The Hartford Courant recently published an essay by Justin Verrier on a Connecticut female teenage swimmer. "After swimming laps at a recent practice in the Glastonbury High School pool, Rachel Grusse told her coach, Suzi Hoyt, her shoulder felt sore.' Hoyt responded as she always does to such concerns by her swimmers, instructing Grusse to put on flippers and 'kick for a little while' to rest her arms.' 'I just looked up at her and told her, Um...I don't think I can do that, Grusse said, smiling." Remember the word smiling .' When Grusse was 16 months old, it was discovered that she was born without a spleen, and she contracted a form of bacterial pneumonia that cut off the blood flow to her extremities, which resulted in the cutting off of her legs at the base of her knees, as well as the last joint of her fingers.Now, many teenage girls with just a few pimples would hide in their bedrooms, but not Rachel.' With the help of prosthetic legs, she has participated in all types of sports, including soccer and, most recently, wheelchair basketball, but swimming is her passion.' Since she has to rely on her upper body for swimming, she does a lot of upper body strengthening, like...walking on her hands!Her comment? "I've just heard some people say that I'm an example to other kids.' But to me, I don't feel like I'm any different. I'm just doing what I can, and doing the best that I can. " She swims against "normal" swimmers and rarely wins, but she loves the sport anyway.She swims against others who are disabled and often places, but not always, and she loves the sport anyway.'Since she has no memory of having had legs, for her, it is kind of "normal" - the real amazing quality of hers is her attitude to just do what she can and do the best that she can .Disabled or not, that is the winning attitude in life that ultimately brings you happiness.' She does what she loves and does the best she can at it.' Period.' There is a lesson in that for everyone. More >>

Y'know, I really don't know why I am so upset about Roman Polanski.' I mean, he's the director of such notable films as Rosemary's Baby, Chinatown , and The Pianist .' When one is a "respected" artist, shouldn't we allow for certain...shall we say..."proclivities" that maybe aren't what the average schmo should get away with?' After all...he's a movie director!What's the big deal about telling a very pretty little 13 year old girl that he could make her a star - i.e., a model for the French Edition of Vogue magazine?' How narrow-minded can you be to imagine that taking pictures of the naked 13 year old girl in a hot tub, plying her with glass after glass of champagne and popping her a few Quaaludes (ostensibly, he said, to cure her asthma), and then showing her what a real man can do without Viagra is a problem?' And what's wrong with the fact that he cautioned her to never tell her mother about their "little secret?"' It just makes the whole scenario more...intimate.Go figure...the Los Angeles District Attorney's office filed charges against Roman Polanski for this "innocuous" behavior - gee, it must have been a slow legal day.' After pleading guilty to having sex with a 13 year old child, working out a plea bargain, and then paying off the girl's family, Roman Polanski fled the United States in 1977.' The American authorities (just stubborn, I guess) issued an international search request in 2005.' Swiss authorities arrested him Saturday at the Zurich airport.How terribly inconvenient for the film world.' Polanski had traveled to Switzerland to collect a Lifetime Achievement Award at the Zurich Film Festival, and by going to Switzerland, he finally got arrested for his "lifetime guilt."' Actress Debra Winger, President of the film festival's jury, was terribly upset, poor thing: "The festival has been unfairly exploited to secure Polanski's arrest over a case that is all but dead.' Despite the philistine nature of the collusion that has now occurred, we came to honor Roman Polanski as a great artist.' We hope today this latest order will be dropped; it is based on a three decade old case that is all but dead except for a minor technicality." There are so many people around the world who were equally as astonished as I was that such an important film director should be treated so disrespectfully.' Jack Lang, a former French culture minister said, "While Mr. Polanski had committed a 'grave crime,' he is a great creator and artist, and there's a sentiment here that pursuing someone for a crime committed 30 years ago...is unreasonable...a kind of judicial lynching." I'm not sure what Mr. Lang's notion of what consequences a "great creator and artist" should have had, had he not eluded sentencing three decades ago.' And it certainly isn't the fault of the American judicial system that a country such as France would give him sanctuary.Apparently, 100 or so entertainment industry professionals created a petition for Mr. Polanski's release, saying "Filmmakers in France, in Europe, in the United States and around the world are dismayed by this decision." It seems inadmissible to them that an international cultural event, paying homage to one of the greatest contemporary filmmakers, is used by the police to apprehend him.After all, with all the stress of hiding in France to avoid criminal punishment for what is ultimately the drugging and raping of a little girl, he still managed to get the Best Director Oscar in 2003 for "The Pianist." In spite of the clarity of his "wrongdoings," the Zurich festival director is experiencing " great consternation and shock," adding, "We are unable to judge the legal background surrounding the arrest." Let's go through this again:' the man drugged and raped a child. The man drugged and raped a child, and then fled the United States to avoid jail time.' The man drugged and raped a child, and the fled the United States to avoid jail time, and has been for 30 years treated like the patron saint for the arts by a world that is growing more and more morally corrupt by the moment. There is hardly a more sympathetic creature on the face of the earth than Roman Polanski.' He was born in Paris, moved to Poland with his Jewish family when still a toddler (shortly before World War II).' His mother died in a Nazi concentration camp, but Polanski avoided capture and spent his youth in Poland before moving to the United States.' His wife, Sharon Tate, was 8 months' pregnant with their child when she was brutally murdered by the Manson family.' When you look at his ability to make movies, after these grossly horrendous experiences, it seems logical that you should forgive a little drugging and a little raping of a young girl.' NOT.In my opinion, all those who have participated in any way in the making or distributing of Polanski's movies for the last 30 years should be considered accessories after the fact, and part of a conspiracy to protect a child rapist.' Polanski's movies should be boycotted by every decent American, as well as the movies of those who acted in or contributed to any of Polanski's movies in the last 30 years.The man is an animal and a coward.' He's an animal because of what he did to a child; he's a coward because he didn't take his punishment like a man with character.I am thoroughly disgusted by the world's film community for supporting him just because he makes good movies.' I understand that Hitler was a good painter...Maybe we shouldn't have closed in on and bombed his bunker because good painters are a treasure.There's word that both the Polish and French governments are going to try to get Obama to "pardon" him.' I can't believe Obama would agree to such a request while looking into the eyes of his two little girls.' Can you?Amoral is the word of the day - it means no moral compass whatsoever.' And that's what we are seeing around the world in those who have come out to sympathize with and support Roman Polanski, child rapist.' His heinous act and three decades of freedom avoiding an appropriate sentence don't mean anything to amoral people.' It's all about the game of movies.' God bless the Swiss arrest and the intent of the Los Angeles District Attorney's office to bring him back to face justice.'Someone in Hollywood is already, I am sure, scripting up for the movie of Polanski's life, and to be sure, he will be presented to the Vatican for consideration of sainthood, because he is big box office. More >>

More >>

More >>

More >>

When President Obama spoke to school children last week, he gave the kind of speech I would have given:' he emphasized that personal responsibility is the ticket to a life of success and a strong country.' He mentioned that all the equipment, books, and desks were all well and good, but useful only if students took the responsibility to work hard at their studies.I wish our courts (and the rest of the President's agenda) followed that concept of personal responsibility.' Not so.An Indiana court has ruled that a pizza shop must pay for a 340 pound employee's weight loss surgery in order to ensure the success of another operation for a back injury he suffered at work when he was accidentally struck in the back by a freezer door.' I wonder how much his girth was responsible for the accident.' I don't wonder how much his girth is responsible for the fact that the surgery for his back won't be undertaken until he reduces his weight first - no kidding!' But making the pizza shop employer responsible for paying for that weight loss surgery is not in keeping with the President's message of personal responsibility.The man was obese before he was hired.' If he hadn't been hired because of his weight, that would have been discrimination, and would have been illegal.' Employers are screwed no matter what they do to run a business and make a reasonable profit.This is not the only such case.' The most recent was in Oregon, where the state's Supreme Court ruled on August 27 that the state workers' compensation insurance must pay for gastric bypass surgery to ensure that a man's knee replacement surgery was effective.Businesses will definitely and understandably be much more careful about whom they hire.' While they can't not hire a fat person because he or she is fat, they are not obligated to hire the first person who shows up for the job, and they can and should come up with some other reason to protect themselves from unreasonable financial demands because they hired a person who eats more and moves less.'Obviously, this situation is anti-personal responsibility and anti-business.' This ruling will have repercussions beyond obesity and weight-loss surgery.' Employers will be wary of hiring people who have other conditions that expose them to workplace injury.' Developmental and physical limitations of some applicants will likely keep potential employers from being as compassionate as they've been in the past.'This is really sad, because ultimately, it's the individual with some challenges who will suffer. More >>

I'm a female and a Jew.' I personally know something about bias, bigotry, prejudice, and discrimination.' There is no doubt in my mind that I have experienced some (shall we say) "bad luck" in my life because I fall into these two categories, but there is probably not a person on the face of the earth who doesn't have a similar (and probably worse) story to tell with respect to the natural tendency of people to band together based on commonality, from ethnicity to gender to nationalism.' Nonetheless, we have a black President with a Jewish chief-of-staff, and a female Secretary of State.I'm seriously tired of people pulling the race or gender card to explain away their bad behavior.' Ultimately, we are responsible for our own actions.' This brings me to Serena Williams in the U.S. Open.' Serena was losing badly in the semi-finals to unseeded, unranked Kim Clijsters, and Clijsters had just beaten Serena's sister, Venus.' The match was at the point where Clijsters was but one point from victory, and it was Serena's serve.' She faulted on her first serve.' Instead of just going back to the baseline to serve again, she menacingly walked toward the judge, shouting and cursing her, pointing the ball and then the racket at her, as though she were going to strike the woman.' Allegedly, she said, "If I could, I would take this [expletive deleted] ball and shove it down your [expletive deleted] throat." The line judge went over to the chair umpire and tournament referee as the crowd was booing.' According to news reports, Serena said, "Sorry, but there're a lot of people who've said worse.' I didn't say I would kill you.' Are you serious?' I didn't say that." But the line judge said she did say that, and that with the crowd noise, it was difficult for others to hear the specifics.'I saw that video, and having someone with that venomous rage coming at me, screaming and cursing, shaking a racket in my face (especially since Serena had already smashed a racket earlier in the game when she committed an unforced error) would have scared me too.Serena was only penalized a point, which, by destiny of timing, turned out to be the match point.' Clijsters would have won anyway - she was playing an amazing game, and she did go on to win the U.S. Open.So, here's a young woman, used to success, who couldn't handle being humbled, and she robbed Clijsters of the good feeling of trumping a tennis goddess.' This is obviously bad behavior - very bad.' The bad boys of tennis games past were also known to behave badly, but, according to news sources, they never threatened the life or well-being of a judge.' This was scary and horrendous behavior.'The first reaction of some was to scream "racism!"' Oh puleeze.' Was anyone saying she behaved badly because she was black?' NO.' Was anyone saying she was penalized for her behavior because she was black?' YES, and that is downright annoying and dumb.'Online, someone posted a comment after the news item, which I think is "right on."' Here's an excerpt: There are reasons for rules in competitive sports or banking or finance or education or society.' The reasons [for the rules] always have to do with participants being unwilling or unable to manage or discipline their emotions when under duress of any kind.' This duress...almost always manifests poorly, but often successfully.' Serena...lost her composure in the early stages of this match, played poorly, got behind, and faced almost certain defeat.' The foot fault (which many say was correct, many say "iffy," and some say false) was critical, but not pivotal for Serena.' She could have played through it.' She had the serve. But she had first-serve faulted many times, and had lost every second serve point to her opponent.' So, she gave in to panic, which led her to say some astoundingly aggressive things to the line judge, who, to her credit, stayed calm, objective, and within the rules.' The referee made the proper call, and Serena lost, and then lost again by backpedaling after the match, with cover-up comments and lame excuses. But this is an era when elites in all walks of life take the liberty of exposing their true selves without much consequence.' It's called "privilege," and it is, in my mind, the downfall of the American personality, and with it, the downfall of the nation - a little microcosm on a big stage.' Pride comes before a fall. Truth is, she knew she had lost this match, even if that one linesman's call was bad.' Instead of letting her opponent savor the victory point, she surrendered early.' Clijster swamped her and her sister, and Williams acted like a classless brat.' And classless brats come in all colors, genders and religions.' Point...game...match. More >>

I have some comments to make about Ashley Dupre, the highly-paid prostitute who notoriously humped disgraced ex-New York State Governor Eliot Spitzer.Angry about the negative perception of her, Ms. Dupre wrote on a blog post: 'Let me say this:' most girls, to varying degrees, of course, want to be pampered and have nice shoes, designer handbags and gorgeous clothes.' I know many women who target guys with money and use them to get these things.' They toy with them, flirt, go on dates, have sex and then drop hints about that new dress...or being short on rent money ' and the guys deliver it.' Whoa, missy!' Trying to make yourself look better by making comparisons to other devious skanks just doesn't work that well.' Everyone in the universe would like 'nice things,' but some people are satisfied with richer things in life ' like love and family ' while others simply work hard at a legitimate job that doesn't exploit or damage other people's families to get those things.One comment listed on the New York Post website in response to this story was quite interesting: 'She's a cheap trick trying to cover the fact that she sold her body for a few thousand bucks.' There IS a BIG difference.' Implying that a relationship is like prostitution is like implying that hunting and killing game is no [different from] hunting and killing people.' She's trying to spin the simple fact that relationships are give-and-take to say that all that are give-and-take in any way are the same, but giving and taking in a long-term social and intimate relationship is NOT the same as a business transaction for sex. She would have done better to say that a piece of ham in a supermarket is 'no better' than she is being the more closer comparison to buying a piece of meat for consumption.' I have a simple question to ask women who are defensive about their behaviors:' would you teach your daughters to do this?' It is amazing how the answer to this will definitely be a quick and disgusted 'NO,' but then, these women are quick to rationalize.Ashley Dupre is a disgusting creature, not only for being a 'paid-for' sex machine, but mostly for being an unrepentant destroyer of some other woman's family.' It is the unrepentant part that really gets me, and should get you, too.' As a foolish young woman with warped values, we could all 'get' (i.e., understand) her behavior, but here she is, older and after the fact, and she still has no conscience about her actions.It is the lack of conscience in this woman that ultimately judges her. More >>

More >>

Mice kept on a diet that is healthy (but absolutely no fun at all) in which their caloric intake was restricted to only 70% of what's considered "normal" lived 30 to 40% longer than the usual lifespan.' The only downside of this restriction was that the mice were less fertile than their non-restricted counterparts.'Most people can't restrict calories for long, so, according to the New York Times , scientists are trying to find a drug that tricks the body into thinking it's eating fewer calories.' The problem is that all of these restricted calorie experiments are done on captive mice, who are selected for quick breeding and who are fed on rich diets.' A low-calorie diet could be much closer to the diet that mice are adapted to in the wild, extending their life simply because it is much healthier for them.' Mice don't live that long, anyway.' Humans have a longer life span, and that extended duration of time on the planet leaves us more vulnerable to cancers.So, after 20 years of experimenting with caloric restriction on monkeys in captivity, studies found the monkeys were healthier (i.e., they had fewer incidents of diabetes, cancer, and heart disease), but their life span was not significantly longer.' Eating more prudently than we generally do, therefore, was good for quality of life, but not for quantity of life.And that's the point of my taking on this issue in the first place.' People call my radio program knowing they're probably going to die of some particular terminal disease they have.' They call me, because they're spending each day suffering emotionally over the realization that they will soon be dead.' My response to one woman in this situation was to wake up each morning and yell out loud: "Damn - I'm not dead!' Today, I'm gonna LIVE OUT LOUD!!!" The point of our being upset about death is the realization that we've lost all we value in life.' So, take each day that you're not dead to live life to the fullest.' Enjoy that day you're not dead.' Don't waste one precious moment of it.Come to think of it, that's good advice for everyone, since at different times, and at different rates, we're all terminal.' Don't waste one minute of life. More >>