Friday, October 29, 2010
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Another guest post by Dana
You'd think we were both over 40 and that feeling of invincibility was waning or something. Well yes, as a matter of fact ...
Here's a question for all of you though, have you considered what will happen to all of your online accounts? Your blog? Your twitter account? Facebook? What about all of the URL's and passwords for your banking/financial accounts??
Me? I'd never considered it until I received a BzzAgent invitation to explore Otrib's Final Wishes Service.
Otrib is an interesting (for lack of a better word) website. It allows you to add a facebook app that gives you a life status indicator on your profile, real-time death notification to all connections and a dedicated tribute page with memorial service, donation information and guestbook ... all for free.
With registration, and a few minutes of your time, you can name an heir for your digital assets, describe how your facebook account should be managed upon your death and help your next of kin save time and money by automatically sending out death notice to friends and family and creating a tribute page / interactive online obituary.
Hmmmm ... I'm not so sure I want my obituary broadcast on facebook ... but it's an interesting idea.
If you are concerned about more than your facebook account, you can explore Legacy Locker.
Legacy Locker offers a free basic plan (3 assets, 1 beneficiary and 1 "legacy letter") or annual ($29.99)/lifetime ($299.99) paid plan options that include unlimited assets, unlimited beneficiaries, unlimited legacy letters, enabled document backup and enabled video upload.
Honestly? I don't see a need for either of these. They seem somewhat self-important and self-absorbed. I can understand providing beneficiaries with URL's and passwords for banking/financial accounts (I'm fairly certain they could be included in a will), but a self-designed tribute page on facebook seems ... well ... *shakes head*
What do you think? Would you use either of these services?
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Friday, October 15, 2010
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Today, I ran out to grab lunch for the work crew. I pull into Arby's, order, drive up to the window and there's a dog lying in the drive-thru lane. RIGHT in front of me. Just one car length up...as if he had to wait on his fresh, hot fries to come out.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Another guest post by Dana
Throughout the news and the cyber world, I kept seeing and hearing reference to tolerance. We need to have tolerance for the LGBT community. We need to have tolerance for those who lead a different lifestyle than we do. We need to have tolerance, not hate.
Merriam-Webster defines tolerance as:
sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own.Sympathy? Indulgence? Wow! Really?
As a society, we've kind of come to an acceptance of tolerance. We've set it as the goal we should all strive to meet. I think we can do better than tolerance.
I don't want to be tolerated in spite of my differences, I want to be celebrated for ALL that I bring to the table.
I don't want people to have sympathy for my sexual orientation, or to allow me to indulge in my sexual preferences. That reeks of needing their permission.
I don't want their permission - I don't want their tolerance - I want their acceptance.
At some point, society lost the true definition of acceptance and began defaulting to tolerance. There seems to be this underlying fear that if we accept people in spite of their sexual orientation (or race, or religion, or gender, or any other difference) that we somehow lessen the pride we have regarding of our own sexual orientation (or race, or religion, or gender, or any other difference).
I suppose tolerance is a start, but I think we should set the bar higher - much higher.
Friday, October 8, 2010
It's not that one thing that someone said THAT day. It's not one thing. I can't speak for everyone, but I can speak for me. For 25 years, I lived a lie. Not a big lie. But a thousand little lies.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Another guest post by Dana
Last week, Margaret Matthews, 68, decided she'd had enough of two neighborhood boys (12 and 13) who she claims have been harassing her in her south side Chicago home for more than a year.
She had been grocery shopping and when she returned to her house she noticed broken windows and saw two boys running away.
The boys came back and Matthews stood on her porch and confronted them. Allegedly, they responded by throwing bricks and rocks at her. One hit her in the chest.
She went inside, grabbed a gun and called police.
Concerned the police wouldn't make it in time, she went back outside and fired at the boys, wounding the 12-year-old in the shoulder.
According to Illinois law, Matthews' use of force qualifies as self defense if she "reasonably believed that such force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm." The police decided not to charge Matthews. The boys face charges of aggravated assault.
The 12-year-old boy's family told another story, insisting the boy didn't break the window and the shooting was unprovoked.
Some in the neighborhood are calling Matthew's a hero, a descriptor she takes issue with.
"There is nothing heroic about any individual getting hurt by another individuals hand," Matthews said. "I pray for this young man and am so happy he'll be alright."
"I'm sorry that all of this happened," she said. "I hope and pray that something positive can come from what happened to him.
"He might not realize it," she added, "but I might have saved his life, because if he keeps on going on the path he's on someone else may not be so lenient.
"This way," she said, "he's got a chance."
What do you think? Is Matthews a hero or a dangerous granny with a gun who over-reacted?