AOL Tech

ABrady21

Member since: Jul 6th, 2007

ABrady21's Latest Comments

Blog Activity
Blog# of Comments
Autoblog1 Comment
ParentDish1 Comment
Gadling4 Comments
Slashfood1 Comment
Spinner1 Comment
AOL Video Blog4 Comments
News Bloggers5 Comments
Switched4 Comments
Politics Daily3 Comments
WalletPop1 Comment

Recent Comments:

Of Cops and Kids and Chess (and Cupcakes) (ParentDish)

Nov 20th 2010 7:13PM Like Renee, I am replying to this post as a police officer. I am a Sergeant of Police in San Francisco and I have been with the SFPD for almost 10 years.

Renee offers the best answer to the incident mentioned in this article and while it may not make sense to someone looking at this from an outsiders' perspective, it is an unfortunate aspect of being a police officer. We don't pick the laws we choose to enforce, and 99% of the time we enforce the laws, we are doing so due to concerns voiced by others.

InwoodParent should be thanked for providing a background on the case of the NYPD citing the individuals in the park. Understanding the background of the fact that the officers were there with stepped up enforcement due to neighborhood complaints is important.

While I can't speak to why the officers issued citations as opposed to warnings, I can only believe that the chess players were cited due one of a number of reasons.

One would be the fact that they were ordered to issue citations so that their bosses could go to community meetings to say, "Look! We're doing something!" It could be that the chess players were previously given a warning not to play chess there and after previously being warned, they were issued a citation. It could also be because an individual called in a complaint about the chess players. Needless to say, there are a number of reasons the chess players were cited.

Now, I can tell you that having worked in San Francisco for almost 10 years, we have similar laws in place for our parks to both cases mentioned in this article. The majority of the time, we use discretion in enforcing the laws - the whole "Spirit of the Law" versus the "Letter of the Law." We have to be careful, however, in application of the laws on our books, thanks to organizations like the ACLU.

As many people know, San Francisco has a major homeless population. Three of our biggest problems with the parks and homelessness have to do in some way, shape or form with drugs.

One of the worst crimes in San Francisco is auto burglaries. We have ridiculous numbers of people (99% of those people are homeless and/or drug abusers) who break into cars, steal stuff, then sell that stuff in our parks. We therefore have a law on the books that says it's illegal to sell things in the park without a permit.

On the other issue, we have a huge problem with drug users using our parks as a place to shoot up or smoke their drugs. The homeless (and often users of drugs) also like to camp out in our parks, occasionally leaving behind their drug paraphernalia. The problem with the above is that drug users often leave their used needles or glass pipes in the same playgrounds children are supposed to play in. The law about "No Adults Allowed Unless Accompained by a Minor" is less about predators/pedophiles and is more about providing a refuge for children that is safe and free from instruments that can cause them harm.

Now, the biggest obstacles to the above-mentioned problems is that the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) is constantly riding our collective behinds about "selective enforcement." As a result, we have to either choose to do nothing, or enforce the laws equally. That means that the same adults that we see in a playground playing chess and not bothering anybody have to be told to leave in the same manner that we would have to tell the (obvious) drug users. Totally different groups and one is obviously not causing a problem while the other is, but it boils down to selective enforcement, or "profiling," which we are not legally allowed to do.

With the selective enforcement/profiling thing in mind, I hope you're able to look at the actions of the officers through the eyes of what the officers are seeing and understand the obstacles they face. Also, please understand that though it seems like people are being "picked on," the reality is that the majority of enforcement actions come about as a result of complaints from others.

Green and (almost) free: Living without toxic chemicals (WalletPop)

Mar 1st 2010 7:07AM While green living may be acceptable to some, have any of you considered the change that's happening to our children in the past 5-10 years?

Kids (and some adults) are now allergic to more products than ever before - foods included. A lot of those allergies have been developed after preventing peoples' exposure to a number of items within their homes that they come in to contact with outside of their homes.

I often wonder how many of the people who participate in the "green living" movement have taken the time to consider that by changing the way they (and their children) live, they could potentially be causing more harm to themselves and their children by preventing their exposure to things that may not be present within their homes, but that that they could come in contact with outside of their homes. I've personally seen people I know develop allergies to things upon changing their lifestyles - many of the allergies are for things over which they have no control upon leaving their "bubble" of a home, and again, I want to reiterate that their allergies were *developed* upon changing their lifestyles.

All I'm saying is that there are both good and bad implications when making a lifestyle change. My fiancee and I are both in our 30s and we both grew up with toys and other products that would today be banned, or at least considered to be "harmful." Many other people I know who are in their 30s, 40s and 50s+ all grew up with the same products (and sometimes worse!). All of us are fine. We grew up without health problems like I've seen in many kids today. We live a healthy lifestyle, but we are not neurotic about the whole "green" movement.

How much of a "bubble" do you want yourself and your kids to be exposed to/raised in, when you have no control over what you or they are exposed to outside of the home? Are you really willing to risk your/their health and well-being in one area for the risk that you or they may face in another? I ask those questions only to have you consider that there are both positive and negative implications however you choose to live your life.

As to changing your kids out of fire-retardant pajamas, that's just insane, in my opinion. I'd rather my children be somewhat protected by wearing fire-retardant pajamas in case I can't get to them if there hapens to be a fire in my home, rather than worry about the potential exposure to a chemical that could/could not cause them harm at some later date in their lives.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and their own lifestyle choices, but you should absolutely, unequivocally understand that for every positive, there is a potential negative as well. I implore you to educate yourself about the choices you make and along with the positive benefits that are touted by many, try to find the potential negative implications that could arise from those choices as well. Make educated decisions so that you don't question yourself later as to why you didn't consider what could also go wrong with the lifestyle choices you've made.

God bless you and may you take pride in making choices that lead to a healthy and long life for you and your families!

Sloan Bassist Recovering After Being Hit by Drunk Driver (Spinner)

Aug 2nd 2009 3:41AM Sounds like a larger problem you're having than some Sheriff's Deputy harassing you. Why would this person just randomly show up to your house or stop you on the street to "harass and terrify" you? Is he an ex-husband? A former friend? Is he being called (through 9-1-1) to your residence or to wherever you're at due to bad or illegal behavior on your part? Do you suffer from a mental illness, thus resulting in your having delusions that this Deputy is out to get you?

No offense, but posting some random garbage like what you posted without a reason why it's occurring sounds fishy, at best. If this Deputy is legitimately harassing you, you should be taking it to a higher authority - not posting some dribble on the comment page of a website for an article that is unrelated to what you're experiencing.

And why in the world are you posting your address and personal information (about your disability) on a public forum? Do you want someone to show up at your house to rape or otherwise harm you, knowing that you are vulnerable? Honestly, keep the comment if you wish, but at a minimum (for your own safety), take your address out of your post!

To the rest of you who automatically buy into the story, I'm sorry you're leading such sheltered lives. Really, you need to think outside of the box. Just because someone posts something on a website does not mean it's the God's honest truth. Usually there's more to a story than what meets the eye.

EXCLUSIVE: Backstage with McCain at Leno!! (Politics Daily)

Nov 12th 2008 2:04PM Mo, you're hilarious. Thanks for the unbiased approach to McCain. BTW, I dig the cupcakes.

Put those breasts away: Woman asked to cover up while breastfeeding during flight (Gadling)

Aug 12th 2008 1:06AM I'm just going to state this one last time, then end my time on this discussion forum:

For the people who stated that "she was sitting in a row with her family..." so how would anyone else have seen her?

Have you ever been on an airplane? People walk up and down the aisles when they have to use the bathroom. While she may have been sitting with her family, that definitely DOES NOT mean that NOBODY besides her family was able to see her by any stretch of the imagination. Obviously someone else was able to see her because the stewardess walked over to ask her to cover herself up with a blanket, so that's at least one other person who saw her. I strongly doubt that the stewardess had ESP and was able to detect from across the plane that this woman was breastfeeding her child. So yes, what she was doing was visible to others.

The issue boils down to three things in my opinion: class, decency and respect for others. They all go somewhat hand-in-hand with each other, but the female passenger showed zero respect for others and thereby zero class and decency in her adamant refusal to cover herself up. It's a sort of etitlement mentality which, unfortunately, is too prevalent in today's society. Someone (maybe the stewardess or maybe there was another passenger who complained) was offended and the woman should have taken the higher road by disagreeing with the priciple covering herself up, but agreeing to do it for someone else's sake.

Believe me, I am a strong proponent of breastfeeding. I think it's important for babies to be breastfed for both nutrition and the bonding aspect with their mother. I was breastfed along with my other siblings and most recently, my sister finished breastfeeding her daughter. While breastfeeding my niece, my sister always had a "Hooter Hider" in her diaper bag so if she was in a public place, she could cover herself up and hide her breasts so others did not have to watch her breasts hanging out. It was a respectful thing to do, as not everyone appreciates watching someone breastfeed.

What I do not agree with is the mentality of the so-called breastfeeding Nazis. The breastfeeding Nazis feel that everyone should accomodate them and what they're doing, yet they are not willing to concede their positions to or accomodate others who have moral and possibly religious objections to their actions.

Bottom line, if you want respect, you have to give respect back. This woman lost the respect of the stewardess and many others because of her dogged determination to do things her way. You can still breastfeed in public (she wasn't asked to go to the bathroom to do it for goodness sakes!), but you can have some decorum and not do it in a way that offends others. In my opinion, she totally lacks any class.

Put those breasts away: Woman asked to cover up while breastfeeding during flight (Gadling)

Aug 12th 2008 12:48AM I'm just going to state this one last time, then end my time on this discussion forum:

For the people who stated that "she was sitting in a row with her family..." so how would anyone else have seen her?

Have you ever been on an airplane? People walk up and down the aisles when they have to use the bathroom. While she may have been sitting with her family, that definitely DOES NOT mean that NOBODY besides her family was able to see her by any stretch of the imagination. Obviously someone else was able to see her because the stewardess walked over to ask her to cover herself up with a blanket, so that's at least one other person who saw her. I strongly doubt that the stewardess had ESP and was able to detect from across the plane that this woman was breastfeeding her child. So yes, what she was doing was visible to others.

The issue boils down to three things in my opinion: class, decency and respect for others. They all go somewhat hand-in-hand with each other, but the female passenger showed zero respect for others and thereby zero class and decency in her adamant refusal to cover herself up. It's a sort of etitlement mentality which, unfortunately, is too prevalent in today's society. Someone (maybe the stewardess or maybe there was another passenger who complained) was offended and the woman should have taken the higher road by disagreeing with the priciple covering herself up, but agreeing to do it for someone else's sake.

Believe me, I am a strong proponent of breastfeeding. I think it's important for babies to be breastfed for both nutrition and the bonding aspect with their mother. I was breastfed along with my other siblings and most recently, my sister finished breastfeeding her daughter. While breastfeeding my niece, my sister always had a "Hooter Hider" in her diaper bag so if she was in a public place, she could cover herself up and hide her breasts so others did not have to watch her breasts hanging out. It was a respectful thing to do, as not everyone appreciates watching someone breastfeed.

What I do not agree with is the mentality of the so-called breastfeeding Nazis. The breastfeeding Nazis feel that everyone should accomodate them and what they're doing, yet they are not willing to concede their positions to or accomodate others who have moral and possibly religious objections to their actions.

Bottom line, if you want respect, you have to give respect back. This woman lost the respect of the stewardess and many others because of her dogged determination to do things her way. You can still breastfeed in public (she wasn't asked to go to the bathroom to do it for goodness sakes!), but you can have some decorum and not do it in a way that offends others. In my opinion, she totally lacks any class.

Put those breasts away: Woman asked to cover up while breastfeeding during flight (Gadling)

Aug 11th 2008 11:39PM "...she was in a row with her family, and you can't see people in front or behind you, and not in the row next to you."

Have you ever been on an airplane? People walk up and down the aisles when they have to use the bathroom. While she may have been sitting with her family, that definitely DOES NOT mean that NOBODY besides her family was able to see her by any stretch of the imagination. Obviously someone else was able to see her because the steward/stewardess walked over to ask her to cover herself up with a blanket. I strongly doubt that the steward/stewardess had ESP and was able to detect from across the plane that this woman was breastfeeding her child. So yes, what she was doing was visible to others.

The issue boils down to three things: class, decency and respect for others. They all go somewhat hand-in-hand with each other, but the female passenger showed zero respect for others and thereby zero class and decency in her adamant refusal to cover herself up. It's a sort of etitlement mentality which, unfortunately, is too prevalent in today's society. Someone (maybe the steward/stewardess or maybe there was another passenger who complained) was offended and the woman should have taken the higher road by disagreeing with covering herself up, but agreeing to do it for someone else's sake.

Believe me, I am a strong proponent of breastfeeding. I think it's important for babies to be breastfed for both nutrition and the bonding aspect with their mother. I was breastfed along with my other siblings and most recently, my sister finished breastfeeding her daughter. While breastfeeding my niece, my sister always had a "Hooter Hider" in her diaper bag so if she was in a public place, she could hide her breasts so others did not have to watch her breasts hanging out. It was a respectful thing to do, as not everyone appreciates watching someone breastfeed.

What I do not agree with is the mentality of the so-called breastfeeding Nazis. The breastfeeding Nazis feel that everyone should accomodate them and what they're doing, yet they are not willing to concede their positions to or accomodate others who have moral and possibly religious objections to their actions.

Bottom line, if you want respect, you have to give respect back. This woman lost the respect of the steward/stewardess and many others because of her dogged determination to do things her way. In my opinion, she is totally lacking any class.

Paris Hilton Strikes Back at McCain - The Video! (News Bloggers)

Aug 6th 2008 5:23AM McCain's campaign is only speaking the truth. B. Hussein Osama is the white apologist's super feel-good candidate and is being treated like a celebrity wherever he goes by the media whores. He lacks leadership experience and has no real track record to which any sane or rational person can refer to find out his true position on issues. I'm not worried about him though - a good number of people in the American public can see through him so he'll end up losing anyway. McCain '08!

Cops Tase a Kid With a Broken Back -- 19 Times! (News Bloggers)

Aug 6th 2008 5:14AM And by the way, when a cop says to stay where you are, a good piece of advice is to actually listen. That way, you don't have to worry about getting tased or otherwise injured.

Cops Tase a Kid With a Broken Back -- 19 Times! (News Bloggers)

Aug 6th 2008 5:10AM Considering that he "didn't know how he fell off the bridge," he was probably in an altered mental state. Whether from drugs or mental illness, you don't just forget something like that unless you also suffered from a major concussion which could have resulted in amnesia - and there would be a hell of a lot more memory loss than merely the memory of falling off of a bridge. Regardless, you have probably never been around someone who is in an altered mental state. If you had, you would understand how someone in an altered mental state can possess an inhuman amount of strength within them. That strength would definitely be enough to enable someone with a broken back to try climbing up and into traffic. At any rate, like usual, you take one side of a story and put your socialist, holier-than-thou perspective upon it. I'd like to find out if there was video on the officer or officer's cars that filmed the incident and if so, what the video would show. Being tased is not something that is taken lightly, so there would have to be a strong explanation as to why that kid was tased that many (19) times. Just my 2ยข.