What a sad, sad "documentary". We watched it as a family and found it enlightening, but definitely took it with a grain of salt. When a film uses a lot of obviously old footage and the story seems very one-sided, I don't assume this means that the issue is cut and dry, one side is clearly wrong, the side making the "documentary" is right.
I put quotations around documentary because it seems that this is the accepted description for films these days that are definitely biased. I feel like the History Channel often shows documentaries - films stating facts without drawing opinions. They may not get the viewership of a Michael Moore "documentary", but they are DEFINITELY more accurate, honest, and educational.
And yes. I do believe it is Michael Moore who is the main culprit of ill-informed, biased films. I hate to go so far as to say propaganda, but seeing as how his films have a clear direction and can be misleading while holes can be pierced through his "truths", I suppose propaganda is the right word.
Now we have Netflix who conveniently streams these "documentaries" into our lives and sadly as I talk to people, it seems they take it all as fact and forget the fact that each film maker has an agenda. Whoever made 'Blackfish' seems to be the same agenda we've heard a thousand times before. We can't have aquariums or zoos because no matter what, placing animals in captivity is cruel.
THAT AGENDA completely dismisses the fact that humans learn about animals and humans from captivity. They forget that the only reason they know the things they know to argue AGAINST captivity were learned because of animals IN captivity. So our kids won't learn NOT to put animals into captivity if there are no animals in captivity. Interesting dichotomy, no?
Of course, this is not why we should have animals in captivity. Frankly, I am probably with the majority of people who doesn't think it's right, but who also doesn't think it's wrong. I think zoos, aquariums, and other animal facilities have made incredible strides in my lifetime to make the situation better. Without PETA and other animal activist groups (whose agenda is usually to CLOSE all facilities) those improvements would not come about so we need the people who say it's wrong in order to make things right.
Follow me?
Well, Blackfish is likely to push SeaWorld and other animal captivity facilities to make more improvements so that's a good thing. In the meantime, we are now in a world where everyone feels educated (often more than they actually are*) and we have the internet to boost those feelings. I keep hearing people talk about Blackfish as though they think it's an honest portrayal. Notice the number of happy, current employees on the documentary being allowed to speak their mind? Now how many former employees were represented? Sure, they don't work there anymore so we think they are free to be more "honest", but how do we know they aren't disgruntled? We have know way of knowing that for sure.
*before I get slapped for that remark, I will gladly admit that I am probably not as smart as I think I am. Or observant. I'm also not a very good friend, but that doesn't mean I can't see when someone else is doing it wrong.
I've let the documentary digest for a while. My kid came home from school and said the kids at school have talked about it, but we have explained to her why we felt the film was one sided.
The other day, I read that Bindi Irwin signed on as the new SeaWorld amabassador. People flipped out, saying her father would roll over in his grave. Don't you think he did a better job than that of teaching his children? My first thought was that -YAY- we would have someone with clout (granted through her father's legacy, but people will listen!) to find out the truth and to be an educated facilitator to improve things that need improving.
This brought up the whole thought of the film being propaganda in my mind. Now I feel a little ashamed, though, because that's the word SeaWorld used. Again, we are seeing a biased view, but take some time and read through that article completely. If you think they are lying 100% to respond to 'Blackfish' being 100% true, then I think you have fallen into the trap the makers of 'Blackfish' hoped for in thinking that as long as they publicized the first view, every response would be seen as a lie. This, unfortunately, is where media takes us.
However, if you watched Blackfish and thought the actions were reprehensible, then to be an educated human being, it is only fair that you take in Truth About Blackfish and keep certain facts in mind.
~SeaWorld along with other zoos, aquariums, and animal facilities around the world spend millions to aide in conservation efforts. Without those dollars, where would conservation be? Interesting question I may research later: Do groups like PETA spend more or less on conservation than on campaigns to close zoos, aquariums, etc? If their income is smaller or larger than those facilities, how does the percentage spent on conservation efforts compare to the percentage spent on promoting the closing of facilities and ending educational and conservation efforts of other groups?
~SeaWorld is hugely educational. Yes, what some people see are performing monkeys. What other people realize are the capabilities of other species. Do you think people back in the 1700s were remotely capable of understanding that? No. Because they had no way of seeing what these animals could do.
~If the ex-employees cared so deeply for these animals, why quit, wait for a documentary to be made where you can talk about how terrible it is, and then join these groups who are anti-educational (because any group that puts the rights of animals so high that humans can't reach it are, frankly, not interested in education of the future...) instead of standing up for them at the time? Maybe fear of getting fired, but if you quit, who cares if you get fired? And if you think the animals are being treated that badly, why would you care more about getting fired than those animals? And if you did stand up for those animals (which I don't believe), why not mention it the perfect place to defend yourself - a documentary designed to defend the animals? While you were inside you had a much healthier way to get your point across than some passive-aggressive film, don't you think?
~Listen/read carefully. The words used are artistic, beautiful. There is little to no science in art. It sounds more dramatic to say 'psychotic', but without data from a neuro scientist or (let's face it, SOFT science!) an animal psychologist to confirm that, you're just using artistic words to jump to conclusions.
~I can't say how many decades ago it was, but it was sometime after my parents took me to SW as a child (around 1985), there was an incident with the dolphins. I can't remember any details, but I do remember it was a call for SW to change its practices. SW did so immediately. When I went back in, I think, 1995, things were drastically different. Again, in 2010 when my family went to the one in CA (not the one where the incident occurred), I noticed how many more changes had been brought about to improve the standards for the animals. Each time, the habitats became larger, more natural appearing, more education, and more well-kept.
Sidetrack: The same can be said about my local zoo. If you've ever seen The Last Unicorn, near the end when the spell is removed from all the animals in the cages? That's what our zoo looked like in the 80s. I was 5-15 years old and didn't know any better, but now you wouldn't know it EVER looked like that. The habitats are huge, natural, and I swear you can see the tiger smile these days. They move around so much more and look relaxed when they sleep. Now that I have a basis of comparison, I dare say they habitats were small, uncomfortable, and slightly cruel when I was a kid and frankly the trainers could have been abusing them - they always looked edgy.
The world changes and evolves. It comes with help from one extreme group and great expense to the other extreme, but it does come. Without either, we don't have conservation, education, or enjoyment of the world beyond our computer screens. It's just that this format breeds hatred and ignorance. I don't like that part of it.
SeaWorld says that in the 4 years since the death which Blackfish focuses on, they have worked diligently to make even more improvements. Bringing things to light helps increase animal satisfaction. At the same time, the WAY these propagandists bring it about offends me. Is there not a better way than shaming, publicly lying, confusing people?
Peta says "Don't fall for it."
Don't fall for Peta's propaganda either, okay? That's all I'm asking.
Basically, I think both 'Blackfish' and 'Truth about Blackfish' are pushing their own agendas. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, but how will you know where the middle is if you don't look at both sides as objectively as possible?
Be ruled by your brain, not by your emotions.
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
Thursday, March 13, 2014
Save money!
I don't clip coupons. Okay, I do, but not to the extent of Extreme Couponing. I like to save money, but I hate to buy junk.
Recently, it seems everything's going crap. Of course it had to because our household income increased significantly last November so stuff had to break before we had a chance to catch up from living paycheck to paycheck, right?
First our dishwasher. We got lucky, though, and got this one
for 44% off retail price. Woohoo! And once we sent in for the power company's rebate, that was another $30 in our pocket. It happened that they had tried to put it in someone's house, but it didn't fit. In the process, the box got lost and there was a scratch and a dent. Yeah, do you see a scratch? A dent? Nope. Where it sits, the scratch is barely noticeable and the dent is all but invisible, but those problems added up to HUGE discount.
About 2 weeks ago, we paid off that dishwasher before the "same as cash" period ended so we paid no interest. Feeling good about that, we should have known it couldn't last. The washer started feeling lazy. The next week, the dryer stopped drying. I've had repairmen out a bunch of times to fix these issues. It has been mostly the same problem over and over and getting closer together. At some point, you gotta say "this washer is 17 years old and the dryer is 15. Do we really call the repairman again?"
Well, today I'm feeling good. They just delivered our new washer and dryer. This time, we only saved 35%, but then again, best sale I've seen is about 15%. It's still quite a relief. Oh, and this time we will get $100 back from power and gas. Plus they are supposed to be all efficient and stuff to help with utility bills in the future. We looked all over the place and couldn't even find any decent top loaders for much less ($30 a piece, but doesn't qualify for the $100 cash back so...not worth it.) I hate white - was hoping for grey (and I was expected to HAVE to get top loaders) but when you're saving about $760, you care a lot less about color. These ones were floor models, but since they don't hook them up or anything, they're really new. Also, this one doesn't have a dent. Our old dryer had this huge dent in the front because it was a floor model, but that worked in our favor because we didn't have a lot of money at that time either. Too bad you can't get floor models for $200 anymore. I might have saved money going to this place that does refurbished appliances, but I have trouble trusting "refurbished" and besides, we would have to pay cash. This way we have 12 months on credit to pay it back. The other place couldn't give us that.
And 12 months to pay this one before interest kicks in. I hope we manage. I don't like paying interest if I don't have to...
Recently, it seems everything's going crap. Of course it had to because our household income increased significantly last November so stuff had to break before we had a chance to catch up from living paycheck to paycheck, right?
First our dishwasher. We got lucky, though, and got this one
About 2 weeks ago, we paid off that dishwasher before the "same as cash" period ended so we paid no interest. Feeling good about that, we should have known it couldn't last. The washer started feeling lazy. The next week, the dryer stopped drying. I've had repairmen out a bunch of times to fix these issues. It has been mostly the same problem over and over and getting closer together. At some point, you gotta say "this washer is 17 years old and the dryer is 15. Do we really call the repairman again?"
Well, today I'm feeling good. They just delivered our new washer and dryer. This time, we only saved 35%, but then again, best sale I've seen is about 15%. It's still quite a relief. Oh, and this time we will get $100 back from power and gas. Plus they are supposed to be all efficient and stuff to help with utility bills in the future. We looked all over the place and couldn't even find any decent top loaders for much less ($30 a piece, but doesn't qualify for the $100 cash back so...not worth it.) I hate white - was hoping for grey (and I was expected to HAVE to get top loaders) but when you're saving about $760, you care a lot less about color. These ones were floor models, but since they don't hook them up or anything, they're really new. Also, this one doesn't have a dent. Our old dryer had this huge dent in the front because it was a floor model, but that worked in our favor because we didn't have a lot of money at that time either. Too bad you can't get floor models for $200 anymore. I might have saved money going to this place that does refurbished appliances, but I have trouble trusting "refurbished" and besides, we would have to pay cash. This way we have 12 months on credit to pay it back. The other place couldn't give us that.
And 12 months to pay this one before interest kicks in. I hope we manage. I don't like paying interest if I don't have to...
Thursday, March 6, 2014
Penn. man wants to take child from adoptive parents
Adoption in the news
Legally, we need to close the loophole that allows this to happen. That's the first thing I have to say. I understand that even though the things I have to say on the subject are going to make it sound like I don't care about this guy's feelings.
But here's the thing. That baby has known only his adoptive parents for 2 years. That's pretty formative. For me, it was also the hardest part of raising a kid so I'm probably biased in saying it's too damned late to take the kid away. I think that the news is pretty good at portraying the side of the wronged biological father. They have pretty much always managed to make that side pretty clear and I don't want to discount that side of it, but we all know it. We hear it. The question, though, is it better to rip the kid from his parents' arms because you weren't on good terms with the biological mother when she gave up the kid for adoption? Or for all the months she was pregnant and came to this decision? I don't particularly care to hyperbolize with the word 'rip', but have you ever taken a 2 year old away from the arms of their parents when they didn't want to go? For longer than a night of babysitting?
I reiterate, we need to close this loophole! I've heard people terrified of adopting because they hear these stories. They don't want to become attached to a child only to have it taken away. They need to be allowed to feel like that child is their child. If they have fear that the baby they have just adopted can be taken by a biological parent at any point along the way, it will affect every little action of how they raise and think of that child! Whether it is in relation to an adopted child or any other experience we have as humans, our responses are, consciously or sub-consciously, going to be affected. When the only news reports we hear about adoption are related to kids being taken from the only families they know, the result can only be adoptive parents treating their adopted children slightly differently.
Meanwhile, adoptive parents and the children they have adopted have created this family of their own. A family is love, but it is also knowledge of each other. Trust. Being able to predict others' behaviour because we know them that well! Familiarity. Comfort. Attachment.
Yes, a two year old can re-establish those bonds with a new family. It happens when a young child's parents get divorced, the parents remarry, and they end up liking their step-parents. It happens when a toddler's parents are killed in a car accident and they go to love with beloved aunts and uncles. It happens, that is true, but if a biological father loves his kid so much, then shouldn't the thought of what it will do to the child at least cross his mind? Is it really because it breaks your heart not to see the kid or because you can't let got of something you think you should possess? If someone steals your car, you want to take them to court, prove it's yours and get it back. No one thinks about how the car feels, but the victim is likely to say things like "I love that car. It's my car. It belongs to me."
Guess what? A kid is not a car. Why does the thought never come up that these guys think about that kid's feelings? Why do we never hear a tale where he's saying "Hey, maybe it's for the best. I just want to know what's going on in my kid's life. Maybe some pictures and letters or let me visit as a family friend." No. It is always the immediate jump to "I must have my child back." What are you going to provide that child? What plans do you have to offer that child more than it is getting right now? I see how that comes dangerously close to saying that a rich family deserves to keep a kid more than a single poor guy. I do not believe that. There is much more to raising a kid than money like love, attention, and desire to have that kid around. I understand these biological fathers have those things, but sometimes love is about giving the person what they want and what's better for them than about what you want. Isn't sacrifice the purest show of love?
I also notice the news never asks about what the bio-mom has to say to defend herself. I fully support the idea that bio-mom's should discuss her plans with bio-dad before making any decisions about the baby, but let's keep something huge in mind. We want men and women to be treated equally, but they will never really be equal and one of the most defining reasons for that is the ability to get pregnant. Women know from childhood that this is their contribution and responsibility to the world. By the time they can have babies, they realize that they have to think about it every time they are with a guy. Do you think guys spend that much time thinking about what could happen if they fertilize the wrong egg? Of course not. We've sort of taught our young women that one way they can behave equally to men is to engage in sex as frivolously as they do. They have the right to be promiscuous without being sluts (let me come back to that comment in a second....) and they do, but a guy never ever ever has to worry about the consequences of a mistake the way a woman does. At the back of his mind he knows that if he gets her pregnant, he can choose whether or not to be involved in the decision. A women doesn't get that choice, does she?
Quick tangent on that comment. The same people who think that a biological parent has more rights over a kid often seems to be the same kind of person who will still call a woman a slut in this age of "enlightenment", but the dude is a playa, not a slut. He's not a jackass for skipping necessary precautions to avoid pregnancy or, say, skipping the sex altogether. No, a man doesn't really have to look at it the same way as woman, does he? I mean, this is a huge issue.
In the story above, we're talking about a young man who is now of legal age who broke off relations with the girl because she was younger than he was first told. Well, it's not like the age he *thought* she was is particularly upstanding either. As far as the age argument goes in my world, there isn't a lot of difference between a 40 year old wife and a 53 year old husband, but there is an ENORMOUS difference between an 16 year old and an 18 year old. Starting high school and thinking about college or a career are two different lives completely.
So you know what, dude? It is unfair. It is unjust. It's unfair to you. It's unjust to the child. Still, can you take five seconds to think about how unfair and unjust it will be to the baby if you snatch him from the only parents he has ever known? Parents who, btw, had a reason for adopting. Maybe they've had their own struggles. The idea of adopting your kid didn't come easily to them, you know, and I would like to hear at least one of these guys admit that they have given at least as much thought to taking the kid away, the complexity, the grey area, as the bio-mom who carried it in her womb and contemplated 24/7 for nine months or the people who came to the decision to adopt a child for whatever reason they came to that decision. Stop and think for a minute. If you're taking the kid back like a toy someone stole or you are more upset that the chick who gave birth to this baby lied to you than anything else, maybe you need to spend more time thinking about it.
Letting your kid be adopted isn't a reflection that you're a bad person. It doesn't mean you'll be a bad father someday. A person isn't selfish because they let that sperm create a great kid and then became less involved in that kid's life. It actually shows that you are strong, selfless, and humble to be able to forget the law and do what's best for the child.
Legally, we need to close the loophole that allows this to happen. That's the first thing I have to say. I understand that even though the things I have to say on the subject are going to make it sound like I don't care about this guy's feelings.
But here's the thing. That baby has known only his adoptive parents for 2 years. That's pretty formative. For me, it was also the hardest part of raising a kid so I'm probably biased in saying it's too damned late to take the kid away. I think that the news is pretty good at portraying the side of the wronged biological father. They have pretty much always managed to make that side pretty clear and I don't want to discount that side of it, but we all know it. We hear it. The question, though, is it better to rip the kid from his parents' arms because you weren't on good terms with the biological mother when she gave up the kid for adoption? Or for all the months she was pregnant and came to this decision? I don't particularly care to hyperbolize with the word 'rip', but have you ever taken a 2 year old away from the arms of their parents when they didn't want to go? For longer than a night of babysitting?
I reiterate, we need to close this loophole! I've heard people terrified of adopting because they hear these stories. They don't want to become attached to a child only to have it taken away. They need to be allowed to feel like that child is their child. If they have fear that the baby they have just adopted can be taken by a biological parent at any point along the way, it will affect every little action of how they raise and think of that child! Whether it is in relation to an adopted child or any other experience we have as humans, our responses are, consciously or sub-consciously, going to be affected. When the only news reports we hear about adoption are related to kids being taken from the only families they know, the result can only be adoptive parents treating their adopted children slightly differently.
Meanwhile, adoptive parents and the children they have adopted have created this family of their own. A family is love, but it is also knowledge of each other. Trust. Being able to predict others' behaviour because we know them that well! Familiarity. Comfort. Attachment.
Yes, a two year old can re-establish those bonds with a new family. It happens when a young child's parents get divorced, the parents remarry, and they end up liking their step-parents. It happens when a toddler's parents are killed in a car accident and they go to love with beloved aunts and uncles. It happens, that is true, but if a biological father loves his kid so much, then shouldn't the thought of what it will do to the child at least cross his mind? Is it really because it breaks your heart not to see the kid or because you can't let got of something you think you should possess? If someone steals your car, you want to take them to court, prove it's yours and get it back. No one thinks about how the car feels, but the victim is likely to say things like "I love that car. It's my car. It belongs to me."
Guess what? A kid is not a car. Why does the thought never come up that these guys think about that kid's feelings? Why do we never hear a tale where he's saying "Hey, maybe it's for the best. I just want to know what's going on in my kid's life. Maybe some pictures and letters or let me visit as a family friend." No. It is always the immediate jump to "I must have my child back." What are you going to provide that child? What plans do you have to offer that child more than it is getting right now? I see how that comes dangerously close to saying that a rich family deserves to keep a kid more than a single poor guy. I do not believe that. There is much more to raising a kid than money like love, attention, and desire to have that kid around. I understand these biological fathers have those things, but sometimes love is about giving the person what they want and what's better for them than about what you want. Isn't sacrifice the purest show of love?
I also notice the news never asks about what the bio-mom has to say to defend herself. I fully support the idea that bio-mom's should discuss her plans with bio-dad before making any decisions about the baby, but let's keep something huge in mind. We want men and women to be treated equally, but they will never really be equal and one of the most defining reasons for that is the ability to get pregnant. Women know from childhood that this is their contribution and responsibility to the world. By the time they can have babies, they realize that they have to think about it every time they are with a guy. Do you think guys spend that much time thinking about what could happen if they fertilize the wrong egg? Of course not. We've sort of taught our young women that one way they can behave equally to men is to engage in sex as frivolously as they do. They have the right to be promiscuous without being sluts (let me come back to that comment in a second....) and they do, but a guy never ever ever has to worry about the consequences of a mistake the way a woman does. At the back of his mind he knows that if he gets her pregnant, he can choose whether or not to be involved in the decision. A women doesn't get that choice, does she?
Quick tangent on that comment. The same people who think that a biological parent has more rights over a kid often seems to be the same kind of person who will still call a woman a slut in this age of "enlightenment", but the dude is a playa, not a slut. He's not a jackass for skipping necessary precautions to avoid pregnancy or, say, skipping the sex altogether. No, a man doesn't really have to look at it the same way as woman, does he? I mean, this is a huge issue.
In the story above, we're talking about a young man who is now of legal age who broke off relations with the girl because she was younger than he was first told. Well, it's not like the age he *thought* she was is particularly upstanding either. As far as the age argument goes in my world, there isn't a lot of difference between a 40 year old wife and a 53 year old husband, but there is an ENORMOUS difference between an 16 year old and an 18 year old. Starting high school and thinking about college or a career are two different lives completely.
So you know what, dude? It is unfair. It is unjust. It's unfair to you. It's unjust to the child. Still, can you take five seconds to think about how unfair and unjust it will be to the baby if you snatch him from the only parents he has ever known? Parents who, btw, had a reason for adopting. Maybe they've had their own struggles. The idea of adopting your kid didn't come easily to them, you know, and I would like to hear at least one of these guys admit that they have given at least as much thought to taking the kid away, the complexity, the grey area, as the bio-mom who carried it in her womb and contemplated 24/7 for nine months or the people who came to the decision to adopt a child for whatever reason they came to that decision. Stop and think for a minute. If you're taking the kid back like a toy someone stole or you are more upset that the chick who gave birth to this baby lied to you than anything else, maybe you need to spend more time thinking about it.
Letting your kid be adopted isn't a reflection that you're a bad person. It doesn't mean you'll be a bad father someday. A person isn't selfish because they let that sperm create a great kid and then became less involved in that kid's life. It actually shows that you are strong, selfless, and humble to be able to forget the law and do what's best for the child.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)