This week was a sad one for Eastern Connectiuct. Three 16 year olds and one 15 year old were killed in a car accident. The driver only had a learner's permit and it appears was driving at a high rate of speed and hit a tree.
There is a community outpouring and charitable events being help to help raise money for among other things, the funerals of these teens.
When my father passed away, we didn't have money for a burial, so we had to have him cremated and this was a man of retirement age who worked very hard to support six kids.
There have been many community outcries such as the Buffalo plane crash in February of 2009, Columbine, Princess Diana's death (pouring out of loss) in Britain, Oklahoma City Bombing, various weather related outcries, the big one 9/11 and it is certain you have tragedies resulting in community outpourings.
I certainly hope that those in need receive counseling.
Where do you stand? Should the community be as one in mourning this unimaginable loss? Or, should we say things such as where was the parent(s) and why were the car keys and car equally accessible? If they had been acting up under different situations not related to being in a car, they would have probably been labeled an irritant to people. And if they hadn't died in this crash, it may have been viewed as teens behaving badly and certainly criminal charges would have be levied. And what if the driver lived and no one else did? He certainly would have faced serious criminal charges.
There is no right or wrong answer and certainly no judgment - your feelings are your feelings. Please share your thoughts here or I can be reached directly at rmhelming@aol.com
Thank you and Happy Holidays,
Roberta M. Helming
I feel it is important to do what we can to make a difference in this world. This is my contribution.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Friday, November 26, 2010
Roberta M. Helming: Racist rant is pointless expression of ignorance
By ROBERTA M. HELMING
For the Norwich Bulletin
Posted Nov 25, 2010 @ 11:00 PM
I’m bothered by an online story and video of a woman in Hingham, Mass., who went into a tirade, hurling racial epithets at, and committing an assault on, a black postman.
One word in particular she used was disturbing, and her degrading remarks concerning his character were based not solely on him, but an entire race. It was hurtful.
Equally frustrating is this woman’s only possible crime is the minor physical assault. By itself, the verbal racial abuse against this man — and blacks in general — unfortunately is not a crime.
It makes you wonder why there is this kind of hate based solely on race. Regardless of race, we are still humans. We love our children and mourn the loss of loved ones. We laugh, cry, hurt, etc. Where is the difference?
Hatred of races is sadly present in all walks of life. Anyone is capable of racist behavior. It knows no socioeconomic boundaries and excludes no race.
Racist remarks may stem from hatred, hurt, low self-esteem, undereducation or overeducation. All kinds of minds that are somehow broken, thoughtless.
Everyone occasionally becomes annoyed at other people, leading to name-calling, but it doesn’t have to be that way. As a society, we need to learn how to speak to one another without focusing on someone’s race, personality traits or physical features. We all have different personalities, likes and dislikes, strengths and weaknesses. It’s our upbringing that shapes us into who we become.
People from any socioeconomic class may or may not have a kind heart. They may or may not engage in destructive behavior. The one thing about all of us is that it’s not the race that makes the person; it’s the person who makes the race, including embracing their culture and enhancing it.
Too many people know little about their own culture. So how is it then possible to know that one’s culture is superior to that of another?
It’s easy to see people making uninformed decisions, leading to prejudicial remarks and behavior. A lack of knowledge breeds hate and discrimination.
We need each other, and we have proven time and time again that we are willing to help each other. The Sept. 11 attacks proved that race didn’t matter when it came time to help each other. Why is it that we need such disasters to confirm what we already know?
What is solved by an enraged woman using racial slurs against a postman and his race in general? Nothing. The video taken from the postman’s cell phone shows he was guilty of nothing except attempting to politely do his job.
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard and regular contributor to the Norwich Bulletin. She can be reached at RMHelming@aol.com
Copyright 2010 Norwich Bulletin. Some rights reserved
By ROBERTA M. HELMING
For the Norwich Bulletin
Posted Nov 25, 2010 @ 11:00 PM
I’m bothered by an online story and video of a woman in Hingham, Mass., who went into a tirade, hurling racial epithets at, and committing an assault on, a black postman.
One word in particular she used was disturbing, and her degrading remarks concerning his character were based not solely on him, but an entire race. It was hurtful.
Equally frustrating is this woman’s only possible crime is the minor physical assault. By itself, the verbal racial abuse against this man — and blacks in general — unfortunately is not a crime.
It makes you wonder why there is this kind of hate based solely on race. Regardless of race, we are still humans. We love our children and mourn the loss of loved ones. We laugh, cry, hurt, etc. Where is the difference?
Hatred of races is sadly present in all walks of life. Anyone is capable of racist behavior. It knows no socioeconomic boundaries and excludes no race.
Racist remarks may stem from hatred, hurt, low self-esteem, undereducation or overeducation. All kinds of minds that are somehow broken, thoughtless.
Everyone occasionally becomes annoyed at other people, leading to name-calling, but it doesn’t have to be that way. As a society, we need to learn how to speak to one another without focusing on someone’s race, personality traits or physical features. We all have different personalities, likes and dislikes, strengths and weaknesses. It’s our upbringing that shapes us into who we become.
People from any socioeconomic class may or may not have a kind heart. They may or may not engage in destructive behavior. The one thing about all of us is that it’s not the race that makes the person; it’s the person who makes the race, including embracing their culture and enhancing it.
Too many people know little about their own culture. So how is it then possible to know that one’s culture is superior to that of another?
It’s easy to see people making uninformed decisions, leading to prejudicial remarks and behavior. A lack of knowledge breeds hate and discrimination.
We need each other, and we have proven time and time again that we are willing to help each other. The Sept. 11 attacks proved that race didn’t matter when it came time to help each other. Why is it that we need such disasters to confirm what we already know?
What is solved by an enraged woman using racial slurs against a postman and his race in general? Nothing. The video taken from the postman’s cell phone shows he was guilty of nothing except attempting to politely do his job.
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard and regular contributor to the Norwich Bulletin. She can be reached at RMHelming@aol.com
Copyright 2010 Norwich Bulletin. Some rights reserved
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Our Veterans
A big thank you to our veterans for serving this country so that we may have a better life, free to do the things we so much enjoy.
I love the freedom to express myself as a writer. I love the freedom to read the writings of others.
War is a tough issue, but it is the way this country has chosen to protect our way of life and our country.
If you know a veteran, call him or her and say thank you for the sacrifice made for this country and its citizens.
I love the freedom to express myself as a writer. I love the freedom to read the writings of others.
War is a tough issue, but it is the way this country has chosen to protect our way of life and our country.
If you know a veteran, call him or her and say thank you for the sacrifice made for this country and its citizens.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Roberta M. Helming: Death penalty seems right in Cheshire home invasion
Roberta M. Helming: Death penalty seems right in Cheshire home invasion
By ROBERTA M. HELMING
For the Norwich Bulletin
Posted Nov 01, 2010 @ 11:50 PM
Who among us would sit back, permit some psychopath to tie our daughters’ bodies to a bed, pour gasoline on them and set them on fire while still alive?
And that’s just one of the details connected to the heinous crime committed in the Cheshire home invasion by Steven Hayes and Joshua Komisarjevsky. Hayes has been found guilty: Komisarjevsky’s trial will be conducted next year.
As Hayes’ fate is now being determined by the jury — the death penalty or life in prison with no chance for parole — I find myself soul searching for the correct action. I’m usually against the death penalty for reasons such as new DNA testing proving the wrong person was convicted.
But if I may digress, somehow the death penalty seems appropriate in this case, considering the horrific nature of the crime.
A major argument against the death penalty is it won’t deter crime. Does anyone believe hardened criminals even think about execution? Did Hayes in the moment of the crime fear the death penalty? But will the legal system — and Connecticut’s death penalty statute — ever deter crime by actually executing those such as Hayes
So far, only the victims have gotten death.
But why should it be mandatory to spend taxpayers’ money to keep this heartless criminal alive indefinitely? If sentenced to life, he’ll get a bed and three square meals per day, free medical care until his natural death with no worries — not to mention legal representation for endless appeals. Maybe crime does pay — but we’re the ones paying.
It seems ludicrous to spend tax dollars on Hayes when so many other pressing needs exist. Medicare benefits are being cut. And in a recent column I questioned the appropriateness of cutting lunches for schoolchildren in Norwich.
Do we truly want to spend money on such a sick-minded criminal knowing that others all across our state are in need and going without? And I’m not talking welfare — rather, “recessionfare.”
Soldiers are asked to put their lives on the line to defend our way of life, including our legal system. I’m pretty sure the intention wasn’t so this coward can kill a mother and two daughters and end up living to a natural death — paid in full courtesy of taxpayers.
Now, back from my digression, I admit I struggled with this column, trying to find reasons to keep this psychopath alive. In the end, however, I, like others, no doubt, am rocked to the core as to what is right.
We can’t teach children or anyone that killing begets killing, that an “eye for an eye” resolves anything. We need to know we’re convicting the right person — which isn’t an issue in this case.
I believe, however, that people opposed to capital punishment are questioning their beliefs and convictions in this most heinous case. Me, too. I’ve never supported this barbaric practice, but I wish I could persuade myself differently in this case.
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard and regular contributor to the Norwich Bulletin. She can be reached at RMHelming@aol.com
Copyright 2010 Norwich Bulletin. Some rights reserved
By ROBERTA M. HELMING
For the Norwich Bulletin
Posted Nov 01, 2010 @ 11:50 PM
Who among us would sit back, permit some psychopath to tie our daughters’ bodies to a bed, pour gasoline on them and set them on fire while still alive?
And that’s just one of the details connected to the heinous crime committed in the Cheshire home invasion by Steven Hayes and Joshua Komisarjevsky. Hayes has been found guilty: Komisarjevsky’s trial will be conducted next year.
As Hayes’ fate is now being determined by the jury — the death penalty or life in prison with no chance for parole — I find myself soul searching for the correct action. I’m usually against the death penalty for reasons such as new DNA testing proving the wrong person was convicted.
But if I may digress, somehow the death penalty seems appropriate in this case, considering the horrific nature of the crime.
A major argument against the death penalty is it won’t deter crime. Does anyone believe hardened criminals even think about execution? Did Hayes in the moment of the crime fear the death penalty? But will the legal system — and Connecticut’s death penalty statute — ever deter crime by actually executing those such as Hayes
So far, only the victims have gotten death.
But why should it be mandatory to spend taxpayers’ money to keep this heartless criminal alive indefinitely? If sentenced to life, he’ll get a bed and three square meals per day, free medical care until his natural death with no worries — not to mention legal representation for endless appeals. Maybe crime does pay — but we’re the ones paying.
It seems ludicrous to spend tax dollars on Hayes when so many other pressing needs exist. Medicare benefits are being cut. And in a recent column I questioned the appropriateness of cutting lunches for schoolchildren in Norwich.
Do we truly want to spend money on such a sick-minded criminal knowing that others all across our state are in need and going without? And I’m not talking welfare — rather, “recessionfare.”
Soldiers are asked to put their lives on the line to defend our way of life, including our legal system. I’m pretty sure the intention wasn’t so this coward can kill a mother and two daughters and end up living to a natural death — paid in full courtesy of taxpayers.
Now, back from my digression, I admit I struggled with this column, trying to find reasons to keep this psychopath alive. In the end, however, I, like others, no doubt, am rocked to the core as to what is right.
We can’t teach children or anyone that killing begets killing, that an “eye for an eye” resolves anything. We need to know we’re convicting the right person — which isn’t an issue in this case.
I believe, however, that people opposed to capital punishment are questioning their beliefs and convictions in this most heinous case. Me, too. I’ve never supported this barbaric practice, but I wish I could persuade myself differently in this case.
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard and regular contributor to the Norwich Bulletin. She can be reached at RMHelming@aol.com
Copyright 2010 Norwich Bulletin. Some rights reserved
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Roberta M. Helming: Death penalty seems right in Cheshire home invasion
Roberta M. Helming: Death penalty seems right in Cheshire home invasion
By ROBERTA M. HELMING
For the Norwich Bulletin
Posted Nov 01, 2010 @ 11:50 PM
Who among us would sit back, permit some psychopath to tie our daughters’ bodies to a bed, pour gasoline on them and set them on fire while still alive?
And that’s just one of the details connected to the heinous crime committed in the Cheshire home invasion by Steven Hayes and Joshua Komisarjevsky. Hayes has been found guilty: Komisarjevsky’s trial will be conducted next year.
As Hayes’ fate is now being determined by the jury — the death penalty or life in prison with no chance for parole — I find myself soul searching for the correct action. I’m usually against the death penalty for reasons such as new DNA testing proving the wrong person was convicted.
But if I may digress, somehow the death penalty seems appropriate in this case, considering the horrific nature of the crime.
A major argument against the death penalty is it won’t deter crime. Does anyone believe hardened criminals even think about execution? Did Hayes in the moment of the crime fear the death penalty? But will the legal system — and Connecticut’s death penalty statute — ever deter crime by actually executing those such as Hayes?
So far, only the victims have gotten death.
But why should it be mandatory to spend taxpayers’ money to keep this heartless criminal alive indefinitely? If sentenced to life, he’ll get a bed and three square meals per day, free medical care until his natural death with no worries — not to mention legal representation for endless appeals. Maybe crime does pay — but we’re the ones paying.
It seems ludicrous to spend tax dollars on Hayes when so many other pressing needs exist. Medicare benefits are being cut. And in a recent column I questioned the appropriateness of cutting lunches for schoolchildren in Norwich.
Do we truly want to spend money on such a sick-minded criminal knowing that others all across our state are in need and going without? And I’m not talking welfare — rather, “recessionfare.”
Soldiers are asked to put their lives on the line to defend our way of life, including our legal system. I’m pretty sure the intention wasn’t so this coward can kill a mother and two daughters and end up living to a natural death — paid in full courtesy of taxpayers.
Now, back from my digression, I admit I struggled with this column, trying to find reasons to keep this psychopath alive. In the end, however, I, like others, no doubt, am rocked to the core as to what is right.
We can’t teach children or anyone that killing begets killing, that an “eye for an eye” resolves anything. We need to know we’re convicting the right person — which isn’t an issue in this case.
I believe, however, that people opposed to capital punishment are questioning their beliefs and convictions in this most heinous case. Me, too. I’ve never supported this barbaric practice, but I wish I could persuade myself differently in this case.
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard and regular contributor to the Norwich Bulletin. She can be reached at RMHelming@aol.com
Copyright 2010 Norwich Bulletin. Some rights reserved
By ROBERTA M. HELMING
For the Norwich Bulletin
Posted Nov 01, 2010 @ 11:50 PM
Who among us would sit back, permit some psychopath to tie our daughters’ bodies to a bed, pour gasoline on them and set them on fire while still alive?
And that’s just one of the details connected to the heinous crime committed in the Cheshire home invasion by Steven Hayes and Joshua Komisarjevsky. Hayes has been found guilty: Komisarjevsky’s trial will be conducted next year.
As Hayes’ fate is now being determined by the jury — the death penalty or life in prison with no chance for parole — I find myself soul searching for the correct action. I’m usually against the death penalty for reasons such as new DNA testing proving the wrong person was convicted.
But if I may digress, somehow the death penalty seems appropriate in this case, considering the horrific nature of the crime.
A major argument against the death penalty is it won’t deter crime. Does anyone believe hardened criminals even think about execution? Did Hayes in the moment of the crime fear the death penalty? But will the legal system — and Connecticut’s death penalty statute — ever deter crime by actually executing those such as Hayes?
So far, only the victims have gotten death.
But why should it be mandatory to spend taxpayers’ money to keep this heartless criminal alive indefinitely? If sentenced to life, he’ll get a bed and three square meals per day, free medical care until his natural death with no worries — not to mention legal representation for endless appeals. Maybe crime does pay — but we’re the ones paying.
It seems ludicrous to spend tax dollars on Hayes when so many other pressing needs exist. Medicare benefits are being cut. And in a recent column I questioned the appropriateness of cutting lunches for schoolchildren in Norwich.
Do we truly want to spend money on such a sick-minded criminal knowing that others all across our state are in need and going without? And I’m not talking welfare — rather, “recessionfare.”
Soldiers are asked to put their lives on the line to defend our way of life, including our legal system. I’m pretty sure the intention wasn’t so this coward can kill a mother and two daughters and end up living to a natural death — paid in full courtesy of taxpayers.
Now, back from my digression, I admit I struggled with this column, trying to find reasons to keep this psychopath alive. In the end, however, I, like others, no doubt, am rocked to the core as to what is right.
We can’t teach children or anyone that killing begets killing, that an “eye for an eye” resolves anything. We need to know we’re convicting the right person — which isn’t an issue in this case.
I believe, however, that people opposed to capital punishment are questioning their beliefs and convictions in this most heinous case. Me, too. I’ve never supported this barbaric practice, but I wish I could persuade myself differently in this case.
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard and regular contributor to the Norwich Bulletin. She can be reached at RMHelming@aol.com
Copyright 2010 Norwich Bulletin. Some rights reserved
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Roberta M. Helming: UConn star makes poor choice by posing nude
Roberta M. Helming: UConn star makes poor choice by posing nude
By ROBERTA M. HELMING
For the Norwich Bulletin
Posted Oct 14, 2010 @ 11:12 PM
Imagine my shock when I saw Diana Taurasi posed nude on the front cover of ESPN The Magazine.
Yes, this month’s issue is the “Body Issue 2010,” the magazine’s second annual “exploration and celebration of the athletic form.” Isn’t that supposed to mean the celebration of toned, muscular athletic bodies — not nudity?
Granted, while I would say Taurasi’s picture is what I’d call tasteful nudity, it’s still inappropriate. It may be one’s prerogative to pose nude, but shouldn’t that prerogative be given up by a public figure with a large fan base of children?
With the Internet, it’s no longer about acquiring the magazine from the newsstand. All it takes is for a young girl, innocently looking to learn about her hero, to Google her name. Trust me, the magazine is there and on the front cover is Taurasi’s naked body for anyone — and everyone — to see.
Taurasi, a University of Connecticut star athlete from 2000 to 2004, was embraced by fans of all ages, as are all the UConn players we adopt as our own. She made us proud because of her innate talent and role model status.
When she was chosen by the Phoenix Mercury of the WNBA, we were saddened (hoping the Connecticut Sun would have drafted her), but proudly watched her blossom in her new life and stellar career. As her UConn family, we were proud of her accomplishments. Maybe not so much of this most recent accomplishment.
Better choices
Should we feel comfortable knowing that our children can innocently Google “Diana Taurasi” and see her either on kidzworld.com or on ESPN The Magazine posing nude? With her celebrity status among children, which she chose, I think she needs to select more appropriate forums in which to interact with them
Taurasi has a moral obligation to her fans and the parents of fans. Too many young girls, even young women, struggle with body-image issues.
When Taurasi is in uniform, playing basketball, her fans are watching her playing basketball and not thinking about her body. But posing nude, the nakedness takes away that innocence. Her young fans may wish for a body like hers, and some might unfortunately try to achieve that in unhealthy ways. It happens,
whether it be celebrity or schoolmates.
Why would Taurasi decide to pose nude? Did she consider it may well have tainted her position as a role model for young girls? Will these girls now think their nude picture belongs on Facebook? It’s plausible, but let’s hope not.
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard and regular contributor to the Norwich Bulletin. She can be reached at RMHelming@aol.com
Copyright 2010 Norwich Bulletin. Some rights reserved
By ROBERTA M. HELMING
For the Norwich Bulletin
Posted Oct 14, 2010 @ 11:12 PM
Imagine my shock when I saw Diana Taurasi posed nude on the front cover of ESPN The Magazine.
Yes, this month’s issue is the “Body Issue 2010,” the magazine’s second annual “exploration and celebration of the athletic form.” Isn’t that supposed to mean the celebration of toned, muscular athletic bodies — not nudity?
Granted, while I would say Taurasi’s picture is what I’d call tasteful nudity, it’s still inappropriate. It may be one’s prerogative to pose nude, but shouldn’t that prerogative be given up by a public figure with a large fan base of children?
With the Internet, it’s no longer about acquiring the magazine from the newsstand. All it takes is for a young girl, innocently looking to learn about her hero, to Google her name. Trust me, the magazine is there and on the front cover is Taurasi’s naked body for anyone — and everyone — to see.
Taurasi, a University of Connecticut star athlete from 2000 to 2004, was embraced by fans of all ages, as are all the UConn players we adopt as our own. She made us proud because of her innate talent and role model status.
When she was chosen by the Phoenix Mercury of the WNBA, we were saddened (hoping the Connecticut Sun would have drafted her), but proudly watched her blossom in her new life and stellar career. As her UConn family, we were proud of her accomplishments. Maybe not so much of this most recent accomplishment.
Better choices
Should we feel comfortable knowing that our children can innocently Google “Diana Taurasi” and see her either on kidzworld.com or on ESPN The Magazine posing nude? With her celebrity status among children, which she chose, I think she needs to select more appropriate forums in which to interact with them
Taurasi has a moral obligation to her fans and the parents of fans. Too many young girls, even young women, struggle with body-image issues.
When Taurasi is in uniform, playing basketball, her fans are watching her playing basketball and not thinking about her body. But posing nude, the nakedness takes away that innocence. Her young fans may wish for a body like hers, and some might unfortunately try to achieve that in unhealthy ways. It happens,
whether it be celebrity or schoolmates.
Why would Taurasi decide to pose nude? Did she consider it may well have tainted her position as a role model for young girls? Will these girls now think their nude picture belongs on Facebook? It’s plausible, but let’s hope not.
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard and regular contributor to the Norwich Bulletin. She can be reached at RMHelming@aol.com
Copyright 2010 Norwich Bulletin. Some rights reserved
Friday, October 15, 2010
One thing that needs attention is ENABLING AND ENCOURAGING WOMEN TO GET TO THE POLLS!
What we as individuals can do to help others get to the polls to vote
One thing that needs attention is ENABLING AND ENCOURAGING WOMEN TO GET TO THE POLLS!
All the educating in the world will come to NOTHING if mom has to pick up kids, get dinner, help with homework and baths, all before the polls close at eight. We need to offer rides, sell hot dogs and drinks for kids near polling stations, offer childcare, whatever it takes! Childcare centers should be encouraged to stay open past their usual closing times (and provide snacks) so moms (and/or dads) can get to the polls before they pick up their kids.
One thing that needs attention is ENABLING AND ENCOURAGING WOMEN TO GET TO THE POLLS!
All the educating in the world will come to NOTHING if mom has to pick up kids, get dinner, help with homework and baths, all before the polls close at eight. We need to offer rides, sell hot dogs and drinks for kids near polling stations, offer childcare, whatever it takes! Childcare centers should be encouraged to stay open past their usual closing times (and provide snacks) so moms (and/or dads) can get to the polls before they pick up their kids.
Roberta M. Helming: UConn star makes poor choice by posing nude
Roberta M. Helming: UConn star makes poor choice by posing nude
By ROBERTA M. HELMING
For the Norwich Bulletin
Posted Oct 14, 2010 @ 11:12 PM
Imagine my shock when I saw Diana Taurasi posed nude on the front cover of ESPN The Magazine.
Yes, this month’s issue is the “Body Issue 2010,” the magazine’s second annual “exploration and celebration of the athletic form.” Isn’t that supposed to mean the celebration of toned, muscular athletic bodies — not nudity?
Granted, while I would say Taurasi’s picture is what I’d call tasteful nudity, it’s still inappropriate. It may be one’s prerogative to pose nude, but shouldn’t that prerogative be given up by a public figure with a large fan base of children?
With the Internet, it’s no longer about acquiring the magazine from the newsstand. All it takes is for a young girl, innocently looking to learn about her hero, to Google her name. Trust me, the magazine is there and on the front cover is Taurasi’s naked body for anyone — and everyone — to see.
Taurasi, a University of Connecticut star athlete from 2000 to 2004, was embraced by fans of all ages, as are all the UConn players we adopt as our own. She made us proud because of her innate talent and role model status.
When she was chosen by the Phoenix Mercury of the WNBA, we were saddened (hoping the Connecticut Sun would have drafted her), but proudly watched her blossom in her new life and stellar career. As her UConn family, we were proud of her accomplishments. Maybe not so much of this most recent accomplishment.
Better choices
Should we feel comfortable knowing that our children can innocently Google “Diana Taurasi” and see her either on kidzworld.com or on ESPN The Magazine posing nude? With her celebrity status among children, which she chose, I think she needs to select more appropriate forums in which to interact with them
Taurasi has a moral obligation to her fans and the parents of fans. Too many young girls, even young women, struggle with body-image issues.
When Taurasi is in uniform, playing basketball, her fans are watching her playing basketball and not thinking about her body. But posing nude, the nakedness takes away that innocence. Her young fans may wish for a body like hers, and some might unfortunately try to achieve that in unhealthy ways. It happens, whether it be celebrity or schoolmates.
Why would Taurasi decide to pose nude? Did she consider it may well have tainted her position as a role model for young girls? Will these girls now think their nude picture belongs on Facebook? It’s plausible, but let’s hope not.
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard and regular contributor to the Norwich Bulletin. She can be reached at RMHelming@aol.com
By ROBERTA M. HELMING
For the Norwich Bulletin
Posted Oct 14, 2010 @ 11:12 PM
Imagine my shock when I saw Diana Taurasi posed nude on the front cover of ESPN The Magazine.
Yes, this month’s issue is the “Body Issue 2010,” the magazine’s second annual “exploration and celebration of the athletic form.” Isn’t that supposed to mean the celebration of toned, muscular athletic bodies — not nudity?
Granted, while I would say Taurasi’s picture is what I’d call tasteful nudity, it’s still inappropriate. It may be one’s prerogative to pose nude, but shouldn’t that prerogative be given up by a public figure with a large fan base of children?
With the Internet, it’s no longer about acquiring the magazine from the newsstand. All it takes is for a young girl, innocently looking to learn about her hero, to Google her name. Trust me, the magazine is there and on the front cover is Taurasi’s naked body for anyone — and everyone — to see.
Taurasi, a University of Connecticut star athlete from 2000 to 2004, was embraced by fans of all ages, as are all the UConn players we adopt as our own. She made us proud because of her innate talent and role model status.
When she was chosen by the Phoenix Mercury of the WNBA, we were saddened (hoping the Connecticut Sun would have drafted her), but proudly watched her blossom in her new life and stellar career. As her UConn family, we were proud of her accomplishments. Maybe not so much of this most recent accomplishment.
Better choices
Should we feel comfortable knowing that our children can innocently Google “Diana Taurasi” and see her either on kidzworld.com or on ESPN The Magazine posing nude? With her celebrity status among children, which she chose, I think she needs to select more appropriate forums in which to interact with them
Taurasi has a moral obligation to her fans and the parents of fans. Too many young girls, even young women, struggle with body-image issues.
When Taurasi is in uniform, playing basketball, her fans are watching her playing basketball and not thinking about her body. But posing nude, the nakedness takes away that innocence. Her young fans may wish for a body like hers, and some might unfortunately try to achieve that in unhealthy ways. It happens, whether it be celebrity or schoolmates.
Why would Taurasi decide to pose nude? Did she consider it may well have tainted her position as a role model for young girls? Will these girls now think their nude picture belongs on Facebook? It’s plausible, but let’s hope not.
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard and regular contributor to the Norwich Bulletin. She can be reached at RMHelming@aol.com
Thursday, October 14, 2010
In Memoriam - In Loving Memory of My Father
In Memoriam - In Loving Memory of My Father
Thank you for everything you did for me . . . for providing for all my needs and for giving me an example to follow, with regard to the importance of taking care of my responsibilites. Thank you for allowing me to realize a high work ethic by watching your example . . . you really did work hard to ensure that you were able to take care of your responsibilities and some responsiblities that weren't yours . . . such as me. Thank you for loving me regardless. I'll always be grateful for raising me as your own. I know you loved me and I wish I had had time to tell you I loved you and appreciated you for what you did for me. You live on through my life for I believe that you rose from the rubble . . . that's how I knew how to do it when I needed to rise from the rubble. I love you and remember you fondly. I miss you, as do the Connecticut small track auto racing facilities.
These words respresent the feelings of Roberta M. Helming
who proudly placed this "In Memoriam" online.
Thank you for everything you did for me . . . for providing for all my needs and for giving me an example to follow, with regard to the importance of taking care of my responsibilites. Thank you for allowing me to realize a high work ethic by watching your example . . . you really did work hard to ensure that you were able to take care of your responsibilities and some responsiblities that weren't yours . . . such as me. Thank you for loving me regardless. I'll always be grateful for raising me as your own. I know you loved me and I wish I had had time to tell you I loved you and appreciated you for what you did for me. You live on through my life for I believe that you rose from the rubble . . . that's how I knew how to do it when I needed to rise from the rubble. I love you and remember you fondly. I miss you, as do the Connecticut small track auto racing facilities.
These words respresent the feelings of Roberta M. Helming
who proudly placed this "In Memoriam" online.
In Memoriam - In Loving Memory of My Father
In Memoriam - In Loving Memory of My Father
IN MEMORIAM
In Loving Memory of
My Father
George Everett Perkins Jr.
May 18, 1937 - May 1, 2002
Thank you for loving me,
raising me and providing
me with all of my needs and
for treating me as your own.
Love, Your daughter & son- in-law
Roberta M. and John C. Helming
These words respresent the feelings of Roberta M. Helming
who proudly placed this "In Memoriam" online.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Roberta M. Helming - Not the gender that makes the marriage
Roberta M. Helming - Not the gender that makes the marriage
Roberta M. Helming
Publication: The Day Newspaper
In the letter titled “Despite laws, marriage is for a man, woman,” published Nov. 30, the writers states that he believes “true marriage is, has been and always will be the union of one man and one woman.”
Well, I believe same-sex marriages are a part of what defines a true marriage as well. I believe homosexuals should marry and that they are not immoral, perverted people. I don't believe they are corrupting the fiber of America or our children. They merely want to live a life of acceptance, free of the judgment, harassment and misunderstanding they receive.
As a Christian, I believe God has created all of us, and that includes homosexuals who are born into this world as homosexuals. If I worship a God who turns His back on the people He created, then I've been misguided in the placement of my faith.
When God created Adam and Eve and they reproduced, what act had to happen in order for their offspring to be “fruitful and multiply?” Incest. If you want to talk about immorality, let's talk about this and its negative ramifications, and leave the homosexuals alone, free to live happy, fulfilling lives.
Copyright Roberta M. Helming and The Day. All Rights Reserved
Roberta M. Helming
Publication: The Day Newspaper
In the letter titled “Despite laws, marriage is for a man, woman,” published Nov. 30, the writers states that he believes “true marriage is, has been and always will be the union of one man and one woman.”
Well, I believe same-sex marriages are a part of what defines a true marriage as well. I believe homosexuals should marry and that they are not immoral, perverted people. I don't believe they are corrupting the fiber of America or our children. They merely want to live a life of acceptance, free of the judgment, harassment and misunderstanding they receive.
As a Christian, I believe God has created all of us, and that includes homosexuals who are born into this world as homosexuals. If I worship a God who turns His back on the people He created, then I've been misguided in the placement of my faith.
When God created Adam and Eve and they reproduced, what act had to happen in order for their offspring to be “fruitful and multiply?” Incest. If you want to talk about immorality, let's talk about this and its negative ramifications, and leave the homosexuals alone, free to live happy, fulfilling lives.
Copyright Roberta M. Helming and The Day. All Rights Reserved
ROBERTA M. HELMING: We must take responsibility for Obama’s promises
ROBERTA M. HELMING: We must take responsibility for Obama’s promises
By ROBERTA M. HELMING
For The Norwich Bulletin
Posted May 02, 2010 @ 11:29 PM
The 2008 presidential campaign will go down in history as one filled with extraordinary idealism and overly optimistic rhetoric.
President Barack Obama is a dynamic, eloquent speaker. Many believed in his “Dream” and “Yes, We Can” rhetoric. Obama wasn’t deceptive. He believed in his dream. He saw possibilities that would bring change to this country. So what went wrong?
Many were taken in by the over-idealistic nature of his dream campaign. Inside campaign headquarters, volunteers seemed to be puppets reciting the unrealistic dreams in the mantra given them. Not long after Obama’s inauguration, reality arrived. He hasn’t been able to fulfill many of the ideals implied by the vernacular of his campaign.
His strategies were full of ideologies capturing the attention of those desperately in need, and who embraced his convincing messages. In many ways, his campaign was too lofty and promised too much.
In fairness to the president, who among us cast a truly informed vote based on listening and not just hearing?
Many couldn’t foresee the reality that his grand ideas wouldn’t survive up against a polarized Congress. But truly, did anyone believe that Obama’s inauguration would end the gridlock that comes with working with Congress? Congress has railroaded Obama’s visions for this country. And for many, his dream has become a nightmare, and has led to skepticism among many voters. Many have turned their backs on the president in search of a new, but perhaps equally unattainable dream.
It’s time for Americans to accept some blame for being caught up in the “feel-good moment” of this campaign. Obama’s campaign spoke heavily to those desperate and couldn’t see that change would take time. People were looking for instant “feel-good” change that won’t occur. And shame on Obama for not stressing this sufficiently during his campaign, causing an aftershock for many.
A starting point
In the final analysis, Obama won’t realize all his dreams and promises, but we need to acknowledge that getting the ball rolling during his term(s) might be more realistic.
But this reality isn’t solely Obama’s problem. Learning from the past is the best way to avoid repeating mistakes. Voters should listen to what is really being said, not the feel-good stuff. Look for the hard reality hidden behind the rhetoric. It seems we chose a good president, but he faces difficult realities in working with Congress.
Changes might have to come from the choices that our “vote for change” brings in the upcoming elections.
But for now, we must help this country and this president by being proactive in politics. Write letters, make phone calls and be our “own leaders.” Let’s ask tough questions.
Change is realized one person at a time — over time. Become involved in a small way so those dreams and “Yes, We Can” ideals aren’t mere rhetoric, but reality.
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard and can be reached at RMHelming@aol.com
Copyright 2010 Norwich Bulletin. Some rights reserved
By ROBERTA M. HELMING
For The Norwich Bulletin
Posted May 02, 2010 @ 11:29 PM
The 2008 presidential campaign will go down in history as one filled with extraordinary idealism and overly optimistic rhetoric.
President Barack Obama is a dynamic, eloquent speaker. Many believed in his “Dream” and “Yes, We Can” rhetoric. Obama wasn’t deceptive. He believed in his dream. He saw possibilities that would bring change to this country. So what went wrong?
Many were taken in by the over-idealistic nature of his dream campaign. Inside campaign headquarters, volunteers seemed to be puppets reciting the unrealistic dreams in the mantra given them. Not long after Obama’s inauguration, reality arrived. He hasn’t been able to fulfill many of the ideals implied by the vernacular of his campaign.
His strategies were full of ideologies capturing the attention of those desperately in need, and who embraced his convincing messages. In many ways, his campaign was too lofty and promised too much.
In fairness to the president, who among us cast a truly informed vote based on listening and not just hearing?
Many couldn’t foresee the reality that his grand ideas wouldn’t survive up against a polarized Congress. But truly, did anyone believe that Obama’s inauguration would end the gridlock that comes with working with Congress? Congress has railroaded Obama’s visions for this country. And for many, his dream has become a nightmare, and has led to skepticism among many voters. Many have turned their backs on the president in search of a new, but perhaps equally unattainable dream.
It’s time for Americans to accept some blame for being caught up in the “feel-good moment” of this campaign. Obama’s campaign spoke heavily to those desperate and couldn’t see that change would take time. People were looking for instant “feel-good” change that won’t occur. And shame on Obama for not stressing this sufficiently during his campaign, causing an aftershock for many.
A starting point
In the final analysis, Obama won’t realize all his dreams and promises, but we need to acknowledge that getting the ball rolling during his term(s) might be more realistic.
But this reality isn’t solely Obama’s problem. Learning from the past is the best way to avoid repeating mistakes. Voters should listen to what is really being said, not the feel-good stuff. Look for the hard reality hidden behind the rhetoric. It seems we chose a good president, but he faces difficult realities in working with Congress.
Changes might have to come from the choices that our “vote for change” brings in the upcoming elections.
But for now, we must help this country and this president by being proactive in politics. Write letters, make phone calls and be our “own leaders.” Let’s ask tough questions.
Change is realized one person at a time — over time. Become involved in a small way so those dreams and “Yes, We Can” ideals aren’t mere rhetoric, but reality.
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard and can be reached at RMHelming@aol.com
Copyright 2010 Norwich Bulletin. Some rights reserved
Monday, October 11, 2010
Roberta M. Helming: Definition of ‘inpatient’ defies common sense
Roberta M. Helming: Definition of ‘inpatient’ defies common sense
By ROBERTA M. HELMING
For the Norwich Bulletin
Posted Oct 04, 2010 @ 12:09 AM
Imagine an elderly parent, in the hospital for three days hooked up to a heart monitor with IVs, being denied Medicare coverage because the status was deemed not to be “inpatient” but “under observation.”
The Norwich Bulletin published a story Sept. 20 about such a case involving an elderly patient at The William W. Backus Hospital. His family claims they only learned at the time of his discharge about the “under observation” status and were subsequently presented with a nearly $10,000 bill for services not covered by Medicare.
At a minimum there’s a problem with not informing patients and caregivers up front of services to be rendered that are not covered by Medicare. A surprise $10,000 bill on the way out the door just doesn’t seem fair.
There’s been a lot of talk lately about health care reform. New rules are being implemented based on the new reform measures enacted this year. But we still seem to have some problems.
‘Technicalities’
What baffles me is this: For three days an 89-year-old individual slept in a hospital bed, in a hospital room, eating hospital food and hooked up to a heart monitor and IVs. How is that not considered an “inpatient” hospital stay?
Why are there such “technicalities” in our health care system? Hospitals are concerned about audits by Medicare that might reflect “too many patients” being admitted. But what constitutes “too many?” At what point is the care being administered considered? Let’s be real. Does anyone think that heart monitors plus IVs for three days isn’t inpatient care?
Really, who has this kind of equipment at home in a closet next to his vacuum cleaner for anyone to consider the possibility of “outpatient” treatment?
Are we heading down a path where quotas or lottery systems will be established to determine “inpatient” care versus “under observation” based on cost factors?
Apparently being admitted to a hospital, and having that “hospital stay” covered by Medicare isn’t a given anymore.
This clearly is a reminder for the elderly and their caregivers to ask questions about health care coverage of medical services early on. Of course if care is needed, it’s needed. But at least there won’t be that unexpected $10,000 surprise later.
Medicare costs are a major part of the federal deficit and must be constantly reviewed. But this kind of practice is simply wrong, and we need to speak up. Today it’s questionable inpatient coverage. Tomorrow, it could be doctor visits or medically necessary tests. Where does it stop?
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard and regular contributor to the Norwich Bulletin. She can be reached at RMHelming@aol.com.
Copyright 2010 Norwich Bulletin. Some rights reserved
By ROBERTA M. HELMING
For the Norwich Bulletin
Posted Oct 04, 2010 @ 12:09 AM
Imagine an elderly parent, in the hospital for three days hooked up to a heart monitor with IVs, being denied Medicare coverage because the status was deemed not to be “inpatient” but “under observation.”
The Norwich Bulletin published a story Sept. 20 about such a case involving an elderly patient at The William W. Backus Hospital. His family claims they only learned at the time of his discharge about the “under observation” status and were subsequently presented with a nearly $10,000 bill for services not covered by Medicare.
At a minimum there’s a problem with not informing patients and caregivers up front of services to be rendered that are not covered by Medicare. A surprise $10,000 bill on the way out the door just doesn’t seem fair.
There’s been a lot of talk lately about health care reform. New rules are being implemented based on the new reform measures enacted this year. But we still seem to have some problems.
‘Technicalities’
What baffles me is this: For three days an 89-year-old individual slept in a hospital bed, in a hospital room, eating hospital food and hooked up to a heart monitor and IVs. How is that not considered an “inpatient” hospital stay?
Why are there such “technicalities” in our health care system? Hospitals are concerned about audits by Medicare that might reflect “too many patients” being admitted. But what constitutes “too many?” At what point is the care being administered considered? Let’s be real. Does anyone think that heart monitors plus IVs for three days isn’t inpatient care?
Really, who has this kind of equipment at home in a closet next to his vacuum cleaner for anyone to consider the possibility of “outpatient” treatment?
Are we heading down a path where quotas or lottery systems will be established to determine “inpatient” care versus “under observation” based on cost factors?
Apparently being admitted to a hospital, and having that “hospital stay” covered by Medicare isn’t a given anymore.
This clearly is a reminder for the elderly and their caregivers to ask questions about health care coverage of medical services early on. Of course if care is needed, it’s needed. But at least there won’t be that unexpected $10,000 surprise later.
Medicare costs are a major part of the federal deficit and must be constantly reviewed. But this kind of practice is simply wrong, and we need to speak up. Today it’s questionable inpatient coverage. Tomorrow, it could be doctor visits or medically necessary tests. Where does it stop?
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard and regular contributor to the Norwich Bulletin. She can be reached at RMHelming@aol.com.
Copyright 2010 Norwich Bulletin. Some rights reserved
Friday, October 8, 2010
Roberta M. Helming: Definition of ‘inpatient’ defies common sense
Roberta M. Helming: Definition of ‘inpatient’ defies common sense
By ROBERTA M. HELMING
For the Norwich Bulletin
Posted Oct 04, 2010 @ 12:09 AM
Imagine an elderly parent, in the hospital for three days hooked up to a heart monitor with IVs, being denied Medicare coverage because the status was deemed not to be “inpatient” but “under observation.”
The Norwich Bulletin published a story Sept. 20 about such a case involving an elderly patient at The William W. Backus Hospital. His family claims they only learned at the time of his discharge about the “under observation” status and were subsequently presented with a nearly $10,000 bill for services not covered by Medicare.
At a minimum there’s a problem with not informing patients and caregivers up front of services to be rendered that are not covered by Medicare. A surprise $10,000 bill on the way out the door just doesn’t seem fair.
There’s been a lot of talk lately about health care reform. New rules are being implemented based on the new reform measures enacted this year. But we still seem to have some problems.
‘Technicalities’
What baffles me is this: For three days an 89-year-old individual slept in a hospital bed, in a hospital room, eating hospital food and hooked up to a heart monitor and IVs. How is that not considered an “inpatient” hospital stay?
Why are there such “technicalities” in our health care system? Hospitals are concerned about audits by Medicare that might reflect “too many patients” being admitted. But what constitutes “too many?” At what point is the care being administered considered? Let’s be real. Does anyone think that heart monitors plus IVs for three days isn’t inpatient care?
Really, who has this kind of equipment at home in a closet next to his vacuum cleaner for anyone to consider the possibility of “outpatient” treatment?
Are we heading down a path where quotas or lottery systems will be established to determine “inpatient” care versus “under observation” based on cost factors?
Apparently being admitted to a hospital, and having that “hospital stay” covered by Medicare isn’t a given anymore.
This clearly is a reminder for the elderly and their caregivers to ask questions about health care coverage of medical services early on. Of course if care is needed, it’s needed. But at least there won’t be that unexpected $10,000 surprise later.
Medicare costs are a major part of the federal deficit and must be constantly reviewed. But this kind of practice is simply wrong, and we need to speak up. Today it’s questionable inpatient coverage. Tomorrow, it could be doctor visits or medically necessary tests. Where does it stop?
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard and regular contributor to the Norwich Bulletin. She can be reached at RMHelming@aol.com.
Copyright 2010 Norwich Bulletin. Some rights reserved
By ROBERTA M. HELMING
For the Norwich Bulletin
Posted Oct 04, 2010 @ 12:09 AM
Imagine an elderly parent, in the hospital for three days hooked up to a heart monitor with IVs, being denied Medicare coverage because the status was deemed not to be “inpatient” but “under observation.”
The Norwich Bulletin published a story Sept. 20 about such a case involving an elderly patient at The William W. Backus Hospital. His family claims they only learned at the time of his discharge about the “under observation” status and were subsequently presented with a nearly $10,000 bill for services not covered by Medicare.
At a minimum there’s a problem with not informing patients and caregivers up front of services to be rendered that are not covered by Medicare. A surprise $10,000 bill on the way out the door just doesn’t seem fair.
There’s been a lot of talk lately about health care reform. New rules are being implemented based on the new reform measures enacted this year. But we still seem to have some problems.
‘Technicalities’
What baffles me is this: For three days an 89-year-old individual slept in a hospital bed, in a hospital room, eating hospital food and hooked up to a heart monitor and IVs. How is that not considered an “inpatient” hospital stay?
Why are there such “technicalities” in our health care system? Hospitals are concerned about audits by Medicare that might reflect “too many patients” being admitted. But what constitutes “too many?” At what point is the care being administered considered? Let’s be real. Does anyone think that heart monitors plus IVs for three days isn’t inpatient care?
Really, who has this kind of equipment at home in a closet next to his vacuum cleaner for anyone to consider the possibility of “outpatient” treatment?
Are we heading down a path where quotas or lottery systems will be established to determine “inpatient” care versus “under observation” based on cost factors?
Apparently being admitted to a hospital, and having that “hospital stay” covered by Medicare isn’t a given anymore.
This clearly is a reminder for the elderly and their caregivers to ask questions about health care coverage of medical services early on. Of course if care is needed, it’s needed. But at least there won’t be that unexpected $10,000 surprise later.
Medicare costs are a major part of the federal deficit and must be constantly reviewed. But this kind of practice is simply wrong, and we need to speak up. Today it’s questionable inpatient coverage. Tomorrow, it could be doctor visits or medically necessary tests. Where does it stop?
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard and regular contributor to the Norwich Bulletin. She can be reached at RMHelming@aol.com.
Copyright 2010 Norwich Bulletin. Some rights reserved
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Helming Wedding Vow Renewal
Helming Wedding Vow Renewal
Publication: The Day
Published 08/30/2009 12:00 AMUpdated 08/31/2009 12:00 PM
Roberta M. and John C. Helming of Ledyard renewed their wedding vows on their 17th wedding anniversary on Friday, Aug. 21, 2009. The ceremony was held along the beautiful river walk in Providence, R.I. The ceremony which was officiated by LisaAnn Donegan, an interfaith minister from Massachusetts, was performed outdoors overlooking the river. The couple exchanged vows which they co-wrote with their minister.
After their beautiful ceremony, the couple went on a romantic gondola ride on the river. As they were on their gondola ride, a mandolin player performed music behind where they were seated, a true Venice experience.
The couple enjoyed a second honeymoon camping on Cape Cod, where they biked and did "Cape Cod" things.
This year was significant for Roberta and John to renew their vows as they were first married on a Friday. Also, in adding one and seven to equal eight, then turning the numeral eight on its side it approximates the infinity symbol and represents their forever commitment to each other. As precious as their initial wedding vows were, it was in their hearts to co-write their own vows, which spoke to who they are as a couple.
Written by Roberta M. Helming - Copyright 2009
Publication: The Day
Published 08/30/2009 12:00 AMUpdated 08/31/2009 12:00 PM
Roberta M. and John C. Helming of Ledyard renewed their wedding vows on their 17th wedding anniversary on Friday, Aug. 21, 2009. The ceremony was held along the beautiful river walk in Providence, R.I. The ceremony which was officiated by LisaAnn Donegan, an interfaith minister from Massachusetts, was performed outdoors overlooking the river. The couple exchanged vows which they co-wrote with their minister.
After their beautiful ceremony, the couple went on a romantic gondola ride on the river. As they were on their gondola ride, a mandolin player performed music behind where they were seated, a true Venice experience.
The couple enjoyed a second honeymoon camping on Cape Cod, where they biked and did "Cape Cod" things.
This year was significant for Roberta and John to renew their vows as they were first married on a Friday. Also, in adding one and seven to equal eight, then turning the numeral eight on its side it approximates the infinity symbol and represents their forever commitment to each other. As precious as their initial wedding vows were, it was in their hearts to co-write their own vows, which spoke to who they are as a couple.
Written by Roberta M. Helming - Copyright 2009
Helming wedding vow renewal
Day Staff
Publication: The Day
Published 08/30/2009 12:00 AM
Updated 08/31/2009 12:00 PM
Roberta M. and John C. Helming of Ledyard renewed their wedding vows on their 17th wedding anniversary on Friday, Aug. 21, 2009. The ceremony was held along the beautiful river walk in Providence, R.I. The ceremony which was officiated by LisaAnn Donegan, an interfaith minister from Massachusetts, was performed outdoors overlooking the river. The couple exchanged vows which they co-wrote with their minister.
After their beautiful ceremony, the couple went on a romantic gondola ride on the river. As they were on their gondola ride, a mandolin player performed music behind where they were seated, a true Venice experience.
The couple enjoyed a second honeymoon camping on Cape Cod, where they biked and did "Cape Cod" things.
This year was significant for Roberta and John to renew their vows as they were first married on a Friday. Also, in adding one and seven to equal eight, then turning the numeral eight on its side it approximates the infinity symbol and represents their forever commitment to each other. As precious as their initial wedding vows were, it was in their hearts to co-write their own vows, which spoke to who they are as a couple.
Written by Roberta M. Helming, Copyright 2009 All Rights Reserved
Day Staff
Publication: The Day
Published 08/30/2009 12:00 AM
Updated 08/31/2009 12:00 PM
Roberta M. and John C. Helming of Ledyard renewed their wedding vows on their 17th wedding anniversary on Friday, Aug. 21, 2009. The ceremony was held along the beautiful river walk in Providence, R.I. The ceremony which was officiated by LisaAnn Donegan, an interfaith minister from Massachusetts, was performed outdoors overlooking the river. The couple exchanged vows which they co-wrote with their minister.
After their beautiful ceremony, the couple went on a romantic gondola ride on the river. As they were on their gondola ride, a mandolin player performed music behind where they were seated, a true Venice experience.
The couple enjoyed a second honeymoon camping on Cape Cod, where they biked and did "Cape Cod" things.
This year was significant for Roberta and John to renew their vows as they were first married on a Friday. Also, in adding one and seven to equal eight, then turning the numeral eight on its side it approximates the infinity symbol and represents their forever commitment to each other. As precious as their initial wedding vows were, it was in their hearts to co-write their own vows, which spoke to who they are as a couple.
Written by Roberta M. Helming, Copyright 2009 All Rights Reserved
Roberta M. Helming: Believe in yourself and your dreams
Believe in yourself and your dreams
Without dreams our quality of life isn't whole. Life is tough. Even the best lives. What inevitably keeps us making progress in life is believing in what might be possible.
While some of our dreams may not be within our reach realistically, we breathe a little easier because of our belief that with hard work, determination and dedication they might be. And they might. We don't know in life.
This isn't to imply that we should live in a dream world. We must be realistic and keep our feet firmly planted. But we still need to dream, to believe in that which we feel will bring our lives to a place that is almost surreal.
And while never giving up on those dreams and always in pursuit of them, our lives will take the most awesome turns and we will experience some incredible adventures. We will find ourselves in places we never imagined possible and we may realize that these experiences are more amazing than those dreams that started us on this path.
What is truly important in life is to not always harshly judge and blame ourselves, but rather believe in ourselves and our dreams.
Without dreams our quality of life isn't whole. Life is tough. Even the best lives. What inevitably keeps us making progress in life is believing in what might be possible.
While some of our dreams may not be within our reach realistically, we breathe a little easier because of our belief that with hard work, determination and dedication they might be. And they might. We don't know in life.
This isn't to imply that we should live in a dream world. We must be realistic and keep our feet firmly planted. But we still need to dream, to believe in that which we feel will bring our lives to a place that is almost surreal.
And while never giving up on those dreams and always in pursuit of them, our lives will take the most awesome turns and we will experience some incredible adventures. We will find ourselves in places we never imagined possible and we may realize that these experiences are more amazing than those dreams that started us on this path.
What is truly important in life is to not always harshly judge and blame ourselves, but rather believe in ourselves and our dreams.
Roberta M. Helming: World peace first begins in our heart
World peace first begins in our heart
Roberta M. Helming Ledyard
Publication: The Day
Published 03/20/2010 12:00 AM
Updated 03/19/2010 11:20 PM
While it's a lofty goal to want to bring peace to a large number of people all at one time, peace happens one person at a time in our own smaller worlds. We all need to live our daily lives, promoting peace in our own way.
As we focus on our busy lives, we need to remember that peace begins in our hearts and thoughts. Kindness is contagious and with our actions - wishing someone a good day - we have the power to spark other people's hearts and thoughts to perpetuate an act of kindness.
Don't stereotype, label or profile people based on country of origin, race, culture, religion, sexual orientation, language or accent. Respect people for who they are in their heart, mind and soul. Without this, peace isn't possible.
We all share commonalities. We cry, hurt, laugh, love our children. We may not have the same skin color, style of dress or language, but acceptance of differences in people will create strong bonds and promote peace, locally and, ultimately, the world over.
Copyright Roberta M. Helming
Roberta M. Helming Ledyard
Publication: The Day
Published 03/20/2010 12:00 AM
Updated 03/19/2010 11:20 PM
While it's a lofty goal to want to bring peace to a large number of people all at one time, peace happens one person at a time in our own smaller worlds. We all need to live our daily lives, promoting peace in our own way.
As we focus on our busy lives, we need to remember that peace begins in our hearts and thoughts. Kindness is contagious and with our actions - wishing someone a good day - we have the power to spark other people's hearts and thoughts to perpetuate an act of kindness.
Don't stereotype, label or profile people based on country of origin, race, culture, religion, sexual orientation, language or accent. Respect people for who they are in their heart, mind and soul. Without this, peace isn't possible.
We all share commonalities. We cry, hurt, laugh, love our children. We may not have the same skin color, style of dress or language, but acceptance of differences in people will create strong bonds and promote peace, locally and, ultimately, the world over.
Copyright Roberta M. Helming
Roberta M. Helming: Understanding bad behavior a good start
Understanding bad behavior a good start
Roberta M. Helming Ledyard
Publication: The Day
Published 02/09/2010 12:00 AM
Updated 02/09/2010 05:29 AM
It is easy to label someone who has a substance-abuse problem. They're drunks, druggies, abusers and losers. Although substance abuse is unacceptable, it helps to understand this type of bad behavior.
To understand people who become addicted, it is key to understand deep emotional torment and pain. If one has ever experienced the death of a loved one, deep emotional pain is known. Time heals this emotional pain for emotionally healthy people.
However, those with emotional problems don't need extreme trauma to experience relentless emotional pain. These people's minds hurt constantly. And relief doesn't come often.
Developing compassion for those living with constant emotional pain should make it easier to understand - but not excuse - substance abuse. Is it even fathomable to imagine going nonstop, day after day, with emotional pain and not seeking relief?
This is not intended to excuse bad behavior and I have no formal education in psychology or psychiatric medicine. I just hope this promotes better understanding of emotional suffering.
I urge people dealing with substance abuse to consult a licensed physician, psychiatrist or psychologist. And please help those dealing with these issues to find help in the psychiatric world, regardless of its shortcomings.
Copyright Roberta M. Helming
Roberta M. Helming Ledyard
Publication: The Day
Published 02/09/2010 12:00 AM
Updated 02/09/2010 05:29 AM
It is easy to label someone who has a substance-abuse problem. They're drunks, druggies, abusers and losers. Although substance abuse is unacceptable, it helps to understand this type of bad behavior.
To understand people who become addicted, it is key to understand deep emotional torment and pain. If one has ever experienced the death of a loved one, deep emotional pain is known. Time heals this emotional pain for emotionally healthy people.
However, those with emotional problems don't need extreme trauma to experience relentless emotional pain. These people's minds hurt constantly. And relief doesn't come often.
Developing compassion for those living with constant emotional pain should make it easier to understand - but not excuse - substance abuse. Is it even fathomable to imagine going nonstop, day after day, with emotional pain and not seeking relief?
This is not intended to excuse bad behavior and I have no formal education in psychology or psychiatric medicine. I just hope this promotes better understanding of emotional suffering.
I urge people dealing with substance abuse to consult a licensed physician, psychiatrist or psychologist. And please help those dealing with these issues to find help in the psychiatric world, regardless of its shortcomings.
Copyright Roberta M. Helming
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Roberta M. Helming: Think about relaxation methods to ease pain
Roberta M. Helming: Think about relaxation methods to ease pain
Publication: The Day
Published 04/11/2010 12:00 AM
Updated 04/11/2010 05:30 AM
Suffering with relentless chronic pain is widespread. Emotional or physical chronic pain seems totally out of the sufferers' control. It isn't, and permitting it to "steal" a quality of life serves no purpose, causing unnecessary, intolerable pain. Lives are often filled with misery that never subsides.
This doesn't have to be, however. Relief of chronic pain may be realized through relaxation techniques.
It's key to recognize and accept chronic pain and know that a life of pain might be changed by the empowerment that results from pain management. Hence, knowledge through education helps sufferers realize a better life, free of pain.
Learning relaxation techniques of the mind can help lessen suffering and increase relief. Hence, there need not be suffering in silence because of chronic pain where the medical establishment is lacking. Relief through the mind may be realized by learning techniques to control pain through the mind. It's extremely empowering and may lead to tremendous relief and a higher quality of life.
A consultation with a physician regarding relaxation techniques of the mind to ease chronic pain is necessary.
Publication: The Day
Published 04/11/2010 12:00 AM
Updated 04/11/2010 05:30 AM
Suffering with relentless chronic pain is widespread. Emotional or physical chronic pain seems totally out of the sufferers' control. It isn't, and permitting it to "steal" a quality of life serves no purpose, causing unnecessary, intolerable pain. Lives are often filled with misery that never subsides.
This doesn't have to be, however. Relief of chronic pain may be realized through relaxation techniques.
It's key to recognize and accept chronic pain and know that a life of pain might be changed by the empowerment that results from pain management. Hence, knowledge through education helps sufferers realize a better life, free of pain.
Learning relaxation techniques of the mind can help lessen suffering and increase relief. Hence, there need not be suffering in silence because of chronic pain where the medical establishment is lacking. Relief through the mind may be realized by learning techniques to control pain through the mind. It's extremely empowering and may lead to tremendous relief and a higher quality of life.
A consultation with a physician regarding relaxation techniques of the mind to ease chronic pain is necessary.
Roberta M. Helming: Communication skills vital in life
Roberta M. Helming: Communication skills vital in life
Publication: The Day
Published 02/12/2009 12:00 AM
Updated 12/11/2009 01:06 PM
In November, I volunteered for Barack Obama's campaign in Laconia, N.H, a swing state. I had reservations about making politically based phone calls for Mr. Obama.
At the headquarters each morning I would be handed a script of what to say during my phone calls. I politely responded that I wouldn't engage in negative campaigning. I explained that as a team we wouldn't win over Republicans and undecided voters in a swing state by being negative about the other candidates.
I spoke with hundreds of undecided voters on the telephone about Barack Obama and, because of my approach, most were open to me because I wasn't trying to explain what was wrong with their candidates, but rather what was right about my candidate. I say this to help people understand that communication skills in life are of the utmost importance and how we say things directly effects the response we receive and the influence we have on others.
With regard to communicating more effectively, I recommend a book I read recently titled “Leadership and Self Deception: Getting Out of the Box.” It is by the Arbinger Institute and, as it did mine, it will truly change your life.
Publication: The Day
Published 02/12/2009 12:00 AM
Updated 12/11/2009 01:06 PM
In November, I volunteered for Barack Obama's campaign in Laconia, N.H, a swing state. I had reservations about making politically based phone calls for Mr. Obama.
At the headquarters each morning I would be handed a script of what to say during my phone calls. I politely responded that I wouldn't engage in negative campaigning. I explained that as a team we wouldn't win over Republicans and undecided voters in a swing state by being negative about the other candidates.
I spoke with hundreds of undecided voters on the telephone about Barack Obama and, because of my approach, most were open to me because I wasn't trying to explain what was wrong with their candidates, but rather what was right about my candidate. I say this to help people understand that communication skills in life are of the utmost importance and how we say things directly effects the response we receive and the influence we have on others.
With regard to communicating more effectively, I recommend a book I read recently titled “Leadership and Self Deception: Getting Out of the Box.” It is by the Arbinger Institute and, as it did mine, it will truly change your life.
Roberta M. Helming: Putting parent in a care facility is not betrayal
Putting parent in a care facility is not betrayal
Roberta M. Helming
Publication: The Day
Published 04/29/2010 12:00 AM
Updated 04/29/2010 01:01 AM
For many, parents have taken care of us as children and have been there to lean on in adulthood, as nurturers. There comes a time, however, when the difficult decision of placing a parent in a long-term care facility must be made. It's not a betrayal or warehousing situation.
People may have cared for parents with love, creating a reversal of role as nurturer. Attempting to provide care for a parent at home causes fatigue, as it becomes a full-time job. Overall care becomes overwhelming and needs of the immediate family suffer.
Finding a suitable long-term care facility where much-needed, around-the-clock care is received can be effectively realized.
Regular visits from loved ones should be a part of a dignified plan of care. Some can't face seeing loved ones in such a facility and hence stay away. Don't. It's important to know that a parent is living a life of dignity by receiving proper care in a new home, where they are residents, not patients. There's no need to feel bad.
Remember, parents did difficult things in our best interests, and now may be the time to do the same for them, with love and compassion.
Roberta M. Helming
Publication: The Day
Published 04/29/2010 12:00 AM
Updated 04/29/2010 01:01 AM
For many, parents have taken care of us as children and have been there to lean on in adulthood, as nurturers. There comes a time, however, when the difficult decision of placing a parent in a long-term care facility must be made. It's not a betrayal or warehousing situation.
People may have cared for parents with love, creating a reversal of role as nurturer. Attempting to provide care for a parent at home causes fatigue, as it becomes a full-time job. Overall care becomes overwhelming and needs of the immediate family suffer.
Finding a suitable long-term care facility where much-needed, around-the-clock care is received can be effectively realized.
Regular visits from loved ones should be a part of a dignified plan of care. Some can't face seeing loved ones in such a facility and hence stay away. Don't. It's important to know that a parent is living a life of dignity by receiving proper care in a new home, where they are residents, not patients. There's no need to feel bad.
Remember, parents did difficult things in our best interests, and now may be the time to do the same for them, with love and compassion.
Roberta M. Helming: Frankly, some causes are difficult to support and we do have the power to make a difference!!!
Roberta M. Helming: Frankly, some causes are difficult to support
Publication: The Day
Published 01/08/2010 12:00 AM
Updated 01/08/2010 01:00 AM
I attempted to maintain an open mind over the holiday season when The Day featured people needing financial assistance from the public. Certainly, each person's story spoke to potential donors' hearts, based on their life experiences.
As a woman who never had children because my situation and financial circumstances were never right, the thought of donating to a single woman with five kids didn't speak to my heart. If the blurb said she needed donations because her financial situation had changed, I would have been more sympathetic. It did not. Therefore, while I sympathize with the children, I was unable to support their cause.
Let's be frank with regard to another cause that sought donations. One was for unexpected pregnancies among 16- and 17-year-olds. Either we need to call this a lack in basic sex education or these teens must not have known that when they had sex without using protection, nine months later a bundle of joy might arrive. And, if paternity is known, instead of seeking donations, go to court for child support.
An appropriate donation would have been to the gentleman who worked until his disability made it impossible. He needed donations until his disability money arrived.
Publication: The Day
Published 01/08/2010 12:00 AM
Updated 01/08/2010 01:00 AM
I attempted to maintain an open mind over the holiday season when The Day featured people needing financial assistance from the public. Certainly, each person's story spoke to potential donors' hearts, based on their life experiences.
As a woman who never had children because my situation and financial circumstances were never right, the thought of donating to a single woman with five kids didn't speak to my heart. If the blurb said she needed donations because her financial situation had changed, I would have been more sympathetic. It did not. Therefore, while I sympathize with the children, I was unable to support their cause.
Let's be frank with regard to another cause that sought donations. One was for unexpected pregnancies among 16- and 17-year-olds. Either we need to call this a lack in basic sex education or these teens must not have known that when they had sex without using protection, nine months later a bundle of joy might arrive. And, if paternity is known, instead of seeking donations, go to court for child support.
An appropriate donation would have been to the gentleman who worked until his disability made it impossible. He needed donations until his disability money arrived.
Roberta M. Helming - When do we begin to the U.S.A. of China?
Roberta M. Helming - Recapturing U.S.A.
By ROBERTA M. HELMING
Publication: The Day
Published 01/24/2010 12:00 AM
Updated 01/24/2010 06:28 AM
The start of the new year is undeniably a time to reflect on the year and decade just past. We saw history made with President Obama's election. With his presidency has come challenging and difficult issues not only for the president, but for all Americans.
We are living in hard times with many negative, escalating issues, most of them a result of the economy. The hard times beg the questions, how much more unemployment, how many more foreclosures, how many more people will become homeless? This nation has become too dependent on China, borrowing trillions of dollars and buying too many Chinese products.
When do we cease being the U.S.A. and become the U.S. of China?
The future looks bleak. But we are all in this together. For Americans who believed the election of Barack Obama would result in change - don't give up the dream. While it is difficult to remain optimistic, believers must remember that change starts at home - one person at a time reaching out to another - not in Washington. It starts individually, and then collectively, working together to implement change. It's difficult, but feasible.
Pointing fingers doesn't help. The past is just that, the past. Instead, we should create new opportunities that lead to change so that our children and grandchildren realize the strong and great America we once knew.
As the year begins, we should all take steps towards bringing our soldiers home, resettling neighbors who have lost their homes, and feeding the needy and hungry.
By extending a helping hand to someone in need, whether we know them or just know that they are in need, we will do our part to bring the desired change.
But we should work as a team.
The goal - to keep America the strong, independent country it always has been and will continue to be.
By ROBERTA M. HELMING
Publication: The Day
Published 01/24/2010 12:00 AM
Updated 01/24/2010 06:28 AM
The start of the new year is undeniably a time to reflect on the year and decade just past. We saw history made with President Obama's election. With his presidency has come challenging and difficult issues not only for the president, but for all Americans.
We are living in hard times with many negative, escalating issues, most of them a result of the economy. The hard times beg the questions, how much more unemployment, how many more foreclosures, how many more people will become homeless? This nation has become too dependent on China, borrowing trillions of dollars and buying too many Chinese products.
When do we cease being the U.S.A. and become the U.S. of China?
The future looks bleak. But we are all in this together. For Americans who believed the election of Barack Obama would result in change - don't give up the dream. While it is difficult to remain optimistic, believers must remember that change starts at home - one person at a time reaching out to another - not in Washington. It starts individually, and then collectively, working together to implement change. It's difficult, but feasible.
Pointing fingers doesn't help. The past is just that, the past. Instead, we should create new opportunities that lead to change so that our children and grandchildren realize the strong and great America we once knew.
As the year begins, we should all take steps towards bringing our soldiers home, resettling neighbors who have lost their homes, and feeding the needy and hungry.
By extending a helping hand to someone in need, whether we know them or just know that they are in need, we will do our part to bring the desired change.
But we should work as a team.
The goal - to keep America the strong, independent country it always has been and will continue to be.
Roberta M. Helming - Recapturing U.S.A.
Roberta M. Helming: Recapturing U.S.A.
By ROBERTA M. HELMING
Publication: The Day
Published 01/24/2010 12:00 AM
Updated 01/24/2010 06:28 AM
The start of the new year is undeniably a time to reflect on the year and decade just past. We saw history made with President Obama's election. With his presidency has come challenging and difficult issues not only for the president, but for all Americans.
We are living in hard times with many negative, escalating issues, most of them a result of the economy. The hard times beg the questions, how much more unemployment, how many more foreclosures, how many more people will become homeless? This nation has become too dependent on China, borrowing trillions of dollars and buying too many Chinese products.
When do we cease being the U.S.A. and become the U.S. of China?
The future looks bleak. But we are all in this together. For Americans who believed the election of Barack Obama would result in change - don't give up the dream. While it is difficult to remain optimistic, believers must remember that change starts at home - one person at a time reaching out to another - not in Washington. It starts individually, and then collectively, working together to implement change. It's difficult, but feasible.
Pointing fingers doesn't help. The past is just that, the past. Instead, we should create new opportunities that lead to change so that our children and grandchildren realize the strong and great America we once knew.
As the year begins, we should all take steps towards bringing our soldiers home, resettling neighbors who have lost their homes, and feeding the needy and hungry.
By extending a helping hand to someone in need, whether we know them or just know that they are in need, we will do our part to bring the desired change.
But we should work as a team.
The goal - to keep America the strong, independent country it always has been and will continue to be.
By ROBERTA M. HELMING
Publication: The Day
Published 01/24/2010 12:00 AM
Updated 01/24/2010 06:28 AM
The start of the new year is undeniably a time to reflect on the year and decade just past. We saw history made with President Obama's election. With his presidency has come challenging and difficult issues not only for the president, but for all Americans.
We are living in hard times with many negative, escalating issues, most of them a result of the economy. The hard times beg the questions, how much more unemployment, how many more foreclosures, how many more people will become homeless? This nation has become too dependent on China, borrowing trillions of dollars and buying too many Chinese products.
When do we cease being the U.S.A. and become the U.S. of China?
The future looks bleak. But we are all in this together. For Americans who believed the election of Barack Obama would result in change - don't give up the dream. While it is difficult to remain optimistic, believers must remember that change starts at home - one person at a time reaching out to another - not in Washington. It starts individually, and then collectively, working together to implement change. It's difficult, but feasible.
Pointing fingers doesn't help. The past is just that, the past. Instead, we should create new opportunities that lead to change so that our children and grandchildren realize the strong and great America we once knew.
As the year begins, we should all take steps towards bringing our soldiers home, resettling neighbors who have lost their homes, and feeding the needy and hungry.
By extending a helping hand to someone in need, whether we know them or just know that they are in need, we will do our part to bring the desired change.
But we should work as a team.
The goal - to keep America the strong, independent country it always has been and will continue to be.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Keeping food from children is nothing short of abuse
Roberta M. Helming: Keeping food from children is nothing short of abuse
Norwich Bulletin
Posted Sep 22, 2010 @ 11:56 PM
How would you feel if you learned that children were being denied lunch or breakfast at school because they had no money to buy a meal?
I can’t believe the Norwich Board of Education (Sept. 17 Norwich Bulletin) discussed a potential policy change at its Sept. 14 meeting that would, if implemented, stop giving free lunches to children who often come to school without a lunch or money.
The problem is the school’s “oops” lunches that consist of a sandwich and juice, and/or for breakfast, a piece of fruit. “Oops” meals are a free, one per day, snack.
There are no limits as to how many “oops” lunches children may have during the course of the school year. That’s a problem for the board, which is considering putting a limit of no more than three per school year per student. After three, nothing until payment is received. Are they serious?
As a side note, a piece of fruit is not a healthy way to start a day — but it’s better than nothing. A growing child needs breakfast with protein and carbohydrates. Without that, classroom performance suffers. An underfed body equates to an underfed mind, which reduces grades.
OK, I admit it. I’m not a fan of welfare, especially for people having children they can’t afford. Regardless, the children are born, many under never-ending, difficult conditions. The least we as a society can do is scrape together the 40 cents to feed a child whose family doesn’t have the means or who is being raised by irresponsible adults.
There should never be a doubt in a child’s mind that they will be fed at school like all the other children. Even incarcerated criminals get their three meals every day.
Feed first, collect after
If the Norwich Board of Education wants the school system to be reimbursed, that’s fine, but let’s not put the cart before the horse. Feed the children and then seek out answers from parents regarding lack of payment. It’s sad that in America we’re debating whether to feed schoolchildren or let them go hungry.
It’s this kind of depravation that causes children to develop emotional problems. They see themselves being treated differently.
I agree the larger issue — children coming to school without lunches or lunch money — needs to be studied. But resolving the issue needs to have the least negative impact on children — after all, this isn’t their fault.
Just the thought of possibly withholding food from children seems criminal.
To the Norwich Board of Education: You should know better. It was painful to realize you’re even thinking along these lines — abusing children by withholding food.
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard and regular contributor to the Norwich Bulletin. She can be reached at RMHelming@aol.com
Copyright 2010 Norwich Bulletin. Some rights reserved
Norwich Bulletin
Posted Sep 22, 2010 @ 11:56 PM
How would you feel if you learned that children were being denied lunch or breakfast at school because they had no money to buy a meal?
I can’t believe the Norwich Board of Education (Sept. 17 Norwich Bulletin) discussed a potential policy change at its Sept. 14 meeting that would, if implemented, stop giving free lunches to children who often come to school without a lunch or money.
The problem is the school’s “oops” lunches that consist of a sandwich and juice, and/or for breakfast, a piece of fruit. “Oops” meals are a free, one per day, snack.
There are no limits as to how many “oops” lunches children may have during the course of the school year. That’s a problem for the board, which is considering putting a limit of no more than three per school year per student. After three, nothing until payment is received. Are they serious?
As a side note, a piece of fruit is not a healthy way to start a day — but it’s better than nothing. A growing child needs breakfast with protein and carbohydrates. Without that, classroom performance suffers. An underfed body equates to an underfed mind, which reduces grades.
OK, I admit it. I’m not a fan of welfare, especially for people having children they can’t afford. Regardless, the children are born, many under never-ending, difficult conditions. The least we as a society can do is scrape together the 40 cents to feed a child whose family doesn’t have the means or who is being raised by irresponsible adults.
There should never be a doubt in a child’s mind that they will be fed at school like all the other children. Even incarcerated criminals get their three meals every day.
Feed first, collect after
If the Norwich Board of Education wants the school system to be reimbursed, that’s fine, but let’s not put the cart before the horse. Feed the children and then seek out answers from parents regarding lack of payment. It’s sad that in America we’re debating whether to feed schoolchildren or let them go hungry.
It’s this kind of depravation that causes children to develop emotional problems. They see themselves being treated differently.
I agree the larger issue — children coming to school without lunches or lunch money — needs to be studied. But resolving the issue needs to have the least negative impact on children — after all, this isn’t their fault.
Just the thought of possibly withholding food from children seems criminal.
To the Norwich Board of Education: You should know better. It was painful to realize you’re even thinking along these lines — abusing children by withholding food.
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard and regular contributor to the Norwich Bulletin. She can be reached at RMHelming@aol.com
Copyright 2010 Norwich Bulletin. Some rights reserved
We Do Have The Power To Make A Difference: Roberta M. Helming: Keeping food from children is ...
Roberta M. Helming: Keeping food from children is ...: "Roberta M. Helming: Keeping food from children is nothing short of abuse Norwich Bulletin Posted Sep 22, 2010 @ 11:56 PM How would you fee..."
Roberta M. Helming: Racial profiling shouldn’t be an acceptable practice
Roberta M. Helming: Racial profiling shouldn’t be an acceptable practice
For The Norwich Bulletin
Posted May 13, 2010 @ 10:35 PM
Racial profiling, though nothing new and ever present, is at the forefront of the news with Arizona’s controversial law. This law lends itself to blatant racial profiling to ascertain the legality of those from south of the border residing in the United States.
Racial profiling is not new and occurs frequently. Has it now become acceptable and necessary?
We’ve heard and read how being nonwhite could result in being pulled over, removed from a car and interrogated by police. How is this fair when there’s an equal chance that the individual is a legal, law-abiding citizen?
I find myself soul-searching for answers to the moral questions. What tools can we offer law enforcement, especially those in border states, to help them identify those illegally in this country without causing hurt and embarrassment to those who are here legally, but who have been singled out because of facial features? No one deserves that. But how is legality determined without profiling?
It’s very disturbing to be racially profiled when you are a citizen just because you’re from another country. People who look Middle Eastern, for example, face profiling and removal from airports and airplanes because they have a “profiled” terrorist appearance.
It doesn’t matter if they are citizens born and raised here. An appearance of Middle Eastern heritage equates to a precedent for innate fear because of past terrorist acts. But often, action is taken first; innocence to be determined later.
What happen to the premise of innocent until proven guilty? Or is it now unsafe to take a chance and assume innocence? Are innocent lives placed in danger if we do?
Do citizens born and raised in the United State, but who appear to be Hispanic, Middle Eastern, Asian, etc., have to begin redefining and accepting what it means to “look” American, which is continually changing?
Just live with it?
Is subjection to profiling something one must now accept in becoming a citizen, or having been born and raised here, but from a Middle Eastern heritage?
What has the Time Square bombing attempt by an American citizen from Connecticut, of Pakistani decent, done for the furtherance of profiling? Is profiling even more necessary now?
Caucasian American citizens aren’t free of committing terrorists acts — remember the Oklahoma City bomber?
Shouldn’t this equate to racial profiling of caucasians, ensuring that it’s fair to all, and truly random and the reality of all people regardless of race or facial features?
The bottom line: For every terrorist there are far more law-abiding citizens undeserving of profiling. Profiling is a broken system. Is there hope for changing this disturbing, unfair, arbitrary practice?
Is it an unnecessary practice or is it truly needed?
Racial profiling: a conundrum in need of careful evaluation and change.
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard and can be reached at RMHelming@aol.com
Copyright 2010 Norwich Bulletin. Some rights reserved
For The Norwich Bulletin
Posted May 13, 2010 @ 10:35 PM
Racial profiling, though nothing new and ever present, is at the forefront of the news with Arizona’s controversial law. This law lends itself to blatant racial profiling to ascertain the legality of those from south of the border residing in the United States.
Racial profiling is not new and occurs frequently. Has it now become acceptable and necessary?
We’ve heard and read how being nonwhite could result in being pulled over, removed from a car and interrogated by police. How is this fair when there’s an equal chance that the individual is a legal, law-abiding citizen?
I find myself soul-searching for answers to the moral questions. What tools can we offer law enforcement, especially those in border states, to help them identify those illegally in this country without causing hurt and embarrassment to those who are here legally, but who have been singled out because of facial features? No one deserves that. But how is legality determined without profiling?
It’s very disturbing to be racially profiled when you are a citizen just because you’re from another country. People who look Middle Eastern, for example, face profiling and removal from airports and airplanes because they have a “profiled” terrorist appearance.
It doesn’t matter if they are citizens born and raised here. An appearance of Middle Eastern heritage equates to a precedent for innate fear because of past terrorist acts. But often, action is taken first; innocence to be determined later.
What happen to the premise of innocent until proven guilty? Or is it now unsafe to take a chance and assume innocence? Are innocent lives placed in danger if we do?
Do citizens born and raised in the United State, but who appear to be Hispanic, Middle Eastern, Asian, etc., have to begin redefining and accepting what it means to “look” American, which is continually changing?
Just live with it?
Is subjection to profiling something one must now accept in becoming a citizen, or having been born and raised here, but from a Middle Eastern heritage?
What has the Time Square bombing attempt by an American citizen from Connecticut, of Pakistani decent, done for the furtherance of profiling? Is profiling even more necessary now?
Caucasian American citizens aren’t free of committing terrorists acts — remember the Oklahoma City bomber?
Shouldn’t this equate to racial profiling of caucasians, ensuring that it’s fair to all, and truly random and the reality of all people regardless of race or facial features?
The bottom line: For every terrorist there are far more law-abiding citizens undeserving of profiling. Profiling is a broken system. Is there hope for changing this disturbing, unfair, arbitrary practice?
Is it an unnecessary practice or is it truly needed?
Racial profiling: a conundrum in need of careful evaluation and change.
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard and can be reached at RMHelming@aol.com
Copyright 2010 Norwich Bulletin. Some rights reserved
Roberta M. Helming: Give honor to those who defend our country
Roberta M. Helming: Give honor to those who defend our country
By Roberta M. Helming
For The Norwich Bulletin
Posted Jun 04, 2010 @ 12:07 AM
What do you think when you hear the news that a soldier has died in war?
Does it elicit feelings of compassion?
What about Staff Sgt. Edwin Rivera, the father from Waterford who recently died from injuries suffered in Afghanistan, and who will be laid to rest soon. Do the thoughts of the pain his family must be feeling come to mind?
Personally, when I hear of such tragedy, my mind starts to wander and I begin to realize what will never be because of this unique person’s untimely death.
I see a family left behind, devastated. I see children growing up without a parent; parents suddenly without their child; siblings with a void in their heart and grieving grandparents. In a split second, their lives are forever changed, and now they try to make sense of their new world without their loved one.
After more than eight years of war, and the approach to the end of the first decade of the 21st century, we’ve seen a major shift of disinterest in patriotism. Yet, one wonders what continues to speak to the hearts and minds of those who bravely volunteer for the military — and war? It isn’t mandatory.
Going to work
We need to feel grateful for these heroes for whatever it is that makes them want to be in combat. What must it feel like to not know that “going to work” today may be your last trip?
This country is, and always has been, built on the courageous men and women who have fought in wars, making sacrifices, that enable the rest of us to breathe easier, live better lives.
As a sign of gratitude, we really need to become more meaningfully involved in showing support for those putting their lives on the line. We don’t have to dedicate our lives to it, but in some small way we each can make a soldier and his or her family feel that they are recognized as heroes.
Will you start by joining me in remembering our most recent fallen Connecticut soldier with sympathy cards. Encourage family, friends and co-workers to do likewise.
Our community support will mean the world to those who have suffered the loss of our heroic American soldier.
I also invite you to join me in getting friends and families to sign cards for our soldiers serving in foreign lands at Christmas time, a project very dear to my heart. We may not be serving in those wars, but my year-round “Cards for Veterans” program will enable us to show support of those who are. Contact me if you’re interested.
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard. She can be reached at RMHelming@aol.com
Copyright 2010 Norwich Bulletin. Some rights reserved
By Roberta M. Helming
For The Norwich Bulletin
Posted Jun 04, 2010 @ 12:07 AM
What do you think when you hear the news that a soldier has died in war?
Does it elicit feelings of compassion?
What about Staff Sgt. Edwin Rivera, the father from Waterford who recently died from injuries suffered in Afghanistan, and who will be laid to rest soon. Do the thoughts of the pain his family must be feeling come to mind?
Personally, when I hear of such tragedy, my mind starts to wander and I begin to realize what will never be because of this unique person’s untimely death.
I see a family left behind, devastated. I see children growing up without a parent; parents suddenly without their child; siblings with a void in their heart and grieving grandparents. In a split second, their lives are forever changed, and now they try to make sense of their new world without their loved one.
After more than eight years of war, and the approach to the end of the first decade of the 21st century, we’ve seen a major shift of disinterest in patriotism. Yet, one wonders what continues to speak to the hearts and minds of those who bravely volunteer for the military — and war? It isn’t mandatory.
Going to work
We need to feel grateful for these heroes for whatever it is that makes them want to be in combat. What must it feel like to not know that “going to work” today may be your last trip?
This country is, and always has been, built on the courageous men and women who have fought in wars, making sacrifices, that enable the rest of us to breathe easier, live better lives.
As a sign of gratitude, we really need to become more meaningfully involved in showing support for those putting their lives on the line. We don’t have to dedicate our lives to it, but in some small way we each can make a soldier and his or her family feel that they are recognized as heroes.
Will you start by joining me in remembering our most recent fallen Connecticut soldier with sympathy cards. Encourage family, friends and co-workers to do likewise.
Our community support will mean the world to those who have suffered the loss of our heroic American soldier.
I also invite you to join me in getting friends and families to sign cards for our soldiers serving in foreign lands at Christmas time, a project very dear to my heart. We may not be serving in those wars, but my year-round “Cards for Veterans” program will enable us to show support of those who are. Contact me if you’re interested.
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard. She can be reached at RMHelming@aol.com
Copyright 2010 Norwich Bulletin. Some rights reserved
Roberta M. Helming: Take action and save the life of a loved one
Roberta M. Helming: Take action and save the life of a loved one
During a recent visit to one of the local casinos, I was encouraged when a server at one of the bars refused to give an inebriated man more alcohol. It seems the casino has new rules, two drinks per hour. An encouraging first step indeed.
All too often, we’ve read of drunken driving accidents claiming the lives of innocent people. We are surrounded by businesses — and not just the casinos —that continue to serve liquor beyond the point of an individual being legally drunk.
The downside to what I witnessed, however, was a suggestion to the patron to try another casino bar. Quite disturbing indeed, the idea that although denied at one place, he might be given more elsewhere.
While in a convenience store recently, I observed a very large circular container holding ice and drinks. Guess what? There was no water or soda, only bottles and cans of beer. Next to the receptacle was a tiny clear plastic bin containing bottle openers with a sign informing customers they would need one of these.
Do the owners of this business believe that only passengers riding in vehicles are going to avail themselves of a nice cold beer on a hot day? In some states, any open container in a car is illegal. Unfortunately, Connecticut is not one of those states.
Better, not solved
When I was growing up in the 1970s, there were far more alcohol-related fatalities then we see today. That’s the good news. Still, one death caused by someone driving drunk is still one too many.
When I was 18, a co-worker and her husband were killed by a drunken driver on the Fourth of July weekend, an event that left an imprint in my mind and heart since 1982. It made me an opponent of drunken driving. As a country, we have made tremendous progress on that front, but we need to do more. We cannot rely upon police alone.
We need to be a good friend and refuse to allow someone to drink and drive. That is what friends do, isn’t it — look out for the ones we care about?
The summer’s biggest holiday celebration is rapidly approaching, the Fourth of July. Please join me and make a point: If you see someone who shouldn’t be behind the wheel of a car, stop him or her. Don’t allow someone’s anger to sway your decision. There are too many people living with regret and hurt because they did, and sadly, and tragically, a friend or loved one was lost.
Living with the knowledge that a tragedy might have been averted is horribly painful.
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard and can be reached at RMHelming@aol.com
Copyright 2010 Norwich Bulletin. Some rights reserved
During a recent visit to one of the local casinos, I was encouraged when a server at one of the bars refused to give an inebriated man more alcohol. It seems the casino has new rules, two drinks per hour. An encouraging first step indeed.
All too often, we’ve read of drunken driving accidents claiming the lives of innocent people. We are surrounded by businesses — and not just the casinos —that continue to serve liquor beyond the point of an individual being legally drunk.
The downside to what I witnessed, however, was a suggestion to the patron to try another casino bar. Quite disturbing indeed, the idea that although denied at one place, he might be given more elsewhere.
While in a convenience store recently, I observed a very large circular container holding ice and drinks. Guess what? There was no water or soda, only bottles and cans of beer. Next to the receptacle was a tiny clear plastic bin containing bottle openers with a sign informing customers they would need one of these.
Do the owners of this business believe that only passengers riding in vehicles are going to avail themselves of a nice cold beer on a hot day? In some states, any open container in a car is illegal. Unfortunately, Connecticut is not one of those states.
Better, not solved
When I was growing up in the 1970s, there were far more alcohol-related fatalities then we see today. That’s the good news. Still, one death caused by someone driving drunk is still one too many.
When I was 18, a co-worker and her husband were killed by a drunken driver on the Fourth of July weekend, an event that left an imprint in my mind and heart since 1982. It made me an opponent of drunken driving. As a country, we have made tremendous progress on that front, but we need to do more. We cannot rely upon police alone.
We need to be a good friend and refuse to allow someone to drink and drive. That is what friends do, isn’t it — look out for the ones we care about?
The summer’s biggest holiday celebration is rapidly approaching, the Fourth of July. Please join me and make a point: If you see someone who shouldn’t be behind the wheel of a car, stop him or her. Don’t allow someone’s anger to sway your decision. There are too many people living with regret and hurt because they did, and sadly, and tragically, a friend or loved one was lost.
Living with the knowledge that a tragedy might have been averted is horribly painful.
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard and can be reached at RMHelming@aol.com
Copyright 2010 Norwich Bulletin. Some rights reserved
Roberta M. Helming: Put down your phone and focus on the road
Roberta M. Helming: Put down your phone and focus on the road
By ROBERTA M. HELMING
For the Norwich Bulletin
Posted Aug 03, 2010 @ 12:01 AM
Are accidents resulting from cell phone use while driving in danger of surpassing the number of fatalities caused by drunken drivers?
The lead story in the July 27 Norwich Bulletin concerned a new crackdown by police on unsafe — distracted — drivers, a practice that should be a continuous effort. Statistics show that more emphasis needs to be placed specifically on enforcing the ban on driving while using a cell phone.
Cell phone use can be very dangerous, even unintentionally fatal. Distracted drivers are a leading cause of accidents in the United States, whether it be texting or talking, even using hands-free devices.
In 2008, 800,000 Americans were talking or texting on cell phones while driving in the daylight hours. Such distractions resulted in almost 6,000 fatalities, a number slightly more than half the total of drunken driving fatalities for that year. This disturbing trend, if permitted to continue on our roads, will have serious consequences.
Cell phones “arrived” 20 years ago. Cars were invented more than 100 years ago. In one-fifth the time, the combination of the two has quickly outpaced the number of drunken driving fatalities. We should all find that alarming.
Fortunately, tough laws against drunken driving came into being sometime around the 1980s, resulting in reduced numbers of alcohol fatalities. We need the same kind of tough enforcement now for cell phone use by irresponsible and uncaring motorists.
Police and people
We cannot afford to wait. The consequences are just too dire to do so.
But it will take a combination of law enforcement and individual responsibility to avoid what will become unthinkable numbers of cell phone-related fatalities.
Cell phone use while driving is still in its infancy. Motorists have been distracted behind the wheel for years, reading maps and newspapers, eating, adding make-up or combing one’s hair, changing stations on the radio or having deep conversations with passengers.
But even adding all those other distractions together, it doesn’t equal the same level of distraction that cell phone use has had in a short period of time. I don’t know why that is, but I do know the numbers should be a concern to all of us.
Is someone’s life — maybe your own — worth that conversation on a cell phone?
Let’s be safe. Pull over to the side of the road to talk or text. No one deserves the consequence of not doing so, a death or serious injury that could be avoided.
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard and regular contributor to the Norwich Bulletin. She can be reached at RMHelming@aol.com
Copyright 2010 Norwich Bulletin. Some rights reserved
By ROBERTA M. HELMING
For the Norwich Bulletin
Posted Aug 03, 2010 @ 12:01 AM
Are accidents resulting from cell phone use while driving in danger of surpassing the number of fatalities caused by drunken drivers?
The lead story in the July 27 Norwich Bulletin concerned a new crackdown by police on unsafe — distracted — drivers, a practice that should be a continuous effort. Statistics show that more emphasis needs to be placed specifically on enforcing the ban on driving while using a cell phone.
Cell phone use can be very dangerous, even unintentionally fatal. Distracted drivers are a leading cause of accidents in the United States, whether it be texting or talking, even using hands-free devices.
In 2008, 800,000 Americans were talking or texting on cell phones while driving in the daylight hours. Such distractions resulted in almost 6,000 fatalities, a number slightly more than half the total of drunken driving fatalities for that year. This disturbing trend, if permitted to continue on our roads, will have serious consequences.
Cell phones “arrived” 20 years ago. Cars were invented more than 100 years ago. In one-fifth the time, the combination of the two has quickly outpaced the number of drunken driving fatalities. We should all find that alarming.
Fortunately, tough laws against drunken driving came into being sometime around the 1980s, resulting in reduced numbers of alcohol fatalities. We need the same kind of tough enforcement now for cell phone use by irresponsible and uncaring motorists.
Police and people
We cannot afford to wait. The consequences are just too dire to do so.
But it will take a combination of law enforcement and individual responsibility to avoid what will become unthinkable numbers of cell phone-related fatalities.
Cell phone use while driving is still in its infancy. Motorists have been distracted behind the wheel for years, reading maps and newspapers, eating, adding make-up or combing one’s hair, changing stations on the radio or having deep conversations with passengers.
But even adding all those other distractions together, it doesn’t equal the same level of distraction that cell phone use has had in a short period of time. I don’t know why that is, but I do know the numbers should be a concern to all of us.
Is someone’s life — maybe your own — worth that conversation on a cell phone?
Let’s be safe. Pull over to the side of the road to talk or text. No one deserves the consequence of not doing so, a death or serious injury that could be avoided.
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard and regular contributor to the Norwich Bulletin. She can be reached at RMHelming@aol.com
Copyright 2010 Norwich Bulletin. Some rights reserved
Roberta M. Helming: Sometimes technology doesn’t have best answer
Roberta M. Helming: Sometimes technology doesn’t have best answer
By ROBERTA M. HELMING
For the Norwich Bulletin
Posted Sep 08, 2010 @ 10:27 PM
Last update Sep 09, 2010 @ 12:03 AM
It’s September and a new school year has begun.
Each day your child gets on the bus and his or her care and safety are placed in the hands of principals, teachers, aides, etc. But what if your child were being monitored by electronic tracking devices? How long before technology takes over, hence relieving the need for care by principals, teachers, aides, etc.?
Such technology is being studied in the New Canaan school district. It’s called “RFID,” radio frequency strips, a tracking device placed in a backpack or an ID card that enables a student’s whereabouts to be known to school officials at all times. It could be available for voluntary use by high school students as early as the spring of next year.
Jim Kucharczyk, a New Canaan Board of Education member, believes this tracking device will be a new, unimaginable way for children to become familiar with how modern technology works firsthand. Really?
School-age children possess perhaps cell phones, laptops and more — technology they’ve known their entire lives. Children don’t need to know how modern technology works. They’re probably capable of teaching it.
More importantly, what high school student is going to “volunteer” to be monitored? These are high school children, not recent parolees.
For children to learn to be well-adjusted adults, they need to be trusted. This device has the potential to do just the opposite, resulting in psychological issues and rebellious behavior.
Decision maker
A key person making this decision is New Canaan District Transportation Coordinator Roy Walder. He says, in the event of an emergency, the location of the cards will be known. Not the children, the cards. He seems thrilled the school system can “experiment,” and it won’t cost anything. He thinks the price — free — is right, even though it dehumanizes and objectifies children.
This “experiment” shouldn’t be taken lightly. It should be questioned. Children shouldn’t be the free laboratory rats allowing this ludicrous tracking system to come to fruition. Let those responsible for these children do their jobs, just as their predecessors did for many decades.
Unfortunately, sometimes the highly educated don’t realize that just because technology is available, it doesn’t mean that it’s right and we should use it.
As with anything in life, an informed, fact-based decision is key to doing what’s right for children.
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard and regular contributor to the Norwich Bulletin. She can be reached at RMHelming@aol.com
Copyright 2010 Norwich Bulletin. Some rights reserved
By ROBERTA M. HELMING
For the Norwich Bulletin
Posted Sep 08, 2010 @ 10:27 PM
Last update Sep 09, 2010 @ 12:03 AM
It’s September and a new school year has begun.
Each day your child gets on the bus and his or her care and safety are placed in the hands of principals, teachers, aides, etc. But what if your child were being monitored by electronic tracking devices? How long before technology takes over, hence relieving the need for care by principals, teachers, aides, etc.?
Such technology is being studied in the New Canaan school district. It’s called “RFID,” radio frequency strips, a tracking device placed in a backpack or an ID card that enables a student’s whereabouts to be known to school officials at all times. It could be available for voluntary use by high school students as early as the spring of next year.
Jim Kucharczyk, a New Canaan Board of Education member, believes this tracking device will be a new, unimaginable way for children to become familiar with how modern technology works firsthand. Really?
School-age children possess perhaps cell phones, laptops and more — technology they’ve known their entire lives. Children don’t need to know how modern technology works. They’re probably capable of teaching it.
More importantly, what high school student is going to “volunteer” to be monitored? These are high school children, not recent parolees.
For children to learn to be well-adjusted adults, they need to be trusted. This device has the potential to do just the opposite, resulting in psychological issues and rebellious behavior.
Decision maker
A key person making this decision is New Canaan District Transportation Coordinator Roy Walder. He says, in the event of an emergency, the location of the cards will be known. Not the children, the cards. He seems thrilled the school system can “experiment,” and it won’t cost anything. He thinks the price — free — is right, even though it dehumanizes and objectifies children.
This “experiment” shouldn’t be taken lightly. It should be questioned. Children shouldn’t be the free laboratory rats allowing this ludicrous tracking system to come to fruition. Let those responsible for these children do their jobs, just as their predecessors did for many decades.
Unfortunately, sometimes the highly educated don’t realize that just because technology is available, it doesn’t mean that it’s right and we should use it.
As with anything in life, an informed, fact-based decision is key to doing what’s right for children.
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard and regular contributor to the Norwich Bulletin. She can be reached at RMHelming@aol.com
Copyright 2010 Norwich Bulletin. Some rights reserved
Friday, September 24, 2010
Roberta M. Helming - The French Connection
The French Connection
By Roberta M. Helming
When I was transitioning from elementary school to junior high school, I wanted to study French. “No” my counselor told me, “You will need to learn to cook and sew so that you can take care of your husband and children when you grow up.”
I guess it was assumed that because I came from a poor neighborhood I wouldn't stand a chance of going to college since I would be having children instead. In the end I prevailed and studied French for three years.
Fast forward 16 years and along comes the man of my dreams. And guess what? He has a degree in French from a prestigious university. I would have married him for 100 other reasons, but the “French connection” was the clincher.
The moral of my story: Never give up on your dreams because you never know when they will bear fruit. (And you know, he doesn't mind cooking, cleaning and sewing when I give him directions to do so in French.)
On a serious note, my story illustrates the importance of not categorizing children's educational futures based on current socioeconomic status.
Copyright 2008 - All Rights Reserved. This may not be reproduced without the written permission of the author.
By Roberta M. Helming
When I was transitioning from elementary school to junior high school, I wanted to study French. “No” my counselor told me, “You will need to learn to cook and sew so that you can take care of your husband and children when you grow up.”
I guess it was assumed that because I came from a poor neighborhood I wouldn't stand a chance of going to college since I would be having children instead. In the end I prevailed and studied French for three years.
Fast forward 16 years and along comes the man of my dreams. And guess what? He has a degree in French from a prestigious university. I would have married him for 100 other reasons, but the “French connection” was the clincher.
The moral of my story: Never give up on your dreams because you never know when they will bear fruit. (And you know, he doesn't mind cooking, cleaning and sewing when I give him directions to do so in French.)
On a serious note, my story illustrates the importance of not categorizing children's educational futures based on current socioeconomic status.
Copyright 2008 - All Rights Reserved. This may not be reproduced without the written permission of the author.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Roberta M. Helming: Keeping food from children is nothing short of abuse
Norwich Bulletin
Posted Sep 22, 2010 @ 11:56 PM
How would you feel if you learned that children were being denied lunch or breakfast at school because they had no money to buy a meal?
I can’t believe the Norwich Board of Education (Sept. 17 Norwich Bulletin) discussed a potential policy change at its Sept. 14 meeting that would, if implemented, stop giving free lunches to children who often come to school without a lunch or money.
The problem is the school’s “oops” lunches that consist of a sandwich and juice, and/or for breakfast, a piece of fruit. “Oops” meals are a free, one per day, snack.
There are no limits as to how many “oops” lunches children may have during the course of the school year. That’s a problem for the board, which is considering putting a limit of no more than three per school year per student. After three, nothing until payment is received. Are they serious?
As a side note, a piece of fruit is not a healthy way to start a day — but it’s better than nothing. A growing child needs breakfast with protein and carbohydrates. Without that, classroom performance suffers. An underfed body equates to an underfed mind, which reduces grades.
OK, I admit it. I’m not a fan of welfare, especially for people having children they can’t afford. Regardless, the children are born, many under never-ending, difficult conditions. The least we as a society can do is scrape together the 40 cents to feed a child whose family doesn’t have the means or who is being raised by irresponsible adults.
There should never be a doubt in a child’s mind that they will be fed at school like all the other children. Even incarcerated criminals get their three meals every day.
Feed first, collect after
If the Norwich Board of Education wants the school system to be reimbursed, that’s fine, but let’s not put the cart before the horse. Feed the children and then seek out answers from parents regarding lack of payment. It’s sad that in America we’re debating whether to feed schoolchildren or let them go hungry.
It’s this kind of depravation that causes children to develop emotional problems. They see themselves being treated differently.
I agree the larger issue — children coming to school without lunches or lunch money — needs to be studied. But resolving the issue needs to have the least negative impact on children — after all, this isn’t their fault.
Just the thought of possibly withholding food from children seems criminal.
To the Norwich Board of Education: You should know better. It was painful to realize you’re even thinking along these lines — abusing children by withholding food.
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard and regular contributor to the Norwich Bulletin. She can be reached at RMHelming@aol.com
Norwich Bulletin
Posted Sep 22, 2010 @ 11:56 PM
How would you feel if you learned that children were being denied lunch or breakfast at school because they had no money to buy a meal?
I can’t believe the Norwich Board of Education (Sept. 17 Norwich Bulletin) discussed a potential policy change at its Sept. 14 meeting that would, if implemented, stop giving free lunches to children who often come to school without a lunch or money.
The problem is the school’s “oops” lunches that consist of a sandwich and juice, and/or for breakfast, a piece of fruit. “Oops” meals are a free, one per day, snack.
There are no limits as to how many “oops” lunches children may have during the course of the school year. That’s a problem for the board, which is considering putting a limit of no more than three per school year per student. After three, nothing until payment is received. Are they serious?
As a side note, a piece of fruit is not a healthy way to start a day — but it’s better than nothing. A growing child needs breakfast with protein and carbohydrates. Without that, classroom performance suffers. An underfed body equates to an underfed mind, which reduces grades.
OK, I admit it. I’m not a fan of welfare, especially for people having children they can’t afford. Regardless, the children are born, many under never-ending, difficult conditions. The least we as a society can do is scrape together the 40 cents to feed a child whose family doesn’t have the means or who is being raised by irresponsible adults.
There should never be a doubt in a child’s mind that they will be fed at school like all the other children. Even incarcerated criminals get their three meals every day.
Feed first, collect after
If the Norwich Board of Education wants the school system to be reimbursed, that’s fine, but let’s not put the cart before the horse. Feed the children and then seek out answers from parents regarding lack of payment. It’s sad that in America we’re debating whether to feed schoolchildren or let them go hungry.
It’s this kind of depravation that causes children to develop emotional problems. They see themselves being treated differently.
I agree the larger issue — children coming to school without lunches or lunch money — needs to be studied. But resolving the issue needs to have the least negative impact on children — after all, this isn’t their fault.
Just the thought of possibly withholding food from children seems criminal.
To the Norwich Board of Education: You should know better. It was painful to realize you’re even thinking along these lines — abusing children by withholding food.
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard and regular contributor to the Norwich Bulletin. She can be reached at RMHelming@aol.com
Friday, September 17, 2010
Roberta M. Helming: Domestic violence must be unlearned
By ROBERTA M. HELMING
For the Norwich Bulletin
Posted Aug 23, 2010 @ 12:05 AM
A woman sits with blackened eyes, a man with scratches on his face and a child cowers in a closet in fear of being hit again. They are all victims of domestic violence.
In 2008, there were 20,000 domestic violence arrests in Connecticut, yet many experts say it has been — and continues to be — a hidden crime, a crime of near silence.
Women, and even more so men, don’t want to admit they’re a victim. And it’s often out of fear of further abuse that many victims don’t leave their situation. It can go unnoticed for decades — and worse, it teaches children that it’s OK, normal even, to hit family members, and the unthinkable behavior is passed on. Domestic abuse may be a learned behavior; it should never, however, be an excused behavior.
Often, it’s the stress of unthinkable events that can trigger an outburst that escalates into violence.
The Gulf oil spill, for example, devastated people’s lives and livelihoods. There was a noticeable increase in 911 calls for domestic abuse after the realities of the spill started to settle in. Could that have been prevented? Probably, to some degree.
Here in Connecticut, as of July 1, domestic violence laws were made stricter. Shelter hours have been extended and tougher enforcement against offenders put in place. But that doesn’t necessarily solve the problem.
A major component of domestic violence that needs to be considered is psychotherapy, and not just for the victims, but for the perpetrator as well. Until he or she discusses the anger, a perpetrator will be back in the system, having hurt another person.
Jail doesn’t work
No one is born knowing how to beat another person. It is learned behavior, and until it is unlearned, no amount of jail time or tracking devices will help that person, man or woman.
We must protect the victims, but also re-educate the abusers by giving them the tools they need to stop before raising a hand. Encourage them to pick up the phone instead and call a crisis intervention hotline to talk about what’s bothering them.
We need to teach men that they’re still men even when talking about issues of hurt. Teach them that they are more of a man for talking about what’s hurting them, than they would be by hurting someone else.
President Barack Obama, when he visited the devastated Gulf Coast, assured the people there their physical needs would be met. But what about their emotional needs? Just as we need to feed our bodies, we need to do the same with our minds.
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard and regular contributor to the Norwich Bulletin. She can be reached at RMHelming@aol.com
Copyright 2010 Norwich Bulletin. Some rights reserved
By ROBERTA M. HELMING
For the Norwich Bulletin
Posted Aug 23, 2010 @ 12:05 AM
A woman sits with blackened eyes, a man with scratches on his face and a child cowers in a closet in fear of being hit again. They are all victims of domestic violence.
In 2008, there were 20,000 domestic violence arrests in Connecticut, yet many experts say it has been — and continues to be — a hidden crime, a crime of near silence.
Women, and even more so men, don’t want to admit they’re a victim. And it’s often out of fear of further abuse that many victims don’t leave their situation. It can go unnoticed for decades — and worse, it teaches children that it’s OK, normal even, to hit family members, and the unthinkable behavior is passed on. Domestic abuse may be a learned behavior; it should never, however, be an excused behavior.
Often, it’s the stress of unthinkable events that can trigger an outburst that escalates into violence.
The Gulf oil spill, for example, devastated people’s lives and livelihoods. There was a noticeable increase in 911 calls for domestic abuse after the realities of the spill started to settle in. Could that have been prevented? Probably, to some degree.
Here in Connecticut, as of July 1, domestic violence laws were made stricter. Shelter hours have been extended and tougher enforcement against offenders put in place. But that doesn’t necessarily solve the problem.
A major component of domestic violence that needs to be considered is psychotherapy, and not just for the victims, but for the perpetrator as well. Until he or she discusses the anger, a perpetrator will be back in the system, having hurt another person.
Jail doesn’t work
No one is born knowing how to beat another person. It is learned behavior, and until it is unlearned, no amount of jail time or tracking devices will help that person, man or woman.
We must protect the victims, but also re-educate the abusers by giving them the tools they need to stop before raising a hand. Encourage them to pick up the phone instead and call a crisis intervention hotline to talk about what’s bothering them.
We need to teach men that they’re still men even when talking about issues of hurt. Teach them that they are more of a man for talking about what’s hurting them, than they would be by hurting someone else.
President Barack Obama, when he visited the devastated Gulf Coast, assured the people there their physical needs would be met. But what about their emotional needs? Just as we need to feed our bodies, we need to do the same with our minds.
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard and regular contributor to the Norwich Bulletin. She can be reached at RMHelming@aol.com
Copyright 2010 Norwich Bulletin. Some rights reserved
Roberta M. Helming - Solidarity shouldn’t require a tragedy
Roberta M. Helming: Solidarity shouldn’t require a tragedy
By Roberta M. Helming
For the Norwich Bulletin
Posted Sep 16, 2010 @ 12:13 AM
President Barack Obama should make Sept. 11 a permanent national holiday.
Maybe by doing so, we can bring some dignity back to the day. I’m all for people voicing opinions and protesting when necessary, but what we witnessed this past weekend — thousands of people protesting the proposal to build a mosque a few blocks from ground zero — just didn’t seem right.
Those who died in those terrorists attacks deserve to be memorialized. They died as a result of a crime, unwillingly and unknowingly becoming soldiers in the war on terror before the war was even declared.
They deserve some kind of medal, something for family members and friends to look at and know that this country still cares about their loved ones’ sacrifice.
Nine years ago, our country and the world were thrown into a state of confusion, devastation and pain. For the families of the victims, and those who continue to suffer the flashbacks of running into an inferno to save people who couldn’t be saved, their world and their lives were forever changed.
The rest of us had to take stock and redefine our world in terms of this new threat.
We need to remind ourselves it was more than just two tall buildings in New York City. It also was the Pentagon and the passengers on United Airlines flight 93 that crashed in Pennsylvania — all deserve to be recognized as heroes, “soldiers.”
Good out of tragedy
Sept. 11 was horrific. But it also brought out the spirit of America, our tolerance in our accepting people regardless of race, religion, etc. No one was checking that day to see who anyone was before lending a helping hand. It was a day of equality that seems today to be only possible in extreme circumstances — and who wants that.
And let us not forget the thousands who survived. They, too, should be honored because they, too, lost something that day. Even nine years later, many haven’t yet been able to move on.
Instead of waiting to care about Sept. 11 when Sept. 11 rolls around each year, we need to recapture the spirit that was that day, and the unity that showed itself in the days after — and try and do that every day.
Sept. 11, 2001 proved that ultimately none of the things that divide us really matters when it comes to saving lives in a tragedy. We should ask ourselves, why should it take a tragedy?
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard and regular contributor to the Norwich Bulletin. She can be reached at RMHelming@aol.com
Copyright 2010 Norwich Bulletin. Some rights reserved
By Roberta M. Helming
For the Norwich Bulletin
Posted Sep 16, 2010 @ 12:13 AM
President Barack Obama should make Sept. 11 a permanent national holiday.
Maybe by doing so, we can bring some dignity back to the day. I’m all for people voicing opinions and protesting when necessary, but what we witnessed this past weekend — thousands of people protesting the proposal to build a mosque a few blocks from ground zero — just didn’t seem right.
Those who died in those terrorists attacks deserve to be memorialized. They died as a result of a crime, unwillingly and unknowingly becoming soldiers in the war on terror before the war was even declared.
They deserve some kind of medal, something for family members and friends to look at and know that this country still cares about their loved ones’ sacrifice.
Nine years ago, our country and the world were thrown into a state of confusion, devastation and pain. For the families of the victims, and those who continue to suffer the flashbacks of running into an inferno to save people who couldn’t be saved, their world and their lives were forever changed.
The rest of us had to take stock and redefine our world in terms of this new threat.
We need to remind ourselves it was more than just two tall buildings in New York City. It also was the Pentagon and the passengers on United Airlines flight 93 that crashed in Pennsylvania — all deserve to be recognized as heroes, “soldiers.”
Good out of tragedy
Sept. 11 was horrific. But it also brought out the spirit of America, our tolerance in our accepting people regardless of race, religion, etc. No one was checking that day to see who anyone was before lending a helping hand. It was a day of equality that seems today to be only possible in extreme circumstances — and who wants that.
And let us not forget the thousands who survived. They, too, should be honored because they, too, lost something that day. Even nine years later, many haven’t yet been able to move on.
Instead of waiting to care about Sept. 11 when Sept. 11 rolls around each year, we need to recapture the spirit that was that day, and the unity that showed itself in the days after — and try and do that every day.
Sept. 11, 2001 proved that ultimately none of the things that divide us really matters when it comes to saving lives in a tragedy. We should ask ourselves, why should it take a tragedy?
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard and regular contributor to the Norwich Bulletin. She can be reached at RMHelming@aol.com
Copyright 2010 Norwich Bulletin. Some rights reserved
Monday, August 2, 2010
Roberta M. Helming: Profiling spoils fun of online shopping
By the Norwich Bulletin
Posted Jul 04, 2010 @ 11:28 PM
About nine months ago, while purchasing textbooks online from Amazon.com for college-based psychology courses, I received an offer on my computer screen linking me to online psychiatric services.
I was being offered these services not by coincidence or accident. Amazon has been profiling me.
I was studying topics in psychology and naively purchasing textbooks through Amazon, a well-known online retailer. For me, it was not unlike going into a store and buying a book. Amazon’s prices were right, and this is business in the 21st century.
Unfortunately, as I’ve learned, there are obvious drawbacks. I was buying books, but what was I giving up in the bargain? Something much more costly. Because my “profile” was based on my purchases, I was now being targeted for services based on that and not my needs.
What if I needed psychiatric services? Would I want to get that from an online service? I’d find it problematic to e-mail my thoughts to some unknown person in the wide open, nonprivate cyber world. Do they have credentials? How about true quality of services? Facial expressions and body language, important elements in therapy, are lost with online dialogue.
And to whom am I really speaking? And what are they doing with my information?
Shared information
Who knows what other online companies Amazon — and no doubt others — are sharing (selling?) our information with? What will be done with it — a profile of an individual not based in fact but rather on the choices of his or her purchases?
We’ve all heard the warnings, the potential dangers lurking on the Internet, but really, how often do we think about it? We don’t know who’s listening, how they’re interpreting it —and what they are doing with our information. Or even, how it may come back some day to bite us in future endeavors.
It’s dangerous when an online company starts dabbling in fields outside their expertise. Amazon may be a qualified bookseller, but psychiatric or medical services referrals? They should stick to what they know and stop playing games that could prove dangerous to people and their lives. An unhealthy mind is something that should be dealt with by a licensed, trained professional, with services rendered in an office — not via e-mail.
The Internet is a wonderful tool offering a vast array of information as well as convenience and ease for consumers. But when you’re being profiled, that ease becomes an uneasy feeling — and convenience suddenly becomes uncomfortable.
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard. Reach her at RMHelming@aol.com.
Copyright 2010 Norwich Bulletin. Some rights reserved
By the Norwich Bulletin
Posted Jul 04, 2010 @ 11:28 PM
About nine months ago, while purchasing textbooks online from Amazon.com for college-based psychology courses, I received an offer on my computer screen linking me to online psychiatric services.
I was being offered these services not by coincidence or accident. Amazon has been profiling me.
I was studying topics in psychology and naively purchasing textbooks through Amazon, a well-known online retailer. For me, it was not unlike going into a store and buying a book. Amazon’s prices were right, and this is business in the 21st century.
Unfortunately, as I’ve learned, there are obvious drawbacks. I was buying books, but what was I giving up in the bargain? Something much more costly. Because my “profile” was based on my purchases, I was now being targeted for services based on that and not my needs.
What if I needed psychiatric services? Would I want to get that from an online service? I’d find it problematic to e-mail my thoughts to some unknown person in the wide open, nonprivate cyber world. Do they have credentials? How about true quality of services? Facial expressions and body language, important elements in therapy, are lost with online dialogue.
And to whom am I really speaking? And what are they doing with my information?
Shared information
Who knows what other online companies Amazon — and no doubt others — are sharing (selling?) our information with? What will be done with it — a profile of an individual not based in fact but rather on the choices of his or her purchases?
We’ve all heard the warnings, the potential dangers lurking on the Internet, but really, how often do we think about it? We don’t know who’s listening, how they’re interpreting it —and what they are doing with our information. Or even, how it may come back some day to bite us in future endeavors.
It’s dangerous when an online company starts dabbling in fields outside their expertise. Amazon may be a qualified bookseller, but psychiatric or medical services referrals? They should stick to what they know and stop playing games that could prove dangerous to people and their lives. An unhealthy mind is something that should be dealt with by a licensed, trained professional, with services rendered in an office — not via e-mail.
The Internet is a wonderful tool offering a vast array of information as well as convenience and ease for consumers. But when you’re being profiled, that ease becomes an uneasy feeling — and convenience suddenly becomes uncomfortable.
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard. Reach her at RMHelming@aol.com.
Copyright 2010 Norwich Bulletin. Some rights reserved
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)