Yet another young celebrity has broken the law and seems to have had a meltdown. Lindsay Lohan was arrested….again for drunken driving and possession of cocaine. And on top of that she was chasing her former personal assistant’s mother in the car. She did all this just a few weeks after completing rehab for alcoholism. It is sad, but I have to say that I do not feel sorry for her. She actually disgusts me.
Lohan does not seem to care about the fact that she has a serious problem and does not care about the dangerous actions that she takes. She also does not seem to be bothered by the fact that she could have killed someone while driving drunk and to make things worse, chasing someone at 100 miles per hour. Lohan is just another celebrity who thinks she can get away with whatever she wants.
Well, I hope that Lindsay Lohan does not get away with this and gets what she deserves. She deserves to do some hard time behind bars similar to Paris Hilton except that Lohan should be locked up much longer.
Putting Lohan behind bars for awhile would not be just a punishment in my opinion, but I think jail would do her some good. If spending some good time in jail does not turn Lohan around, then nothing will. Obviously rehab is not working. Although, I do not think she has ever spent a considerable amount of time in rehab either.
Lohan reminds me of Robert Downey Jr. back when he was arrested several times for his drug problem. Luckily, after several runs ins with the law he was able to kick his nasty habit before it was too late.
Hopefully, Lohan will be able to do the same…because quite frankly I’m tired of hearing about her.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Cry Baby Paris
The pictures of Paris Hilton crying in back of the police car as she was sent back to jail were priceless.
I was one of the many people who thought it was ridiculous when Paris was released from jail after violating probation from a drunken driving arrest after only a few days. She was instead sentenced to house arrest for 40 days. What a punishment! Having to stay in a mansion for 40 days. I only live in a condo and I would love for someone to order me to stay in my place for that long. I think it is called celebrity justice.
After an outcry from the public, the judge ordered Paris back to jail which of course caused the waterworks to come.
Paris is getting what she deserved. She will probably still end up getting released from jail early for good behavior. At least she will be spending a good amount of time in jail instead of the comfort of her mansion. I am glad the judge did not buy Paris’ medical excuse as the reason for leaving jail. The real reason is that she is a spoiled brat who does not even have a real job and who thinks she can get away with everything. The only reason she is famous in the first place (besides her last name) is because of a certain x-rated video she made that surfaced on the internet.
If Martha Stewart can survive five months in prison, then why can’t Paris survive 20-40 days in jail? Maybe Paris can learn what it is like to not live like a rich brat that she is. I want to say that she will learn something from this experience….but who knows. First, she needs to learn to stop throwing a 5-year-old temper tantrum when she does not get her way. If not, then I will just continue to refer to her as “cry baby Paris.”
I was one of the many people who thought it was ridiculous when Paris was released from jail after violating probation from a drunken driving arrest after only a few days. She was instead sentenced to house arrest for 40 days. What a punishment! Having to stay in a mansion for 40 days. I only live in a condo and I would love for someone to order me to stay in my place for that long. I think it is called celebrity justice.
After an outcry from the public, the judge ordered Paris back to jail which of course caused the waterworks to come.
Paris is getting what she deserved. She will probably still end up getting released from jail early for good behavior. At least she will be spending a good amount of time in jail instead of the comfort of her mansion. I am glad the judge did not buy Paris’ medical excuse as the reason for leaving jail. The real reason is that she is a spoiled brat who does not even have a real job and who thinks she can get away with everything. The only reason she is famous in the first place (besides her last name) is because of a certain x-rated video she made that surfaced on the internet.
If Martha Stewart can survive five months in prison, then why can’t Paris survive 20-40 days in jail? Maybe Paris can learn what it is like to not live like a rich brat that she is. I want to say that she will learn something from this experience….but who knows. First, she needs to learn to stop throwing a 5-year-old temper tantrum when she does not get her way. If not, then I will just continue to refer to her as “cry baby Paris.”
Friday, May 11, 2007
Marriage in the Catholic Church
I need to get something off my chest regarding the beliefs of the Catholic Church.
Now most recently my fiancé and I fulfilled our requirements in order for us to get married by the Catholic Church. I have to say that it was one of the most stressful/difficult times in our wedding planning. It is still stressful. It made me think about some aspects of the church that I do not agree with. For one, Natural Family Planning. Well, this type of planning is perfect for married couples who want 5-10 children.
Speaking of children, my fiancé and I are undecided about having children of our own, but still talk about the possibility. Well, our biggest mistake was saying this to the priest. Apparently, zero children equal an invalid marriage in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Plus, it seems like the church is still living in the 1950’s who want women barefoot and pregnant much of the time. Luckily, we emphasized to the priest that we are open to having children. However, that does not make us any less Catholic than the married couples who are “fruitful.” The reason why I went through this process in the first place is because I want God in my marriage. That is important.
This leads me to priests and marriage. I do not think that it is right for a priest to tell me it is my duty to have children when they are not allowed to marry nor have children of their own. Who do they go home to every night?
I feel that priests should be allowed to take a wife. Then they can really understand what marriage is all about and have someone in their life to share things with. Not only that, there would probably be less problems with priests who molest children. Sadly, that is the big joke with the Catholic Church nowadays.
The issue is not just with priests either. Why should marriage be restricted to only heterosexuals who are not priests? I have become more open minded these days about certain issues thanks to the mass media. Marriage should not be limited to certain groups of people. Heterosexuals, homosexuals, and priests: They all should be allowed to marry. My fiancé and I are getting married by a Deacon, and Deacons are allowed to marry. With the divorce rate high, the certain people who are allowed to marry apparently do not take marriage seriously anyway. Some people suggest that divorce is actually declining, but more and more couples decide to just live together instead of getting married. This really does not make sense to me. The group of people who do have the constitutional right and the opportunity to get married end up not going through with it at all. Hmmm…just something to ponder.
Now I do not know if priests will be allowed to marry in my lifetime, but I think that someday the rules will change.
I for one am happy that God will be a part of my marriage whether or not this union eventually brings children. One of the most important things to me right now is knowing that God will make for a stronger marriage…one that lasts forever.
Now most recently my fiancé and I fulfilled our requirements in order for us to get married by the Catholic Church. I have to say that it was one of the most stressful/difficult times in our wedding planning. It is still stressful. It made me think about some aspects of the church that I do not agree with. For one, Natural Family Planning. Well, this type of planning is perfect for married couples who want 5-10 children.
Speaking of children, my fiancé and I are undecided about having children of our own, but still talk about the possibility. Well, our biggest mistake was saying this to the priest. Apparently, zero children equal an invalid marriage in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Plus, it seems like the church is still living in the 1950’s who want women barefoot and pregnant much of the time. Luckily, we emphasized to the priest that we are open to having children. However, that does not make us any less Catholic than the married couples who are “fruitful.” The reason why I went through this process in the first place is because I want God in my marriage. That is important.
This leads me to priests and marriage. I do not think that it is right for a priest to tell me it is my duty to have children when they are not allowed to marry nor have children of their own. Who do they go home to every night?
I feel that priests should be allowed to take a wife. Then they can really understand what marriage is all about and have someone in their life to share things with. Not only that, there would probably be less problems with priests who molest children. Sadly, that is the big joke with the Catholic Church nowadays.
The issue is not just with priests either. Why should marriage be restricted to only heterosexuals who are not priests? I have become more open minded these days about certain issues thanks to the mass media. Marriage should not be limited to certain groups of people. Heterosexuals, homosexuals, and priests: They all should be allowed to marry. My fiancé and I are getting married by a Deacon, and Deacons are allowed to marry. With the divorce rate high, the certain people who are allowed to marry apparently do not take marriage seriously anyway. Some people suggest that divorce is actually declining, but more and more couples decide to just live together instead of getting married. This really does not make sense to me. The group of people who do have the constitutional right and the opportunity to get married end up not going through with it at all. Hmmm…just something to ponder.
Now I do not know if priests will be allowed to marry in my lifetime, but I think that someday the rules will change.
I for one am happy that God will be a part of my marriage whether or not this union eventually brings children. One of the most important things to me right now is knowing that God will make for a stronger marriage…one that lasts forever.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
What Is It Going To Take?
What is it going to take…yet another shooting?
Last week, the worst shooting in the United States occurred at Virginia Tech. College student, Seung-Hui Cho, went on a shooting rampage and killed 32 people including classmates and faculty. Cho then killed himself.
The Virginia Tech shooting took place just a few days before the eight year anniversary of the Columbine high school massacre in Colorado. In that school shooting two students killed 12 other students and a teacher before killing themselves.
It is not just Columbine though. Unfortunately, there have been a string of deadly school shootings for the past couple decades.
Before the Columbine shooting there was the Jonesboro school massacre in Arkansas where two middle school boys shot and killed four students and a teacher. The boys were just 13 and 11 years old. Can you believe that? So young and killing innocent people.
This next school shooting hits close to home. In 1989, five children were shot and killed while playing during recess at Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, CA. A disturbed man named Patrick Purdy not only killed these five children, but he also wounded 29 others. Purdy then decided to kill himself, which seems to be a pattern of school shootings. Purdy was using a semi-automatic rifle. This dark day is known as the Stockton Massacre. This also leads me to the topic of gun control.
In the wake of the Stockton Massacre, the state of California was the first to ban semi-automatic assault weapons known as the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Act.
It is 2007 now and several more school massacres later, I am here to say we need more strict laws on gun control. I understand that many people will not agree with me on this, especially conservatives, but I do not think it is a good idea for anyone to own a gun. And I cannot stress this enough: It is definitely not a good idea to own a gun if you have children. The Jonesboro school massacre I mentioned above proves this point. The guns the two boys shot the students with were stolen from one of the boy’s grandfather’s house. Point taken.
People who argue against this say it is good to own a gun for a self-defense situation. There are other ways to protect yourself instead of owning a gun. For example, I have pepper spray. Pepper spray does not kill, but gives me enough time to get help in case I am in danger. It just seems like guns always wind up in the hands of psychopaths who use them to murder other people. No self-defense involved.
Obviously, the gun laws we have now are not working. Something drastic needs to happen in order to reduce school violence. Unfortunately, I do not think school violence will ever be completely eliminated since that is just the crazy world we live in. However, with stricter laws violence can be reduced and lives can be saved. I will never know why it is so easy for sick/disturbed individuals to walk into a school with a gun.
What will it take for this madness to stop?
Last week, the worst shooting in the United States occurred at Virginia Tech. College student, Seung-Hui Cho, went on a shooting rampage and killed 32 people including classmates and faculty. Cho then killed himself.
The Virginia Tech shooting took place just a few days before the eight year anniversary of the Columbine high school massacre in Colorado. In that school shooting two students killed 12 other students and a teacher before killing themselves.
It is not just Columbine though. Unfortunately, there have been a string of deadly school shootings for the past couple decades.
Before the Columbine shooting there was the Jonesboro school massacre in Arkansas where two middle school boys shot and killed four students and a teacher. The boys were just 13 and 11 years old. Can you believe that? So young and killing innocent people.
This next school shooting hits close to home. In 1989, five children were shot and killed while playing during recess at Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, CA. A disturbed man named Patrick Purdy not only killed these five children, but he also wounded 29 others. Purdy then decided to kill himself, which seems to be a pattern of school shootings. Purdy was using a semi-automatic rifle. This dark day is known as the Stockton Massacre. This also leads me to the topic of gun control.
In the wake of the Stockton Massacre, the state of California was the first to ban semi-automatic assault weapons known as the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Act.
It is 2007 now and several more school massacres later, I am here to say we need more strict laws on gun control. I understand that many people will not agree with me on this, especially conservatives, but I do not think it is a good idea for anyone to own a gun. And I cannot stress this enough: It is definitely not a good idea to own a gun if you have children. The Jonesboro school massacre I mentioned above proves this point. The guns the two boys shot the students with were stolen from one of the boy’s grandfather’s house. Point taken.
People who argue against this say it is good to own a gun for a self-defense situation. There are other ways to protect yourself instead of owning a gun. For example, I have pepper spray. Pepper spray does not kill, but gives me enough time to get help in case I am in danger. It just seems like guns always wind up in the hands of psychopaths who use them to murder other people. No self-defense involved.
Obviously, the gun laws we have now are not working. Something drastic needs to happen in order to reduce school violence. Unfortunately, I do not think school violence will ever be completely eliminated since that is just the crazy world we live in. However, with stricter laws violence can be reduced and lives can be saved. I will never know why it is so easy for sick/disturbed individuals to walk into a school with a gun.
What will it take for this madness to stop?
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Senate Tells Bush To End It
In a surprising yet hopeful move this week, the Senate and the House of Representatives passed a bill that would force the end of the war in Iraq by a certain deadline. The Senate wants the troops home by March 31, 2008, while the House would like the troops home by September 2008. Of course what is no surprise is the fact that President Bush (actually drop the President, he does not deserve that title) says that he will veto the bills. Instead, Bush wants to waste more money to support this disastrous war without a deadline in mind.
I knew that something good would come out of the Democrats controlling Congress. The difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is that the Democrats want to do what the American people want, which is to end this lousy war sooner rather than later.
You know, I wonder how Bush sleeps at night? Does he feel guilty for costing the lives of so many American troops? No, he probably sleeps peacefully thinking about money and oil. I mean oil is the real reason why we are in Iraq. Then Bush probably thanks God everyday for the connections he has in the state of Florida. I hope he is proud of himself.
I understand that Bush will be stubborn and never allow a bill like this to pass, but I am glad that the Democrats in Congress are sending a very loud message to Bush: There will be a fight. And what a fight it will be. Get your boxing gloves ready Bush.
I knew that something good would come out of the Democrats controlling Congress. The difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is that the Democrats want to do what the American people want, which is to end this lousy war sooner rather than later.
You know, I wonder how Bush sleeps at night? Does he feel guilty for costing the lives of so many American troops? No, he probably sleeps peacefully thinking about money and oil. I mean oil is the real reason why we are in Iraq. Then Bush probably thanks God everyday for the connections he has in the state of Florida. I hope he is proud of himself.
I understand that Bush will be stubborn and never allow a bill like this to pass, but I am glad that the Democrats in Congress are sending a very loud message to Bush: There will be a fight. And what a fight it will be. Get your boxing gloves ready Bush.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Driving Miss Daisy Part 2
Just a day after I posted my previous blog about the problem with elderly drivers, I came across an interesting news item. The news article was about elderly drivers and how intersections are the most dangerous for them. It also was about how these drivers cause more accidents because of their slower reactions and their eyesight not being as good as it used to be.
The article’s solution to the problem is to improve intersections to make it easier on the elderly drivers. This is an ok solution I guess. However, I still say once you reach a certain age you should be forced to re-take your driving test.
Improving intersections may be a small solution, but there are elderly people that should not be driving at all. For example, someone with Dementia or Alzheimer’s disease definitely should not be behind the wheel. That is too much of a risk. They need to have someone else drive them around. Not only is this a fact, but also from personal experience of knowing someone really close to me with the disease.
Hopefully, more people will see the importance and seriousness of this.
The article’s solution to the problem is to improve intersections to make it easier on the elderly drivers. This is an ok solution I guess. However, I still say once you reach a certain age you should be forced to re-take your driving test.
Improving intersections may be a small solution, but there are elderly people that should not be driving at all. For example, someone with Dementia or Alzheimer’s disease definitely should not be behind the wheel. That is too much of a risk. They need to have someone else drive them around. Not only is this a fact, but also from personal experience of knowing someone really close to me with the disease.
Hopefully, more people will see the importance and seriousness of this.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Driving Miss Daisy
I hope that this blog does not offend anyone, but something has to be said about the elderly people and their driving. I feel that once you reach a certain age it might not be a good idea to be out there on the road. Let’s face it, some things do not function well or work once you get older. One of them is eyesight or losing the ability to actually know where you are going and remembering the rules of the road.
Living in Arizona, there are many elderly people driving on the freeways and many of them should not be there. They drive way below the speed limit (although it is better than driving like a maniac) and cannot see very well to know where they are going.
Now I am not saying take their driver’s licenses away for good. After all, there are teenagers/young adults that are many times more of a danger on the road because of their aggressive driving. What I am saying, however, is to force senior citizens to re-take their driving test when they reach a certain age. Maybe ages 70-75, or even younger. This way their driving skills can be tested to see if it is safe for them to get behind the wheel.
The state of Arizona driver’s licenses lasts about 40 years. My license does not expire until the year 2045 where I will be in my sixties. Hopefully, the DMV will be smart enough to give me a new test and to check my eyesight.
The less danger on the road the better off we all are.
Living in Arizona, there are many elderly people driving on the freeways and many of them should not be there. They drive way below the speed limit (although it is better than driving like a maniac) and cannot see very well to know where they are going.
Now I am not saying take their driver’s licenses away for good. After all, there are teenagers/young adults that are many times more of a danger on the road because of their aggressive driving. What I am saying, however, is to force senior citizens to re-take their driving test when they reach a certain age. Maybe ages 70-75, or even younger. This way their driving skills can be tested to see if it is safe for them to get behind the wheel.
The state of Arizona driver’s licenses lasts about 40 years. My license does not expire until the year 2045 where I will be in my sixties. Hopefully, the DMV will be smart enough to give me a new test and to check my eyesight.
The less danger on the road the better off we all are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
