Prove it.
Who said anything about hate? Religions teach people to hate. I’m not religious.
Now that was just stupid. Are you really trying to say that people who are not religious aren’t capable of hate?
naturally, that cannot be proven, for there is no case where a poor black female child was kidnapped, got national exposure about the case, and was returned after many months, having been kidnapped by a homeless handyman her parents had hired.
however, that being said, where’s the made for TV movie about the Florida child who disappeared while under Florida’s foster child program?
to return to the main issue - anything anyone wants to claim re: Smarts’ book, negotiating w/major press etc could be accomplished without parading their daughter around. Her picture was everywhere when she was still missing. However, it’s been several months now, she could have grown several inches, gained/lost substantial amount of weight, cut her hair, dyed her hair, any number of things that the general public would not have known about had the Smarts kept her off the camera, as they had total power to do.
they’ve continued to opt for keeping her before the public eye. How on earth is that a ‘normal teenagers’ life?
No, I’m just saying YOU said I hate Mormons. I don’t hate Mormons, I just don’t believe the same things they do. If my opinion differs with your opinion then you assume I hate you? I think you may have had a little bit too much religious influence in your younger years, you might need to be de-programmed.
There was a case back about the same time-frame that the young Smart girl was abducted that involved a black child. I believe she was returned unharmed after several days. I have looked for websites, but I can’t find the particular case. This is all imbedded in my memory because I was watching the Van Dam trial about this same time-frame. Another sad and very unfortunate case that was, what a shame.
Hmmmm no, actually you implied that you don’t hate because you are not religious.
I am not going to argue against the blonde white child compared to a poor black child because I believe it is true - to a point. However, the Smarts threw a press conference EVERY. SINGLE. DAY. whether or not the press showed up to record it. They continued forming search parties long after the officials called them off. They contacted the media themselves to make statements and status reports and all but insisted they be printed or reported. If it wasn’t for the Smarts, the press would have long forgotten Elizabeth and gone onto something else.
I have to wonder how active the families in those other cases were in keeping their children in the press.
Why does it surprise anyone that movies are being made? The case was extraordinary in that she was kidnapped from her bed by drifters and then found alive months later. Shit like that doesn’t happen everyday.
The Smarts have made it very clear that they have kept Elizabeth out of the public eye and have left it entirely up to her to make the decision whether or not to grant an interview. Those interviews have been few and far between. They are not dragging her out in front of the camera.
Until very recently, she HAS been out of public eye, even here in Salt Lake City.
Most importantly, it has also been suggested that Elizabeth feels that showing herself to the public, that she is not some poor jaded victim that should be pitied, but instead a strong and determined young lady is helping her heal. It was that same determination that made her march up the mountain and face the hole in the ground where she was tied up, abused, and raped. She is obviously an amazing girl.
I think it is sad that some of you are passing judgment and feel that she should instead hide away out of public view instead of doing what she feels she needs to do.
“kept her out of public eye” statement is incompatable with Katie Couric/Oprah etc interviews.
“we let her decide” Sorry, again, it’s in the parents control over if she’s been put on display. They’ve made the choice.
They’re (IMHO) being dishonest when they claim to want her out of the public eye, at the same time as arranging for interviews w/national audience, made for tv movie deals and a book.
You apparently think well of them, that’s fine. I don’t.
I didn’t see the Oprah interview, but Katie clearly stated on her special that the choice for Elizabeth to be interviewed was left entirely up to her (Elizabeth). The family also stated on that same television show that the choice is left to their daughter and if she does not want to be seen or interviewed, she would not be.
Everything I have heard and read locally says the same thing. That the Smarts are leaving that decision up to her and that under no cercumstances will she be seen or interviewed without her complete consent.
I still don’t see any evidence that her family is parading her for public view and I certainly see no problem with her wanting to show everyone that she is strong and determined to go on. Especially when it is reported to be helping her emotionally.
Even though Oprah and Katie helped you find your missing daughter, you’d tell them to kindly fuck off. Fair enough. You don’t feel you owe them anything. And I would support you 100%, because it would be your prerogative to handle things however you’d like. After all, it is YOUR life, YOUR anguish, YOUR family.
The Smarts have chosen to go a different path. No matter what they do, their family will NEVER be the same. And in a few months, Elizabeth will get up on that witness stand and tell what happened to her in graphic details to the world. And books will be written without her consent, and movies will be made without her consent and people will devote entire talk shows to her and why she did this and why she didn’t do that. Maybe, just maybe her parents released this book and are cooperating in the making of the t.v. movie because this is the last time Elizabeth will have ANY power over what is written about her. In other words, maybe an offense is the strongest defense they can give her. Because the media in this country is relentless.
Once again, I give my unwavering support to the Smarts and Elizabeth because they were VICTIMS. One thing I learned when I trained to be a rape crisis counselor is that there is NO “wrong” reaction. However they want to act is their prerogative. I cannot insinuate my values, my beliefs, my reactions onto them and make judgements because I wouldn’t handle the situation the same way they did. I have more compassion than that and I am not so egocentric to think that MY way of thinking is the only right way to think.
A implies B therefore not B implies not A?
May I suggest a Logic 101 class for you?
Diane. I say that the position of ‘wanting to keep her out of the public eye so she can return to normalcy’ and allowing her to be interviewed on national tv are incompatable. Even if she says “she really really wants to”.
you disagree. I understand. I still see them as using their daughter’s situation for their own ends, and doing something that IMHO is not in her best interest, and certainly incompatable with their position of wanting to keep her out of the public eye.
again - had they not done this, most of American wouldn’t have known that she still had long hair, and looked physically much the same. Without constant reminders of what she looks like, maybe, just maybe, some folks might forget what she looks like and not be inclined to stare etc. But we’ll not know now 'cause they’ve insured that we still know what she looks like.
Obviously. And I think they’ve chosen poorly. I do not require that they agree with me, but on the other hand, I’m not going to gladhand a decision I think is poor because “they’re victims and I will support whatever they choose 'cause there’s no wrong way”
I’m not ‘egocentric’ and thinking that my was is the ‘only right way’. But I am saying that the position of ‘wanting to allow her to get back to normal’ and having her go on national interviews are incompatable. they conflict. they do not achieve the same purpose.
I also disagree with the position that there is no ‘wrong’ reaction. IME, the a child who’s been sexually assaulted, a ‘wrong’ reaction would be to tell the child to ‘just forget it ever happened’, for example. And I would encourage a change in that reaction. And I would voice my opinion that it there were potential bad ramifications from such a position. and if it were a thread here, I’d be saying the parents in that case were wrong.
I understand and don’t have a problem w/you or Diane not being upset with their actions. I simply don’t agree with you, and have specific rationals for my position, other than the ‘whatever they want to do is fine w/me, it’s their right’ type of thought. Again - you feel that way, that’s fine. They feel that way, fine. I simply do not agree that their actions are either consistent with the idea of allowing their child to get back to ‘normal’ or in what I personally would think in a generalized way, are in the girls best interest (since none of us know her personally).
now, I suspect you’ll latch onto that last thought and point out that the parents are in the best position to determine what’s in their daughters’ best interest, and generally I’d agree.
However - a. The interviews are clearly (to me) inconsistent w/the back to normal, not in limelight thing and b. for them to continually point out “we let her make the decision about it” allows me to point out that, well, she’s a minor and it’s really your decision about what’s in her best interest, and to abdicate that in this situation makes me more suspicious.
she’s a child still. and that’s why we have laws about parents making the hard decisions for their kids.
I let my son (at that age) choose to dye his hair green. Why? cause I thought that it wouldn’t do any long term damage that I could forsee. I did not allow him to get tatooed at that age, either, even though he expressed an interest in one. Why? because it was permanent vs. temporary, and would therefore have potential to have longer term consequences.
I made that decision. 'cause I was the parent. Other parents in the same situation may have chosen differently, fine. OTher parents would have chosen the easy way out by saying “he wanted to, so I said yes”.
wring - How do you feel about Elizabeth’s wish to show herself as a strong and healing person and less of the pitiful victim? What if she told you that showing people this part of her is helping her heal?
That is what she has stated, and again, I have not seen any proof that her family has forced her into the few interviews she has granted but instead left the choice entirely up to her.
If she were my daughter, I would tell her “I know that you are a strong person. And I’m proud of you. And I will issue your statement for you. But I feel very strongly that this is the time for you to heal, and allow you to get back to being the wonderful, cherished person you are, but not a public figure. I want you to be able to walk in the mall without feeling stared at, or see your face staring back at you from the tabloids. and the best way I know how to achieve that is to allow no public access to you directly. When you’re 18, you may choose to go public again. But I want you to have the option now of remaining out of the public eye”.
'cause as the parent, I’m supposed to make the hard choices, even when they really want something different.
Pundit Lisa
But why did Oprah and Katie “help” to find this kid? Was it out of the goodness of their hearts? Or were they running with a juicy story in the hopes to boost ratings? Perhaps I’m just being an overly cynical Gen-Xer, but I wouldn’t feel too beholden to people who are only “helping” me because it profits them. The Smarts don’t owe the media jack, IMHO.
You don’t feel you owe them anything. And I would support you 100%, because it would be your prerogative to handle things however you’d like. After all, it is YOUR life, YOUR anguish, YOUR family.
Ignore last paragraph.
With all due respect (seriously)… bullshit.
You say that there is no wrong reaction to traumatic circumstances… I say that you’re wrong. Would you say that a suicide attempt is a healthy reaction to trauma? How about a drinking binge? How about yelling at random strangers on the street? Would you also give “unwavering support” for these? I would hope that, if you were an effective crisis counselor, you would place limits on which coping mechanisms were healthy, and which were destructive.
Self-destructive behavior is a wrong reaction. Wallowing in victimhood is a wrong reaction. The Smarts’ placing slices of their daughter’s tragedy under the world’s microscope over and over again is a wrong reaction.
You say that you give “unwavering support” for the Smarts and their choices. Bully for you. For myself, I find that I can’t, and won’t, support parents who abuse their child’s tragedy the way the Smarts have. If they were actually trying to keep Elizabeth out of the limelight, they would have my support. Instead, they give lip service to the idea of minimizing her exposure while their actions have the exact opposite effect. The proof in the pudding is this discussion: we wouldn’t be having it if not for the Oprah special and the Katie Couric special and the cover of People magazine that features them, sitting on grocery store shelves this very night. Elizabeth’s parents not giving her the chance to get past it, because they keep dwelling on it… and more, they put her under the microscope of the world so that jerks like me can talk about her.
Except, I hope you’ll note, I’m not talking about her. I’m certainly not going to criticize Elizabeth for the errors of her parents. In fact, I have nothing but the utmost respect for Elizabeth herself. She strikes me as a strong girl. After all she went through… I can’t even imagine it, honestly. I wish her nothing but the best.
One of the things that I wish for her is that her parents come to their senses and pull her out of the spotlight they’ve placed her in. As wring points out, the book deal, the TV appearances, the People magazine interview, and now (I’m so disgusted that I was right) TV movies on the way… all of these things directly contradict the supposed effort to “keep her out of the limelight.” The Smarts are basically ensuring that their daughter stays in the limelight for a long time to come.
I find it completely twisted that the Elizabeth Smart they want us to remember is Elizabeth Smart: VICTIM. They pound it into our brains over and over again, and it disgusts me. The info-tainment that is our “news” outlets is only too ready to exploit this, but it is the parents’ choice which allows it to happen. It’s time for Elizabeth’s parents to move on, and allow Elizabeth herself the chance to grow beyond her victimhood and become Elizabeth Smart: Young Woman. I’m not saying it’s going to be an easy road for her, but her parents aren’t giving her the chance to even embark upon that road. She deserves a chance to heal. She needs the freedom to move on. Her parents are denying it to her, over and over again.
I hope for better for her. Much better.
But that’s the thing, she isn’t your daughter.
Everyone is different. Neither you nor I know the family personally. How can either one of us presume to know what is right for their daughter?
The parents and her therapist feel that her showing herself to the public (at her own disgression) as a strong person is helping her to heal. Everything I have read and heard about Elizabeth, it certainly appears that it is indeed helping her.
Who are we to say that they are wrong?
Who do I need to be?
Diane, I understand the general concept of “helping her to heal”, I just don’t understand how it works- how is appearing on Oprah helping her to heal? What specific part of her trauma does a made-for-TV-movie address?