Today, a janitor at a local elementary school was arrested for soliticing sex on-line. His intended partner? A 14-year-old. At some point during the communications, the police became aware of the internet intercourse and monitored it.
My husband's question; "How can these idiots continue to keep trying this? Almost every week, there is a story in the news of one of them being arrested."
My response; "IF the police are only catching one out of ten, then what is the risk"
How many cases are reported and caught, and how many are literally consumated?
It is one of those crime statistics that very likely is highly under-reported. I'm not talking about the 18-year-old with the 17 or 16 year-old. I'm talking about the person 25 or older with a minor.
The internet is so vast, and so annonymous. You may pretend to be any age -- older or younger than you actually are. You can pretend to be interested in actions that you would never actually engage in.
Was there a time when people met as "pen pals" and poured out their souls (or pretende to) to strangers they intended to take advantage of? Of course, the local police could not monitor the Federal mail. Nor could the Feds monitor the contents of communications without Court orders.
Is the explosion in this type of arrest due to the accessability of the internet? Apparently, local police do not need a search warrent or a wire-tap authorization to monitor communications.
I could set up a "sex chat" with any reader of this blog in which we established different e-mail accounts, different ages, genders, likes, identies, and pretend we were persons (at least one of whom was unable to consent) who were plotting to meet and engage in illicit activity.
Would we be caught? Unless one of us tipped off a police agency, we would likely not be caught. If one of us were to tip off a local police agency we might be charged with filing a false report or otherwise wasting their time.
But if I were a 14-year old girl, and if you were a 35-year old man, and if my parents did not monitor my internet usage, what could/would we be able to say and possible accomplish.
Are police actually making a dent in internet child-sex crimes? Or are they merely publishing their occasional successes?
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Mom
I lost my "Mom" this week.
Who was she?
Rochelle Kantor was my Jewish Mother. Note that both word are capitalized.
I was a somewhat struggleing tax auditor when Rochelle asked me to come to review and be a stat notice writer. Part of it was out of affection for my husband. Part of it was because she felt that if my husband believed that I was not an incompetent idiot, I wasn't. She knew him. And because she knew him, she believed in me.
I went up on a 90-day detail. I was supervised. I was reviewing "short-90's" Cases that were no-shows, where the notice was based on the initial report. I was quick to pick up the errors. The disallowance of Schedule C expenses without an adjustment to the SE tax. The changes to AGI while ignoring the NOL carryover. My coaches were impressed.
I was put into a position of seeing how many "short-90's" could be issued (signed
and mailed) before the true push of the April 15th statute of limitations would hit.
I reviewed, I signed, I issued some 1,000 or more cases before the statute ran.
Then I was promoted to "long form letters" These were the letters on the cases where the proposed deficiency exceeded the amount that could be petitioned to "S" Court (the Tax Court equlivency to small-claims cout).
This was in the early '80's. There were no computer programs (at least in the IRS) that saved paragraphs of language for disallowance of deductions, credits, expenses or any thing else. EVERYTHING had to be written out in long-hand.
Rochelle (by that time she had become 'MOM') put together a task force to write standard paragraphs of disallowance for the 90% of most common items we encountered.
When we weren't working cases, we were writing "standard paragraphs".
Mom would attend the monthly staff meetings of the managers on her level and above.
She would come back from the meeting and call us into her office. She would explain what upper-level management wanted, and she would ask, "How can we do this?"
She absolutely understood that if EVERYONE, from bottom to top was not involved in the process, there could be no success.
When I was called for Jury duty, and was empanneled on a jury on a murder/kiddnapping trial that was scheduled to last for 6 or more months, she created a job that I could fulfill on the one or less days a week I was in the office. She made me the 'problem slover' (actually, my describtion of it was the 'garbage handler') She woud put aside the things that took more than 30 minutes to resolve, the items that required communication amoungst units, and when I was in the office, I dealt with them.
Mom believed in me. Because she believed I could do things, I could. I owe much of my success in my carrer to her.
She told me I could do things, and because of her words, I could.
Mom once said, "The difference between a child and an adult is that an adult understands AND ACCEPTS the consequences of their actions." Those words have become a template for my life.
MOM, MOM, you're gone!!!!!!! Who will I lean on NOw????!!!!
Who was she?
Rochelle Kantor was my Jewish Mother. Note that both word are capitalized.
I was a somewhat struggleing tax auditor when Rochelle asked me to come to review and be a stat notice writer. Part of it was out of affection for my husband. Part of it was because she felt that if my husband believed that I was not an incompetent idiot, I wasn't. She knew him. And because she knew him, she believed in me.
I went up on a 90-day detail. I was supervised. I was reviewing "short-90's" Cases that were no-shows, where the notice was based on the initial report. I was quick to pick up the errors. The disallowance of Schedule C expenses without an adjustment to the SE tax. The changes to AGI while ignoring the NOL carryover. My coaches were impressed.
I was put into a position of seeing how many "short-90's" could be issued (signed
and mailed) before the true push of the April 15th statute of limitations would hit.
I reviewed, I signed, I issued some 1,000 or more cases before the statute ran.
Then I was promoted to "long form letters" These were the letters on the cases where the proposed deficiency exceeded the amount that could be petitioned to "S" Court (the Tax Court equlivency to small-claims cout).
This was in the early '80's. There were no computer programs (at least in the IRS) that saved paragraphs of language for disallowance of deductions, credits, expenses or any thing else. EVERYTHING had to be written out in long-hand.
Rochelle (by that time she had become 'MOM') put together a task force to write standard paragraphs of disallowance for the 90% of most common items we encountered.
When we weren't working cases, we were writing "standard paragraphs".
Mom would attend the monthly staff meetings of the managers on her level and above.
She would come back from the meeting and call us into her office. She would explain what upper-level management wanted, and she would ask, "How can we do this?"
She absolutely understood that if EVERYONE, from bottom to top was not involved in the process, there could be no success.
When I was called for Jury duty, and was empanneled on a jury on a murder/kiddnapping trial that was scheduled to last for 6 or more months, she created a job that I could fulfill on the one or less days a week I was in the office. She made me the 'problem slover' (actually, my describtion of it was the 'garbage handler') She woud put aside the things that took more than 30 minutes to resolve, the items that required communication amoungst units, and when I was in the office, I dealt with them.
Mom believed in me. Because she believed I could do things, I could. I owe much of my success in my carrer to her.
She told me I could do things, and because of her words, I could.
Mom once said, "The difference between a child and an adult is that an adult understands AND ACCEPTS the consequences of their actions." Those words have become a template for my life.
MOM, MOM, you're gone!!!!!!! Who will I lean on NOw????!!!!
Monday, March 7, 2011
Remembering Jean
Jean Mitchell, age 92, died today.
Who was Jean? Why should I care? Why should you care?
Jean was a very special lady. Her son, Mike was one of George's best friends in college and after. But Jean (and her surviving husband, Frank) were not "parents" to the group of friends who first met at Fullerton JC. Jean and Frank were part of the group. They were friends, not "Mike's parents" They were our peers, if not in age, in attitude, in mind, in willingness to explore, discuss, examine life and everything around it.
Being around Jean never felt like being around my mother or my mother's friends. Being with Jean was like being with any of my girlfriends.
Jean lived 92 years, but Jean was never old. Jean was always the age of the people she was with.
There is a hole in my heart and in my life tonight.
Jean, I miss you.
Who was Jean? Why should I care? Why should you care?
Jean was a very special lady. Her son, Mike was one of George's best friends in college and after. But Jean (and her surviving husband, Frank) were not "parents" to the group of friends who first met at Fullerton JC. Jean and Frank were part of the group. They were friends, not "Mike's parents" They were our peers, if not in age, in attitude, in mind, in willingness to explore, discuss, examine life and everything around it.
Being around Jean never felt like being around my mother or my mother's friends. Being with Jean was like being with any of my girlfriends.
Jean lived 92 years, but Jean was never old. Jean was always the age of the people she was with.
There is a hole in my heart and in my life tonight.
Jean, I miss you.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Kids
People sometimes ask me why I never had children.
Early on in my marriage, I would reply "No child deserves me as a parent." Later, my response became, "Because I am too selfish." Both comments are equally true.
I never felt that I would make a good parent. Just as I did not acquire a driver's licence until I was 20, because I did not feel that I was capable of assuming control over something as potentially deadly as a car, I did not feel that what I believed about child-rearing would produce a good child/adult.
Our resonsibility to our children is also our responsibility to society as a whole. We owe our children the duty to teach them to easily and properly function in society. We owe society children who will function properly within society.
I honestly did not feel capable of fulfilling those goals.
At one point in our marriage, I offered my husband (who I feel would have made and EXCELLENT father) a divorce so that he could find someone who would give him children.
And I was selfish. I did not want to share my husband with other beings who had equal claim on his time, his attention, his love. Heck, there were times I was jealous of the cat!! If I could not accept his telling the cat "I love you.", how was I ever going to accept a child?? I was selfish. I am selfish.
So, no kids, no carrying on of the family name. This branch on the family tree dies.
Oh, wow. And that is one p*ss poor reason for having kids. "Don't let the family name die." WHY NOT?? My husband's family has plenty of descendents to honor the name (Thanks to great-grandpa and his six or seven wives) And frankly, why honor the past? In China, there was a cult of ancestry. And what of the current generations?
There is nothing wrong with geneology. What is wrong is defining yourself solely by what your ancestors accomplished.
I would rather be known for who I am today than for who I am descended from. My ancestory may matter to me, but it does not define me. I am defined by who I am, what I have done, and what I leave behind me.
And since I have no children, if I want to be remembered, it will be my reputation, for good or for ill that defines me after death.
Early on in my marriage, I would reply "No child deserves me as a parent." Later, my response became, "Because I am too selfish." Both comments are equally true.
I never felt that I would make a good parent. Just as I did not acquire a driver's licence until I was 20, because I did not feel that I was capable of assuming control over something as potentially deadly as a car, I did not feel that what I believed about child-rearing would produce a good child/adult.
Our resonsibility to our children is also our responsibility to society as a whole. We owe our children the duty to teach them to easily and properly function in society. We owe society children who will function properly within society.
I honestly did not feel capable of fulfilling those goals.
At one point in our marriage, I offered my husband (who I feel would have made and EXCELLENT father) a divorce so that he could find someone who would give him children.
And I was selfish. I did not want to share my husband with other beings who had equal claim on his time, his attention, his love. Heck, there were times I was jealous of the cat!! If I could not accept his telling the cat "I love you.", how was I ever going to accept a child?? I was selfish. I am selfish.
So, no kids, no carrying on of the family name. This branch on the family tree dies.
Oh, wow. And that is one p*ss poor reason for having kids. "Don't let the family name die." WHY NOT?? My husband's family has plenty of descendents to honor the name (Thanks to great-grandpa and his six or seven wives) And frankly, why honor the past? In China, there was a cult of ancestry. And what of the current generations?
There is nothing wrong with geneology. What is wrong is defining yourself solely by what your ancestors accomplished.
I would rather be known for who I am today than for who I am descended from. My ancestory may matter to me, but it does not define me. I am defined by who I am, what I have done, and what I leave behind me.
And since I have no children, if I want to be remembered, it will be my reputation, for good or for ill that defines me after death.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
"Our SOB"
Watching the events in Egypt, Tunisia, Jordan and Yemen, I am reminded of a story that dates back to the Truman administration. In a discussion of a dictator somewhere, an advisor commented that the man in questions was an DOB.. Truman purportedly replied, "Yes, but he's our SOB."
That sums up what is wrong about American Foreign policy. It was wrong during the cold war, and now that the cold war has ended, it is even more wrong.
An SOB is generally considered (as a National leader) to be autocratic, dictatorial, uncaring about human rights or the welfare of his people.
By supporting leaders who can be described in this fashion, the US is setting ourselves up for more trouble with the country in the future. Eventually, events will topple or remove that leader. What then? The bulk of the populace does NOT view the US as a friend. We supported and propped up the leader they have now deposed. As far as the general population of the country is concerned, the US does not care about human rights, education, the rights of women or minorities, or even spurring the democratic process.
Mubarek came to power 30 years ago. For the first ten years, the US could believe his statements that his was a democratic government. But when the same individual wins election after election, the US just might want to start requesting evidence that the country is a democracy.
Oddly enough, the limit of two terms on the president in this country has prevented (since FDR) the rise of a strong-man rule. There have been two-term presidents since FDR who might have been lured into running for a third term.
So, when the US is evaluating the quality of the democratic ideals esposed abroad, one of the issues we need to be aware of is whether there is a limit on the number of terms an executive can serve.
It won't solve the problem, but if ther US were to become a large bit more cautious about our support for the SOBs of this world, in the long run, we would be better preceived by the people they rule.
That sums up what is wrong about American Foreign policy. It was wrong during the cold war, and now that the cold war has ended, it is even more wrong.
An SOB is generally considered (as a National leader) to be autocratic, dictatorial, uncaring about human rights or the welfare of his people.
By supporting leaders who can be described in this fashion, the US is setting ourselves up for more trouble with the country in the future. Eventually, events will topple or remove that leader. What then? The bulk of the populace does NOT view the US as a friend. We supported and propped up the leader they have now deposed. As far as the general population of the country is concerned, the US does not care about human rights, education, the rights of women or minorities, or even spurring the democratic process.
Mubarek came to power 30 years ago. For the first ten years, the US could believe his statements that his was a democratic government. But when the same individual wins election after election, the US just might want to start requesting evidence that the country is a democracy.
Oddly enough, the limit of two terms on the president in this country has prevented (since FDR) the rise of a strong-man rule. There have been two-term presidents since FDR who might have been lured into running for a third term.
So, when the US is evaluating the quality of the democratic ideals esposed abroad, one of the issues we need to be aware of is whether there is a limit on the number of terms an executive can serve.
It won't solve the problem, but if ther US were to become a large bit more cautious about our support for the SOBs of this world, in the long run, we would be better preceived by the people they rule.
Monday, January 24, 2011
If You Don't Know How
I work at the local food bank.
Much of the food that we distribute is commodities - surplus foods that we get for free. We never know what we will get, or sometimes even the quantities.
Once, the person who places the order saw an item of "Beef ribs" She wisely only ordered one quantity. If this had been packages of 1 to 5 lbs each of ribs, it is something we would have ordered in quantity. However, in this instance, it was a single, 15 to 20 pound side of beef ribs. Basically, it was the entire 1/2 rib cage of a steer. For a resturant, great. For a food bank, not so great. We were lucky. That day one of the familys we were giving food out to had several teenage males. They were more than happy to take the frozen ribs. Of course, they had to be thawed and cut into at least two sections before they would fit in a home oven or on a home grill. But we never ordered those ribs again.
Today we received a lot of boxes of ground beef. Good, you say? Think about it. What youd YOU do with five pounds of hamburger. FROZEN SOLID. Yes, we gave a lot of it out. But I have to wonder --can you thaw frozen hamburger, re-package it and re-freeze it and still have it be safe?
I've started trying to find easy, simple recipies we can give out with some of the food. So far, I've done three different chicken ones. I try to stick with no more than five ingredients, meat, onions, potatoes, and hopefully anythng else is eighter on hand in most households or costs next to nothing.
My friends know that I love to cook. But finding simple recipies, ones that don't use fancy cheese, exotic spice, heavy cream-- that is more of a challenge.
Think about the simplest thing you might prepare -- let's take a grilled cheese sandwich -- What goes into it? OK, on the most basic level, bread, cheese and butter or margarine. Sometimes at the food bank we have both bread and cheese. Butter or margarine are another and far rarer matter. And here in New Mexico, a grilled cheese sandwich is NOT complete without green chile. That's four ingredients so far. Some people like a bit of mayo on the bread next to the cheese. I like to grill a slice of ham and throw it in too. (of course, that's a grilled hame-and-cheese) But even a simple dish may easily take ingredients that may not be found in the household of someone who is getting food at a food bank.
Trying to simplify recipies and make them fit in the likely household resources is a challenge.
Will I meet the challenge? I don't know. Last week was chicken and rice. I found two or three recipies that might serve. I copied them and we gave them out with the chicken.
Next Monday, I need to figure out what to do with five pounds of frozen ground beef.
I welcome your ideas.
Much of the food that we distribute is commodities - surplus foods that we get for free. We never know what we will get, or sometimes even the quantities.
Once, the person who places the order saw an item of "Beef ribs" She wisely only ordered one quantity. If this had been packages of 1 to 5 lbs each of ribs, it is something we would have ordered in quantity. However, in this instance, it was a single, 15 to 20 pound side of beef ribs. Basically, it was the entire 1/2 rib cage of a steer. For a resturant, great. For a food bank, not so great. We were lucky. That day one of the familys we were giving food out to had several teenage males. They were more than happy to take the frozen ribs. Of course, they had to be thawed and cut into at least two sections before they would fit in a home oven or on a home grill. But we never ordered those ribs again.
Today we received a lot of boxes of ground beef. Good, you say? Think about it. What youd YOU do with five pounds of hamburger. FROZEN SOLID. Yes, we gave a lot of it out. But I have to wonder --can you thaw frozen hamburger, re-package it and re-freeze it and still have it be safe?
I've started trying to find easy, simple recipies we can give out with some of the food. So far, I've done three different chicken ones. I try to stick with no more than five ingredients, meat, onions, potatoes, and hopefully anythng else is eighter on hand in most households or costs next to nothing.
My friends know that I love to cook. But finding simple recipies, ones that don't use fancy cheese, exotic spice, heavy cream-- that is more of a challenge.
Think about the simplest thing you might prepare -- let's take a grilled cheese sandwich -- What goes into it? OK, on the most basic level, bread, cheese and butter or margarine. Sometimes at the food bank we have both bread and cheese. Butter or margarine are another and far rarer matter. And here in New Mexico, a grilled cheese sandwich is NOT complete without green chile. That's four ingredients so far. Some people like a bit of mayo on the bread next to the cheese. I like to grill a slice of ham and throw it in too. (of course, that's a grilled hame-and-cheese) But even a simple dish may easily take ingredients that may not be found in the household of someone who is getting food at a food bank.
Trying to simplify recipies and make them fit in the likely household resources is a challenge.
Will I meet the challenge? I don't know. Last week was chicken and rice. I found two or three recipies that might serve. I copied them and we gave them out with the chicken.
Next Monday, I need to figure out what to do with five pounds of frozen ground beef.
I welcome your ideas.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
PAY ATTENTION TO ME!!!
I WANT YOUR ATTENTION!! I WANT YOU TO SEE ME, SEE WHAT I AM DOING AND TALK ABOUT ME!!
What am I doing? Nothing. Why should you watch? No reason. What should you talk about? Nothing.
And that is one of the things that lead to the tragedy on Saturday.
A possibly mentally unstable individual decided that they were not getting enough attention from the world around them and determined that shooting up someone of importance was the remedy for their insignificance.
With 500+ TV channels, Facebook, Myspace, Youtube, etc, it is easy to believe that each and every one of us either has or deserves an audience. Why do you suppose I write this blog? I could keep my own, confidential journal if I didn't feel the need for validation from others.
But when you combine the urge for an audience with an unstable personality, sometimes the results are tragic.
And the results are tragic for EVERYONE involved.
Is there an answer? I certainly do not espouse periodic mental health screenings for all. I also do not support making everyone famous for 15 minutes. Yes, Andy Warhol was correct, the media now exists for such fleeting fame.
Perhaps we need to somehow shift the qualities we most publicize and admire. Perhaps we should attempt to make famous the people who run soup kitchens, the people who help the homeless, the teachers who run after-school programs for kids at risk.
How wonderful it would be if coverage of a famous boxer focused as much on his work with inner-city kids as on his triumphs in the ring. Wouldn't it be great if the story on a multi-million dollar contract included the information that 50% of the amount received would be going to charity.
I would love to see a story on a team, one month after winning a National championship showing the members cleaning up vacant lots in their city.
I think I want to try. Instead of saying that someone plays at my golf course, I want to say that they volunteer, that they care, that they give of themselves to others.
And yes, I would like them to say the same about me.
What am I doing? Nothing. Why should you watch? No reason. What should you talk about? Nothing.
And that is one of the things that lead to the tragedy on Saturday.
A possibly mentally unstable individual decided that they were not getting enough attention from the world around them and determined that shooting up someone of importance was the remedy for their insignificance.
With 500+ TV channels, Facebook, Myspace, Youtube, etc, it is easy to believe that each and every one of us either has or deserves an audience. Why do you suppose I write this blog? I could keep my own, confidential journal if I didn't feel the need for validation from others.
But when you combine the urge for an audience with an unstable personality, sometimes the results are tragic.
And the results are tragic for EVERYONE involved.
Is there an answer? I certainly do not espouse periodic mental health screenings for all. I also do not support making everyone famous for 15 minutes. Yes, Andy Warhol was correct, the media now exists for such fleeting fame.
Perhaps we need to somehow shift the qualities we most publicize and admire. Perhaps we should attempt to make famous the people who run soup kitchens, the people who help the homeless, the teachers who run after-school programs for kids at risk.
How wonderful it would be if coverage of a famous boxer focused as much on his work with inner-city kids as on his triumphs in the ring. Wouldn't it be great if the story on a multi-million dollar contract included the information that 50% of the amount received would be going to charity.
I would love to see a story on a team, one month after winning a National championship showing the members cleaning up vacant lots in their city.
I think I want to try. Instead of saying that someone plays at my golf course, I want to say that they volunteer, that they care, that they give of themselves to others.
And yes, I would like them to say the same about me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
