Of Course That Happened!

I don't understand why some people feel the need to make stuff up to get all worked up about. There are plenty of things out there that are extremely irritating and bothersome. And they're not hard to find. It's not like you have to look for them or anything. They're right there. That's why I'm a little perplexed about the latest details coming out about the Amanda Knox ordeal/fiasco.

She still hasn't said much since she was released from an Italian prison where she spent the past four years for maybe/maybe not murdering (or at least taking some part in) her roommate. And really, what is there to say? ("Yeah, I was in jail. Yeah, it sucked. Oh, wait. You're not expecting me to tell you that I was really guilty now that they've let me go, are you? I didn't think so. So, we're right back to 'it sucked'.") And since there isn't a lot to say, the media is now taking what has been said and they are running with it as if she was in Abu Ghraib. Here's their latest over-compensation: Amanda Knox was sexually harassed in prison.

Um, OK. Harassed? That's it? In prison? Personally, I don't think that I'd be complaining if that's the worst thing that happened to me if I was in prison. (Why might I be in prison, you ponder? Come on. We all know that one day I'm going to twist off, probably when California is completely insolvent, and do something nutty. I don't know exactly what form my discourse will take, but it will likely be spectacular. And personally, I hope it involves fireworks. They're pretty. But I digress.) So...what? She had to put up with a bunch of "Hey, baby" and "Lookin' good"? In prison? I'm OK with that. No complaints here. Granted, she doesn't seem to be the one complaining. The media is falling all over itself trying to act like that was so outrageous that it happened. What's amazing is that more didn't happen to her. Seriously, have you seen her? She's kinda hot. Of course she was sexually harassed!

I'm curious as to why there is a different standard or why there was a different stance taken with Amanda Knox than there was with the three idiot hikers that got themselves arrested in Iran. In both instances, an American was jailed in a foreign land for a crime that they said that they did not commit. (Granted, Iran is run by a crazy man, but Silvio Berlusconi isn't exactly the epitome of leadership over there. He appears to be about as mobbed up (not to mention horny) as they come.) But with the idiot hikers (their new moniker), the money that needed to be forked over to pay their ransom was paid for by the United States (aka, you and me). Amanda Knox needed attorneys and legal assistance when she was imprisoned abroad, but you didn't see the country forking over the money for that. No, her family mortgaged their houses and forked over the cash that they raised. Why was it different? I don't get it.

But whatever the reason, I doubt that it will be any different the next time something like either one of the above scenarios happens again. In the meantime, I think that Amanda Knox is going to be just fine. I'm sure that she'll get over her "sexual harassment" she experienced in the Italian prison. Now if only the media could get over it just as easily, then we'd be in a lot better shape.

moreless

The Crucification of Common Sense

Do trends start here in America and are picked up by the folks over in Europe or do the trends start in Europe and are picked up by the folks over here in America? Either way, there's a scary one that has reared it's head and the outrage seems not as much as I would have expected. I don't know if it's due to complacency or idiocy, but I fear the latter.

According to our friends across the pond at The Telegraph "....seven judges in Strasbourg said the display of Christian crosses, which is common but not mandatory in Italian schools, violated the principle of secular education and might be "disturbing" for children from other faiths." Wait. What now?

Correct. Apparently, Italian schools frequently have some sort of crucifix hanging somewhere in the classroom. So how distracting are these crucifixes? (Or is it crucifii?) From what I can tell, these crucifixes are not life sized replicas of the one in which Jesus (allegedly) used. No, they seem to be small and able to be affixed to the walls of said classrooms. They don't seem to light up, be aflame, make noise or do anything other than simply hang there. Hmmm. It seems odd that this would be a problem, doesn't it? When you learn how this idiotic case came to be in front of the seven judges of the apocalypse, it's really not so odd at all.

See, this is the result of a lawsuit that was brought about by an atheist woman, a one Soile Lautsi, "...who complained that her children had to attend a state school in northern Italy which had crucifixes in every classroom." Um, I don't think they did. They had to attend a state school which had crucifixes (I guess crucifii is out!) in every classroom? Let's think about this for just a moment, shall we?

Let's assume that the entire school is just riddled with crucifixes. That would seem to indicate that the school has a certain way of thinking about things. They're big on the crucifix! The entire school would join the crucifix's Fan Page on Facebook if there was one. (Please don't tell me if there is. I just cannot handle any more weirdness.) I don't know if she should be so concerned about the crucifix being in the classroom if it's put there out of a belief in Jesus Christ dying upon that symbol as a way to save the rest of us from out sins. Thus, why is this about the symbol and not about the ideology? Because this pain in the ass woman is an atheist, that's why.

In defense of atheists that I know, y'all are wonderful people. Y'all are brilliant people! I have no problem with your beliefs. But can I ask if there's anything that you can do to reel in people like the cuckoo bird that created the swirling maelstrom of s***? Anything? Because it's people like her who really give all atheists a bad name. (Actually, it's people like her who give all human beings a bad name, but I digress.)

If this woman doesn't want her children attending the school with all of the crucifixes in it, what say she put her children in a different school? What say she home school them? Now, I realize that by her home schooling them, they're likely to turn out just as nutso as she is and that would be unfortunate. I get that. But I am SO over having everything being altered because ONE person claims to be offended.

According to the P.O.S. ruling, "The presence of the crucifix could be ... disturbing for pupils who practised other religions or were atheists, particularly if they belonged to religious minorities." Wait. What? "Could be"?? Could? Do they mean "might"? Might? As in "Monkeys might fly out of my arse." (They're not gonna, but they might!) THAT kind of "might"? Lots of things might happen. Does that mean that we need to start changing everything that everyone (sans one moron) is perfectly OK with? I don't think it does! Then again, I'm not some 200 year old judge in Italy, apparently.

Lady, I've got news for you. Your kids are going to need to learn to ignore more outside influences in their life than simply a damn crucifix hanging on a wall. I love it when these rulings come out and they are always, without a doubt, always totally vague on HOW the disturbance might occur. And in the case of the atheist versus the crucifix, I don't see how the disturbance could occur. See, the crucifix is a religious symbol that is rooted in the belief in God. If you don't believe in God, the crucifix means nothing. How can you be offended by something that means nothing to you that you don't believe in? Are they also offended by pictures of ghosts and goblins at Halloween? Those don't exist, yet I'm sure that there are representations of those displayed prominently during the Halloween season. How are ghosts and goblins any different than a crucifix when it comes to being an atheist? I don't see that there is a difference. All I see is that this woman is still a pain in the ass.

I don't understand why her relocating to someplace that was more accommodating to her belief system was not an option. Oh, wait. She did relocate. She is Finnish and possesses Italian citizenship! Was she unaware of the overly Catholic influence throughout Italy when she moved there?! I find that hard to believe and yet she moved there anyway. It must not have bothered her enough to go there on purpose. To live! And wait a minute! The Finnish flag is just a sideways crucifix (minus the dead Jesus, of course)! Has she sued Finland as well?! It might offend someone that it's a sideways crucifix! (It probably would offend someone to know that Jesus was missing as well!)

I also don't understand why things that "might" happen are supposed to dictate our actions. And finally, I really don't understand exactly what in the hell would happen to her kids if they had to continue to go to school with a crucifix hanging on the wall. It's not like they're making them carry some 10-foot wooden crucifix across the playground every day at recess (though I personally would have rather done that than had to endure another game of Dodge Ball). Good luck, Italy! You're going to need it! (But quick! Someone put that Jesus bobblehead doll on the bus!)

(Side note: I'd like to thank my friend Patty for bringing this lunacy to my attention. Now if you'll excuse me, there's a wall that I need to go finish banging my head against.)

moreless