Generation Why?
By Eric Rollins
“It is the contemplation of this prospect that rewards him for all his efforts to assist the progress of reason and the defence of liberty. He dares to regard these strivings as part of the eternal chain of human destiny; and in this persuasion he is filled with the true delight of virtue and the pleasure of having done some lasting good which fate can never destroy by a sinister stroke of revenge, by calling back the reign of slavery and prejudice.”
The Marquis de Condorcet, a very progressive thinking Enlightenment philosopher from the 18th century, said this in regard to the potential of humans if they would only hold virtue in as high regard as honor, patriotism, and success. We all know those last three come with quite a price. Virtue, however, is free. We all have it, and it is ingrained deeply in all of us; all that holds it back is the difference in our worldy education as we have grown up.
The prospect he mentions in the first line is if we all achieve enlightenment on the level of making all races equal and spreading out the opportunities that the most elite have to everyone. The inequality of rights in any society is “fatal even to the party in whose favor it works.” Our generation has a chance to reverse this trend, to strip away all that keeps us from being virtuous, but we won’t; in fact, even as our cushion between ideology and reality grows steadier, we are moving in the opposite direction of making up for past wrongs, and developing a society that holds the common good in the highest regard. Instead we hold our individual goods even closer to our hearts.
What Condorcet and other Enlightenment thinkers believed, even if it was not their praxis, was that sacrificing ourselves for the common good of society was the most individually rewarding experience possible. The American dream, which promotes an “every man for himself” mentality, represents the exact opposite of that philosophy. This country only chooses to look at the economic principles of flourishing, instead of the social. It is true that in an economy where men focus on their own self-interests, the state will reach its most efficient state possible. But we have let these morals spill into our spiritual sentiments as well.
I wrote an article about the animal kingdom being intrinsically capable of acting only for the common good of nature, and never behaving in an arbitrary way against that grain. Do you know any animals that aren’t temperate in personality, that take more than they need, store it, gloat about it, and put down those who haven’t achieved that same status? No, that is strictly a human trait, one that we fail to recognize as harmful because it is so crucial to that American dynamic, that one that tells you no wealth is great enough, and no independence is free enough, and that no other human is worth sacrificing your livelihood for.
I don’t believe politics exist in the animal kingdom, that’s why it is so unique from our own existence. Their world is full of unfair treatment, but are animals at all unequal? Is a frog equal to a bird; is a bird equal to a lion? They all share the same amount of freedoms and restrictions, although they may measure differently.
For most of America, that group that defines the national ethos, all basic needs are accounted for at birth. The current college generation is certainly at that level, if not slightly above it. For animals, basic needs are day-to-day. What do we do with our extra time?
Since our religion is now based around the television and not the Bible, I’ll look towards it for guidance in explaining generational gaps. Have you seen a lot of movies with a middle-aged man having a mid-life crisis. How about a woman? Do not divorces outpace happy marriages? Aren’t we all a bunch of pessimistic alcoholics with life goals that don’t range past having a nice couch to crash on after a day of working an uninspiring job? Why is such a gloomy characterization portrayed on television all the time? Well, because it’s a true mirror into American life. We wouldn’t watch it if it didn’t resonate with our innermost regrets. And we all know our entertainment is based on what sells, not what promotes the most virtuous message.
The media seems to ooze resentment from the Baby Boomers who had to settle on the first job they could get in order to get out of belligerent or overstuffed homes. A few kids and a poorly aging wife later, they are wondering where it all went wrong. This is what we see on TV, at least. The truth is they went about it all wrong at the beginning, but can you blame them? Not really. They should have been more patient and cautious when it came to getting married early and choosing a career without the excitement to keep one’s mind socially active. They’d rather go out to the bar, read filth, watch filth, or otherwise drown themselves whenever they escape the confines of the occupational or domestic chains they see themselves in. Without much choice, or hope as a youngster, little can be achieved.
Then why, as a group, are we (high school, college aged Americans) so willing to make these same decisions when we don’t have to? Why should we settle for whatever we can get out of college or after high school? Are the pressures of being independent and free from your parents so burdensome that any and all things beat it? Growing up did we not have spectacular visions and grandiose dreams of being something honorable and close to your initial talents and loves?
When your neighbor or relative asked you what you wanted to be when you grew up, did you ever say, “used-car salesman, landscaping foreman, or grocery store manager”? No, it was “astronaut, fireman, politician, teacher, artist”. We have the capabilities to be close to our dreams as professionals, but we still choose to follow the least common denominator of our talents. Why?
The problem with this mentality is that it breeds a herd of citizens in a state that allow Machiavellian suitors and conglomo-jockeys to take us by the reigns and guide us towards false virtue. We’d notice it if we weren’t so apathetic to things outside ourselves. The common good is so alien to us that the death of a neighbor hardly bothers us, never mind the deaths of Iraqis, Africans, Eastern Europeans, or American soldiers; as long as it’s not me right? The only way to find what is best for the country is to first follow what is best for you, and that starts with being a little more virtuous than being a sideline American, bent on yourself, reluctant to notice a disgraced country falling apart at the seams.
Economic principles shouldn’t drive our feelings for each other as humans. The complexion of individual power, celebrating those who have attained it, insisting on perpetual conflict as a reason to live, is what has been the fallout since the end of World War II. I ask Generation Y to not be so afraid of change and to approach your post organized education years with a little more aplomb, virtue, patience and reasoning than did others before us. We owe it to them, because they never had the chance. I don’t want to be saying this about the generation after us; by the time we get to Generation Z, we’ll be out of time.
Barack who? Let's give Kucinich a chance
By Lance Gagnon
I’m sick of hearing about Barack Obama. He may be better than Hillary Clinton, and he’s much better than anyone the Republicans can come up with, but he’s far from the best presidential candidate available to America. If the Democrats want to prove they are ready to turn this nation towards the left, they should quit hyping up Obama and focus on Dennis Kucinich.
So far, Obama seems to be playing it safe by taking left-wing stances on issues that won’t bother the Democratic Party’s funders too much. On issues such as health care, abortion, and net neutrality, he has shown solid progressive stances that are commendable; his stances on the former two even match Kucinich’s stance (Kucinich has yet to state his stance on the latter). However, he has tried to play both sides on other issues.
For instance, Obama’s stance on gay marriage is little different from any typical centrist politician’s opinion on the subject. Rather than legalize same-sex marriage as Kucinich plans to do, Obama believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, and takes the typical segregationist view that same-sex couples should be allowed civil unions instead (and even then, he prefers that this civil right should be handled at the state level).
Likewise, rather than call for an immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq (another Kucinich stance), Obama wants to stick with the Iraq Study Group’s decision to wait until March 31, 2008. Granted, it would be only one year more of chaos, but we can’t afford to stay there even one month more. Over 3000 Americans troops and over 650,000 Iraqi civilians have died, and any further military involvement in this war will only make it worse. If we withdraw immediately, turn over the task of peacekeeping to international security forces, and allow the Iraqi people to rebuild their nation themselves (as apposed to continuing to let American contractors steal jobs from them), we would be able to improve the situation in Iraq more so than we are doing now. All this is outlined in Kucinich’s platform.
Of course, Obama could still make himself look better if he took on some issues that aren’t being talked about in the mainstream media, but unfortunately he hasn’t. Again, he’s playing it safe by only talking about the issues that he can’t avoid or won’t get too much criticism for mentioning. So far, he has yet to talk about the death penalty, the drug war or the PATRIOT Act, all of which Kucinich plans to end. He has yet to talk about the flaws in the voting system, while Kucinich has stated that he will help our nation move towards a system of instant-runoff voting. Obama has said nothing of the corrupt World Trade Organization (which restricts our nation’s ability to write legislation on international trade and keeps the problem of oversees sweatshops alive), yet Kucinich has stated he plans to withdraw our country from it.
And if the Democrats do in fact believe their bogus claim that Ralph Nader steals votes from them, they should use Kucinich to take those votes for themselves. Nader hasn’t yet decided on whether or not he will run in 2008, but he has stated that he will run if there isn’t enough variety in candidates available. Given his previous endorsement of Kucinich, it is likely that he is holding out to see whether or not the Democrats will run his preferred candidate. If Obama runs instead, it’s possible that the Democrats will lose the progressive vote (or, as in previous elections Nader ran in, the non-voter’s vote) to a candidate who writes his platform for the sake of the people instead of corporate funders.
Admittedly, Obama is more likely to be the next Bill Clinton than even Hillary is. However, if he wants to make his campaign worth voting for, he needs to go beyond the centrist strategy of his Democratic predecessor and show our country what a real left-wing candidate looks like. If he can’t do that, then the Democratic Party should ignore his bid for president and focus on Kucinich. If they still allow him to run for president with a mediocre platform, I’ll treat him like the next John Kerry and vote for Nader or the Green Party instead.
The vagaries of price controls
By Ben Tansey
It comes as no surprise that, in response to skyrocketing inflation and a stagnant economy, President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela has responded with a series of sweeping price controls, threatening to arrest any who violate them and seize their businesses. After all, he is a socialist. What Mr. Chavez and other socialists believe is that price controls will simply stop evil corporations from raising the good of a given product higher than is “moral” or “just.” No harm, no foul, everyone gets what they want; except those evil rich, of course.
The actual effects are much different. What price controls actually do is create a situation in which the price of a given good is below the equilibrium (it is possible that a price ceiling could be set above the equilibrium level for a good, but it would be irrelevant if this was the case, and have no effect on the buying or selling of that good). The symptom of this is that there are more people willing to buy the good in question than suppliers are willing to supply. The effect is age old and familiar, and is of course occurring in Venezuela right now: shortages.
Unlike in a free-price atmosphere, where some people, dealing with accurate price data, would decide that the sum of money equal to the price of a given good was worth more to them than the good in question, government intervention keeps price data inaccurate. Markets are not allowed to clear as they do in a non-interventionist atmosphere, and we are faced with little more than a race among consumers to get to the supplier first. This policy led, in large part, to the oil crisis of the 1970s, and the all-too- familiar queues for gas of that era. In Venezuela, they are creating shortages in perhaps the most necessary good of all: food.
Besides simply creating shortages, these price controls actually unfairly benefit the wealthy, not the poor, as they are intended to. Firstly, because at the new lower prices, wealthy consumers are much more likely to buy in great bulk, and because, should wealthy consumers be unable to satisfy their desires on price-controlled markets, they can afford to go to black markets. Rarely is this the case with the poor. Those not wealthy enough to buy in huge bulk, or access black markets for their goods, are thus left hung out to dry, their only hope to access goods (here, food) by getting there before anyone else. The nature of shortage-created queues makes this extremely unlikely. as well.
Price controls are meant to punish the rich and benefit the poor, and undoubtedly that is Mr. Chavez’ intention here. What they do is punish us all, the poor more than the wealthy.
W.I.L.T.
It’s not snowing here, but it’s winter alright!
By Eric Rollins
The snow has been historically absent this year, but to say winter didn’t come in 2006-2007 is foolish. In another case of judging something by one stat, for instance saying a baseball player had a bad year because he didn’t hit over 20 home runs, this winter has been plagued by cold weather since the beginning of February, and it’s a freeze that shouldn’t be overlooked. We haven’t had an school closings, and the region hasn’t had those picturesque snowfalls, but we’ve felt the winter in a way that often doesn’t catch the public’s eye; the wind and the tenacious cold.
In what was supposed to be a Valentine’s Day massacre, we hardly had any accumulation last Wednesday, but I doubt anyone will say it was any easy day to go to class. A lot of students skipped class, and many professors missed, too, because of the harsh conditions. As day turned into night, the ground froze, as the thick muddy water wasn’t dispersed. Roads became ice rinks, as did much of the campus. I joked that I could wear hockey skates to class; the next day I should have actually done it.
Western Massachusetts and the upper New England states got their snowfall and snow days, but east of 95 in southeastern Mass got slush, sleet, and freezing rain. If you’re wondering if there’s a difference, there is. Sleet is frozen before it hits the ground, but was rain when it left the clouds. Along the way, as the atmosphere below the storm system was colder than that above it, it froze. Freezing rain is rain that doesn’t freeze until it hits the ground; staying rain because the atmosphere was not cold enough, but the ground was below freezing. We got a mixture of both, and that dreaded pink line on the radar was on us all day. I’d rather have the white blobs than the pink line, it account for much prettier precipitation and official snow days, rather than the unofficial one we had last Wednesday.
The aftermath is the worst, if you haven’t noticed. Last Thursday, the day after the storm, a child was killed in Londonderry, NH. Around us, I saw at least one skid out that could have caused a bad accident; this happened at the intersection of Route 6 and Cross Rd, where the new Applebees just went in. Walking to class, you must have noticed that all of those puddles that built up on Wednesday froze, or became something close to ice. The puddles that formed inside the walkway from the Campus Center to Group I froze up. I bet you didn’t expect to see that INSIDE the building.
The ferocity with how the weather went from, “Hey, is it Florida?” to, “Hey, is this Alaska?” should answer all those questions and comments about this winter. The forecast doesn’t project a high above freezing until the day before this paper comes out, and that’s counting from the day after the Valentine’s Day storm. Bundle up, cover your ears, wear scarves, and don’t wear shorts!
Many ice rinks sprouted up all over campus after the Valentine’s Day pseudo-storm, making walking particularly dangerous. Winter has been an enigma this year, but the cold weather, the ice and the wind reminds us all that we live in New England and not in North Carolina, even if we have no snow. By the way, cold weather is not front page news.
The Women's Resource Center & abortion: The inconvenient truth
By Lee Lukoff
Today’s most controversial political topic, by far, is abortion. Many doctors will tell you that abortion on demand is the most serious sociopolitical problem of our age. The Women’s Resource Center on our own campus, through its actions and events, not only encourages abortion on demand; it applauds it. The WRC website calls abortion a “reproductive right.” The inconvenient truth is that abortion as a right is little more than chosen pre-natal murder. While conservatives in Congress seek to use federal authority to ban abortion, no government policy would ever truly end abortion unless such a policy were implemented to emphasize preventive measures to solve this social ill once and for all.
These rights that pro-choice activists refer to as they were granted in Roe v. Wade offer little insight into the medical procedure itself and those who perform such operations. Doctors who actually perform abortion procedures have a much different opinion on whether abortion is truly a right and whether or not it is moral.
One such person who knows the inconvenient truth about abortion is Congressman Ron Paul. In 2003 Congressman Paul (TX-14th) gave personal insight to the debate on abortion. Before he was a Congressman, Ron Paul delivered babies for a living in a Texas Hospital. As an obstetrician he offered a new insight that Congress did not have. With the body politick in Washington, mostly composed of career politicians, Paul’s testimony had significant clout due to his own personal experiences in the medical field. Paul knew exactly what the stakes were for abortion operations and partial birth procedures. In a House debate in 2003 Paul stated “As an obstetrician, I know that partial birth abortion is never a necessary medical procedure. It is a gruesome, uncivilized solution to a social problem.”
If abortion is a social problem as is almost universally recognized across the country, then why is our campus encouraging it? Instead of providing money to such groups that laud themselves in providing abortion services we should be condemning such morally corrupt organizations and providing their funds to organizations that stress community service and civic responsibility.
Currently our tuition dollars are being used to fund activists who encourage and applaud abortion. The WRC has invited Dr. Judith Arcana, a former member of Jane Collective, a secret Abortion Service. Lets open Pandora’s box to explain exactly what Jane Collective did. According to Wikipedia, “During the years which Jane operated, the collective performed more than 12,000 abortions, for about $25.00 per procedure - on loan, if the woman was unable to pay at the time. In 1972, the collective was raided, and the members who performed abortions were jailed.”
Instead of providing funding for morally bankrupt speakers like Dr. Judith Arcana who encourage students to seek abortion, we should bring in speakers who may have a different point of view. One such candidate would be Norma L. McCorvey. Ms. McCorvey was the plaintiff in the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. After receiving counseling she decided to leave the pro-choice charade and join with pro-lifers as famous politicians like Ronald Reagan and Mitt Romney have done.
WRC events like The Vagina Monologues and The Female Orgasm, though they sound really cool, don’t solve the problems of unintended pregnancy and abortion. These events only make it more likely for abortion procedures to occur since they encourage sexual activity.
However, I see it very unlikely that such events will ever be stopped on campus. Since many of us were raised in an era where sexual videos were regular features in popular culture (Paris Hilton & Pamela Anderson) it’s unlikely anything will change the attitude of college students. The inconvenient truth here is that The Women’s Resource Center cares little about placing stricter regulations on access to abortion because as the whole Pro-Choice movement believes pre-natal murder is a right.
SOUL SIGHTINGS
Nobody loves me, everybody hates me
“Nobody loves me, everybody hates me
I’m gonna eat some worms....”
Those who know the rest of this ditty will remember the great detail with which it describes those worms. Even though this is just a nonsense rhyme for children there is a serious message for all of us. The “nobody loves me, everybody hates me” is familiar to all of us. It is how we feel when the boss yells at us, when we fail even when we have tried hard to accomplish particular tasks, or when our girlfriend or boyfriend breaks off the relationship. The list goes on and on for each one of us. At these moments we feel our world has come to an end and that no matter how hard we try we will just never get “it” right.
We may even be reminded of our early school days when we were told to be good and never quite understood what “good” meant. It was obviously adult code for a mysterious way of behaving that only they understood. So we stood in the hall trying to figure out what had gone so terribly wrong and why we were told we were “bad.” Some of us never quite figured it out and still have not even today.
The feeling “nobody loves me, everybody hates me” is also a symptom of the deep loneliness each of us feels and is afraid to admit is present, much less talk about. We long to be connected, yet when we are connected there is often the experience of competition and rivalry. Our fear of looking inside ourselves is that we may find only emptiness and a void. Our technologically saturated culture provides us with multiple ways to “run away.” There are video games, cell phones, iPods and of course the old standbys of drugs, alcohol and recreational sex. None of these ways of running away are able to take away (much less transform) the loneliness we feel. Those who are honest with themselves begin to realize that no thing, event, or relationship, no matter how exciting, has the power to fill the void we feel inside.
Henri Nouwen in “Reaching Out,” a book about three movements in the spiritual life, suggests the first movement is from loneliness to solitude. Loneliness does not have to be a crippling experience. It can serve as the goad to help us look inside ourselves and discover who we really are and what we are supposed to do with our lives. The answer is there if only we have the courage and take the time to stop running away. This is the good news. The bad news is for this to happen we need to let go of the distractions that fill our lives not because they are bad but because they prevent us from paying attention to and listening to our inner selves.
When we truly begin to listen to our inner selves and come to love the questions, we begin to transform our loneliness into solitude. Solitude then becomes a balm washing over us and leading us to the realization that we are indeed not alone but connected to the whole of humanity. And, because of this connection we experience the ground between us as being holy. No longer is there the need to be jealous, controlling, or envious in our relationships for we do not need to cling to others, to things, or to events to fill our voids. We cease to be judgmental and begin to live a life of compassion.
Sister Madeleine Tacy
The real playoffs are upon us
By Scott Ferrara
With the Superbowl over and spring training on the minds of most people here in Massachusetts, hockey fans are gearing up for the playoffs in the near future. Hard hitting fast paced, puck dazzling hockey will be upon us soon and it looks like the students of UMD aren’t interested.
Hockey has one of the richest traditions in sports. The Stanley Cup has been an icon in hockey since 1892. What the sports writers call the “Holy Grail” started out as just a cup and now it has so many rings of names that they need to be replaced when a new team wins.
The Boston Bruins as a franchise since 1905 have been to the NHL Finals 17 times, hoisting the cup 5 times. They are fourth out of thirty-one on the list of franchises who have won Stanley cups. The Montreal Canadians lead with thirty-two appearances and twenty-four wins.
I am a New Yorker; I love baseball, football, rugby but most of all hockey. Yes Massachusetts is a hockey state, but between the Patriots and the Red Sox, the Bruins get overlooked. Peter Faylor, a Sophomore Graphic Design student agrees with me, “Hockey is a great sport and is definitely passed by during this break between football and baseball.”
While thankfully awaiting Lord Stanley’s playoffs, all I hear is Red Sox this or the Patriots should have done that. Too bad, the Pats got beat and the Red Sox haven’t even started yet, lets focus on the real team that’s in the midst of getting into the playoffs. The real irony is that Boston is known for its fans to root for teams even though they are not that talented, yet both the Bruins and Celtics get shafted.
A real sports fan stops moaning after a week. In New England, it’s at least three weeks (and some fans not until the next season starts). Across the country, whining like that would get my butt kicked. As faithful as you are to the Red Sox and the Patriots, you so-called fans are being spoiled with winning teams.
Your pretty boys have seemed to rule the world. Tom Brady and Jonathan Papelbon are your heroes and I guarantee that they wouldn’t dive face first in front of a 90MPH slap shot just to win one game. Don’t get me wrong, football is a tough sport, but I don’t think Mr. Brady would want to get into a brouhaha with Tie Domi.
Nonetheless most of the people who read this article will call me a stupid New Yorker, and hey that’s your opinion, you’re entitled to it. Speaking as a no-nothing New Yorker at least I will cheer my teams on regardless of their place in the standings. With that being said, the UMD hockey team is approaching their own playoffs. Hopefully the student body will appreciate their hard work and will go to enjoy their upcoming games.
The death styles of the unnecessarily famous
By Brian Kaminske
On February 8, 2007, Anna Nicole Smith was pronounced dead. The world stopped turning as the entire population paused to mourn the death of one of the most inspiring, generous, beautiful, loving, talented, funny, heartwarming people of our times. She never once thought for herself, always putting others before her. It was family first, career second. She wanted nothing more than to raise a loving household and bring joy to whomever she crossed paths with.....she just fell upon some bad luck is all.
Good ol’ Annie Nikki Smitty failed her freshman year of high school and dropped out her sophomore year. Then, at the wise old age of 17 she married her first loving husband who was a year younger than her. One year later they decided to bring a child into the world because, hey, they’re fully capable human beings; they can handle it. Well....actually, they couldn’t because they divorced and Anna took the baby. It wasn’t her fault though, she was just a victim of circumstance. She became an exotic dancer to pay the bills. You can’t get much more classic than that. Smith submitted photos in a search contest and as a result became a Playboy centerfold in 1992, thus setting a trend of voluptuous models. Hey girls, it’s thanks to Anna that the-bigger-the-breasts-the-more-attarctive-the-girl stereotype exists today! Another gold star for our little girl! In 1994, Smith married her ancient 89 year old billionaire oil tycoon boyfriend J. Howard Marshall. At a slim 63 year age difference, Smith maintained that she did NOT marry him for his money, even though she never lived in the same house as him and, when he died 14 months after they were wed, fought (and continues to this day to fight) his son for his inheritance. It was for love. Not money. Love. Not. Money. During all this she starred in a bunch of crappy movies. Cut to 2006. She has been promoting worthless products that are supposed to help insecure women lose weight and such. Her 20 year old son Daniel died on September 10. Daniel was on a number of antidepressants, which were found in the autopsy. Another substance that was found that contributed to his death was methadone, which was not prescribed by any of his doctors, but was prescribed to Anna Nicole Smith under a false name. The same methadone that was found in Smith’s refrigerator when she bit the dust.
So yeah. This is the life we are mourning. This is the kind of human being we are praising. Why does anyone care? Anna Nicole Smith was a miserable human being. She didn’t care for anyone but herself. She even disowned her mother. She has not done anything to better anyone besides herself. And now she’s dead. Am I glad she’s dead? Not really, because every time I turn on the TV I have to stare at her ugly, vapid mug. Did she deserve to die? No, I wouldn’t go as far as to say that she deserved death, but the woman clearly has no soul. How am I expected to feel emotion for that which has no soul?
Though I can’t completely blame her for her horrible actions through out her life. I also blame you. Me. Us. Well, not so much me, but you, definitely. If we hadn’t been patronizing her “services,” she wouldn’t have lasted as long as she did. She’s like that little obnoxious kid who shows off just because everyone’s watching him. Whose ridiculous idea was it to give her a TV show? Talk about throwing gasoline on the fire. When everyone stops ignoring that kid, he calms down and goes away. Need I say more?
This goes for every unwarranted American celebrity obsession. Britney Spears shaved her head. Did you know about that? Did you hear about this? Now seriously, is there anyone out there who seriously in all seriousness cares? Can I get a show of hands? Really? You can’t be serious. No you don’t. Put your hands down. I am telling you right now that you do NOT care. You DO NOT! Repeat after me: I. DO. NOT. CARE. about. celebrities’. personal. lives. I don’t know if you’ve noticed but Britney Spears hasn’t made a record in FOUR YEARS. Then why do I hear about her every goddamn day? Why? Why, I ask you, WHY?!?
What really gets my goat is when these celebrities aren’t satisfied with f***ing up their own lives and feel the need to bring a child into existence to endure an emotionally miserable childhood. Spears was married for two years and had two children within that time span. Do you really think you are capable of raising not only one, but TWO children, when you can’t even stay with one person for three whole years? Give me a break. These kids should be taken away from their celebrity parents and given to a family who wants a child but doesn’t have the means to be raised lovingly and properly. Not all celebrities, mind you, I’m just talking about the worthless irresponsible ones. The ones who thrive on publicity. The ones who maintain their status without doing any actual work. When was the last time you heard from Rick Moranis? That’s because he stopped acting to raise his family.
These people are human beings, no better than me or you. You need to stop treating them like they are gods, because they are not. Not only are they not gods, but they are not even perfect humans beings. They are far from it. They are rich, and that is about it. Our obsession with money’s correlation with attractiveness has me at my wits end.
These girls are, I feel, a waste of life. Though I digress, they may serve some purpose, as they say you cannot define good without evil. That may not be exactly true, because Smith isn’t really “evil” per se, but she is, in fact, a disgraceful person, which puts other people in perspective. They help me appreciate my own friends, family and your everyday cordial stranger on a much higher level. When it comes to Anna Nicole Smith, it will takes weeks, maybe even months, to hear the very last of her pointless existence and death, while the people who are out there cooking our food and fighting crime and navigating our planes and helping little old ladies cross streets will never ever be heard from, no matter how untimely their deaths may be.
|
