I can't believe there are parents who still think it's okay to give a multi-symptom cold medication to their kids when they only have one symptom. If they need a pain reliever and just a pain reliever, why would you give them OTC medication that also contains an antihistimine, a decongestant, and sometimes more?
--Decongestants for kids under age six were pulled off the shelves for a reason.
--Two weeks ago the warning for long term or over dose of acetiminophen was all over the news.
-- We're currently watching the third celebrity prescription medication fatality investigation on every channel of our televisions.
What is it going to take? Why don't parents read labels? When are some people going to realize we aren't supposed to use allergy meds to promote a good night sleep?
As a parent of a child who has finally grown out of a chronic illness, I know the importance of medication, especially when it works. All I'm saying is if they don't need it, don't give it to them.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
The Naked Truth
About every six months or so, probably more often and just not reported, some municipality or conservative organization insists that a piece of art, depicting human form, be removed from public display. Usually, even if the opinion that the piece is offensive is of the minority, it's easier just to remove or cover the art than it is to deal with the headache of those opposed, who would mostly likely continue to voice their opposition for the remainder of the exhibit, which is their right to do.
But what about the free speech of the artist? I know the argument is that the artist has every right to create whatever he chooses, but that it ought not to be forced upon those who do not wish to view it. Why can't those who wish not to see it merely ignore it? Like any other kind of self expression, which truly is what art is, "if you don't like it, you can choose not to look at it." Isn't that what people say when religious or holiday displays are asked to be removed from one's lawn or place of worship? It is not as if artists insist on putting their art on an individual's private property who wishes not to have it.
The right of free speech is the right of everyone in this country. Absolutely then, those opposed to some forms of public art have every right to speak their opposition, but they do not have veto power of the artist's same rights.
The opposition often states the art of the human form is inappropriate for children. Why not take the opportunity to teach children the beauty of the human form? For those with objections based on religion, is the human form not the creation of God? For those of the Christian faith, were Adam and Eve ashamed of their nudity as God created them? The answer is no, not until Eve ate the fruit from the forbidden tree of Life. Shouldn't we teach to be proud of our bodies, not ashamed?
It's no secret poor body image is cause to a number of problems facing today's youth, especially girls, such as low self-esteem, giving in to peer pressure, and no self-respect. Like an avalanche, these lead to undesirable behavior with even greater consequences. So couldn't it be argued that the lack of discussion about the body and censorship of art of the human form, which is an implication of shame, is having the exact effect on our young people that the censors are trying to prevent?
I think this discussion could go significantly deeper than there is room for in a blog, but I am fascinated by both sides of the argument. Personally , I think free speech is free speech. The artist has the right to speak through his art, and those opposed have a right to voice their opposition. If nothing else, at least it keeps us discussing it, and much can be learned through dialogue.
But what about the free speech of the artist? I know the argument is that the artist has every right to create whatever he chooses, but that it ought not to be forced upon those who do not wish to view it. Why can't those who wish not to see it merely ignore it? Like any other kind of self expression, which truly is what art is, "if you don't like it, you can choose not to look at it." Isn't that what people say when religious or holiday displays are asked to be removed from one's lawn or place of worship? It is not as if artists insist on putting their art on an individual's private property who wishes not to have it.
The right of free speech is the right of everyone in this country. Absolutely then, those opposed to some forms of public art have every right to speak their opposition, but they do not have veto power of the artist's same rights.
The opposition often states the art of the human form is inappropriate for children. Why not take the opportunity to teach children the beauty of the human form? For those with objections based on religion, is the human form not the creation of God? For those of the Christian faith, were Adam and Eve ashamed of their nudity as God created them? The answer is no, not until Eve ate the fruit from the forbidden tree of Life. Shouldn't we teach to be proud of our bodies, not ashamed?
It's no secret poor body image is cause to a number of problems facing today's youth, especially girls, such as low self-esteem, giving in to peer pressure, and no self-respect. Like an avalanche, these lead to undesirable behavior with even greater consequences. So couldn't it be argued that the lack of discussion about the body and censorship of art of the human form, which is an implication of shame, is having the exact effect on our young people that the censors are trying to prevent?
I think this discussion could go significantly deeper than there is room for in a blog, but I am fascinated by both sides of the argument. Personally , I think free speech is free speech. The artist has the right to speak through his art, and those opposed have a right to voice their opposition. If nothing else, at least it keeps us discussing it, and much can be learned through dialogue.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Gracious Federer
Federer is so gracious as a 15 Grand Slam Title record breaker, that even when Roddick, who I had hoped as an American would handle his loss well, broke etiquette by mouthing off during Federer's speech, he still took the high road with a polite response showing compassion and understanding because he knows what it's like to lose. It was just last year that Federer suffered a painful Wimbledon loss to Nadal, who didn't compete this year due to a knee injury.
Roger Federer and Andy Roddick set a Wimbledon record, with fifteen games in a final.
Roger Federer and Andy Roddick set a Wimbledon record, with fifteen games in a final.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Michael Jackson'd Out
Michael Jackson's death is a tragedy, as is anyone's. It is true, we must respect the dead, and he truly was a brilliant performer. That being said...
We haven't heard about the election/protests in Iran in a week.
We have marines in Afganistan that certainly deserve to be covered.
We are about to have a filibuster proof senate with 60 Dems
Bachman in Minnesota is REALLY trying to get people to avoid the Census (she knows that's illegal, right?)
California can't pay it's people...imagine working for a state government and getting an IOU for a paycheck.
And on and on and on...
None of these stories have been lead stories in days, some of them not in the mainstream media at all. With all due respect to the Jackson family and their fans...enough already.
We haven't heard about the election/protests in Iran in a week.
We have marines in Afganistan that certainly deserve to be covered.
We are about to have a filibuster proof senate with 60 Dems
Bachman in Minnesota is REALLY trying to get people to avoid the Census (she knows that's illegal, right?)
California can't pay it's people...imagine working for a state government and getting an IOU for a paycheck.
And on and on and on...
None of these stories have been lead stories in days, some of them not in the mainstream media at all. With all due respect to the Jackson family and their fans...enough already.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
To Do or not To Do List
Woman. Mom. Wife. Writer. Entrepreneur. Volunteer, and on and on and on...you women out there know what it means to have a ton on your plate. Sometimes it's really hard to balance all of these roles, especially when they topple all over each other at the same time! I have been looking for a tool to help me not feel so overwhelmed when things get busy (which is all the time, right?). I have always been a "lister", I even have "make more lists" written on my to do list! I like the feeling I get when I get to scratch something off the list. I like it so much, that when I am sitting down to make my list initially, if I've already completed a task not on the list I will add it just so I can scratch it off!
You can see why I have been thinking to do lists might not be the most productive tool for me, no matter how gratifying. So...off to Google. I came across an article by Jim Bird, President of WorkLifeBalance.com and loved one of the things I read. Instead of making a to do list...ask the question "when am I going to do this?", then take that item, pick a time slot on your calendar, and insert it. It spreads out the work load, already gives me a sense of taking action because I suddenly know WHEN I am actually going to find the time to complete the task. I love this idea. It makes me think all of the things on my list are validated and deserve their own time and consideration. I'm going to give it a try...as hard as it may be to give up my "list". Wish me luck! I'll let you know how it goes.
You can see why I have been thinking to do lists might not be the most productive tool for me, no matter how gratifying. So...off to Google. I came across an article by Jim Bird, President of WorkLifeBalance.com and loved one of the things I read. Instead of making a to do list...ask the question "when am I going to do this?", then take that item, pick a time slot on your calendar, and insert it. It spreads out the work load, already gives me a sense of taking action because I suddenly know WHEN I am actually going to find the time to complete the task. I love this idea. It makes me think all of the things on my list are validated and deserve their own time and consideration. I'm going to give it a try...as hard as it may be to give up my "list". Wish me luck! I'll let you know how it goes.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Today at Wimbledon
Serena Williams is rockin' it today at Wimbledon. Her opponent, Azarenka, is throwing a bit of a temper fit every time she misses or makes a bad return. It's early in the match and the energy she is putting into her temper could most certainly be used to better her game. A little composure goes a long way.
Airbusses are freaking me out...
I am not a fan of flying. I used to fly all the time as a child. I loved it then because at the ages of 7 through 13, I didn't pay much attention to the news. I've taken a a flight here and there as an adult, but in no way am I a jetsetter. I also know the odds of plummeting into the earth or ocean are no where near the odds of the risks we all take as we drive mile after daily mile in our own personal vehicles. I will fly, if need be, as I hate the idea of restricting myself from the rest of the world because of a fear that cannot be ratioanalized statistically. But it's hard to put news stories like the one mentioned above from NPR out of my mind. Two airbusses down in two different oceans... in a month.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
