Candy on the McCaskill/Gally Mess

I'm putting down in here what Candy commented recently in one of my blog post a few days ago about the whole McCaskill and Gally fiasco that's quickly becoming a sinkhole. I put her comment in here since hers was a long one.  Her comment came in three installments which deserves a better coverage in the main part of my blog. Though she's not ready to blog but this one here is close enough right now and when (and if) she does blog again the audience out there will still be waiting for her.

FYI, the links below are my own and not Candy's as a matter of clarification. Apologies for the insertion and links. I hope she doesn't mind.

===========================

By Candy.


I applaud anyone who writes about what really happen, they are the ones that do not sugarcoat what really happened. Just because the article does not shine a nice light on the individual who works at Gallaudet, or any of Mike's old article on Gallaudet, does not mean Mike is a "Gallaudet hater." The article does not reflect Gallaudet as a whole, however it does reflect the problems that beset Gallaudet. Rapes on campus is a major concern, yet, deaf people who think that by shhh-ing the real problem will make it go away. Not true at all. Deaf people who think that just because someone talks about what is bad about Gallaudet means the person hates Gallaudet. Not true at all. When we bring real problems out front, it enables us to see what we can do to resolve it. I see Mike's negative report on certain aspects of real life happenings on Gallaudet to reflect his concern for his alma mater. If you don't see it that way, tough poop. At least you should be honest and tell yourself that it is a problem. To NOT talk about it is a reflection of your DENIAL. Plain and simple. Dr. Angela McCaskill is not going to withhold information so that the ongoing problems continue. It takes COURAGE for someone to come out and tell the truth. If you love something or someone, tell the truth, no matter how bad it is.

Now..let's focus on what Angela said. She said,

"She (MJB) assumed my signature meant that I was anti-gay. No one has a right to decide what my signature petition means. Only I can do that."

When one holds a position of a diversity officer or any position that is equivalent to EEO and diversity, let me tell you that no one is immune from any bias. Her position has no bearing. If Angela has had past actions that reflected her personal views affecting her job, then it would have been very telling. Many people hold positions covering certain area that conflicts with their personal beliefs, yet many are able to keep the two separate. Some were not able to and thus were not fit for certain jobs. Angela has never stated what her views are on Marriage Equality and she will never tell us and she has a right to keep that information private. I signed a petition once on an issue which I disagred with, but I wanted voters to decide. Does it mean that I supported that issue? No.

Let's suppose (what if) CDO position is up for grabs. Several prospect applicants applied for it. Interview is conducted. I can tell you that the law DOES NOT ALLOW questions that asks about a person's personal beliefs. Which means it would be against the law to ask a person if he/she supports Marriage Equality. Ergo, you all will NEVER know what the new CDO's position on ME will be unless he/she decides to divulge that information. IT IS AGAINST the law to ASK such questions. Don't believe me? Look it up yourself. I used to be an EEO Counselor and received training. We were required to keep our personal beliefs out of our job. If we couldn't or if evidence showed we did not, we would have lost our job. If we were to sign a petition out of our work place and hours, we would not have been punished. These are facts regardless of your personal view on whether or not a CDO can sign such petition or not.

Let's move on to a much more revealing information that Dr. Angela McCaskill shared. She said,

"I quickly looked back to the protest of 2006 (see video on Unity for Gallaudet with MJ Bienvenu in it). Several radical people pushed the students to the front to debate student's agenda. It was not the student's agenda. It was not student's agenda back then and it is not student's agenda now."

(see video of that remark starting at the 4:39 time stamp).

Who are the people that pushed the students to the front during the 2006 protest - the Unity For Gallaudet protest? It's easy to see who she is referring to. She is referring to faculty members. Several faculty members = who? If we remember which faculty was very involved, we would remember that it was MJB. I personally was told MJB was the one who spearheaded the protest by an individual who worked on campus and by another individual who had contact with faculties and staffs on campus. I did not have rock hard solid evidence, but hearsay, back then..that is, until Dr. Angela McCaskill revealed that information during the press conference.

MJB and other radical and/or extremist faculty members are the ones that are very into deafhood and, they are the ones that took advantage of the students by pushing them out front to make it look like it was the students agenda to protest during 2006.

It would be suffice to say that MJB and her fellow faculty members whom are radical/extremist were the ones that put Gallaudet at risk and Gallaudet was at risk of losing their accreditation after the protest in 2006.

They could very well be the ones that were causing a lot of chaos on campus, pushing students to bully and harass those who use their voices on campus, and so on.

It would make sense that these radical professionals were against someone who wanted to embrace all deaf people and supported changes that is inevitable, such as the rise of cochlear implants and allowing war vets to be part of Gallaudet. It now makes more sense why they were against JKF.

What is interesting is that MJB and her partner immediately wrote a letter to Dr. Hurwitz and demanded that Dr. McCaskill be fired. Dr. McCaskill proposed (she was thinking of Gallaudet and the students) to offer a campus wide dialogue on that situation instead. But, Dr. Hurwitz was pressured by MJB and her partner. One can only surmise what the pressure was, considering that MJB played a big role during the protest of 2006.

Several employees of Gallaudet have confirmed that MJB did not like Dr. McCaskill and was jealous of her. These same employees say that there is more to the story and that McCaskill was being bullied by certain faculty members.

Reading the comments at Rate My Professor, at least four comments over there is revealing and backs up with what I have said.

If MJB really cared for Gallaudet, she would have worked with Dr. Hurwitz and Dr. McCaskill and participated in a campus-wide dialogue to resolve this situation. Instead, a deaf-gay publication broke the news. You want to guess who tipped that media off?

We knew that deafhood ideology and deafhood radicals were behind the protest of 2006. Now we have stronger evidence of such. 
============================


This is Kokonut Pundit responding here. I am now scratching my head with this old-new info.

My lost video...resurfaced!

This is an old video (with subtitle) response to Deaf Pundit's, aka Jeannette Johnson, comment that I've long forgotten. Never bothered to put my video up on YouTube the day after she mentioned about a blog I did and "Candy's" back in June 2011 with her comments in one of Deaf Jeff's blog piece. Needless to say, it was something that made me shake my head with incredulity and a raised eyebrow. So, once again, if you're curious go ahead and see my video.

Maligned for hate sake

What is really odd is how one person makes the claim that by "pushing" (e.g. making it personal by calling Gina "GAS" as in YouTube's "GAS in the flesh" subject line instead of calling by her proper name) against Gina would ensure that "unity" will somehow magically occur in the Deaf community. It is certainly surreal to suggest that "unity" would work by outing people by harassing them, making online threats or expose their physical or online identities. It wouldn't make any sense to say that "pushing" will work for the sake of "unity." Rather, I see all this "pushing" as an excise in grudge mongering and a bit of hate in the process. Nothing more. All it was is that ASLeslie found a video of Gina in Fookembug's YouTube channel that was 2 years old and decided to parade it around and expose Gina's physical identity. That was the goal.  Even knowing after the fact that her employer was contacted in the effort to out Gina's identity and hoping to harm her employment. It was nothing more than an example of a bit of hate mongering by making it personal towards an individual he or she doesn't like. To say it any other way would be disingenuous and dishonest.

I've read Gina's blogs and saw no indication of her putting down the Deaf community or even ASL given the fact that she was born deaf and into a culturally deaf family. She is in fact a part of the Deaf community. I see her as having strong opinions on a variety of subjects or issues that can evoke strong feelings among many Deaf people (e.g. the AB2072 bill). Many confuse having a strong opinion on a particular Deaf-related topic as "putting down the Deaf community" whenever Gina opines or notes the discrepancies based on her observations as a culturally deaf person. Many Deaf people have agreed with her, many didn't.

The same goes for ASL.

I saw nothing of the sort from Gina of her "putting down ASL." In fact, even DonG admitted that he does tend to sign in English word order ("PSE") and not in the ASL sense which was Gina's point all along in one of her blog and nothing about putting ASL down. Instead she gave examples of why ASL is not ASL whenever people make the claim of signing in ASL. DonG is a perfect example of signing in English word order. So is my signing. And many others who in the same boat as we are. That's not putting down ASL or labeling but about making observations about ASL and those who sign.

For a person to make online claims without showing any examples of what Gina said or wrote does not strengthen an argument but rather it weakens a claim considerably. It makes the person look even more petty. And people will see that as nothing but hot air. All in all I say it's pretty odd and strange for those who say that by "pushing" others in order for them to "come clean" by twisting and lying will ensure "unity" in a Deaf community. I'm sure it won't. And it certainly won't help in the deaf and hard of hearing community either by any stretch of the imagination.

The Death of Deafread

I just find it funny whenever the words like "balderdash" and "poppycock" are expressed, especially if its done with a British accent. There are many synonyms that go with it like "flapdoodle," or "humbuggery" which is just as funny. So are the words like "crapola," "crock," "drivel," "fiddlesticks," "rubbish," "hokum," "hooey," "malarkey," "tosh," "piffle," "taradiddle," and, probably my favorite, "twaddle" because it sounds so funny when one says it. Why am I bringing up those words? Well, in a word, Deafread. Or more specifically it's the moaning and gnashing over Deafread's aggregator site and how it supposedly cause the a-wordism to overflow. The problem is that it's an aggregator site. It does not discriminate. In fact, there is a disclaimer saying,

"DeafRead does not endorse any of the blogs by the mere act of publishing."

Secondly, it publishes anything that's related to hearing loss, Deaf culture, deafness issues and so on. No where does it says "Deaf people only" or "Deaf culture only" in bright pink neon letters. And so these frothing of mouths over what Deafread publishes is a bunch of, well, twaddle. The idea of Deafread is to allow a variety of viewpoints, opinions, experiences, and perspectives to be published by bloggers and vloggers who are either hard of hearing or deaf, or have a connection to those people. There are bound to be unpopular opinions, perspectives and viewpoints to be blogged. That just goes with the territory.

Lately I haven't been keeping up with all the readings over the last few months and I'm a bit behind on what's going on. It's like riding a roller coaster. You just want to get off for awhile and have a picnic on a green grass by the lake for a calm and peaceful moment.  Do I want to get back on that roller coaster? Not really but I do have my own thoughts and opinions on a lot of things and so I blog.  Just recently someone told me to go and check out Jeff's blog. I asked why but told me to check it out anyway. And so I did. Nothing unusual. Just that Jeff is being Jeff. Just a lot of bitching. And he has every right to say what's on his mind, however cryptic it may be. I wasn't sure where to look but I suspect it had to do with what started the conversation was J.J.'s comment on Deafread, myself and Candy on the problem of trying to enforce a-wordism in an aggregator site. That was confirmed by my friend when I asked for clarification if this is what he was referring to. The discussion continues with Jeff, Deafpundit, Dianrez, Ann, and a few others jumping in. From the looks of it comes down to is people somehow trying to find a way to control Tayler's Deafread. That sort of thing has been going on for some time.

First there was a group of Deaf people that wanted to get rid of "deficit thinkers" from Deafread in order to control views seen and heard in the Deaf community via Deafread aggregator site beginning in 2007.

They tried that and....failed.

Another year passed and suddenly a new idea on the effort to control Deafread's content and that was to try and force Tayler Mayer to institute guidelines in DR by implementing the "a" word. And attempt to heap social guilt on him. But Tayler realized it'd be an impossible job to enforce that concept because there is no acceptable definition and it was just a cover.

They tried that and.... failed.

So after three years of trying to control Deafread people as a last resort boycotted DR by walking out as bloggers who were once linked in the Deafread aggregator list.

And so what I'm seeing is another round of discussions on finding ways to try and control Tayler's Deafread aggregator's site according to their demands.  Yet Ann makes a good counter point.

There's the other side of the coin, Jeffrey.

There are some Deaf-centric ppl who actually criticize and deride those deaf who choose to hear and speak. Mind you, I KNOW I'm deaf and don't pretend to be otherwise. Yet I don't go around criticizing those who use ASL and are culturally Deaf as inferior.

The prob is that some ppl, regardless of language preference and hearing technology or not, cannot respect the choices others make for themselves and are comfortable with. That's what it comes down to.

There would have to a "deafism" guideline, if an *udism guideline is to be adopted in DR.

Fair's fair, but oh, what a headache to enforce such guidelines...

Just because I don't discuss ASL/sign language in such breadth and detail with lofty praises does not mean I have a disdain for it even though I do sign. Even my daughter signs. Ditto my wife. And even my friends whether they sign in SEE, PSE, SE, or ASL.  Granted, I am comfortable speaking and listening, and I prefer that communication route because that is what I do daily with my other friends, relatives, family, co-workers and people in general as well. I have my preferences and nothing about superiority.  If that were the case then I wouldn't have friends in the Deaf community. I simply would not want to interact with them. Remember, having a preference does not equate with superiority. Just because I see things differently does not mean that the Deaf community ought to be extirpated or that ASL be vanquished or shunned. I just have a differing viewpoint and perspective on these things, and the people I wish to associate with in the deaf and hard of hearing community, and Deaf community. There are people who do not like my blogs. And then there are people who do like my blogs. These people happen to be Deaf, deaf, hard of hearing and hearing. Nothing new there.

This is a problem on the internet because it's easy to judge people from behind a screen and thus I must remind myself constantly the caveats of using the internet versus meeting people in person which can result in a totally different perspective about the person. Each person who reads a blog read it differently than the next person. The reader forms a picture about the blogger. And if it's something that the reader doesn't like about the blog piece for whatever reason it can leave a negative impression about the blogger based on his or her interpretation. But the next reader may come off with a positive impression. No matter what, people will either like the blog piece or not. Despite that fact what doesn't do any good is to target people like Deafpundit did by calling certain known deaf, hh, and Deaf bloggers the a-wordism. Only this time people are attempting to use the a-wordism as the de facto reason or guideline for removal from Deafread under the guise of "non-conformity." In other word, finding another way to encourage censorship. This is just as bad when John advocated for the removal of "deficit thinkers" from Deafread. Like Ann said, "but oh, what a headache to enforce such guidelines." I agree.  And I think it all boils down to absolute control one way or another come hell or high waters. 

In case you're wondering at this point on why I'm writing the word "a-wordism," it's my way of disagreeing on how such a word is used against other people for political and ideological purposes in the attempt to harm people whether done consciously or subconsciously because of prejudice or hate.  I recognize that discrimination does exist against people who are deaf and hard of hearing which is why I favor technology to help bridge that communication gap. I favor all kinds of communication and language access because there is no one shoe size fits all.  It is a complex issue in a complex community of people with hearing loss from all walks of life.

As for Deafread, perhaps people would rather see the aggregator site die and shut down for good rather than see it continue as it were? Maybe it's time that Tayler shut down his site once and for all? Maybe it's time that Tayler repent to the Deaf gods for his transgressions and get his 50 lashes across his back?

Poppycock.

Fiddlesticks.

Piffle.

Drivel.

Twaddle!

Message to Don Grushkin

My video message to Don Grushkin on his recent PSE and ASL vlog discussion about Candy's blogsite, and going after Candy about her blog about the ASL language question issue.

Grushkin and his vlogs, cyberbullying and the outing of Candy

There seems to be a perception issue that I was constantly bringing up my Monopoly money gag that Grushkin (or "Don G.") apparently missed. In Grushkin's infinite wisdom he had the audacity to wade into all this with his constant complaints.  And so allow me to establish a time line and links to where and the number of times I brought up the Monopoly gag versus Grushkin's claim of "many, many times." 

On June 5th, 2010, I made a gag blog about (fake) money that was donated to FB's "Deafhood? No Thanks!" which is an ad hoc "organization" by which Grushkin replied in my comment section that started it all:

I think it's sad someone is donating such a large sum of money to a group that is about doing nothing instead of to a group that is about doing SOMETHING.

Four days later seemingly upset or mad he made a vlog on June 9th "Where is our money going?" raising a ruckus about why $656 (of fake Monopoly money) was going to an "unworthy" organization and how dare they use "our" money for that (Whose money again?? "Our"? Quite presumptuous, ain't it?) so-called organization.  Note the emphasis on "our money."  A rather arrogant thing to do by going around telling people how the donated money belong to their organization and to no one else. Because it's "our money!"  What an arrogant piece.

This prompted me to make a vlog/blog "A Critical Analysis" on that same day to clarify that the donation was fake in the first place, obviously so if one had paid careful attention to it. I also posted a link to my blog in "Deafhood? No Thanks!" Facebook site where people laughed and made their comments known there for next few days.

The next time I brought up the Monopoly money gag in Facebook was on June 29, 2010 and again here that same day. And that was basically the end of it. We all had our fun.

And then a long lull began after that. 

On August 29 I made a blog "Incredible Hulk Character equals Oppression to Deaf?" about Grushkin's Hulk vlog who claimed the Hulk's example was avdism. I basically laughed at that idea and in my comment section is where he made his first "intellectual" jab at me.

I'm sorry your intelligence and vision are too limited to see the big picture and contemplate alternate possibilities.

And in that same thread I responded as a reminder to him seen at the end of my comment:

Hey, we can play this "  intelligence"   game any time you want. The only problem is you actually brought it up.

Just a little reminder for the guy.

The lull continued.

And then on Sept 13th I did a blog ("My plan is working flawlessly! *rubs hands*") and in the comment section I responded to White Ghost's comment about a satire which reminded me of my Monopoly money satire saying it was the best one I did.

WG,

Well, yeah, still I think my Monopoly money blog satire was the best one yet. Too bad it took a video for me to do and explain to those who actually believed that money took place in the fake donation effort to the "Deafhood? No Thanks" group.

And sure enough, Grushkin was watching like a hawk and he complained again about my repeating his Monopoly money mistake in that same thread just below WG's comment:

Instead, you have shown a mean streak a half-mile wide (I won't give you a full mile, because that's reserved for another of your cronies, who truly deserves not to be named, who has actively sought the destruction of our community and unity). Why do I say "mean streak"? Just look at your obsession over my lack of care in reading your "monopoly"  blog. Instead of realizing that maybe I am human and did not read carefully all the way through, (and I DID leave you a comment to that regard, but you chose to delete it) you have instead chosen to continue to mock me at every turn with that. I, on the other hand, chose to ignore you, because ultimately, it is really a minor mistake on my part, but that mean streak of yours attempted to blow it up into an indictment of my intelligence and whatever else you decided to do with it. If you did not have a mean streak, you would have had your fun and left it alone. You did not.

My obsession? I only brought it up once in a response to White Ghost's comment almost 3 months later after the last time I brought it up. Yet, Grushkin was so insecure about his own embarrassing Monopoly money gaffe all of sudden he sees my bringing up the Monopoly money fiasco one more time almost 3 months later as the equivalent of being "obsessed." Also, as a side note as seen in the Grushkin's comment above, I've not deleted any of Grushkin's comment in my blogs though I'm not sure which blog of mine he's referring to. Sometimes comments do go into my spam folder for some odd reason. I have explained this before. I do not always notice the spam flag right away and I do "unspam" them recognizing those as legitimate comments whenever I notice the spam flag. On occasion I do get spams. I believe I did ask Grushkin to resend his comment again. Not sure at this point I'm pretty darn sure I did somewhere. Maybe he thought I deleted his comment when in fact it wasn't approved yet until I returned home or had not gotten around to approving his comment until much later? I don't delete comments unless they violate one of my rules.

On September 27 I did a blog "Fried brains and yummy desserts"  about trying to appear "academic" while touching briefly about the Monopoly gag to make a point. I hadn't brought this up gag again for almost a month later on October 23 after Grushkin made his zombie video about me on October 22.

Meanwhile from September to November on Grushkin's YouTube vlog site he seem to have lost it by making a spate of videos about me indirectly or directly on September 3 ("We're just expressing our opinion!"), September 13 ("Mike McConnell's Kangaroo Court"), September 17 ("'Go to Hell, Nattering Nabobs!'?"), September 19 ("You may be addicted to v/blogging if...."), and October 8 ("A new word and sign for blogging behavior!"). Funnily enough, he did say that he chose to ignore me starting on September 13.

And then on October 22 Grushkin tried to do his coupe de grace stab at me in his Halloween satire piece about me as "Kokonut" as having "no brains" with a video titled "A Deaf zombie wanders in cyberspace" with him playing the hapless and wondering "Deaf zombie." I can only surmise that he got his zombie inspiration from an earlier blog I did on October 19 ("Zombieland!"). Coincidence? I think not. Besides, who were those so-called "brainy" people in his video satire?

Remember what I said earlier that if he continues with the intelligence jab then he should expect a response from me in kind?  I did exactly that on October 23, 2010 I did a video piece called "Zombie Monopoly" in honor of his October 22, 2010 zombie video.

Satire is met with another satire. Not bullying but....satire. Get with the program, folks.

Though not surprising, two weeks later, on November 6 in Candy's own blog Grushkin continued to complain by commenting on what I did in making my Zombie Monopoly video "bordered on cyberbullying."  And quickly on that same day, November 6th ("For xxxx xxxxxx, AKA "Candy", on Cyberbullying") he did a YouTube vlog to complain once again this whole Monopoly affair by calling it a "borderline" cyberbullying example. He said so with a straight face while using Candy's real name and not her pseudo or anonymous name  "Candy." He attacked Candy about my Monopoly money satire only because she thought it was funny and a hoot. But here's a quick little history for the readers. This blogger "Candy" was outed by a surreptitious group of Deaf people who identified her by publicly announcing her real name even though she used a pseudo name as a security precaution whenever she blogged.  Once her real name was outed several Deaf people contacted her employer in the effort to get her into trouble.

Now, back on track.

What I'm demonstrating here is that Don Grushkin was the one who continued to bring up the whole Monopoly affair again and again saying that I referred to his Monopoly money faux pas "many, many, many times." He said this in his November 6 vlog and in Candy's blog on November 6. In actuality I brought up perhaps 4 or 5 times over the course of 4 months from July to October this Monopoly gag thing and not the "many, many times" he so tried to claim as happened.  

In my opinion, Grushkin's own zombie video about my intelligence wasn't a cyberbullying vlog. Even though, ironically so, he called my own "Zombie Monopoly" video as "border line" cyberbullying in his November 6 response as seen in Candy's blog.  My video was purely satirical in nature. A bit fun just as Grushkin had his fun playing the hapless Deaf zombie in his attempt to poke fun at my intelligence as a retaliation effort.  He simply found a way to vent his anger over his own misconceptions by claiming that I was bringing up his Monopoly money gaffe repeatedly and obsessively, at every turn making it sound like it was a daily occurrence. As you can see here the time line I constructed with the links to where and when I brought up his Monopoly money gaffe, you can see that I brought up the gaffe a few times and not the "many, many times" as Grushkin's tried to characterize it as.

Those are the facts.

Grushkin's own action and continual complaints are an indictment to his own intellectual insecurity.  His own PhD can't save him from it. My time line describes exactly how things went with links and dates. This will be used as a future reference for others to see and set the record straight. Everything's here as best as I could document them. I'm not bashful about it. And I certainly am not going to constantly squeal like a stuck pig over something I don't like.

The Candy exposure.....the meltdown.

Well, after going back to see what's the heck is going on to take a second look about this whole Candy blogger affair I still find it all a bit comical and laughable in some instances. I barely remember coming across her original blogsite a few years ago. And then when she transferred over to a different blog with the name "Candy" she seemed to have exploded out of nowhere this year. And that's a good thing because that means more people are reading her blogs. And it certainly got some people to notice her a little bit too deeply. Anonymity as a blogger is a big part of the blogosphere. Not everybody wants to divulge their identity. But to do so on in an even smaller blogosphere called the Deaf blogosphere via Deafread is an entirely different set of environment.

Candy will not stop blogging just because a few people have personal grudges against her because of what she said in the past. I admire her and her informative blogging style. From her blogs and comments elsewhere I've not found anything offensive according to some people who claimed to be offended by her comments. Where? I think some Deaf people are offended by her because of her opinions and information about the recent AB2072 meltdown. And perhaps many felt that she was taking the limelight away from protesters of AB2072? Who knows.

Candy has a right as anybody else to blog her opinions on her blogsite. Bloggers do have the right to be anonymous. There are personal reasons for doing so. Outing her might seem "victorious" to a few people but I'm betting that the majority of readers find it a petty exercise. I think the real meltdown isn't Candy's own but somebody else. I believe she will continue as who she is. Her strong sense of character should attest to that.

Candy, welcome to THIS side of the blogosphere.

A Bug Inside a CareBears Lollipop

Well, it began this way. I took my three girls and their friends to a Lowe's home improvement store where they had their "Kids Workshop" day. After they finished making their Valentine's mailboxes they were all given CareBears Valentine lollicards that came with a red, heart-shaped lollipop. One of my daughter's friend was licking his lollipop and to his horror discovered a bug, I think it looks like a fly, embedded inside the candy lollipop! Click here to see a super up close version.

Concerned, I went back to the Lowe's store in Alamogordo, NM and found the lady who helped run the "Kid's Workshop" and showed her the lollipop. Needless to say I think her face turned a bit shade lighter. I asked her where did the lollipop come from. She got the bag of lollipop candy from the nearby Walmart Store. She went to the trash can, ruffled around a little bit until she came across the empty CareBears LolliCards candy bag which I now have it in my possession (see photos below). I thanked her and proceeded to drive back to my house and took some pictures of the candy bag.

Prior to going to Lowe's I took numerous upclose camera shots of the bug-in-the-lollipop from different angles of the small black bug sitting in the trapped, sticky, red, translucent candy. Plus I have a movie shot of it, too! Looking at the pictures I took reminds me of bugs trapped in amber. Only this time, the kid was just shy of a few licks away from actually licking that bug into his mouth. Eeeewwww.

With the website address prominently printed on the back of the candy bag I visited the Frankford Candy and Chocolate Company's website to try and find an email address so I can email to whoever runs the place and let them know about the bug-in-the-lollipop incident. Even though the candy originated from Peru as seen on the candy bag. But after looking around on the Frankford Candy website I failed to find any email address. Now, I found it quite odd that a candy website doesn't have an email address anywhere but only the snail mail address. This is not good considering this day and age people use email to contact other people and even corporations when speed is the utmost of importance. So, here I am. Blogging about the errant bug that got caught in a sticky ollipop and maybe I'll get a response from the Frankford Candy company. Or the CareBears company. Or even maybe even from an unknown candy maker whose job is stir the sweet, sticky syrup into heart shaped molds somewhere in Peru. Who knows.

Although, be careful when you give out red lollipops to those you love on Valentine's Day!


A Bug Found Embedded In A Red, Heart-shaped Valentine Lollipop! - video powered by Metacafe


Click here for an upclose picture.



Click here for an upclose picture.




Click here for an upclose picture.




Click here for an upclose picture.



Click here for an upclose picture.



Click here for an upclose picture.



Click here for an upclose picture.



Lollipop with original CareBears Valentine card.