The Consequences of a Litigation-happy Society

     A twelve year old Ontario boy died last year due to a severe asthma attack at school.  His inhaler was kept in the office and he was not allowed to carry a spare one.  His teachers continually confiscated any inhalers he brought to school.  He was only allowed the one inhaler in the office but what good did it do him on that fatal day?
     I have a cousin who has suffered from severe asthma her entire life.  She always had an inhaler on hand and whenever she started having the slightest trouble breathing she would use it.  At school, at home or playing around the neighbourhood she always had it with her.  This led to her losing it on occasion but she never went anywhere without an inhaler.  I would often end up carrying it for her if she didn't have any pockets in her outfit but I didn't mind too much.  It felt a little bulky in my pocket but it was life-saving medicine for her.
     I mention this because my cousin could have died had she not been allowed to always have her inhaler on hand.  A member of the Ontario government has put forward a private member's bill to allow asthma-suffering students to carry a spare inhaler with them at school.  Why does this even have to be legislated?  Because we have become such a litigation-happy society that schools are faced with liability issues if somehow something bad happened as a result of a child carrying around his/her life-saving medication.
      Society as a whole needs to stop looking for someone else to blame every time something bad/unforeseen happens.  If your child takes someone else's medication whose fault is it really?  Is it the fault of the school? the child who had the medication? his/her parents?  The true answer, none of the above.  It is your child's fault for getting into something that is not his/hers and if you didn't teach him/her not to touch other people's belongings without permission then you are to blame too.  
     It's time for the legal system to crack down on irresponsible lawsuits and throw out ones that a little common sense would tell you are absolutely ridiculous.  The reason some of these lawsuits happen is because some lawyer sees a chance to make some money and the person suing wants someone to blame for something that may in fact be his/her own fault.
      What is the result of all these frivolous lawsuits?  Schools are so afraid of being held liable for things that they come up with policies that killed an innocent twelve year old boy.  Shame on all you frivolous people whose lawsuits led to this sort of thing.  I hope you are so proud of yourselves for making such a difference in this world that a little boy is no longer in it.

One More Day

      If you could spend one day with anyone living or dead who would it be?  Would you choose an amazing historical figure? Or a precious loved one lost too soon?  Before March 2012 I probably would have chosen a great person from history, maybe Joan of Arc or one of the biblical prophets like Isaiah.  What happened in March 2012 to change my mind?  My father died from pancreatic cancer.  He was the rock of our family, the one person everyone could go to for a listening ear, helping hand, or understanding heart.  Family was everything to him and anyone marrying in was immediately included.
     He would listen to me babble on, sometimes for over an hour, about anything and everything from current events and political issues to what my children were doing that day.  If he was watching the television, he wouldn't say, "I'll call you back later," but would mute it and listen to whatever was the problem.
     If something was going wonky with one of our vehicles I would always phone him, tell him what was happening, and hear his suggestions before heading off to the mechanic.  If we needed a new vehicle he would find it for us.  In February we traded in the last minivan he found for us.  It was a bittersweet moment as we really needed a newer van but there was another connection to my father that had to be given up.  It may seem strange to someone else, especially if they aren't the sentimental type but it meant a little something to me.  I didn't cry or anything like that but I did think of my dad as I got out of that van for the last time.
     Seeing my dad's lawn and garden being carefully tended by others was a little strange.  Sitting in my sister's house last summer, which is next-door to my parents' house, I would often expect to see my dad walk out the back door and head across the lawn to move a sprinkler or do some gardening.
      I miss him most when I really need advice on something.  He could always calm me down when I was getting too upset and he always had some advice even if it was simply to search out the answer myself because he didn't have a clue.   So if I was magically given one day with anyone, I would choose my dad.  I would tell him what we were all up to and give him a huge hug.  But most of all I would tell him goodbye because in the end I never really got that chance.  Why not I love you?  Because I told him that every time I talked to him after his diagnosis was determined to be terminal.  I will never have to regret that my final words to him were something stupid or angry.   My father always knew I loved him and I always knew he loved me.
     I know that when I leave this life I will see my father again so wishing for one more day with him in this life seems a little stupid but I don't care.  I would give anything to see him one last time for a hug and goodbyes.  I love you, Dad!

Morality

     I think too many people in the world today are confusing legal with moral.  What is the difference?  Legal means allowed by law.  Moral refers to what is right and good.  Aren't all things allowed by law moral?  Not in the eyes of God.  Yes, I am a religious person and as my blog states, "I Just Want to be Me."  I will not hide the fact that I am religious.  Nor will I hide the fact that I belong to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

      I wiser person than me recently stated, "Man's laws cannot make moral what God has declared immoral." (Dallin H. Oaks Semiannual General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  October 5, 2013)  In other words, something that is legal isn't necessarily right or good.  Take abortion for example.

     Many people think abortion is okay since it's a woman's body it should be her choice whether to allow a pregnancy to continue.  In fact, abortion is far too common in some places where boys are favored over girls.  Morally, abortion in all but a few extraordinary circumstances is wrong.  As for the argument that it is the woman's choice she made her choice when she had sex, knowing that sex can often result in pregnancy.       What about rape/incest victims?  Well, that falls into the extraordinary circumstances category that I mentioned earlier. Gordon B. Hinckley in an October 1998 General Conference address stated: Abortion is an ugly thing, a debasing thing, a thing which inevitably brings remorse and sorrow and regret. While we denounce it, we make allowance in such circumstances as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have serious defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. (Nov.1998 Ensign)

   He goes on to state that such circumstances are rare. I found a website that listed some stats on rape pregnancies. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8765248 I was surprised to see that only 50% of the women studied chose to abort the baby. Some had spontaneous abortions which I believe means miscarriage but many chose to allow the pregnancy to continue. These women chose to either keep the baby or place it for adoption. I was surprised at how many chose to keep the baby.
     So if a woman who was forced to have sex can decide to let her baby live, why can't a woman who willingly had sex? Legal does not mean moral. I think it's time people stopped confusing the two.

Mountains Out of Molehills

     Why are people so determined to make mountains out of molehills?  I don't know if we are all guilty of it but I know I have been on occasion.  Looking back, I feel like such an idiot for worrying about a minor detail that meant nothing in the grand scheme of things.  What I don't understand is why some people look at something that has been around for ages and say to themselves, "I think that's offensive.  I'm going to lobby the government to do something about it."
     What I am referring to is a group of women in Canada who want to change the lyrics to O Canada from "in all thy sons command" to "in all of us command" thereby making it more gender neutral.  I have read comments on this subject through social media and while I understand that O Canada has had some minor lyric changes in the past why should this be changed just because a group of women decided to complain about it.  Do these women represent the majority of Canadian women?  I have serious doubts about it since there has never been a huge public outcry or protests over it.
     I feel that there are much larger issues facing women than the lyrics to O Canada.  There are women who are struggling to feed and house themselves and their families.  There are women who have suffered horrible abuse from those who should have loved them.  There are women in this world denied an education simply because they are women.  And there are those who are not even given the chance to draw breath let alone grow to become women because they are aborted in favor of male children.
      Why can't the women who are so concerned with something so minor focus their energy and influence towards these issues?  I am so disappointed to find that in a world full of bigger issues they have chosen something so petty and are trying to get the Canadian government to focus on it too when there are far more pressing matters that need to be addressed.  To these women I say: Quit wasting your time and find a real issue to worry about.
     I am tired of petty little molehills being turned into insurmountable mountains.  There are enough mountains in this world that we must conquer.  Leave the molehills to the moles and try to make the world a better place, especially for those women who have been given an Everest to climb.
   

What is Wrong with Some Parents?

     First off I would like to say that I am far from being a parenting expert and I make my own mistakes on a fairly regular basis but some parents today are doing more harm than good when it comes to raising their kids.  I'm not talking about the abusive parents who should never be allowed around children period.  I'm talking about the parents who refuse to parent.
      Example:  Child A and Child B vandalize some property and are caught.  Parents A take Child A to task and expect him/her to make restitution to the property's owner.  Parents B either try to blame everything on Child A or they take out their wallet saying, "Kids will be kids," and pay the property owner and absolve Child B of any further responsibility in regards to his/her actions.
     Who do you think were the better parents in that situation?  If you said Parents B then you should stop reading this blog right now because you will probably not like what I have to say most of the time.  Parents B have taught their child nothing about taking responsibility for his/her own actions and suffering the consequences of those actions.  Parents A on the other hand recognize a vital life lesson that their child needs to learn and the sooner the better.  Child A will be less likely to repeat his/her mistake and may avoid more serious ones in the future.  Child B will go through life thinking that Parents B will always be there to protect him/her from the consequences of his/her actions.
     Child B may even feel no one can do anything to them until he/she lands in such serious trouble that, as hard as they try, Parents B can't make it go away and Child B ends up doing some jail time.  Parents B may, even at this point, wonder how their precious son/daughter got into such trouble and it must be someone else's fault.  Parents B deserve a smack upside the head in my opinion.  They are so deluded about their precious child that they fail to see what their own actions have created.
     Why am I even talking about this sort of thing?  Well, yesterday I say a video someone shared of the opening dialogue from Live with Kelly and Michael on ABC.  (I'm not sure, but I think it's from their September 20th broadcast.)  A NFL player was in Florida when his New York house was broken into and the culprits had a party and were very destructive all while tweeting about it and posting pictures of themselves committing the crime.  The player took those photos that were publicly posted on Twitter and put them on a website to try and identify those responsible for the destruction.  Now some of the parents of the culprits want to sue him because they claim he is hurting their children's chances of getting into college.  I was floored when I heard that.  What kind of parents get mad at the victim of their child's criminal actions for trying to find out who committed the crime?  I was so happy to hear Kelly's reaction to that news and I agreed with her that my kids would be in so much trouble from me that getting into college would be the least of their worries.  Those parents who want to sue are teaching their children the wrong lessons.  They are teaching them that it's okay to commit a crime because Mom and Dad think getting into college is more important than learning to be a responsible and law-abiding citizen.  These kind of parents make me sick!

The Downfall of the T.V. Theme Song

     I was watching the Emmy awards a couple of years ago with Neil Patrick Harris hosting and he pointed out the lack of theme songs on current tv shows.  I have since thought about that from time to time and it is so true.  Most tv shows now have no theme song.  They might have a little opening thing with a little music and the title of the tv show but that is it.
     I guess the rise in production costs and the desire for getting the most out of a one hour time slot has led to the fading of the theme song into tv history.  Too bad.  I love a good theme song.  It becomes memorable and any time you hear it you think of that show.
     Big Bang Theory has a great theme song written and performed by Barenaked Ladies.  It's so fun my husband bought it from iTunes.  A good theme song can capture the feel of the tv show in less than a minute. Remember the theme to MacGyver?  I have that as a ringtone on my cell phone.
     I'm glad that Hawaii: Five-0 kept the iconic theme song, updated for the new century of course, from the original series. Could you imagine that show without it?  It just wouldn't be the same.
     I love the theme song from Doctor Who.  Any Whovian worth their salt can sing that theme song at the drop of a hat.  It is so fun and fits the show so well.
     What theme songs are your favorite?
     

To Strike or Not to Strike?

     I didn't intend for this blog to be all about current events but I just couldn't help myself with all the talk about the U.S. wanting to take action against Syria for using chemical weapons on its citizens. I get updates on Facebook from my local radio station and the comments some people were leaving on the news posts were annoying. I chose to voice my opinion here, where I can thoroughly explain my position.     In case anyone reading this has not been keeping up with current events here is the gist of it. Syrian rebels claimed that the government used a chemical weapon on citizens in rebel held areas. UN investigators were finally allowed in the area, after heavy government bombing, to collect evidence. The U.S. has said that based on independent evidence gathered the people were attacked with sarin gas and that there should be military strikes made against the Syrian government.
     Some people are saying the U.S. should quit sticking its nose into other countries' business while others support the U.S. position. I personally see it for what it is, a complex issue with no easy solution. I doubt the U.S. really wants to get into another war but at the same time the use of chemical weapons cannot be ignored. Why you ask? Well something I read online recently might help.
     A friend on Facebook shared an article on The Washington Post's website written by Max Fisher entitled "9 questions about Syria you were too embarrassed to ask." I read it and what he said made a lot of sense. He says, "The whole idea that there are rules of war is a pretty new one: the practice of war is thousands of years old, but the idea that we can regulate war to make it less terrible has been around for less than a century. The institutions that do this are weak and inconsistent; the rules are frail and not very well observed. But one of the world’s few quasi-successes is the “norm” (a fancy way of saying a rule we all agree to follow) against chemical weapons. This norm is frail enough that Syria could drastically weaken it if we ignore Assad’s use of them, but it’s also strong enough that it’s worth protecting. So it’s sort of a low-hanging fruit: firing a few cruise missiles doesn’t cost us much and can maybe help preserve this really hard-won and valuable norm against chemical weapons." So basically what Max Fisher is saying is that if we let Assad get away with using chemical weapons then it will be that much easier for the next guy to choose to use them and that would be disastrous for the citizens in whatever area gets gassed.

      Back to the comments made by people on the news post I was talking about earlier.  Some were saying the Americans are just being busybodies while others questioned their motives, asking if there was oil or gold in Syria.  I understand why these people feel that way but at the same time it comes across as really ignorant. Should the U.S. fire cruise missiles on Syria?  I think it's better than sending in ground troops and the images of gas victims being broadcast by the media makes me sad and angry at the same time.  Can we really just sit back and do nothing when innocent children are being killed?  How many people felt the Americans should have intervened in Darfur with all the tragedies going on there?  The U.S. can't step in and try to solve all the world's problems, they have too many of their own but they also can't let Assad get away with using chemical weapons.  It's a complex issue and no matter what happens there will be critics saying they did wrong.  To Strike or Not to Strike? That is the question.

      

Beginning

     So here I am, way behind as usual.  It seems as if everyone and their dog has a blog now but this is my first.  And maybe my last. Who knows!   As I've titled my blog, I just want to be me.  I don't care what topics I talk about it will be what I want to say.  If anyone reading this wants to disagree, go ahead.  All I ask is that you are respectful and use clean language.  Due to my personal beliefs, I will not tolerate anything less. So where to begin.  Hmmm...Canada is full of Justin Trudeau "admitting" he smoked pot.  I put admitting in quotation marks because I see it only as a ploy to get his name in the press and get everyone talking about him.  Well it worked.  I personally find any kind of drug use stupid.  I understand why some people get dragged down into the depths of addiction and I hope they get the help they need to overcome it.  But to be a recreational user makes no sense to me.  Why would you willingly take a substance that alters your ability to make sound judgments? The same goes for alcohol consumption.  I have smelled alcohol and can't fathom why anyone would willingly ingest something that smells so bad and can affect you so negatively.  I would rather remember my good times as a sober individual.  
     That leads me into another topic, drunk driving.  I have heard some people say that drunk drivers aren't able to tell whether they should be driving or not because, hey, they're drunk.  I believe that if you drive somewhere and you know you will be drinking and then kill someone because you were driving home drunk you are guilty of murder.  You knew you would be drinking and therefore should have made alternate arrangements.  My husband worked for a company that paid to have limos pick up and drop off employees for the annual Christmas party.  His current employer has the annual Christmas party in a hotel where employees can spend the night or get cab vouchers in order to get home safely.  If a big company wanting to avoid a lawsuit, or worse, is willing to think ahead why can't an individual.  Is it really worth risking permanent disability, your life, or worse still an innocent person's life to drive to a party/bar where you know you will be drinking and might, in an alcohol-impaired state of mind, decide you're okay to drive home?
         In the end, is it really worth it to potentially become a slave to addiction?  Some people see it as freedom but I see only the prison of impaired judgment and the possible bars of actual prison, unless you'd prefer the handles of a coffin instead.