MrSmith

I understand what you're saying, but when it's as simple and basic and obvious as "don't throw rocks", they deserve life in prison. Every. Single. One. Of. Them. As far as I'm concerned, they deserve to have to stand there and let the relatives of the man they killed (and anyone they may have injured) each throw as many rocks at each of them as they admit to throwing at cars.

Oh, that's cute. The kid's attorney believes it will come out that his client was "minimally involved". He also believes that teenagers shouldn't be punished as adults because their brains aren't done growing. First of all, I don't give a damn whether that kid threw the rock or stood there and watched. The fact of the matter is that all five of those little fuckers know right from wrong; they knew it then and they know it now. And they damned sure knew it was wrong to throw rocks of any size onto the freeway. As far as I'm concerned, they all deserve 20 to life with a minimum of 20 years in prison before they're eligible for parole. If they never get parole, I'd be fine paying the taxes required to keep their asses in prison until they're old and frail. At which point I think it would be perfectly fair to release them and force them to go into debt paying for their own medical expenses and burials. Second, it doesn't matter whether their brains are done growing or not. Once again, they knew then and they know now the difference between right and wrong. And that's what matters: They knew what they were doing was wrong and they did it anyway. I don't care if they claim they didn't think anyone could die as a result of their actions - because it's a lie, a bold-faced lie. If they didn't think anyone could die, then why were they throwing rocks? They clearly expected people to swerve and possibly lose control. With all the car crash videos on YouTube, they damned sure knew the various possible outcomes of people swerving. No matter what their excuses are, they're all bullshit lies and poor attempts to cover these kids' asses now that they've managed to kill someone. They're damned lucky we don't live in a society where "eye for an eye" is the law, because I'd be in a big damned hurry to help stone their asses to death. The world and society are better off without these kinds of people.

Well, I started subscribing because they had some good coverage of things going on in this country, and their coverage was less biased than other outlets (CNN, Faux News, MS NBC, etc). I'm starting to rethink that subscription now, though. They've had a series called "The Mother Load" looking at governmental policies that help or hinder families and especially women in this country. Some of the people they've chosen to profile in this series are very poor choices and some of the stuff they've claimed is just made-up. An example of something made-up is one couple's claim that they couldn't put their newborn son on their insurance because he was born outside of the "open enrollment window" (typically 1 Nov - 30 Nov). That's simply untrue because the birth of a child is a "major life event", which triggers your ability to change your coverage outside of the open enrollment window. It's the same as when you get married: You can add your spouse to your insurance any time within either a 14-day or 30-day window after getting married (I forget which it is, but I'm pretty sure it's a 30-day window).

Yeah, but it's being used to mean "socially conscious" or "socially aware". And "wokest" isn't even a real word. It's slang bullshit made up by the same squad who decided to equate "woke" with "socially conscious" and "socially aware". That's the way The Guardian used it, too. I'm capable of and willing to wield the fork...

This is because we all know that Iris isn't an investigative reporter; she just plays one on tv. LOL. Seriously, though, if she were an investigative reporter, she wouldn't be able to turn that side of her off. She'd always be looking for the ruse/deception and wouldn't just accept things at face value.

OK. I just want to post a peeve about the "new definition" of the word "woke". The Guardian has an article today with a headline about how the Eagles became the NFL's "wokest" team. Whoever the fuck came up with this use of that word deserves to have a fork shoved up their nose and rattled around in their brain can for a while. All of them!

As far as I'm concerned, this indicates she's interested in some "lesbian fulfillment". The woman already has at least one actual, real-life, biological sister. So she's already got that kind of a relationship covered. I'm sorry, but having domestic help and strong friendships pretty much covers everything else. A lot of what she's written here is just bullshit. It's like the old saying, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit." And that's what she's doing here: Trying to baffle us all with bullshit. Once again she's someone who has drunk too much of their own Kool-Aid with shit like "Babies ... will be tended with grace and supreme care", "type of care you give to someone you trust emphatically", "Resources will circulate amongst us", and "it's deeper than most can understand." Bitch, please. You aren't that damned special.

Oh, Christ. What the hell does the father of one of the accused teens think he's going to be able to say? You can't defend the indefensible. Even if his child didn't throw any rocks, they were there and they participated insofar as they chose not to intervene and keep their friends (or "friends"?) from doing something that all of them probably knew was wrong before they even did it.

LOL. This might get me blocked by Kody:

Shockingly, I have not been blocked by Meri. I have been blocked by Robyn, Jenelle, and MSWC, though.

I don't recall them showing this on TV. The first time I remember anything about this being shown on TV was after Auralee came whinging to Drew about how April wants her kids to get the new mattresses. So all we have is Auralee's complaints to Drew as "proof" that April tried to get the new mattresses for her kids. Even if April did try this, the only thing that Drew had to do is say "Auralee's children need new mattresses and they're going to get them. Do your children need new mattresses?" But nooooo, Drew can't man up and take control of the situation. Instead, he's got to be a pansy and leave it to his wives to sort out between themselves. Honestly, is it that hard for him to understand that even a family needs a leader? Sure, he should get input from his wife/wives, but in the end someone has to make the final decision when consensus cannot be reached. EDITED TO ADD: I don't want anyone thinking that I'm saying the husband is always, should always be, or naturally would be/should be/is the leader of the family. In this particular instance, that's the role he's cast himself into by having multiple wives: Someone has to referee. In "normal" relationships (where there are just two people, whether two men, two women, or a man & a woman), that's something for those people to negotiate between themselves. This is absolutely true. There are things going on in the show that we haven't been shown and, of course, things that have happened over the last 12 years that we cannot be shown. I'd say they have good reason to distrust each other. I have no doubt that April has tried to get one over on Auralee in the past. April is the first wife and clearly didn't want to be one of many. So her responses to the situation are pretty normal, in my opinion, except that she should have stood up for herself and told her husband there's no way she's going for that arrangement. That all said, there are going to have been times when Auralee went crying to Drew about things that didn't rise to that level or that she misconstrued. So I'm not surprised they're incapable of dealing with each other as adults anymore. That's what happens in unresolved and unrelenting power struggles: the participants devolve into children and exhibit childish behaviours and responses.

Yes.

I suspect the difference here is that John Edwards was probably paid an "appearance fee", which would be different (and separate) from being paid to do readings - either by the show or the individuals who received readings. This is just a guess, of course, because I'm not a lawyer or involved in any of the relevant industries and have no experience with these things.

Absolutely. If the mattresses are old/worn and don't offer proper support or if they're contaminated with bodily fluids, they should not be used. No one should be forced to sleep on such a mattress. And if their spare mattresses are in that condition, then the only reasonable response to "These children need new mattresses" is "We got these children new mattresses." So there is definitely something hinky about this whole dramatic situation. Either the mattresses are not viable, Auralee doesn't want to use them because they aren't "new", perhaps the family can't afford new mattresses right now, or there is something else we have not been shown.

The problem is that I haven't seen anything that really exposes April as the manipulator. Auwalee is definitely a manipulator, however, because she's the favorite wife and she knows it. (See the footage of that long embrace Drew gave her on returning home from work in the previous episode.) She knows she can go crying to Drew about "mean owd Apwiw is being mean to me and being manipuwative again" and that he'll believe everything she says and then go confront April on her behalf. The three of them are seriously acting like three six-year-old girls, where Auralee knows she's Daddys' favowite, that Daddy will always take her side, and so goes running to Daddy anytime she feels the least bit spited or unhappy with the outcome. Auralee doesn't like something April said? "Daddy! Daddy! Apwiw said bad wowds do me again." Auralee doesn't like how something's going to go? "Daddy! Daddy! Apwiw is being undew-handed and manipuwadive again." Auralee doesn't like something April did? "Daddy! Daddy! Apwiw is cheading again." In all instances, Drew will go charging off to save Auralee from that big, bad, evil April, without even bothering to try to find out what's going on or asking April for her version of events.

I'm leaving that episode for my wife to watch. I'm trying to remain uneducated about the Turpins. I don't want to deal with the anger I'll feel about people treating other people (especially their own children) like that, once I know all the "gory details".

I don't think she's lying to herself or to us. I just think she currently has only a theoretical understanding of polygamy. I also think that once she gains a practical understanding and can accurately assess the difference between "theory" and "practice", then she'll have some buyer's remorse and end up just like April, Meri, and (eventually) the Alldredges' first wife (I forget what her name is). I wish TLC would have shown us more about that whole disagreement. From what we saw, April wasn't asking for anything for herself or her children. The question we had, though, is why is Drew unaware of these spare mattresses? Hell, shouldn't all of the adults in the family have been aware of the existence of these mattresses? Anyway, these three women are never going to make any progress in their relationships with each other as long as Auwalee (especially) and Angela (to a lesser extent) refuse to give April the benefit of the doubt or a clean slate and let her try to demonstrate that she isn't being manipulative.

I never cease to be amazed by the people who know that what they're doing is not working and yet are also unable to apply some reason to the situation in order to change their behaviour and improve it.

Sorry. Could. Not. Resist. I was compelled.

I agree with most of what you said. I fixed the part that needed fixing (for me).

All right. I submit. I retract my criticism of Meri for having such a large house. You all have shown me the error of my ways.

Less a myth than an old rule that is less applicable/useful today. People don't speak as formally as they used to, which leads to ending sentences with prepositions because it makes the sentence more direct and concise (though potentially less clear). It's similar to the rule that a pronoun refers to the noun that most recently preceded it; yet, just yesterday I was discussing something with my wife about her sister and her sister's female friend and constructed a sentence using "she" three times and no actual nouns. The sentence ended up very direct and concise, but would have been completely unintelligible to anyone else.

It's interesting how our minds work. When I read the original post, I re-worded it as "The present is for whom?" Just interesting how we all solve the puzzle differently.

Initials == J.O. for Jackie Overton. Just wanted to point that out in case you were thinking "Jo" was their first name. If you weren't confused, I apologize if I offended you and please carry on.

Well, there is plastic surgery for that. Just sayin'. But, yes, otherwise it's out of her control. It's from doing a combination of actual tanning and spray tanning. My wife has two cousins who do this and we refer to them as Oompa Loompas because that's what they remind us of.