Couple of news items that really bugged me over the last few days…

Item: Home Depot announced that it was closing down 15 locations and shelving plans for 50 more that were to be built. This, I understand, is the first time they’ve ever had to close a store and not open a new one nearby. Home Depot is having trouble due to the shaky economic conditions…folks don’t do home improvements when they practically have to take out a loan to buy gas. Now, to me, being the simplistic pragmatist that I am, this news sounds bad if I’m an investor in Home Depot. Things aren’t going good when you have to shrink your business. However, apparently, the investment community disagrees with me. Home Depot’s shares went up 5% on the announcement. Why? Well, they were going to be cutting jobs, which Wall Street loves to hear. Is it me, or is that sort of bas-ackwards? Whatever happened to new of success causing a stock to rise and news of failure causing a stock to fall? We’re banking on failure, folks…and I think that’s a shame.

Item: U. S. Senator Arlen Specter (R-Heinz Field in Pittsburgh) has decided that he’s not satisfied with the National Football League’s investigation and punishment of the New England Patriots in the “Spygate” scandal. “Spygate” involved the Patriots taping signals from coaches of opposing teams to their players on the field…a no-no by league rule as well as being, well, unsporting. The NFL whacked the Patriots for doing this. Specter, a fan of a Patriots’ rival, the Pittsburgh Steelers, thinks that fining the Patriots coach $500K, the team $250K, and taking their first pick away in the last college player draft just isn’t good enough for him, and is calling for an investigation. Look, I don’t know whether the punishment was enough or not…but hey, Arlen, how about a little investigation of how the oil companies are killing the economy with $4 a gallon gas while scoring record profits? If I hear one more story about Congress investigating a sports issue (and the other proposed investigations are into the college football bowl system and the steroids problem in Major League Baseball) I am going to write in Terry Bradshaw for every office I vote for until he wins something, which will never happen, since Terry is smarter than most politicians anyway. It makes me cringe to think that we’re guaranteed that a sitting Senator will be our next President. :::sigh:::

Today’s news included a piece about Ultimate Fighting – for children.

On one hand there are parents and teachers, claiming ‘mixed martial arts’ is no different than any other martial arts or boxing sport, and that training children builds discipline and respect.

On the other hand there are critics who believe that in spite of body protections, the activity can injure children – their joints are still growing and some of the blows are still dangerous. Youth fighting is prohibited by law in some states.

The article, which tries to put a positive slant on the activity, mentions multiple times that the sport ‘teaches kids to defend themselves’. It also states, though, that ultimate fighting capabilities are not for use outside the ring. (Martial arts dojos have the same rule.)

So which is it? And why do our kids need such highly-trained defense capabilities? I understand that bullying remains a problem. Kids do fight in schools, playgrounds and back alleys. It doesn’t seem to make the slightest sense to me to raise the stakes by training these particular kids to brawl dangerously and effectively. Some kids choose the activity - but should we let our kids participate in everything they choose to? Preteen sex, illegal drugs, computer hacking, body modifications? I think parents have a responsibility to draw the line, firmly and sanely.

Ultimate fighting is sometimes referred to by its critics as “human dogfighting”. The thought that some proud redneck parent can train up his kid and send him (or her) into the ring is terrifying.

The Romans, in their corrupt sunset years, built arenas, trained professional gladiators and viewed human fighting to the death as high entertainment. We don’t seem to be too far away from that.

Ok, this just struck me funny. These are the top viewed stories on abcnews.com today:

The Underground World of Commercial Sex
Topless at 50: Curtis Breaks the Mold
Angry Goat Kills Pastor
Inside the Moonlight Bunny Ranch
Prostitution in America
Spencer Tunick’s Art: Nude and In Public

Other than the (cue Sesame Street tune) “one of these things is not like the others” of the angry goat story, are we a little obsessed with something here? Note that the “Curtis” is Jamie Lee Curtis, appearing “topless” (shot actually cut at the armpits in a pool) on the cover of AARP magazine.

As I was skimming the news this morning, I realized that the inmates are running the asylum. Seriously – this stuff is better than fiction!

• Man Cuts Off, Microwaves Own Hand. Did he remember to cover it with a paper towel to avoid splatter?
• Pit Bulls Gain in Popularity in Seattle. Because nothing says “I care” to your young children like a dog who will rip their face off someday.
• John Mcain, Hillary Clinton Stage Stunning Comeback. If the results of the second primary (of 50) can be termed a “stunning comeback”, then what will the pundits say if an underdog wins the whole enchilada?
• Glowing Pig Passes Genes to Piglets . When I visit my fine dining establishment, I certainly want the option of rare, medium, well or fluorescent.
• Spears Family Says Dr. Phil Betrayed Their Trust. Who cares? Just go away, grow up, and spend some time – many years - out of the news. That goes for Britney, too.

I think it’s time for me to avoid the news for a while; I’m getting jaded and burned out on it.

An article in today’s news brings new meaning to offshore outsourcing.

In synopsis, clinics in India are providing full-service surrogate pregnancies to affluent Western women. The western parents-to-be get a bargain-priced baby, and the Indian surrogates make more money in a single pregnancy than they can make in a decade of hard manual labor.

According to the article, the Western parents-to-be are screened, and only those with evidence of medical problems impairing fertility are accepted as clients. Right. And – although I’ve never experienced the pain of infertility – whatever happened to playing the cards you were dealt?

And surrogate mothers are screened as well, they must be between 18 and 45, in good health, and have had at least one child. Once accepted, they live in the clinic, receiving constant medical observation, and their family is allowed to visit them. So, we’re creating a society where bearing another couple’s child rather than raising your own is a reasonable and acceptable bargain – if you’re poor enough?

This feels far closer to the dystopian future of Handmaid’s Tale than is comfortable for me. There is an an elite class of women whose wealth and circumstance confer upon them the opportunity to raise children – and an underclass of women whose poverty drives them to bear the medical risk and personal family consequences of giving birth to others’ children.

Who am I to tell these poor Indian women that they cannot rent out their wombs for more money than they can possibly make any other way? And for that matter, who am I to tell them that they cannot sell a kidney (they have a spare) nor a cornea (binocular vision isn’t essential)?

I’ll leave the ultimate question of right or wrong, good or bad, to those more versed in logical and ethical analysis. Personally, my gut reaction is that it’s wrong, wrong, wrong — classist, greedy, and oppressive.