I think it is funny how, when something really good happens, I don't really feel inclined to blog about it. It isn't that I don't want to share, but, more that I don't feel the need to get feedback on what's going on. Maybe it is just that it is good on a deeply personal level and that's why I don't feel it necessary to throw it out to the world.

I don't think I thrive on drama...well, I enjoy faux-drama, but that's just play. However, I notice that I am more inclined to blog about the bad things, sexual harassment guy, work problems, mom's death, whatever. Maybe I use blogging as a form of therapy? On the other hand, I have made some of my best friends here, so that is happiness.

Maybe I'm just over analyzing this too much. Go fig.

I feel very strongly about the topics of rape, exploitation of children and women, equality under the law.

I don't care who the rapist is or what their reason, personal tragedy, religion, ethnic or cultural heritage is or if they are generally accepted as "brilliant" in their chosen career. If you are caught and convicted, serve your court sentenced punishment.

One of my readers, whom I respect quite a bit, implied I am hypocritical in voicing my opinion that Polanski should be held accountable for his crimes but not blogging about the issue of polygamy, forced/underage marriages, and other exploitation in the world. I disagree with her opinion, or that by speaking out against one crime I am obliged to speak out against all other crimes. However, I've been fortunate enough in my life to call a former "sister" wife friend. As such, here's equal time to another crime. Actually, more time than I gave to Polanski, since there I put what one of the writer's from BUST magazine wrote with a link, and said that I agree with it.

In several southwestern states (Utah, Arizona, Nevada), there is a problem, women, some still girls in the eyes of the law are forced to marry and not just marry, but marry into polygamous marriages where they have "sister wives." The law has a hard time catching these illegal marriages because they often occur in closed communities, mostly religious (a sect of Christianity, but as I mentioned, when it comes to rape or exploitation, religion is irrelevant in my mind). But that doesn't mean that they aren't trying.

For example, according to the Deseret News:

Once FLDS moved to Texas the state raided the compound removing the children. However, constitutionally speaking, this move was questionable (I am not a lawyer, so, I'm going by what I have read in media reports), and as it goes to trial (just this Friday a Texas judge ruled that evidence collected in the raid will be admissible at trial) there will be critics saying the state did not have justification (again, not a lawyer and haven't been watching my L&O lately, so my terminology may be more than a little off) for that raid.

CBS has done a great series on the topic, interviewing among others women from FLDS:

Tapestry Against Polygamy is probably one of the best organizations to make their voice heard on this topic. The members are all former wives of polygamous marriages.

While there is not a Federal task force on polygamy many states do have ongoing investigations.

I also would like to point out that not all Mormons are fundamentalists, in fact, the majority are not polygamous and do not engage in underage marriages. While it is true that originally, that was a belief the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has undergone an evolution like most religions do over the course of their life.

...is how much hair I got cut off my head. What you thought? You perv.

This commentary says oh so much:

So why defend a rapist? Because he’s ‘brilliant,’ says Debra Tate, sister of Sharon Tate. Because the victim says she doesn’t want the case pursued any further. Because Polanski’s had a hard, tragedy-filled life.

"He's brilliant," isn't going to excuse rape in my book, what about yours?