$315 Stroller, And She Steals Milk
"But, I'm buying something. And I'm just taking a little bit," the mother said to me at Starbucks, as she poured milk from the fixins bar into her baby's bottle.
The mother, a pretty Asian woman in stylish clothes, filled up the bottle halfway, and then went up to buy a coffee. (Perhaps because the coffee, which is behind the counter, is much harder to steal.)
Sorry, Lady, but just because you buy a couch at the furniture store doesn't mean you get to steal a chair on your way out.
*I only don't have a picture of her and her baby in her $315 Maclaren Techno XT Stroller because I don't think it's right to take photos of people indoors. Believe me, I was way tempted to get a shot of the cute tot drinking her stolen milk.
Can't wait for Mommy to teach her kiddie ethics.
i know this entry doesn't have anything to do with this thread but i just read your book and enjoyed it immensely. i was unfamiliar with your work but saw the book and was interested in the topic. i'm a high school teacher for at-risk kids and see daily the type of rudeness you talk about in my class. i then meet with their parents and can tell immediately where they get it. i'm hoping to make a small change with the limited number of students in my class and hope that they pay "it's nice to be nice" forward as much as possible. thanks again for your great book.
dave
dave rye at March 17, 2010 11:52 AM
Did she steal the sugar packets too? I know a mom who use to do that and justified it with, "Well what's the difference if I take them now and use them now, or don't use them now and just take them anyway? Either way, they are meant to be used so I am doing them a favor."
*eye roll*
Sabrina at March 17, 2010 11:56 AM
Why is it OK to photograph people [presumably against their will or at least without asking their permission] outdoors but not indoors?
I hate people photographing me without asking - but in this case, you're documenting a transgression. If you photograph people committing "fashion crimes" and post them on your blog, why not a milk-filching yuppie mom?
vi at March 17, 2010 12:08 PM
Stealing is stealing, period. I can't stand it, and neither should anyone else stand for it. I call people out on it time and again, and I get the same old bullshit excuses. Except for one time, when I told a woman, "look, it's stealing from the restaurant's bottom line. They aren't in business to supply you with sugar. And that cost gets passed on to the customers with higher prices for your coffee or tea or whatever else you buy. Do you not get that?" And the woman looked at me kinda funny and asked if I worked there. No, I don't, but that's not the point. Put the sugar packets (the whole fistful) back, damnit, YOU did't pay for them! She did put them back, and slunk out the door. Probably waited until I left, and then went back in! I know another woman who steals toilet paper out of the restrooms of every damn place she goes. And of course, she's "not the only one!" No wonder there's none left when anyone actually needs to use it!
o.O
Flynne at March 17, 2010 12:09 PM
Outdoors, you're in public, and I can take your picture. It's my First Amendment right.
Indoors, you're in somebody's place of business, and I don't have the right. It's a quasi-public place. If there's a sign on the door saying you may be photographed by any other customer in the business, and agree to that by entering, then I'd have the right.
Thanks so much, Dave.
Had this been at an outdoor event at an outdoor fair, I would have photographed the woman stealing the milk and her baby drinking it.
Amy Alkon at March 17, 2010 12:32 PM
Dave, I created a program to demystify making it for at-risk kids (see Chapter 10). I'd be happy to send you a copy. You just have speakers come in every month or every three months, from various professions, from chef to, well, advice columnist, and talk about the step-by-step process to doing what they do. I try to impart to the kids that I'm not special, not from a rich family, and that there are people smarter than I am -- I just work harder than those people. Etc.
Amy Alkon at March 17, 2010 12:34 PM
This could have been solved easily. All the lady had to do was go up to the counter and ask if she could take some extra milk for her child. Either the counter person would say "sure, go ahead", or tell her to please purchase an order of milk. I think chances are that they would have said it was fine, but it should not be assumed.
KarenW at March 17, 2010 1:37 PM
This reminds me, in a back-asswards way, of the topic of a week or so ago. The one about little kindnesses.
Years ago I lost a wallet at the school I was attending. It was turned in to the lost and found, with twenty dollars missing. The person at the counter said the person (a fellow student) probably considered it her reward, and I should just be happy to get it back at all.
Believe me, I was grateful as hell to get it back, and I would have rewarded the person myself, if I had been given the opportunity. What bugs me is that my gratitude was slightly tarnished by this person's sense of entitlement.
Along those lines, it's possible that the manager of the Starbuck's would have given the woman the milk if she had asked, expensive stroller aside, and felt good about it. It's what I would do, not just as a good deed, but a good business practice.
Pricklypear at March 17, 2010 1:55 PM
Years ago I lost a wallet at the school I was attending. It was turned in to the lost and found, with twenty dollars missing.
A guy I know found a little girl's wallet with her address inside. It was empty. He put $5 in it and sent it back.
MonicaP at March 17, 2010 2:10 PM
Now that's cool, MonicaP! I bet she never forgets it. I know this thing about my wallet oozes to the top of my mindswamp now and then. Well, like now.
Pricklypear at March 17, 2010 2:46 PM
"Outdoors, you're in public, and I can take your picture. It's my First Amendment right."
Does having the right to do something always make it right? This is tangential to today's topic of milk-stealing, but as the author of a book on rude people I wonder what you'd think of tourists who literally jammed their video cameras in my face without so much as a word to me, and seemed shocked when I asked them - irately, but no swearing - to leave me alone.
Is legality alone enough?
vi at March 17, 2010 2:54 PM
Oh, this is right up there with the parents that let their kids graze through the bulk food in the grocery store.
Which is why I never, NEVER buy bulk food. God knows how many grimy little hands were in it.
The milk is there to add to the coffee, you stupid, shitty excuse for a parent. If your kid grows up to rob a bank, I hope you figure out who taught him it was okay.
Ann at March 17, 2010 5:16 PM
I have always thought that those who steal for no good reason (i.e. life and death) have an element of lack of self-respect. As soon as I grasped the concept of pride and self-respect in a mature way, I cultivated the willingness to do for myself to the extent possible, without helping myself to things that belong to others, as a matter of pride. It follows that those who are not willing to be self-sufficient must lack some type of pride, respect, or confidence in themselves.
As I said, I'm more than willing to cut some slack for those in dire need (as opposed to dire want), but, people, c'mon, stop taking what's not yours -- and I'll agree not to take from you (or allow someone else to take from you in my name).
cpabroker at March 17, 2010 6:50 PM
If Starbucks didn't have milk in containers for sale and there were no grocery stores about for her to purchase milk and the baby was hungry, I might excuse the woman for forgetting to pack some milk (although taking your baby out for a stroll and forgetting the milk seems like a pretty extreme lapse). But Starbucks does sell milk in containers, so she's a thief.
Patrick at March 17, 2010 7:00 PM
By the way, shouldn't she be spending the money on milk and taking a pass on the coffee if she's short on cash?
Patrick at March 17, 2010 7:01 PM
I'm with KarenW: I am more than willing to do stuff for people, but it's the presumption and sense of entitlement that puts me off. At the store where I used to work, on more than one occasion I had people ask me if they could have damaged accessories for free, like a single earring if they had lost one. It would never have occurred to me to ask someone that. I once lost a brand new earring on the way to work, and I bought another pair (cheap and on sale). But once I had the nicest lady (regular customer, to boot) come in looking to buy another pair of earrings because she lost one. We didn't have any more, but there was a pair in the back that had been damaged out. One of them was still good, so I just gave it to her (I did tell my boss, and damaged accessories got destroyed anyway). She was so thankful that I had to pretty much kick her out before she left money on the counter. It's kind of backwards, I guess, but it's the people who do not expect you to put yourself out there that I want to do nice things for. Entitlement just pisses me off.
NumberSix at March 17, 2010 7:16 PM
Back in my university days, a group of us used to go out to an all-you-can-eat pizza night every couple of weeks. Which had a dessert bar. And one night I watched a middle aged guy produce a foil lined, chilled, 2 litre steel container and proceed to carefully layer soft serve icecream into it with extreme concentration to ensure maximum packing. I was disgusted...though not as much as a bit later when a small and extremely grubby child grabbed a few cubes of jello out of a bowl with his hands - only to be told by the loving parent behind him "that's too much, put it back". Which he did, with the same filthy hands while the parent nodded approvingly.
I think I can date my lack of sweet tooth to that day...
Ltw at March 17, 2010 7:17 PM
Patrick - I'll bet you she's a greenie, and she feels perfectly justified in her actions. After all, she's such a good person, she's entitled to this.
http://dctrawler.dailycaller.com/2010/03/16/the-science-is-settled-environmentalists-are-dicks/
brian at March 17, 2010 8:01 PM
By the way, shouldn't she be spending the money on milk and taking a pass on the coffee if she's short on cash?
But you don't understand, Patrick, she needs the coffee! Because her life is SO HARD.
That having been said, I would guess that Starbucks budgets for a certain level of these events...which is one reason that their prices have been going up over the last few years. So I get to pay a bit more for my drinks because this woman and her ilk feel justified in stealing milk. Sigh.
marion at March 17, 2010 8:20 PM
Can't agree with you, Amy. 2 issues:
There is no difference in her (who takes 4 ounces of milk with her paid coffee (half a bottle) and me (who tosses 3/4 of her paid-for coffee and refills it with milk the rare occasions when she must meet someone for coffee)
and 2) Stabucks says via their local branch that the fixin's bar is there for the use of their paying customers. One assumes when they find it unprofitable, they will start charging for and/or adding behind the counter the milk sugar etc. Until then, they as a company choose to have it available for the at-will use of their paying customers, which she was. I realize you are trying to beat some manners into society, btu some things you go overboard on and get into things that are not your fight, or your business.
momof4 at March 17, 2010 8:20 PM
momof4, I disagree with you. Sure, the stuff is there to be used, but the implication is that it is to be used to fix your coffee the way you like it. Financially speaking, they know on average how much of what is used, and can set their prices accordingly.
Taking your position to an extreme: if I come in with a school class, and point the kids to the "free milk" while I order a coffee, surely you would agree that this is unfair? The principle is the same for a single baby - it's just a matter of scale.
But you know, the really simple thing would have been for her to ask. Had she simply asked the personnel if she could use a bit of milk for the baby - and offered to pay for it - they would have almost certainly said "it's ok, just take it". She could have left an extra tip, and everybody would be happy.
bradley13 at March 17, 2010 11:59 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/03/17/315_stroller_an.html#comment-1702359">comment from bradley13the implication is that it is to be used to fix your coffee the way you like it.
Exactly.
Amy Alkon at March 18, 2010 12:39 AM
I agree with Patrick's comments.
What I have seen and equally dislike - though I think it is slightly more justified - is the "poor man's mocha." Regular drip coffee extra extra room (about 1/2 the cup). Fill the rest with the free milk and dump in 1/4 of the chocolate shaker - I regularly saw one guy who would take the lid off the shaker. I always think that if you want a mocha, just order one. I vaguely knew the one guy I saw always take the cap off and he had a good salary - probably close to 100k/year
The Former Banker at March 18, 2010 12:44 AM
"By the way, shouldn't she be spending the money on milk and taking a pass on the coffee if she's short on cash?"
Amen Patrick! Or at least be willing to share her coffee with her baby.
As a mom of three fairly grounded kids, moms like this make me twitch.
Juliana at March 18, 2010 3:54 AM
Not really, Starbucks' biggest line-item expense is health insurance. So when ObamaCare goes through and the assholes finally get their "government option" (read: government universal health care) Starbucks can lower their prices.
So once again the yuppies will benefit on the backs of the working man!
brian at March 18, 2010 4:54 AM
Was it the same amount of milk that she would have put in her coffee? If so, does it matter that she put it in the bottle rather than in the coffee?
NicoleK at March 18, 2010 5:34 AM
I agree with you about the lady being, ethically speaking, a thief, for the same reason drank-half-her-husband's-coffee was, ethically speaking, a thief. She didn't buy the kid a latte, therefore the kid was not entitled to anything in the store.
Regarding the photography, while I respect your position and am not telling you to change it, as a photographer and a lawyer with an interest in this issue, there's no real difference, legally, between taking a picture of a person indoors or outdoors. (Please note that nothing in this post is meant to be specific legal advice. Consult a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction and familiar with the relevant law before making legal decisions.) It only matters whether they have a reasonable expectation of privacy and whether you have a right to photograph there. "Expectation of privacy" in this instance doesn't mean "doesn't expect to be seen," but "doesn't expect to be photographed." With every cell phone in the world soon to be a high-res video camera and every store monitored as was once reserved for the Federal Reserve, it's arguable whether anybody could have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a commercial establishment full of other people.
That second one still doesn't mean I can't take the picture and keep it, either. For instance, all the grocery stores around here, for whatever reason (probably a combination of anti-price-shopping and anti-reporting) have signs that say, "No photography." If I take a picture while I'm in there, I'm breaching the conditions of my license to enter, which makes me a trespasser. That doesn't mean my photograph is an infringement of anybody's rights, it means they can throw me out and tell me never to come back.
sardonic_sob at March 18, 2010 6:28 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/03/17/315_stroller_an.html#comment-1702396">comment from sardonic_sobIt's not the legality I'm concerned with, sardonic slob: I don't personally feel I have a right to photograph people in somebody's place of business. Also, thinking further on this I think that would likely chase people out of the place of business.
Amy Alkon at March 18, 2010 7:02 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/03/17/315_stroller_an.html#comment-1702398">comment from NicoleKWas it the same amount of milk that she would have put in her coffee? If so, does it matter that she put it in the bottle rather than in the coffee?
She filled half a baby bottle, and even if it were the same amount of milk I would put in my coffee, I don't put milk in my coffee, and I don't get to walk out with the milk other people would have put in their coffee for my cereal in the morning (although I don't eat cereal, either).
Amy Alkon at March 18, 2010 7:09 AM
Numbersix, I thought I was the only one who thought like that. People who feel entitled to things just because they are breathing bring out a streak of cruelty in me.
Jim at March 18, 2010 8:16 AM
I should point out that you don't know the student was the one who took the money. The person who found the wallet first may have just wanted the cash, and then just dropped the wallet so someone else could find it.
I remember when I was in the Army, I found a wallet that belonged to a cab driver on post whose services I used a couple of times. I called the cab company and gave him his wallet back, which was empty. But I'm not the one who emptied it.
Interesting concept, brian, and one I hadn't considered. The idea that since we're "saving the planet" we're entitled to the occasional "freebie," even if it's not offered to us and it's technically stealing.
If you watch South Park, brian, you might want to check out the episode "Smug Alert." I've give you a link to it, if you'd like to see it, but I'm on my college's computers right now. No pop ups allowed. It's Season 10 (the first season without the hypocritical Isaac Hayes), episode two.
I can link it later when I get home if you'd like.
I wonder if Starbucks can solve this theft problem by putting out those tiny half-and-half containers. You could take forever filling a baby's bottle with that stuff and who the heck would give their baby half-and-half?
Patrick at March 18, 2010 10:52 AM
"...and who the heck would give their baby half-and-half?"
You would be surprised at what parents will give thier baby if it is "free".
Sabrina at March 18, 2010 12:15 PM
... who the heck would give their baby half-and-half?
My 15-month-old son is in the bottom percentile of weight for children of his height. A pediatrician has actually advised my wife and I try and get him to drink half-and-half to bulk up.
Half-and-half (purchased at the local grocery store) was a big flop. We've started giving him ice cream instead, which he consumes with great enthusiasm.
c.gray at March 18, 2010 12:26 PM
That mom gave me a great idea! I'll make sure I have two big empty glasses every time I get my coffee. This way I can save what I usually spend on milk for my teenage sons...
Jokes aside, besides of the cheapness of the action, I also question the mother's judgement by feeding her baby with the stuff. As far as I know, those little milk bags do not contain 'regular' milk, but a mixture of water, chemicals and dairy ingredients that might be too hard to digest for a baby. If the mom ran out of milk, she could at least carry some bottles of made-for-babies juice. At least better than Starbucks milk
Lourdesv at March 18, 2010 2:08 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/03/17/315_stroller_an.html#comment-1702501">comment from LourdesvThis being America, there's a 7-Eleven every half-block, and in that neighborhood, there are countless little grocery and liquor stores.
Amy Alkon at March 18, 2010 2:15 PM
I see the losers of "Sadly No Life" are back.
Patrick at March 19, 2010 7:24 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/03/17/315_stroller_an.html#comment-1702767">comment from PatrickTo be deleted as spam and IP-banned, which may give them a bit of trouble when posting on sites that use the software I do.
Oh, and by the way, a commenter here brought it to my attention that the 52-year-old unsuccessful actor, living in New York City, named Carl Salonen, aka Actor212, like Loretta Serrano, has self-published a book on Amazon under a pseudonym. I know that pseudonym (Charles is the first name, but I won't give the last name).
It was suggested to me by the commenter that I go on Amazon, and get my commenters to go on Amazon, and do to his book what he did to mine: post one-star reviews and negative comments. I would never do this or get behind this -- which is why I don't post the guy's real name here.
I guess when you can't get your writing to a level where an actual publisher wants to publisher it, and you haven't made it as an actor in 52 years, but still call yourself one, all you can do is attack others who have been moderately successful where you have not (those who can't do...spend weeks of their time dropping tiny little turds on the work of those who can).
Amy Alkon at March 19, 2010 7:35 AM
Don't worry, saved you the trouble, although I have no idea what "Sadly No Life" is.
sardonic_sob at March 19, 2010 7:46 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/03/17/315_stroller_an.html#comment-1702777">comment from sardonic_sobsardonic_sob, it's explained here by Patterico:
http://patterico.com/2010/02/18/help-amy-alkon-beat-the-scum-at-sadly-no/
Amy Alkon at March 19, 2010 8:01 AM
"Sadly No Life" is just my term for them. Because sadly they have no lives. They call themselves Sadly No. They took issue with Amy's stance on Tarika Wilson, whom Amy faulted for being a single mother of six at 26 and whose children all had different fathers...to say nothing of the drug dealer she was living with at the time she was killed.
Although Amy never said anything about Ms. Wilson's race, they insisted her attacks on Wilson were racist and they've been harassing her ever since.
One wonders if Sadly No Life thinks that having six children by different fathers at age 26 with no assets or skills is okay if you're white.
Patrick at March 19, 2010 12:47 PM
Litter. She called Tarika Wilson's children a "litter", which is why the Sadlies got upset. While it may not be overtly racist, it is extremely...impolite.
Now, watch this comment disappear, despite the fact that it doesn't break any of Amy's commenting rules.
Boogers McGee at March 19, 2010 7:02 PM
It is not racist at all, let alone overtly racist. While I wouldn't agree with the classification (I would reserve the term "litter" for a set of fertility-drug induced octuplets or septuplets), racism is not even remotely suggested by referring to Tarika Wilson's kids as a litter. Impolite? So, what? Tarika Wilson's decision to have six children under her circumstances was irresponsible and tantamount to child abuse.
For the idiots at "Sadly No Life" to be outraged over Amy's choice of words, implying racism where there is none, while being just peachy-keen with Tarika Wilson's decision to have six kids from different fathers at age 26 while having no skills or assets with which to support those kids and living out of wedlock with a drug dealer is...
help me find the word..."stupid" is a gross understatement. It represents an obscenely misguided sense of priorities.
Tarika Wilson subjecting her innocent children to the conditions that she did was appalling. But let's get all bent out of shape because Amy called her kids a "litter."
Patrick at March 19, 2010 7:34 PM
Mr. McGee, what brought you over to this site? I ask because you obviously haven't been here before, else you would know that Amy doesn't delete comments she doesn't like. She only deletes those from people who have been sent over in hordes to spam the comments section, or from people like this one guy who posted endless, repetitive, boring comments that had nothing to do with what was being discussed and wouldn't stop when asked. And I think she once deleted and banned someone who posted as another commenter. You don't have to look very far on this blog to find dissenting opinions. Indeed, you yourself said you agreed with momof4, who disagrees with Amy. So there you go!
This is truly no big deal. There are far bigger problems in the world to tackle - this Blog entry reads like someone who just likes other people to do things "their way".
I seriously dislike comments like this. If you think it is no big deal and there are better things to do, then go do them. I find all kinds of useless posts on the internet, and I just pass them by. I don't stop in to comment that they are stupid or useless or boring or what have you. Momof4 does disagree here, but she posts plenty everywhere else, so it doesn't seem like she's wasting her time by replying on this thread.
Amy posts heavy, serious items alongside fluffy, frilly items (this one is somewhere in between). That's why I am here, because it's not all heavy sociopolitical stuff, nor is it just a journal. Just the other day, I was discussing my bras over on thread that was posted under an item about healthcare. Shop around on the site and you may actually find something that you deem worth your while.
NumberSix at March 19, 2010 8:36 PM
Okay, I'm an idiot. The item I referred to above was actually about teachers' unions, not healthcare.
NumberSix at March 19, 2010 8:38 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/03/17/315_stroller_an.html#comment-1702917">comment from PatrickFor the idiots at "Sadly No Life" to be outraged over Amy's choice of words,
They aren't actually outraged over my choice of words. They're just adult losers -- overgrown schoolyard bullies who need a constant supply of new kickballs.
They're all anonymous because they don't have the guts to speak out in their own names as I do. I only post in my own name. If I won't tell you my thoughts to your face, I won't tell you them at all.
Because I was used to dealing with adults with the ability to reason, when the mob of tiny thugs first descended on my site to try to mess up my comments section, I pointed out that I typically refer to women who have large families as having "litters." I say that about women of whatever color. And large families of whatever color. Rich, poor, white, black, Catholic, Orthodox Jewish, Muslim. Yes, I use the word litter, and have used the word litter, about all of them.
For example, here's a Brazilian woman I wrote it about, from a Catholic family, that celebrated never using contraception. Predating my Tarika Wilson blog item by YEARS. It's called "Ladies Having Litters For The Lord":
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2005/04/07/starving_childr.html
I quickly learned that these tiny thugs don't care about the truth.
For the record, I think all children deserve to have daddies (or two parents in an intact family, in the case of gay parents). I think this -- I changed my mind, actually -- after reading volumes of research on how poor the outcomes are for children of non-intact families, whether those families are rich or poor. Which is why I'm against the vile rich women who refer to themselves as "single mothers by choice." Oh, how nice. Did your child get to choose not to have a daddy?
And again, as protested to the sad losers back when I wrote about Tarika Wilson, here I am talking about rich white women having LITTERS of children:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2007/11/16/rich_litter.html
Again, these tiny turds don't care about the truth. They need to demonize me because I rightly criticized Jesse Jackson for not trying to stigmatize single motherhood in the black community. Somebody should, since 80 percent of black children are born to unwed mothers.
Anybody who thinks it's AOK or even defensible for a woman, of any color, to have six different children -- a LITTER of children -- with five different drug dealers, by the age of 24, and live with one of those drug dealers, in the presence of their children...what is it you call yourselves, all you tiny thugs, tiny anonymous thugs coming after me..."progressives"?
Since they were only pretending to care about Tarika Wilson as a means of attacking mean, none even wondered about who might have been caring for single mother Tarika Wilson's LITTER of children when she spent a year in jail on drug charges.
No, a woman who lived as Wilson did doesn't value children's lives. Is there a person (outside the tiny thugs) who thinks she planned to have these six children, thought about how she'd pay for them, thought about how those disappeared guys who gave her the shots of sperm would make good dads and providers? Come on, this isn't about caring about this woman. Not in the slightest.
The best is, while I'm speaking at an inner city school, trying to demystify making it, and then trying to get funding to get the program administered in schools across the country, to at-risk kids from the youngest grades on...these tiny losers are busy coming to my leave anonymous posts on my website asking if I have a penis or if I'm "a tranny."
They hide behind their anonymity because they're tiny cowards. Their only value is to be part of a mob.
Their behavior is why I would never, ever, ever call myself a "progressive."
Amy Alkon at March 20, 2010 12:49 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/03/17/315_stroller_an.html#comment-1702919">comment from Amy AlkonOh, and any members of the mob of tiny little thugs sent here by Sadly Juvenile will have their comments deleted and their IPs banned. And let me tell you, I do it with glee.
Individual assholes with opinions, however, are always welcome here.
Amy Alkon at March 20, 2010 1:19 AM
Well, obviously. Crid and I have been here since the beginning.
Fuhgeddabowdem, Darlin'. The idiots at Sadly No are waging war against someone out of their reach, and you're becoming even moreso all the time. The time will come when they won't amount to a blip on the radar.
Patrick at March 20, 2010 6:46 AM
While having a lot of children you can't take care of is a bad idea, and certainly not something we as a society should promote, I do think that suggesting it is worse than actually shooting a woman to death in her own home (which is the message of "who places a lower value on life?") is indefensible.
(Additionally this was part of an argument for no-knock raids and against police accountability, which has always made me wonder about your libertarian bona fides, but that's a separate matter).
Johann J. Froberger at March 20, 2010 12:18 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/03/17/315_stroller_an.html#comment-1703117">comment from Johann J. FrobergerI do think that suggesting it is worse than actually shooting a woman to death in her own home (which is the message of "who places a lower value on life?") is indefensible.
The shooting was judged to be accidental. I do not support SWAT raids on homes with children in them. I've also blogged critically about these no-knock raids, and linked to Radley Balko's excellent pieces on them.
This woman, it could be said, had accidents also. Six of them. Six failures of contraception -- if there was any used at all -- when she had drug dealer dick in her. This is how animals have children. They don't carefully plan whether they have the finances and ability to care for children. They just fuck them out. So, in her case, the litter analogy was exceptionally appropriate. As it would be for any woman, of any color, who acted the same way. It's absolutely unacceptable.
Again, this woman brought six daddyless children into the world, and exposed them to the drug dealer she lived with. That's not an accident. She also went to prison for a year for her involvement in a drug crime. Did she think, "Wow, who will take care of my daddyless children if I get caught?" Reprehensible, and I stand behind every word I wrote.
Amy Alkon at March 20, 2010 12:41 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/03/17/315_stroller_an.html#comment-1703118">comment from Amy AlkonOh, and to the dickless anonyweenie posting as Johann J. Froberger, why the anonymity?
This isn't about some opinion of mine that's "indefensible" -- your opinion, or rather, your duty to make that your opinion as part of the mob of sad losers. I'm sure you'll leave a comment over there soon about how great it is that I let your comment stand, despite the dumb ass dead composer name.
What this is about is a site that people like you spend days of their time on posting the most juvenile attacks on people they perceive to be conservatives. Instead of disagreeing with my opinion, blogging that I'm an idiot or indefensible, or a horrible person, this site sent over hundreds of people to leave nasty comments here in hopes of messing up my site and quashing my speech.
Who am I? A moderately successful writer and blogger who has an opinion you disagree with? I'm that important to the people at Sadly No? Your lives are so empty that you actually spend hours of your time leaving hundreds and hundreds of comments about how I look like a man, etc., all over your site and mine and elsewhere? Amazing. Pathetic.
Amy Alkon at March 20, 2010 12:43 PM
I'm certain I agree with you. Now if you could please show me where Amy said having children you can't care for is worse than shooting a mother and her child in her own home?
This actually brings to mind a youtube video I saw just today. A woman with five children went out drinking and left her children with a molester that she has for a boyfriend...on two separate occasions, with two separate boyfriends. The judge sentenced the boyfriend to life in prison.
But his harshest words were reserved for the victims' mother...but the judge is white and the victims' mother is black. I guess that means he's a racist.
But watch for yourself. It's under three minutes long. Personally, I think the judge is right and he let that stupid woman have it, both barrels.
Patrick at March 20, 2010 2:41 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/03/17/315_stroller_an.html#comment-1703132">comment from PatrickRaising children is a serious endeavor. You don't just squeeze them out in quick succession without a committed father and a healthy home environment. Well, that is, you don't, if you place a value on creating another human being and feel a sense of responsibility to be a good parent.
My friends, parents in their late 30s, waited until they'd been together for about 10 years, and had solidified their relationship and financial situation before they felt right about having children. My neighbor, 38, who is an architect-turned-stay-at-home mom with a husband who earns a middle-class wage, has her hands full with just two children: with their school, taking them to the doctor when necessary, teaching them to be moral and kind.
And then, what I criticized: a single mother with six children by age 24, from the sperm shots of a variety of criminals. What galls me is how none of these tiny turds are outraged by this woman's behavior or that of so many other women -- which sends the message that they think this is acceptable to do to children. Which illustrates what I've come to know about them -- they don't give a shit about what's wrong or right; they're just losers with a lot of time on their hands...adults who still get off on junior-high-style bullying, because that's the best way for them to feel like somebody in light of creating nothing, building nothing.
Amy Alkon at March 20, 2010 2:57 PM
Back to the original topic...taking things that are 1) free and 2) intended for unrestricted consumer consumption isn't stealing. (This would include sugar/ketchup/mustard packets, napkins, plastic utensils, etc) Tacky: yes, stealing: no.
I'm sure that Starbucks and similar businesses are perfectly aware that some people are going to take more than their fair share, yet they continue to provide these freebies because 1) they basically cost nothing and 2) they help to attract/retain customers. Take Asian Mommy: she probably got, what, 10 cents worth of free milk, but she's most likely paying $5 dollars for about 50 cents worth of coffee. If that 10 cents of milk is what it takes for Starbucks to make the sale and perhaps gain a lifelong customer, then they probably find it well worth it to lose a little milk.
If Starbucks started losing revenue then they could put the milk behind the counter, or put up a sign instructing customers that milk is to only be used for coffee. If they're not doing that then I doubt that they see it as a problem.
And anyone who teaches their kids that grabbing an extra handful of napkins is the same as robbing a bank probably needs to rethinking their parenting skills. You might as well say that running a red light is the same as driving drunk and running over a person.
Shannon at March 20, 2010 5:38 PM
Just because Starbucks doesn't think it's a problem doesn't mean it isn't wrong. The "stealing" part comes into play because she is not using the milk for its intended purpose. I don't add milk to my coffee, but I don't feel entitled to take it to use for something else because I paid for a drink. To me, that would be stealing milk. Like taking the newspaper from the coffee shop because you aren't drinking your coffee there, so you can enjoy the paper at work.
And anyone who teaches their kids that grabbing an extra handful of napkins is the same as robbing a bank probably needs to rethinking their parenting skills. You might as well say that running a red light is the same as driving drunk and running over a person.
I would like you to point out where exactly anyone here has said that. There are degrees of theft. Stealing four ounces of milk from Starbucks pales in comparison to robbing a bank, but it's still stealing. Running a red light is still a traffic violation even if you don't hit a pedestrian. The examples you give are all wrong and/or illegal. My parents taught me that it was bad to take something that isn't mine. You know what that did to me in adulthood? I am a considerate human being. I know it's wrong to rob a bank, and I don't feel entitled to take little things, even if the establishment in question doesn't care. Again, just because they don't care doesn't mean it isn't wrong.
NumberSix at March 20, 2010 7:19 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/03/17/315_stroller_an.html#comment-1703153">comment from NumberSixAbsolutely right, Nicole.
Stealing is stealing is stealing, no matter how small the price of what you steal.
Amy Alkon at March 20, 2010 7:22 PM
Courtney, actually, but that's okay! Call me whatever you'd like. And thanks.
NumberSix at March 20, 2010 8:40 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/03/17/315_stroller_an.html#comment-1703161">comment from NumberSixSorry about that...long day today!
Amy Alkon at March 20, 2010 9:11 PM
Leave a comment