can play “war” like we did in 5th grade, yes, I see the words that read  the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.  Those words seem to indicate that our founding fathers wanted average citizens to keep themselves armed and ready.  But why?  Just…because?  Not so.

You can’t ignore the first half, which reads A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.  The first half of the fourth amendment clearly, I repeat, clearly shows that the purpose of “the people to keep and bear arms” is to have a militia.  It also clearly states that the purpose of the militia is for the security of a free state.  That doesn’t mean security against the guy who you think might possibly rob you in the Harrah’s Casino parking lot.  It means security in case this “free state” is attacked by another “state.”  Free or not.

If it makes you feel cool or powerful to own a gun, great, good luck.  But at least keep it locked and safe.  And at least get one that’s not designed to kill a small village in about four seconds.

Am I asking too much?

Leave a Comment » | gun lobby, kids, parenting | Permalink
Posted by brainsnorts

- to be competetive

December 30, 2010

It once meant something when you “made the team.”  You went to try-outs, struggled through practice, had a number pinned on your shirt as you caught passes or fly balls.  You stood in front of judges and “nailed it” as best you could, but that “best” doesn’t seem to mean anything anymore.  I know that self-esteem is important for a child, but so is accomplishment.  By allowing everyone to make the team, it no longer means anything to make the team.

In a town I won’t name there’s a high school cheerleading squad with thirty girls, thirty teenage girls with cell phones and a desire to talk trash about anyone else as soon as one of them walks away.  It’s a MySpace disaster waiting to happen.  Thirty girls is fifteen too many, but the coach isn’t allowed to hold tryouts or cut anyone because everyone is too worried about the self-esteem of the girls who don’t make the squad.  However, because they are all guaranteed a spot, they hold no value for it.  If the coach isn’t allowed to cut anyone, even for poor behavior, they’re going to behave like brats, like when some of the girls refused to cheer because they didn’t like what the coach was telling them to do.  When the coach finally did attempt to kick a girl off the team, girl’s mother sent threatening e-mails to the coach, athletic director, and principal.  With each e-mail, the coach offered to meet with and talk to the parents in person, but each time they refused and sent more threatening e-mails until finally the school administration put the girl back on the team and reprimanded the coach, all because the cheerleader had suffered “irreparable harm to her self esteem.”  If a coach slaps my kid, yeah, I want an apology and a reprimand.  But if my kid is breaking team rules, then I want my kid reprimanded instead.  Schools are giving too much power to parents because it also gives too much power to the kids. 

If it’s not cheerleaders, it’s football, basketball, or anything else that involves a team.  Did I say “team”?  Oh, I forgot, we don’t have “teams” anymore.  We have collections of individuals all out to improve their stats and their chances of a scholarship.  This is why parents hold their kids back from what should be their first year of kindergarten, so they’ll be a year older, bigger, faster, stronger, and (maybe) smarter than the rest of the class.  Then they’ll stand out more on the field, on the court, in the classroom, and (maybe) on the SAT and college applications. 

We all want our kids to succeed, but at what cost?  Is it worth it for your kid to be at the top of the class when they’re really in the wrong class?  If that’s what it takes to get a top college scholarship, well maybe so, even though you’re kind of cheating against younger kids.  It’s kind of like putting an 8th grader in gym class against 7th graders.  It may seem like only one year, but it’s also 12% of their educational life.  And what do you say to your kid when he or she is about to be a high school senior, and they figure out that they really should have graduated the previous year?  Maybe they’ll think it’s worth it because of the rewards, but maybe they’ll be a little upset if they think that you’ve cheated them out of a year of their life.

Leave a Comment » | kids, parenting | Permalink
Posted by brainsnorts

too much tv

December 5, 2008

my kids go to school in a tiny town, a very closed community with almost zero diversity. things there are probably the same way they were 30 years ago, and back then it was the same as 30 years before that except maybe the hairstyles. although the schools are very highly rated in the state, the kids are not really getting an all-world education because the town prevents kids from really understanding what the real world is like.

when i bought a house there about 13 years ago, i was told that nobody ever really leaves town. the realtor said that only two kinds of people ever sell a house in town: either people who had growing families and needed a bigger house in town, or people who were older, kids had moved out, so they needed a smaller house in town. many of the teachers in the schools live in town and also went to school there as children, which is a bad thing because it means the same information and attitudes are being recycled through generations. there is nothing new happening, nothing new coming in, and nothing going out.

so tonight i went to my daughter’s school christmas concert. it was cute and harmless, and the kids sang well. there was nothing to complain about until i was on my way home from the school. in front of me was a minivan, and through the back window i could see they had a dvd player with cartoons going as the family drove home.

if i tried hard enough, i could literally hold my breath as i drove from one end of the town to the other. there’s no way that anyone could have a drive of more than two minutes from the school. however, even though it was such a short trip home, these parents HAD to put the television on? couldn’t they talk about the concert? couldn’t they talk to the kids about how well they sang or played the saxophone or something?

as a teacher and a parent, i’ve noticed that our society over-uses two things to placate kids: technology and food. either we hypnotize and zombify our kids with tv’s, psp’s, nintendo ds’s, or cell phones, or we keep stuffing their faces with sugary fatty goodness to keep them quiet. we’re building an army of overweight and undereducated children who will someday be easily defeated by another country or organization because the USA will be too fat, weak, and stupid to fight back.

people, please, put down the remote, close your mouth, open your eyes, and maybe open a book too.

Leave a Comment » | kids, tv | Permalink
Posted by brainsnorts

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 815 other followers

%d bloggers like this: