Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Are you happy with the structure of your family?

A study in the U.K. asked seven year olds if they were happy. They concluded that family structure didn't matter.

Children living with lone parent are as happy as those with two


In the Millennium Cohort Study survey, data were gathered in 2008 on 12,877 children aged seven, and their parents.
Of those children living with two biological (or adoptive) parents: 64% said they were 'sometimes or never' happy and 36% said they were happy 'all the time'. The exact same percentages were found for those living with one step-parent and one biological parent, and for those living with a lone parent.
Children who are seven don't have a lot of say in the structure of their family. They don't get a say if their parents are married or separated. They don't get a say in anything. They're seven. They have not develop the understanding for the loss or seen its effects. I'm not questioning the study.

So we can ignore all the "Spit'in Anger"

Monday, April 28, 2014

Entertainment Media address Father's issues

JASON PATRIC'S 'FATHERLESS NATION' LEGAL CRUSADE

My apologies I can't embed this video. It is about six minutes long. Jason Patric's talks about the influential lobbyist.  

Sunday, April 27, 2014

Catholic All Year's Answer Me This

Catholic All Year's Answer Me This

1. Do you hate happy clappy church music?

Not first thing in the morning. And also in some other cultures non-western African 'happy-clappy' is the norm and liturgically it is fine. 

2. What is your priority: eating or sleeping?

I have a neuro condition that affects my sleep patterning. Yes, I'm writing this at 3am. Sleeping is a priority 

3. What type of milk do you drink in your house?

Store brand whole mile. Except for skim for one child. 

4. What is a book that changed your perspective on something?

In college "Whole Stole Feminism" and "Visions of the Anointed" Both political books. 

5. Who is your favorite saint?

Saint Kateri 

6. Introvert or extrovert?

 Introvert. Most people online are. 

Friday, April 25, 2014

7QT "UPDATE" Explaining STDs to a 12 year old

More Quick Takes at Conversion Diary

1. Last year I had a popular 7QT on STDs. A year later the same subject.

2. We switched to a female doctor in the practice at my daughter's request. I also had my daughter check in herself and fill out the forms. I was in the room with her, but I had to speak as much as possible.

3. She didn't care for the paper johnny and waiting for 15 minutes.

4. The HPV vaccine came up. We had a good conversation. We talked about the window in which obtaining the virus is most prevalent, but also the reality that it is unlikely for a college student to come back every two months for the full three shots.

5. 14 years of age is more of an ideal age for the vaccine if it is chosen. The pediatrician in her practice knew of no adverse reactions personally, but was aware of the concern.

6. The benefits of abstinence and monogamy are real, but it is about having an ongoing conversation with you children about relationships and emotions. Even at an age in which they personalities and maturity are clearly not there and everyone is in that middle school obnoxious stage really matters.

7. Earlier this week, one of her male classmates made a snotty comment that she had a 'hand me down'. No one sent me the memo, that all eleven year olds MUST have their own phone that is new. I told her to forgive him and that the boy will one day grow up to be a caring person. Also it was a good lesson, that if ever a guy speaks to you that manner later in life, run away!


Thursday, April 24, 2014

Blindsided

It seems we have tipped the point in our culture. In many ways it makes sense for younger Americans who have little trust or value in marriage from seeing adults divorce/never marry. I totally understand this ambivalence.

I just can't believe how blindsided I was. My views on marriage public policy should be focused on the issue of paternal involvement, that's why paternity is assumed and we collect data on childhood outcomes based on the social understanding of marriage. But there is this bandwagon effect, and no one wants to be the last one defending the idea a mom and dad should raised their children together under one roof and children have the right to their biological kin. Even if I respond that gay individuals should be loved be their mom and dad, it's like I hurled homophobic slurs.

It's just mind blowing this observance, that someone we can look into all these cultures and even current data on the link between marriage with paternal involvement and positive childhood outcomes.

And it all falls flat, because no one wants to stick out their head except for maybe the Pope.

I do find in places an interest on the importance of family from the United Nations.

Doha Call to Action

We, the representatives of civil society, academia, policy makers and individuals participating in the International Conference organized in Doha, Qatar on the 16-17 of April, 2014 by the Doha International Family Institute (DIFI), member of Qatar Foundation for Education, Science and Community Development, to commemorate the twentieth anniversary of the International Year of the Family;


Call on governments to empower and enable families to contribute to development by taking the following actions:

1. Develop comprehensive and coherent policies, integrate cross sectorial approach to support family stability and establish/strengthen a national mechanism to develop family-oriented policies and programmes and allocate adequate human and financial resources to implement, monitor and evaluate them.

2. Promote gender equality and the empowerment of women, reform discriminatory laws and policies, particularly family laws, and enact legislations to end child marriage and violence against women.

3. Recognize the contribution and responsibility of men to families, develop policies to address the impact of the absence of males/fathers on family wellbeing and promote active fatherhood.


Wednesday, April 23, 2014

Children, the law is confused.

Some time ago, my children came to the knowledge that abortion was legal. They were horrified and wanted to write to President Obama and do something about it. I have to give them the bad news that the President wasn't pro-life and let them know financial lobbyists control a lot of law making progress.

So the issue of marriage came up, older child tried to explain to younger child about the new definition of marriage and how it was different from the one knows and observes. Younger child was confused.

I stepped in.

I told him the law changed the definition of marriage because it was confused. The law is having trouble distinguish marital love and companion love.

Now this child has a basic understanding that you need a man and a woman to have a baby by a physical act and obligations follow through in raising the child together to benefit the child. It isn't based on a religious belief, but um... the knowledge of objective science.

Now there is a lot more to the story, but I have nothing bad to say about anyone and the child is just that a child. I won't lie to him and tell them there is no difference, just that the law is confused on how to acknowledge these differences.

I do have a lot criticism of powerful interests creating confusion and distraction of problems that face our society.


"One of life's great dramas: the development of an offspring in the image of its parents"
- Cecie Starr

"Turned out Ok, but.."

I've follow "The Anonymous Us Project"
That is just cruel. I don't blame my mom for choosing a closed identity donor as the times were different back then but I'd be lying if I said that it didn't hurt. Not knowing who your father is, the man who is quite literally half of you, whether he is dead or alive, trying not to think of him during your teenage years because it wasted a lot of your time. Feeling angry at your mom yet not wanting to blame her. Looking back, I guess I had a huge identity crisis as a teenager.
Why is anonymous sperm donation allowed in Massachusetts, when paternity establishment is such a big deal.
Paternity establishment means more than having a father on the child’s birth certificate or obtaining an order for child support. Once paternity is established, a child gains legal rights and privileges. Other benefits of establishing paternity include:

giving the child rights to inheritance
access to the father’s medical and life insurance benefits
eligibility for social security and veteran’s benefits
giving the child a better chance to develop a relationship with the father
giving the child a sense of identity and connection to both sides of the family

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

Being a pacifist in the culture wars

While driving along Pawtucket Blvd in Lowell, I saw a banner along a church fence that stated 'Our faith is 2000 years old, but our thinking isn't'. The banner along with the church's permanent sign was adorn with the rainbow insignia. The multi-color insignia never bother me in the slightest and has been there for a few years, rainbows are cool and aside of the understanding of marriage I'm relatively understanding of needs of gay individuals/relationships. (Really, I am.)

Why is this church being passive-aggressive?
What is up with the snark at a busy intersection?

Thank goodness I read Gabriel Blanchard's MudBloodCatholic 'Arena of Insanity'





Divorce from a Child's Point of View

12 Things Kids Think About Divorce But Are Too Afraid To Say from the Huffington Post.
After working with hundreds of families -- and observing the behavior of kids as they struggled through the breakdown of their families -- here are the top 12 things kids think about divorce, but don't have the world experience to say directly. If they could find the words or the courage, this is what kids wish they could tell their divorcing parents:

In contrast to my post on Marriage from Child's Point of View.

Monday, April 21, 2014

Children behind the 8-Ball

There was a report of an arrest of a 45-yr old man in Lowell for repeated car break-ins, and he was listed as homeless. However, in court his appointed lawyer asked for his release because he is the father of 8 children. How sad it is that these 8 children start there lives so far behind the 8-ball -J.S. Local Group on Facebook

When we are born we have no control of the circumstances we are brought into this world. People think ahead before you have sex.  I'm for many social programs that help children in need, but children who have the full support of their mother and father are not behind the 8-ball.

Wednesday, April 16, 2014

An idea that marriage once united mother and father

Despite being told marriage was only for religious reasons, Pope Francis in his recent statements didn't mention the Bible at all. He only mentioned the rights of the child to his mother and father, and the parents' right to raise the child. It doesn't sound unreasonable or ignorant. 



The idea that marriage unites mother and father, while unpopular as a consensus isn't far-fetched. It sounds almost logical.

Considering what is occurring...

"So the twins have a biological father and mother who have no legal rights over them, a non-biological legal mother who gave birth to them and another non-biological legal mother who came into their lives later!"
The children have no rights to their own kin. 

Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Agamy and The Future. Why did we ignore the research from the 1990s?

Agamy as in the absence of marriage.

It always annoyed me when people used the term 'gay' marriage, by placing the word 'gay' in quotation marks. Rather it seemed like we are discussing gay 'marriage', and the word marriage should be in quotation marks because we are no longer talking about marriage.

And I'm also annoyed when someone who may favor gay marriage, citing equal access to the benefit of marriage only in the next breath state that the public policy needs to get out of marriage all together. We are spending a lot of time in the courts over marriage, and yet fewer and fewer people are getting married and staying married.

Earlier this week I mentioned that my views on marriage comes from my experience and understanding from the 1990s. And the 1990s may as well be from the stone-age, because it was pre-social media. Sure we had the Internet, but it was a function of academics at the time. I was writing papers for school and using online sources for primary references in 1998.

When there is an absence of marriage who suffers? 

Father Absence and the Welfare of Children is a working public policy paper from the 1990s. As people in 2014 would reference as 'the stone age'.
We estimate that as much as half of the disadvantage associated with father absence is due to the economic insecurity and instability. Another quarter is due to the loss of parental time and supervision, and the rest is probably due to a loss of social capital attributable in large measure to the higher incidence of residential mobility among single mothers and remarried mothers.
The likelihood of college enrollment and graduation

One-parent families include stepfamilies. The number at the top of each bar represents the percentage of high school graduates that enrolled in college. The number near the middle represents the percentage of high school graduates that graduated from college. College graduation data are not available for HSB. All numbers are adjusted for race, sex, mother's education, father's education, number of siblings, and place of residence. All differences from two-parent families are statistically significant except the PSID.

If you read further in the paper, you will see that children may do worse if the mother remarries. Not very encouraging news, seeing how our trends currently are.

It is a little disturbing that I get called some terrible names or I may become unemployable, due to my understanding of the function of marriage and family.

Observations in Lowell



These are the steps that go up to the Robinson School off Bridge Street. They're in bad shape.

Meanwhile the chatter is a new high school, despite the fact we already had this conversation in the city.

As I was walking from the Robinson around 9:30am going towards downtown, I had one person ask me for a lighter and observe two women in pajama pants. When I got downtown a dog owner had her little dog off the leash at Kerouac Park. Something I observed at least once a week. But two larger dogs were just roaming in downtown.

No one knew what to do, but it seemed myself. There was an officer on detail at some bridge construction in front of Middlesex Community College and radio in for an Animal Control Officer.

In between my cases I sat out on a bench along the Concord River, and saw an old pile of dog feces in the dried up mulch of the plants that haven't been attended to in over a year.

and...

I don't get the whole wearing you pants around your rear-end deal. You can't walk, when your belt is down that low.

and...

The profanity. We all swear, but profanity has replaced the vocabulary of other words. People swear for no good reason. It's not the profanity, but the context. It's like no one knows what to say, so they use profanity just to lengthen the conversation.

It's not Lowell, it's in the suburbs. Oddly in the suburbs, there were teachers that promoting the dumbing down of language with profanity.

Sunday, April 13, 2014

"Answer Me This" Catholic All Year

"Answer Me This" Catholic All Year

1. What time do you prefer to go to Mass?

When I'm fully awake. But I'm forced to either the 9am or 7am due to altar serving schedules.

2. Would you rather be too hot or too cold?

Oddly enough too cold, I'm use to the cold at this point and better prepared for the cold.

3. How many brothers and/or sisters do you have?

One brother that passed away in 1990. I hate being asked this question, simply because I have to explain I have a dead brother. Sometimes I say I'm an only child out of practicality, then I'm mention him when telling of my past. Not anyone's fault, asking a sibling question is perfectly normal.

4. If you were faced with a boggart, what would it turn into?

What's a boggart?

Looked it up. I fear it would be a mirror looking back at myself.

5. Barbie: thumbs up or thumbs down?

Down. No interest in her.

6. If someone asked you to give them a random piece of advice, what would you say?

Choose wisely.

Friday, April 11, 2014

2050 The Image of Americans

From Policymic

The issue is the trend of interracial-marriage and what our offspring will look like, the article references marriages for its data on children. It makes the assumptions that the two individuals in the marriage will combine their DNA to produce of child of mixed ethnicity/race.
The Wall Street Journal reported a few years back that 15% of new marriages in 2010 were between individuals of different races. It's unclear whether they've included same-sex unions in the count, but as currently stated, this number is more than double what it was 25 years ago.
Why should it make a difference if all things are equal?

What is more antiquated in the though is that children are produced within marriage, from the trends we see that the majority of children WILL NOT being born within marriage by 2050. Actually with declining fertility rates, who knows how many children will be born at all?

7QT Stacking Red Cups

More Quick Takes at Conversion Diary

1. I know I have to be a little more original with my takes, because they just become a review of the week.

2. Ancient Concepts, Tortured Definitions, and the Rotting Roots of Marriage If you are a visitor of this blog, you know very well from my post "Marriage from a Child's Point of View" written in 2007, was based on my experienced in the mid-1990s. The 1990s might as well be 50,000 years ago in they way we now speak. My defense of marriage has no roots in the current tortured definition, but from a time when the youngest Millennial were born.

3. Do I worry about social backlash?

I grew up discussing politics at the dining room table with the evening news on. I could express my ideas (AND LISTEN TO OTHERS) in the classroom as a political science major and with friends and family. I went to law school and passed the Bar. Currently I'm an active voter and engage with others at a local level. In all of these situations, I used my real name I never hid my identity from my thoughts. I'm not going to hide now.

4. Stacking red cups and the need for a strong base. That is how I see the needs of a child in terms of family. The child is the top cup, and the foundation isn't just the parents but also the parents' parents. We use to analyze these forms of social capital, but family is such a sensitive term that we can't speak of its structure or forms in our culture.


It will always be an issue. Now even if we attempt to make this distinction we could not only be called some really hurtful things, we could be sued or lose our employment.

Maybe I do worry about the backlash, but this is getting really strange.

5. "Fathers can lower their children's risk of going hungry by staying involved"

Duh.... sadly this article has only 15 likes.

6. What happens when children have no 'base'?

Single Moms, Unemployment And Day Care
"As Shanesha explained to the arresting officer she had no one to watch her kids while she interviewed for a job. The 35-year-old mother is homeless; she risked leaving her children for a short time for the chance to get work."
7. Not sure why this couple is allowed to foster, since they wanted a baby 'so bad' they went on Craig's List and was willing to pay for 'expenses'. They should be in jail too!

Monday, April 7, 2014

Ancient Concepts, Tortured Definitions, and the Rotting Roots of Marriage

" Marriage has a historic, religious and moral context that goes back to the beginning of time. And I think a marriage has always been between a man and a woman.” -Hillary Clinton
Thank You Andrew Sullivan, but Hilary is incorrect because marriage hasn't always been a man and a woman. (Yeah, that's another post)

The Ideal of Married Mother and Father -Ken Palmer
"It is natural for a man and a woman to get together and produce children. That is how we all got here. Many people who identify as gay or lesbian, even ones who want state-recognized "marriages", will agree, especially in private, with the opening statement."
It's a long text, but a great post.

Ken is from the Opine Editorals. Thanks for sticking it out with our ancient concepts.

Tortured Definitions by cyrus83 over at Althouse
The premise that supporting the traditional understanding of marriage is "anti-gay" by definition is a problem in itself. It all goes back to what one thinks the purpose of marriage is.
The purpose of traditional marriage is pro-child. I don't think it's irrational for society to support wanting children to be raised in a stable home by their natural parents. Since raising a kid takes a good 18-25 years these days, society would want to develop a structure that would keep the father and mother together, discourage having children outside of that structure, and possibly incentivize people to enter into that structure. In other words, something a lot like what marriage was before the age of easy divorce....
Many nowadays seem to have forgotten this, which is why we have often seen tortured definitions these last 10 or so years that have focused solely on the genders involved rather than on the purpose of marriage.
If you are a visitor of this blog, you know very well from my post "Marriage from a Child's Point of View" written in 2007, was based on my experienced in the mid-1990s. The 1990s might as well be 50,000 years ago in they way we now speak. My defense of marriage has no roots in the current tortured definition, but from a time when the youngest Millennial were born.

I get it, marriage was broken on arrival. Millennials have every right to consider it obsolete. Yet, I have no reason to back down or change my views on the subject, it feels like now more then ever I have every reason to preserve such an idea if we would like to return back to it.

Do I worry about social backlash?

Yes and No.

I grew up discussing politics at the dining room table with the evening news on. I could express my ideas (AND LISTEN TO OTHERS) in the classroom as a political science major and with friends and family. I went to law school and passed the Bar. Currently I'm an active voter and engage with others at a local level. In all of these situations, I used my real name I never hid my identity from my thoughts. I'm not going to hide now.

My biggest fear is the inability to listen to others, but I'm finding people are having less and less to say.


Sunday, April 6, 2014

Difference between the person and a lobby

This post is in reflection of my conversation with Mr. Lynne, I failed to separate the person from subject. My apologies, My Lynne.

Right before Lent, I complained about Internet Memes.
No longer do we share actual news stories and discuss the pros and cons, we just ‘like’ and ‘share’ photos with some words that have little reference to them.
This is where a problem lies, we end up allowing a lobby speaks for us instead of ourselves. Someone has to make these Internet Memes, they have an agenda. There are Catholic memes, because we want to 'spread' a message easily with a like and a share. But it's not having a conversation of ideas.

Remember the 'who am I to judge' comment from Pope Francis, so easy taken out of context out of the conversation. He was actually being critical, not of homosexuals but of lobbies.
So much is written of the gay lobby. I still have not met one who will give me the identity card with “gay” . They say that they exist. I think that when one meets a person like this, one must distinguish the fact of being a gay person from the fact of doing a lobby, because not all lobbies are good. That’s bad. If a person is gay and seeks the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge him? The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this in such a beautiful way, it says, Wait a bit, as is said and says: “these persons must not be marginalized because of this; they must be integrated in society.” The problem isn’t having this tendency, no. We must be brothers, because this is one, but there are others, others. The problem is the lobbying of this tendency: lobby of the avaricious, lobby of politicians, lobby of Masons, so many lobbies. This, for me, is the more serious problem. And I thank you.
Conversations becomes frustrating, because what if someone isn't calling you a bigot in a disagreement, but the more influential lobby is. And yes there is a lobby. Notice how the issue of lobbies never got transferred to the social media.....

I recently had to unfollow (not unfriend) someone due to the over posting of Internet memes on Facebook. I did message the older and well educated person to let her know how some of the images were out of hand, because of the collateral damage. Her posting depicting a cartoon of violence. The image of Christians killing a gay person wrapped up in a rainbow flag with Bibles in a surreal setting, just imagine this in reverse? I don't think she would be please. My attempt to contact her with a private message didn't work out and she was defensive of her speech. Instead she said my questioning of the image, made her feeling like she was being beaten!!! WTF (I rarely use profanity.) She then unfriended me.

To say there is a gay mafia, can be hurtful and harmful to gay people. It's like Italians being stereotypes solely as mafioso types. While the mafia is real, imagine fearing every Italian you have met? That would be silly. But there is a cultural mafia in the tyranny of moral ambivalence, specifically on marriage and family that has been brewing before gay marriage (which will be yet another post).

Boycotts and buycotts are somethings we are entitled to do. We really have to choose carefully, and understand why and the impact. I still boycott Prince Spaghetti! I do NOT hate the cities of Fresno, CA; St. Louis, MO; and Winchester, VA where the pasta is now produced!!

Friday, April 4, 2014

I wish I was just paranoid.

I'm reading Preston's Mozilla Burning over at The PJ Tatler.
The progs don’t care what happens to Mozilla. It can live or die, they can’t be bothered about that. It doesn’t matter to them at all. They actively wanted both Chick-Fil-A and Duck Dynasty destroyed. They would probably be content to see Mozilla die too. But it doesn’t matter to them anymore. It did what they want. They will turn and attack some other target when the opportunity arises.
And that has been the point of all this. Terrify people who do not engage in political combat every day, and therefore do not know just how savage and dishonest it has all become. Dry up funding for activist groups opposed to re-defining marriage. Persecute and blacklist one or two famous people to provide an example to others. Destroy livelihoods. Divide. Harass. Intimidate.
Then this...
“It was kind of like how the Romans used to, you know, conquer villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go in to a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw and they’d crucify them.

I'm so use to praying for others, but today.... today I'm going to pray for myself. I need it. If you come across this post, here is my view on the subject.

Thursday, April 3, 2014

7QT Marriage, Hedonism, and the power of the 1%

More Quick Takes at Jen's Conversion Diary

The quick takes come from a long-winded private response about these topics this week.

1. I made the assertion that the accusation of being anti-gay/homophobic towards those who defend marriage is a trumped up charge by the 1%, and I will be fed to the lions for public’s entertainment sponsored by the Patricians of American Lobbyists.

2. What else explains the a full blown scorch the earth campaign for the “anthropological regression” against the family using social marketing and brand loyalty as a leverage tool? Again, where is it really coming from? It comes from those with lots of money.

3. We already lost the value in marriage, despite liberal media outlets and even Obama making a plea to the public in the mid-2000s. We now value hedonism, as Pope Francis explains. The only virtue is one’s own gratification. We can’t see the long term value of hard work in school or on the job; we want immediate results of personal satisfaction. We can’t be bothered with sacrifice.

4. The 1% was never a fan of the Church, based on our socio-economic teachings. Pope Francis isn't saying anything new, as you see in the link. How many times you heard the Church should sell its art to the 1%? The Church makes art public for all since the 1500s, and yet Why doesn't the rich help poor instead?

5. Sometimes we have to make judgment. If the conjugal act creates life, we should ensure we have guidance on what to do as a species. We have free will after all, so we can make some dumb mistakes. It's a predicament we all in, when we are conceived we are dependent on others. We're not wanted goods or waste, we're human beings too.

6. The Church teaches the husband does everything for his family sacrificially, because men aren’t the ones that get pregnant. It's good to know if a man is fully committed to the openness of life, so as a woman we're not abandoned. Matrimony is Latin for ‘act of being a mother’. It's not like we're speaking in secret code. We celebrate it openly.

Let's Drink!




7. But sex? Sex! If your not having sex and not in a relationship, then you can't be normal and happy. Right? I want to make clear that we don’t lose our sexuality or happiness if we are not having sex; a man is no less masculine if he is celibate. A woman isn’t less female, if she doesn’t have children. Single people are not inferior, they're people too. But gay people? Gay people? Joseph Prever or Melinda Selmys can answer all of your questions.

Tuesday, April 1, 2014

Sticks and stones may break my bones but words...

Words can hit their target, like a dagger in the heart. And images can spread collateral damage everywhere.

We have a rule in our home. Screens are in public view. Sometimes I will tell a child, that an email needs to be private. Social media and the Internet browsing are public viewing. If I can't read it with my 12 year old in the room, then should I be reading it?

When we blog, we reserve judgment and choose what to discuss, the manner it is discussed and who we associate with in the discussion. Yes, I can't force anyone not to post whatever they like, they are free to post what they want in accordance to the blog rules. It is like a cocktail party. If the conversation isn’t to your liking, you can thank the host and maybe call him the day later one why you had to excuse yourself as feedback.

Facebook is a bit different. If I'm friends with you on Facebook, my children will see what your posts/shares/likes. And if you post an image out-of context, offensive and relates misinformation, I may have to unfollow your posts. I may let you ('God fobid') know why, because I'm after all we are 'friends' on Facebook. I don't expect a cold retort of "whatever", to someone who I believed to have the maturity to express themselves with a few sentences.

I'm still a bit hurt over my latest Facebook incident. No. I'm angry, because I wasted an hour of charity on a person who couldn't care and tried to claim that I was really hurting them because how dare I 'berate' her. Honestly, I didn't berate her. My intention was in fact give her an opportunity for myself to LISTEN to her and for her to explain her views. For all I know she could of emotionally exhausted a dozen others, who tried to inquire on the nature of her posts then to pity with her without question.

So when your empathy emotional meter runs outs… here is some advice from Busted Halo.