$admin_info[html_footer] "; exit(); } ?> d>"; } return $calendar."\n\n"; } ?> UNCENSORED
To boldly write with no inhibitions...
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Obsession Takes a Dangerous Turn
So, I'm sure all of you have heard of the singer Miley Cyrus whether you want to or not. I'll allow my readers to have their own opinions of the girl, but I personally don't enjoy her voice, think her show is retarded, and think all the fans that follow her really need to get lives. Never in my life have I seen any one preteen idol have so much... commercial junk. She has her own board games, camera, clothing (including underwear), video games, poster, locker decorations, backpack, lunchbox, thermos, gummy snacks, and more that I'm not going to even bother listing because it would take far too long. Children are obsessing over this rockstar who somehow manages to keep two lives under control--both as Hannah Montana and as Miley Cyrus.

Recently, I just discovered that obsession really can go too far. Perhaps some of you are familiar with the site Twitter. If you like the status bars of Myspace and Facebook but don't have the time to visit both sites and update your status, you can always just use Twitter because all Twitter is is a status bar. Sites like Twitter, Myspace, and Facebook are starting to become popular even in the world of Hollywood. Miraculously, these rockstars, actors/actresses, and other famous people of our society have time somewhere to update Facebook, Myspace, and/or Twitter. I really think it's their assistants and not them.

Now, I'm sure many of you can guess where this is going. Miley Cyrus has--or at least had--a Twitter. I've included the link to her old Twitter page, which she removed. Evidently she got tired of it for some reason or another. I wouldn't know, I didn't look into her reasons for leaving Twitter. This is about obsession, not "why Miley Cyrus left Twitter." Evidently, some fans were rather ticked that Miley stopped using Twitter, however. After all, with being able to update your status from your mobile phone, fans could practically stop Miley Cyrus' every move if she updated frequently.

One such unhappy fan has gone to the extreme. They have a Twitter account under the name "mileysavefuzzy." If you scroll down to the bottom, you can see where this fan's obsession turned into freakish madness. Here is one of several odd Twitter posts from this account, this one being posted October 27th, this year: "Either way, if Miley doesn't come back, as sad as it may be, and with your comments in mind, Fuzzy will be gone in 20 (or 27) days." The best that can be deduced from this without knowing more is that if Miley Cyrus doesn't return to Twitter, something or someone named Fuzzy is going to be "gone." I'm sure we can all figure out that "gone" means "dead". In what seems to be their first Twitter post on October 24th this year, this person gives out a link to their "new project" leading to a website with the header "Will Miley Save Fuzzy?"

Follow the link I provided at the bottom of this entry, and you will find yourself transported to a site all about this obsessed fans desire to sacrifice their cat and eat it if Miley Cyrus doesn't return to Twitter. My sister actually told me about all of this just last night, and the first response that came to my mind was "What the hell??? You don't sacrifice your loving pet just because some dumb ass rockstar decides to leave a social networking site!" Pardon my French, but it irks me that people can be so obsessive to even make a site like this.

If you surf around on that site, you can see that supposedly Fuzzy is dead and was sadly euthenized and eaten by his loving master on November 23rd this year. There are photos as "proof" of Fuzzy's demise, but I can assure you the cat only appears to be napping and not at all dead. There is also a link on this page to Miley's numerous comments regarding the impending doom of Fuzzy; there are four videos. My ears were painfully tormented by these videos because my sister watched them last night I believe in order to discover what the hell "Miley Save Fuzzy" is all about.

To sum it all up, I don't believe that Fuzzy is actually dead. In fact, I think he may actually be enjoying the warm sunshine of this Wednesday morning, where ever he may live. However, if poor Fuzzy was indeed murdered and eaten by the one person he loved, trusted, and adored... It's a lesson to us all not to let our obsession drive us to madness.

What sorrow it is that a cat had to be butchered because some idiot fan craved Miley Cyrus's Twitter updates like a sex addict craves porn....

Mileysavefuzzy, you are a fool.


Miley's Twitter Page

Miley Save Fuzzy's Twitter Page

Will Miley Save Fuzzy?
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
When We Stop Caring
America likes to pride itself on its caring attitude. It's even written on the tablet that Lady Liberty holds on Ellis Island:

"Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

America longs to help those struggling with poverty and freedom, and yet time and again, we have shown just how little we care about these people we long to help. I logged into MSN Messenger this afternoon as I have some time between classes, and ocassionally, a friend of mine will be on. While none of my friends were on, MSN Today had an interesting headline that immediately caught my attention. Granted, the photo they included on Today was not all that impressive, but the headline beneath it astonished me: "Missing Teen Found--Spent 11 days in NYC subways."

Missing children has become something I look for in the news recently perhaps because of my impending motherhood. So, I figured I'd check out the article and celebrate the return on this boy to his family. What I ended up reading was not about the joyful return of a boy that had run away from home or been kidnapped. Rather, the entire article focused on the fact that this child that police oh-so-carefully searched for went unnoticed for 11 days under their very noses--and their feet.

In spite of surveilance cameras in the subway stations and photos of this boy posted all over, no one noticed him. This 13-year-old boy suffers from Asperger's syndrome and had fled to the subways when released from school after getting in trouble at school and fearing punishment. Asperger's syndrome is a form of autism that allows the person to be high functioning but can ocassionally manifest itself in specific ways. This boy had problems with situations that require a verbal or social response.

After the mother informed the police of her missing child, they contacted the school and leafleted the city. However, no one assumed to follow the procedure of possible runaway cases by checking train and subway stations. I watch a lot of Law & Order: SVU, and I know that when a child disappears, every situation is considered including runaway. Especially if the child has a disease that might cause social awkwardness like this child and is a teenager.

How, then, could a 13-year-old boy go unnoticed in a society that prides itself on longing to care for others? The mother may be here illegally--and I honestly don't agree that illegal immigrants should receive the same benefits as citizens and visa holders--but there are laws that say this child's case should have been given the same amount of priority as a citizen's missing child. Why is it that the police left so many holes then? Who was checking the surveilance cameras of the subway stations that his red hoodie went unnoticed (the article states the missing boy was wearing his red hoodie the day of his disappearance)? Why did police not follow procedure and check the subway stations? How is it that only one person saw the boy's photo then went up to the child and asked if he was the missing boy?

It's time to rethink our society. Are we truly as caring as we claim to be?

Link to the article: NYC boy missing for 11 days lived in subways
Monday, October 19, 2009
Can a Baby Sin?
All right, so to change things up a bit, I've decided to post a question and let you guys do the talking. So, post a comment stating your opinion about this question right here.

Is it possible for an infant who has little understanding of the world around him/her sin in the Christian sense of the word?

I came up with this question while doing my homework. One of my assignments for World Literature is to read "Confessions" written by Augustine. Well, in his confessions he discusses the idea that infants can sin.
"[...] I must have acted reprehensibly; but since I could not understand the person who admonished me, neither custom nor reason allowed me to be reprehended. As we grow up, we eliminate and set aside such ways. But I have never seen anyone knowingly set aside what is good when purging something of faults.
Yet for an infant of that age, could it be reckoned good to use tears in trying to obtain what it would have been harmful to get, to be vehemently indignant at the refusals of free and older people and of parents or many other people of good sense who would not yield to my whims, and to attempt to strike them and to do as much injury as possible?" (Taken from "Confessions" by Augustine, collected in The Longman Anthology of World Literature: Volume A. [pp. 1297-1328, p. 1303])
So, what do you think my readers? Can infants sin?
template); // OUTPUT WEBLOG echo $template; ?>