The Walls of WTC Came a'Tumblin' Down

Have you SEEN the way WTC7 fell to the ground? A steel and concrete building, crumbling to nothing but dust in its own footprint. Quite a sight. And really rather frightening.

See the planes didn't HIT that building. There WAS no jet fuel leaking into the elevator shafts. There was a fire (and HOW did it start?) and that is all. Yet that incredibly strong, relatively newly built (1985) building just collapsed?

Check this out: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html

So here's the thing.

If WTC7 just fell like THAT.

when no plane hit

when no jet fuel leaked

to crumble to dust from nothing but fire

(and supposedly no explosives)

how can people POSSIBLY feel safe in ANY building?

THINK, people.

Think

Question

Participate

Somewhat Radical Theories about Kids - Part 2

For tens of thousands of years, babies were carried at their mother's breast, in arms or in slings, until the children were old enough to be ambulatory. This created a deeply rooted attachment to a warm and loving body, both literally and figuratively.

In the last generation, mothers in our part of the world have bought into the "baby bucket" mentality. Those ever-convenient baby car-seat/bed contraptions are, I am convinced, at the very least a contributing factor to some of the childhood issues our society faces today. Once again, I do not have a medical degree, but I can not see the good in physically, and psychologically, separating a baby from his or her mother for most of the day.

There are documented cases of children being LEFT in the baby bucket all day, removed only for diaper changes. I think this is criminal! I am not saying that these infant car seats are bad, just that overuse can be detrimental to a child's well-being. Such lack of affection and human contact MUST affect a child later in life.

Somewhat Radical Theories about Kids - Part 1

I have a couple of radical theories about the state of our children. I don't have a medical degree, but I consider myself to be a reasonably good observer. Who knows if any of my ideas make sense? Someday, research will show something concrete about all of this. In the meantime, here is the first of my theories:

Sometime ago, probably about six years or so, I read an article which stated that if an infant consumed an entire diet soda (rich in sugar-replacement chemical compounds), the child would be severely brain damaged. This led me through an interesting thought process.

If sugar substitutes were indeed that harmful to a baby, could they not also be harmful to a fetus? Personally, I avoided all sugar substitutes while pregnant (along with avoiding being near running microwaves and anyone who was inhaling carcinogenic smoke). But I knew of lots of women who LIVED on diet soda.

Then I thought about the dramatic rise in ADD diagnoses in the late 80's. Was there a correlation between that and diet soda?

Prior to 1982, there were few diet sodas on the market: tab and fresca were the most popular. In 1982, diet coke was introduced, followed quickly by a diet version of pretty much every soda on the market. Is it a coincidence that six years later (when all the previously unborn children of diet-soda-drinking-mothers-to-be were hitting school age), we saw a dramatic increase in the number of ADD diagnoses?

Hmmm.

Planned Controversy is Bad Business

May 23, 2007, was not a good day for daytime television. "The View" which, with the addition of Rosie O'Donnell in September, had risen from fashion, fluff and frivolity to purpose and substance over this season, hit an all time low. By now everyone has heard about it (just turn on one of those InsideAccessInfotainmentEditionExtraTonight shows and you will be bombarded with clips, and of course every "news" show on television is jumping on the bandwagon in attempt to boost ratings): the "feud."

What saddens me is that ABC clearly set this up. Elisabeth Hasselbeck had obviously been prepped, as I think she has been for the last month or so. The split screens they used were planned in advance. It is just awful that ABC wants so badly to capitalize on Rosie's leaving (and the ratings boost she brought to the show) that they would resort to planning a feud.

I KNEW that Rosie had been set up when the clips page on the ABC Daytime page were titled, "The Feud pt 1" and "The Feud pt 2." ABC WANTED this controversy. Now they have retitled those clips, "Joy vs. Elisabeth" and "Rosie vs. Elisabeth."

Rosie speaks for MANY people and tries to open the eyes of the ostriches with their heads in the sand. Much of the WORLD views Americans in a terrible way. There are going to be people who don't agree, who think she is loud or brash. I just think she is a woman who stands up for what she believes, and wants Americans to see there is more than one point of VIEW. She asks people to THINK.

And for the record, at NO TIME, did Rosie EVER say that our troops were terrorists. She has ALWAYS supported the troops. I believe she SIMPLY said that OTHER people might consider Americans terrorists because we have occupied a country (which did NOTHING to the US), and have killed innocent citizens. I think she was POINTING OUT that the word TERRORIST has been overused to create fear in the hearts of the American people, and that if there is such a wide open definition of terrorist, perhaps OTHER PEOPLE might consider AMERICANS to be terrorists.

Something Had To Give

"Unbearably tragic."

I used to be a fan of Anna Nicole Smith. Back in the early nineties, she was a "broad with hutzpah," who spoke her mind with courage and conviction. She went after what she wanted and I thought that inspiring.

Sadly though, her life has been wrought with tragedy. Caught up in the whirlwind addiction that is fame, her life was toxic.

She said she wanted to BE Marilyn Monroe. To an extent, poor girl, I believe she has been our generation's Marilyn. Probably NOT in the way Anna Nicole once hoped, but sorrowfully, she has followed in the icon's footsteps.

I was not alive when Marilyn was, but I can still draw parallels... not between the two blondes' lives, so much as they way the women were used.

The difference between Marilyn and Anna Nicole is purely technological.

In the sixties, we were in the Vietnam War, a war we were realizing was not only not winnable, but costing lives.

Marilyn was a distraction. In her death, we mourned the loss of an icon.

Now, we are in a war we cannot win, costing untold lives and causing untold suffering.

Anna Nicole was, is, a distraction. We are mourning the loss of a different kind.

In the sixties, we did not have 24 hour news channels, streaming video, reality television and instant downloads to publicize every second of a calamity... to drag out the toxic tragedy and bastardize it to a second, more horrifying, disconcerting expiration.

In the sixties, we had the daily paper and the nightly news. People shared their opinion over the back fence or the watercooler. There was a respectability, and respectfulness in journalism. Marilyn Monroe was allowed to die with dignity, despite the questionable circumstances surrounding her death.

I just hope that, in this, the information age, we don't let the distractions keep us from realizing the REAL reality. Our involvement in the Vietnam War lasted sixteen years. How long will the war in Iraq go on?