I’m not a voracious reader.  In fact, I wouldn’t even know what voracious meant except that I looked it up once.  Or maybe someone told me.  I don’t know. 

Whatever.  Anyway, I stopped watching Local News in the late 1990’s.  Mainly because the production is akin to a mix of something as loud as a car commercial, with the enthusiasm of the people talking about weather on the weather channel, with the redundancy of baseball season, and with story lines and dramatics similar to a really bad afternoon talk show.  All that and the stories work me up (can you tell?) and then I can’t get to sleep. 

Instead, I pick up my information off the web, mainly, or the occassional 24-hour news stations on the television.  So needless to say, what I read about is rather selective.  I pick and choose my news.  Which makes my opinions thereof biased.  Having said that, here’s a few that caught my attention this week:

Halle Berry, my preggo-buddy who doesn’t even know it, said here that “I want to stay pregnant forever” and also said “Right now I just have so much joy and energy that I feel like I’ve already done 12 things today…I can just go and go and go.”  Good for you, gorgeous.  I can relate to the joy, but not the go, go, go.  Although, I can certainly convince myself that I feel like I’ve already done 12 things today.  Is that the same as actually DOING them?

I gather a lot of really important news from TMZ dot com.  And when I came across this bit about Sherri Shepherd (the new chic on The View, a show which I could only ever tolerate for like ten seconds) being attacked by tampons, I just had to chuckle.  Which got me thinking about marketing (see how that makes sense?), and Always’ crazy-ass tag line of Have A Happy Period.  What?  There is even a website where you can wish a friend a happy period.  Seriously.  A frienemy maybe.   But a friend?

According to this piece, Best Buy’s comparable-store sales rose 1.5% in December.  And this is the first year in a long time that I can say that I didn’t contribute to that.  This being my favorite toy store, like, EVER.

And here’s a heart-string-puller and make-you-think-er.  A young man goes on a shooting rampage and kills five people, including a set of sisters, and wounding two others before killing himself.  The pastor of the church where the sisters were killed invites the killer’s parents and the parents of the deceased sisters to meet.  They do.  And what ensues is not rage and anger and retaliation or lawsuits or accusations or cars burning, but…


The pastor asked himself a question I ask myself now “Is there anyone I’m not forgiving?”

And this one was really interesting.  It’s about a set of twins in Britain who were separated at birth, met later in life, and were “inevitably attracted” to each other.  They married, not knowing they were siblings.  The Courts are now trying to use that case to highlight “shortcomings of the Human Embryology and Tissue Bill” currently working it’s way through Britain’s parliament.  One of the House of Lords members is concerned that under the bill’s current language, it would be allowed for one parent to be removed from the birth certificate. 

He states “a birth certificate that omits any mention of your true origin falsifies your history in a very significant way.”  He also states “I suspect that it will be a matter of litigation in the future if we do not make information of this kind available to children who have been donor-conceived.”  Kind of far-reaching, but I can still sorta see the point. 

But my question is this, could the argument then be made that donor conception shouldn’t happen because all persons should always know where the egg and sperm that became them came from?  And what about those folks who conceive ‘naturally’ and have no idea who the ‘donor’ is because they had multiple partners at the time?  Should their privacy be invaded to certify where the sperm came from?  And then what about his then legal and fiscal responsibility for that child?  And what about women who cannot conceive with their partners and/or want to conceive as a single-parent-by-choice?  Should they we be denied that opportunity?  And lastly, what about married heterosexual couples who, for one reason or another, cannot conceive together and thus seek donor sperm to create a child?  Is the married spouse denied parenthood because the child would otherwise “be denied their history”?  What if that couple never intends to tell their extended families about their conception plans?  Sounds like a very slippery slope.