Today's Random Thought

I just read this article, http://finance.yahoo.com/news/15-tycoons-who-won-t-leave-their-fortunes-to-their-kids-195610442.html?page=1, about millionaires and billionaires not leaving an inheritance, or leaving very little, to their kids.  

I think if I were in their position I would donate quite a bit to charity, and a small amount to the kids right after my death.  But I would also set up trusts or something for the kids that they will inherit when they turn 50.  And I wouldn't tell them about the trusts.  This way they would still have to learn the value of hard work and they would have to earn their own money.  But still receive the inheritance as a sort of reward, so to speak, for all the hard work they had already done.  

There could even be stipulations on the trusts like, if they are an addict they must be sober for at least 2 years, or they have to hold down a job for at least 3 years or more.  I wouldn't put a stipulation on it that they have to be married by a certain age or that they have to have kids, that's just not logical.

One would hope that if you teach your kids about hard work and the value of money then they will be hard workers anyway and may not "need" the inheritance money.  But I think it would also be nice to leave them a large amount for later in life.

What would you do if you had large sums of money to leave behind?

Misunderstood?

I just read an article about the Swiss apologizing to Oprah Winfrey for a racist remark by an employee at a shop in Switzerland.  Oprah was looking at purses in the shop and wanted to see a particular handbag, the cost was $38,000.  The employee told her it was "too expensive," keep in mind the employee does not speak English natively.  

Because the employee said this the world is now screaming RACIST!!! I say WTF? Seriously, this is what's wrong with the world today, someone says or does something and everyone automatically assumes it's racist or sexist, or whatever.  Now there are the unfortunate occasions that this may be the case.  However, from the article I read about this particular incident the racism is assumed.  The article did not say the employee gave a dirty look when she said it.  It did not say the employee acted disgusted or anything like that.  No the employee simply said the bag cost too much.  

It's possible the employee was stating the bag was outrageously priced, I would agree with that.  A second article I read on the matter said the employee tried to show Oprah the same bag in other materials.  I tend to agree with the shop owner, this was probably a breakdown in communication.  

I just get so sick and tired of the world, especially the media, screaming racist at the slightest incident.  In my opinion, these are the people that WANT it to be racism.  Otherwise, it's not a news worthy story.

If you haven't already, you can read about the incident here, http://music.yahoo.com/news/swiss-luxury-shop-denies-racism-towards-oprah-141207771.html.

What do you think?  Assume it's racism or give people the benefit of the doubt and assume it's a miscommunication?

What is the World Coming Too?

I keep seeing more and more news items like this one, http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/-two-boys-suspended-for-pointing-pencils-like-guns-165811733.html.

I just don't understand what is wrong with people?  It's reading articles like this that make me want to just home school my kids when the time comes.  This really comes down to the question: why are schools being so hard on kids just playing and having fun. 

How ridiculous can schools and their policies get.  Every single kid, at one point in their life, has taken a random, every day object and used it as a "gun." Schools and parents (and yes, even some teachers) seem to be getting more paranoid about kids being kids.  If they were not being malicious and were only playing between the two of them why the HECK would they get suspended?  

I can get if they were in trouble for threatening to shoot someone, or for bullying others.  But for just playing a pretend game with one another that is not at all harmful to anyone physically, mentally, or emotionally is just plain dumb.  And to suspend the 7 year old, yes 7 years old, from school is just  STUPID!  If the school felt it needed to punish the kids then start with something small like detention or some kind of essay writing assignment, don't just jump ahead and suspend them.

I just imagine what the rules for school will be like by the time I have kids:

• no playing like your shooting or stabbing at others: as this will make others believe you are a dangerous criminal
• no using objects of any kind as a weapon: the object will be confiscated, if you used your fingers as a gun those will be cut off and confiscated as well
• no running: only criminals have a reason to run
• no yelling: only abusers yell
• no laughing: only bullies laugh at others, and when you are laughing we must assume it is at someone else and therefore bullying
• no sneezing: this leads to others to say "Bless you" which is shortened from "God bless you."  There is not religion allowed in school

What a sad state our country is in and I don't see it getting better any time soon.

A Little Review

I started watching a movie last night with Jason Statham in it called In the Name of the King.  I figured with Jason Statham in the movie, it's gotta be pretty good, right?  At least good action if nothing else.  Man, was I ever wrong.  

To give you a clue about how bad this movie was it also has Ron Perlman and Matthew Lilard.  That's right, I said Matthew Lilard, who has only ever done well in one role, Shaggy from Scooby Doo.  And the only decent job I've ever seen Ron Perlman do in a movie was when he played Hellboy, even then I wasn't a big fan.

Even the actors that would normally do at least a decent job in a film seemed to have gone out of their way to make the movie as completely painful as possible, and I only watched about 30 minutes of it before I couldn't take the torture anymore.  

I wonder if this movie was made as a joke and was not intended to be taken seriously.  If this was the case, then congratulation everyone, you did a FANTASTIC job!

Ok, new rant.

I've heard this said in several tv shows and movies.  One character kisses someone not their significant other, or has sex or whatever. They get caught, and what do they say?  "It meant nothing" LIES!  It does mean something, maybe not necessarily to the cheater but it certainly means something to the person being cheated on.  Now, this has never happened to me so I'm just going based off how I think it would feel.

If my boyfriend/husband kissed another woman while he is in a relationship with me It would mean everything to me.  It would mean he's interested in someone else, it would mean he doesn't love me, it would mean he can't really be trusted.  It would mean he just plain flat out doesn't care about me or our relationship.  Like I said, I've never had the misfortune to experience this myself and I know people make mistakes, but every time I hear those words, "it meant nothing," I wait for the cheated on to rebut with "it meant something to me."  But alas, I am always disappointed.  Why do writers not think of that.  The one that gets hurt never flat out tells the cheater that it was not meaningless, that "it meant" nothing is a BIG FAT LIE.

Random Thoughts

I've been watching Ugly Betty lately and I'm getting to the end of the series.  There are a couple of inconsistencies that I just have to get off my chest and since this is my blog and it's for whatever I'm thinking about where better to vent these frustrations, and write run-on sentences.  

**SPOILER ALERT**

In one of the seasons Meade publications loses all it's money so they bring in someone to finance the company. As part of the deal Hartley tell Daniel that Willhemina will retain her portion of Meade publications as part of the deal.  The problem is, she never had a piece of the company.  That piece was her supposed love child she had with Daniel's dad, turned out it wasn't her child after all but that's a whole different story.  So technically she shouldn't get any part of the company because she never had a part of it in the first place.

My other qualm is that Daniel's mother had a love child with another man.  Now Willheminia is conspiring to get him his portion of the Meade fortune. The problem is, he is not a Meade and therefore would have no legal right to the Meade fortune.  I haven't watched the last two episodes so I don't know yet if this has been pointed out but most likely, it has not.  

What inconsistency have been bugging you about your favorite shows?