WHAT IS GOING ON?

State Sovereignty

swfreedomlover — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 22:45:02 +0000

I’ve been reading and re-reading the Constitution and Bill of Rights lately. Mostly because of things going on that required me to make sure I wasn’t imagining rights that the people didn’t have.

I came across this article the other day referencing an article by Walter E. Williams about Oklahoma. It is an interesting read. Apparently Oklahoma is about to rebel against the abuse of power that Congress, the Senate, the White House have been presuming for decades.

Oklahoma Rebellion

Thursday, July 17, 2008
By Walter E. Williams
One of the unappreciated casualties of the War of 1861, erroneously called a Civil War, was its contribution to the erosion of constitutional guarantees of state sovereignty. It settled the issue of secession, making it possible for the federal government to increasingly run roughshod over Ninth and 10^th Amendment guarantees.A civil war, by the way, is a struggle where two or more parties try to take over the central government. Confederate President Jefferson Davis no more wanted to take over Washington, D.C., than George Washington wanted to take over London. Both wars are more properly described as wars of independence.

Oklahomans are trying to recover some of their lost state sovereignty by House Joint Resolution 1089, introduced by State Rep. Charles Key.

The resolution’s language, in part, reads: “Whereas, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: ‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’; and Whereas, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and whereas, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and Whereas, today, in 2008, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government. … Now, therefore, be it resolved by the House of Representatives and the Senate of the 2^nd session of the 51^st Oklahoma Legislature: that the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States. That this serve as Notice and Demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.”

The interesting thing is that I don’t see where in the Constitution it says that the States can turn over all their powers to the Federal Government. Perhaps they can, but I’m not seeing it.

The Tenth Amendment reads:

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now you have to wonder when ALL the States decided to give the federal government full and complete control. Don’t you? I can’t seem to find any amendment that grants this much power to the federal government. Or maybe I’m just not understanding something? Considering this, you now have to wonder why a Federal law would take precedent over a State law.

According to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, the government can:

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;–And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Given all this, you have to wonder where Congress and the President think they have the final say in our everyday lives, don’t you?

I’m slowly coming to understand more of these things. The way our founding fathers wrote, does make it confusing sometimes. But I did spot a couple more things in there that will make good food for another post down the road.

In the meantime, this is more food for thought. Is it time that we the people demand our respective states recall their sovereignty and hold said states accountable to the citizens the Constitution was designed to protect? I think so!

The Puppet Media and Censorship

swfreedomlover — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 13:50:46 +0000

What ever happened to “Free Press”? Journalists in all forms of media used to actually vette and investigate a story before reporting on it. These days it appears the media just reports what it’s corporate owners tell them to. It’s obvious from the bias you see constantly.

I noticed that everything reported seems to be designed to instill fear in the people. I tried to believe it was just my imagination. Unfortunately it isn’t. You never hear about both sides of the issue anymore, just the side that will make you afraid and scared and willing to turn to the government to “protect” or “save” you.

Junkfood Science reported yesterday on a report issued by one of the agencies, that has always been held as the most reliable source of health information for the medical profession, that the media is ignoring. You have to wonder why.

We’re not eating so badly

The U.S. government just released the latest “What we eat in America” report this week. This is the dietary survey component of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), conducted on a cross section of the population by the Dept. of Health and Human Services and the US Dept. of Agriculture. NHANES is viewed by healthcare professionals as the most accurate data on our diets, lifestyles and health, and the information is supposed to be used to help guide public health policies.

So why was this important report ignored by the media?

Perhaps, because the actual data doesn’t support the doomsday claims or the over-the-top public policies being enacted. In fact, it reveals that the obesity hysteria might be leading to some adverse health effects.

Read the FULL STORY here.

So why wouldn’t the media be all over this and reporting it? Why wouldn’t they be questioning the fear mongering that they continually spout? Because they can’t.

I know they did it deliberately with the smoking issue. And now they are doing it with the obesity issue. I knew when they lowered the BMI guidelines that they’d then start claiming we were all getting too fat. I just didn’t want to believe it was deliberate. As I witness the success of the propoganda machine on the smoking issue (which has turned this smoker into a hard core rebel at this point), I knew they’d start applying the same tactics.

Sure enough, they did. They took the Tobacco Control playbook, changed the cause from smoking and SHS to obesity, and like magic, they had their obesity epidemic; cause, effect, costs and solutions (bans) already plotted out for them. They practically use it word for word and if that doesn’t scare the bejeezes out of you…..then I fear you are forever lost to nannies control over every aspect of your life.

Why anyone becomes a journalist anymore is beyond my guess. I would imagine anyone with a drive to really dig in, investigate and get the truth out would be frustrated to the point of suicide working for mainstream media today.

It’s a sad day indeed when you have to question everything you hear, and sadder still when you can’t even believe those whose profession is supposed to be “do no harm”.

WHEN will the masses wake up? WHEN will the people finally realize they have allowed their government too much power and have turned it into a power hungry machine hell bent on controlling every move and thought we have?

NOT reporting both sides of the issue IS a form of censorship. Controlling what the media reports on IS CENSORSHIP. Our government and the media condemns China for the same thing!!

It’s time to wake up people, before your world is no longer the world our forefathers imagined for this country!!!

The Government Wants Your Child

swfreedomlover — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 22:00:20 +0000

I saw this story a couple of days ago and haven’t done anything with it yet. Sandy over at Junkfood Science beat me to it, and in a more comprehensive way than I could have.

Family home visits

The idea is inconceivable that government agents would come into homes to evaluate if parents are feeding and caring for their children properly; screen children and family situations to identify parenting practices, children’s weights or social-emotional development that fall short of state-approved standards; and report those children and parents for case management and treatment. For Americans who don’t follow legislation and public health policies, even talk of such programs might be considered conspiracy theories. Last year, two Acts were introduced into the U.S. House of Representatives that would grant the federal government unprecedented control over parenting and implement state home visits, targeting military families and poor families first. This week, these Acts were scheduled for debate.

Dr. Karen Effrem, M.D., is a pediatrician and researcher who has been following legislation that affects parental rights and the health of children. She wrote an article this week describing the lack of scientific validity and efficacy, costs, dangers and implications for parents, children and healthcare provider of the proposals in these pieces of legislations. This issue has little to do with politics but more the cautionary insights it offers about even well-meaning public health programs.

Read the FULL STORY here.

There are two bills being considered at this time:

H.R. 3289: PRE-K Act state preschool programs that puts the federal government in charge of what children learn and implements services to support healthy child development.

H.R. 2343: Education Begins at Home Act directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to fund a State early childhood home visitation program and the Secretary of Defense to fund early home visitations for military families.

Dr. Effrem’s article, U.S. House Democrats Work to Mentally Screen, can be found here.

Two bills which recently passed the U.S. House Education and Labor Committee and are headed for floor debate clearly illustrate the insatiable appetite that the radicals in charge of Congress have for control over the hearts and minds of our nation’s youngest children. HR 3289, the Providing Resources Early for Kids Act of 2008 (PRE-K Act), puts the federal government in charge of what children will learn in preschool programs. HR 2343, the Education Begins at Home Act, sets up invasive home visiting programs.

~snip~

The Pre-K Act and its focus on the mental screening of young children is ironic from at least two standpoints. First, despite claims of its proponents, early childhood programs are not effective and several studies have shown evidence of academic and or emotional harm. For instance, illiteracy rates have actually increased in New Jersey where preschool for poor children was court ordered. And, data from several national studies and surveys performed by the federal government have shown very significant increases in defiant, disobedient, and aggressive behavior, as well as impaired social skills in children who are attend preschool and child care compared to children raised at home.

~snip~

The second irony is that while Congress is promoting increased mental screening of young children, at least one member of New Freedom Commission, the group that first started publicly promoting the unscientific and dangerous idea of mentally screening young children, is having second thoughts. Dr. Daniel Fisher stated in a letter to the Boston Globe dated 10/3/07:

~snip~

For a detailed discussion of the many problems with home visiting programs, please see Dr. Karen Effrem’s written testimony to Congress about this bill.

These two bills are rather frightening in my opinion and just reinforce my joy over not being a young parent anymore.

If these bills pass………….there will be NO stopping the government from going further until they are actually in our bedrooms and bathrooms with us.

THIS is NOT what our founding fathers envisioned for this new country they fought so hard for.

What City Has the Strictest Nannies?

swfreedomlover — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 02:54:04 +0000

I found this posted on a forum today and thought it would be fun to post here also, since it fits right in with so many of my rants about Big Brother and Nannies and all…..LOL

Is Big Nanny running your town?

By Knute Berger

Jul 29, 2008 2:43 PM | last updated Jul 27, 2008 6:48 PM

The libertarian magazine Reason has published a list of the biggest nanny cities in the country. The results for the big cities on the Pacific Coast are interesting. Portland is caught in a kind of “nanny sandwich” between Seattle and San Francisco. Apparently, the most ecotopian town in the Pacific Northwest has escaped the worst excess of politically correct fussiness.

Reason looked at the nation’s top 35 cities and ranked them from worst to best in terms of civil liberties and a host of criteria including food and drug laws, smoking bans, gun control, and how many hookers you can find on Craigslist. By those standards, the least nannying city is, unsurprisingly, Las Vegas. Other non-nanny places in the West include Denver, Kansas City, and Portland. According to Reason, Portland rates well because:

The biggest West Coast metropolis between San Francisco and Seattle has held onto a sense of personal freedom that its once-wacky neighbors have forgotten, keeping a hands-off approach to food and tobacco while recognizing that guns are useful for things other than shooting elk.

Seattle is off the charts these days, nanny-wise, and is the second-worst restrictive city in the country, with only foie gras-banning Chicago ranking higher (though that ban was recently overturned). Author of the Seattle section is my former Seattle Weekly colleague Philip Dawdy, who writes that “Seattle has long had an unhealthy strain of nannyism as well. Washington was one of the first states to prohibit alcohol in the last century, and the city’s restrictions on strip clubs and card rooms are legendary. In the last five years, the nanny impulse has gone into hyperdrive.”

That hyperdrive includes a sweeping anti-smoking law, crackdowns on music and strip clubs, enforcement of alcohol restriction zones, installation of surveillance cameras in parks, the attempted bonfire ban — the list is endless. And as Dawdy points out, the city’s determination to be green has opened up whole new vistas for nanny fiddling.

A lively discussion of Seattle’s nannying ways, including an interview with Dawdy and pro- and anti-nanny callers, was aired last week on KUOW-FM’s The Conversation, and a podcast can be heard here.

Even P.C. San Francisco is less of a nanny city than Seattle. That’s partly due to an even greater tolerance for drugs like marijuana, yet leavened by strong anti-gun laws. Vestiges of Old San Francisco survive. even while the city cracks down on pet owners. According to Reason’s analysis:

Baghdad by the Bay is itself the very best on drugs—ground zero for cannabis clubs, with a mayor who calls the drug war an “abject failure” — while also being the very worst on guns and food. The city has banned plastic bags in supermarkets, levied fines against arcade owners who don’t check IDs of young people during school hours, mandated the size of pets’ water bowls, and required psychics to obtain licenses.

The size of water bowls? Oh please, don’t give Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels or the meddling City Council any more ideas. Otherwise, your pygmy goats might find themselves sipping from thimbles.

Copyright © 2008 by Crosscut LLC

My home of Phoenix only came in at number 14, thankfully, even though I think it’s too nannified!

So when does it stop? Where do the lines get drawn? At what point do the numbed masses finally come out of their stupor and scream “ENOUGH ALREADY” and start making the government work FOR us instead of controlling us?

The Hysteria Overload These Days Is Killing Me….

swfreedomlover — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 04:39:43 +0000

Is it just my imagination or is the hysteria/fear mongering on the rise lately? It seems everyday there is a new threat of something or other. I’m about ready to just chuck it all in and head for the hills somewhere to remove myself from the madness.

I mean everything today seems to be an epidemic, pandemic, disaster, catastrophe, end of the world as we know it. It’s tiring. My brain can only handle so much trauma before it wants to go into overload and explode.

Not to make light of this at all, if there’s one thing the “war on smokers” has taught me is that people with an agenda are sneaky as all hell. Give them inch they’ll come back for your life. I mean everything today seems to be an epidemic, pandemic, disaster, catastrophe, end of the world as we know it. It’s tiring. My brain can only handle so much trauma before it wants to go into overload and explode.

I saw a piece about a week or so ago on the Huffington Post, and then got busy and forgot about it.

Cristina Page

HHS Moves to Define Contraception as Abortion

Posted July 15, 2008 | 02:24 PM (EST)

In a spectacular act of complicity with the religious right, the Department of Health and Human Services Monday released a proposal that allows any federal grant recipient to obstruct a woman’s access to contraception. In order to do this, the Department is attempting to redefine many forms of contraception, the birth control 40% of Americans use, as abortion. Doing so protects extremists under the Weldon and Church amendments. Those laws prohibit federal grant recipients from requiring employees to help provide or refer for abortion services. In the “Definitions” section of the HHS proposal it states,

“Abortion: An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. There are two commonly held views on the question of when a pregnancy begins. Some consider a pregnancy to begin at conception (that is, the fertilization of the egg by the sperm), while others consider it to begin with implantation (when the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus). A 2001 Zogby International American Values poll revealed that 49% of Americans believe that human life begins at conception. Presumably many who hold this belief think that any action that destroys human life after conception is the termination of a pregnancy, and so would be included in their definition of the term “abortion.” Those who believe pregnancy begins at implantation believe the term “abortion” only includes the destruction of a human being after it has implanted in the lining of the uterus.”

Then today I read an article on Common Dreams. The Common Dreams headline from Truth Dig wasn’t quite as shocking, but reading the articles one gets the impression that the government is about to ban birth control. They’re not………..at least just not yet.

Published on Tuesday, July 29, 2008 by TruthDig.com

A Parting Gift to the Religious Right

by Marie Cocco

From the people who brought you the Terri Schiavo spectacle, the stem-cell research stalemate and the atrocious waste of tax money on abstinence-only sex education that has been shown not to work, comes a sequel: a proposal to redefine abortion to include some of the most common forms of birth control, and to potentially penalize with funding cuts hundreds of thousands of doctors, hospitals and other health care providers who expect their employees to give women full reproductive care.

This parting gift to the religious right comes in a proposed rule by the Health and Human Services Department, which says it is merely revising existing federal rules that allow health-care personnel to opt out of performing an abortion if they have a moral or religious objection to the procedure. From that minimalist and unobjectionable clause, a monster grows.

The draft regulation would redefine abortion to include “any of the various procedures — including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action — that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.”

That led me to do a search on “abortion redifined” which brought up 287,000 results. Most of what I found were blogs discussing it. But this headline is what first got a reaction out of me…………….

Contraception Is the New Abortion

The Latest Right Wing Trend? Attack Birth Control

SOURCE: iStockphoto A proposed HHS rule would alter the meaning of the word “abortion.” If implemented, our best tools for preventing the need for abortion would suddenly be redefined as abortion.

By Jessica Arons | Monday, July 28th, 2008 |

The Bush administration has taken its latest swipe at contraception, but again under the pretense of opposing abortion. By manipulating scientific facts, the Department of Health and Human Services hopes to enshrine in federal law a conservative, ideological interpretation of pregnancy that has the potential to significantly limit women’s access to contraception.

In 2004, Congress passed a budget rider commonly known as the “Weldon Amendment,” named after its sponsor, Rep. Dave Weldon (R-FL). This provision prohibits recipients of federal funds from “discriminating” against individuals or institutions who, due to reasons of conscience, refuse to provide abortion services, coverage, counseling, or referrals, even in an emergency.

Although the Weldon Amendment already places substantial obstacles in the way of women seeking reproductive health services, the Bush administration did not want to stop with abortion. In an eleventh-hour gift to radical right organizations, who have been pressuring the administration to cut family planning funding, HHS has proposed a regulation implementing the Weldon Amendment that would vastly expand its scope.

So while I find this headline to be premature in hysteria over nothing……..yet, it could in fact turn into something and in the near future no less. Nothing wrong with foresight and warning……….but geeeze, do we really need to instill panic to do so? Or is this country, if not the world, really in such a state that the average person is basically under attack from all sides, and especially from our/their own government?

It’s enough to drive whatever almight diety you prefer to booze and drugs just to escape the madness!

Being on the receiving end of the “war on smokers”, I can actually see the points being made here. Especially since we are talking about the Religious Right. They’d love nothing more than to see us females thrown back into the dark ages………hell, they’d probably bring back the “burning times” (witch hunts) if they thought they could get away with it. So I don’t find it too much of a stretch of the imagination to take this to the next step these ‘holier-than-though’ folks would like to go:

The proposed rule defines abortion as the termination of pregnancy from the point of conception: “the Department proposes to define abortion as ‘any of the various procedures—including the prescription and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action—that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.’”

The upshot of this revised definition is that any form of contraception that may interfere with the implantation of a fertilized egg could be categorized as a form of abortion. This means that any health care entity or provider, on the grounds of their opposition to abortion, could refuse to provide women with access to 40 percent of the most commonly used methods of birth control in the United States—the pill, the IUD, emergency contraception, the patch, the shot, and the ring. In other words, our best tools for preventing the need for abortion would suddenly be redefined as abortion.

So while I do think the headline is a bit over the top, I can’t say I disagree with it.

Yes, I can indeed see them claiming that birth control IS the same as abortion, as when I was reading the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) draft, THAT is exactly what I got from it, even though it didn’t say that.

The rule itself talks about protecting those in the medical field and pharmacists from job discrimination because they are morally appalled with the idea of having anything to do with abortion, including filling a woman’s prescription for the “morning after” pill, or sterilization. It is to guarantee their right to hold to their beliefs even on the job, while not doing their job. Nice to be protected from not doing the thing you are trained to do all in the name of your “right to your belief”; but I notice they have no problem forcing their belief on the customer who may just need that prescription and that’s the only pharmacy in town.

Now my first thought is then these people shouldn’t be working in the field. But then I realize that I can’t be free to practice my beliefs if they aren’t. But this leaves a dilemma. Should these doctors and pharmacists not wish to contribute or help a woman in this manner, that’s all fine and good; but apparently they are also not wanting to counsel the woman as to where they can go or even make a referral. In terms of pharmacists, then I think the pharmacy has an obligation to make sure there is always another pharmacist on hand to fill the woman’s prescriptions. After all, the customer has just as much right to have their prescription filled as the holier-than-thou pharmacist has to refuse to fill it on religious grounds.

And what about these really Religious Zealots who actually believe the birth control itself is a sin? This could in fact lead to the hysterics the headlines are already screaming about being true.

Understand that this rule has NO bearing on me whatsoever as I had a complete hysterectomy 20 years ago (which technically given the definitions in this rule could also constitute sterilization and it wouldn’t matter to them that I was in severe pain otherwise). I am still horrified by the prospect.

The day they legislate the male penis is the day they can THINK about trying to tell me what I can do with my body. The day they start really holding the men fathering these kids responsible is the day they THINK about trying to legislate what I can and cannot do with my own body. The day all these pro-lifers start taking care of all the unwanted children, helping the single mother feed, clothe and raise that child, and put them through college, is the day they can TRY to think about dictating what I can and cannot do with my own body.

Ever notice how “pro-lifers” are only ever concerned with the fetus? You never hear them bitching about all the innocents killed in wars. You never hear them bragging about how they care for all the orphans and poor children whose fathers ran out on them. No, they ONLY want to force a woman to have the child, even IF that child is the result of incest or rape. Now THAT’s twisted logic if ever there was any.

And don’t think I missed how it is ONLY females who will affected by this. You notice they never complain about Viagra prescriptions or condoms.

Quoting Captain Kirk on Star Trek: “Scotty, beam me up”

“Safety” Running Amuck!!

swfreedomlover — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 18:08:13 +0000

These days the UK is starting to become more and more a place I will never wish to venture near. And I still have family there also. I visited once, but I’m not going to consider it again now.

I’m not sure what is going on there, but I personally plan on avoiding the place for fear of catching whatever it is that is infecting the brains of many people there (those making and enforcing the stupidity; and those quietly submitting to it like passive sheep).

I came across two stories this week that show just how well all the fear mongering seems to be working.

The first is so ridiculous as to make you wonder if it isn’t some kind of joke:

‘Ridiculous’ health and safety rules tell carpenters to ban the broom

Carpenters and woodworkers have been told not to use brooms to sweep up sawdust because they are considered dangerous under “ridiculous” new health and safety guidelines.

By Richard Alleyne
Last Updated: 1:58AM BST 21 Jul 2008

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) claims that sweeping up wood chippings in dusty workplaces can provoke asthma attacks and long term exposure lead to nose cancer.

Instead they are advising carpentry firms to buy state-of-the-art vacuum cleaners and air purification systems which can cost thousands of pounds.

Small companies say they cannot afford the equipment but are repeatedly nagged to upgrade during safety checks.

Sherry Coles, who deals with health and safety for Shapet Joinery in Bristol, said the firm has been using brooms for 25 years without incident.

She said: “Brooms are a quick and easy way of cleaning up and we’ve been using them for 25 years now without any problems.

~snip~The boss of a joinery firm in Tayside, Scotland - who wishes to remain anonymous for fear of more health and safety checks - said: “I’ve been using a broom since Jesus’s old man was a carpenter.

“This advice it totally off the wall. Industrial vacuum cleaners are expensive and they aren’t nearly as good as an apprentice armed with a stiff-bristled brush.”

Read the FULL STORY here.

I must admit, this is the first time I’ve heard about dust causing cancer. While dust isn’t the most pleasant thing, you have wonder why we all don’t have asthma then. And how have asthmatics managed to survive all these years with all the dust around?

Then there’s the part of me that wonders why someone with such severe asthma that a job like this would trigger an attack, would actually willingly take the job? When did we suddenly decide that adults are incapable of such basic personal responsibility that they shouldn’t have to make such a decision? I mean people make decisions for all kinds of risks on a daily basis just crossing a street, driving a car, stepping into a bath-tub. The air pollution alone in most of the world is enough to aggravate asthma, so do we abolish all pollution so the asthmatic doesn’t have to do anything?

I’m not trying to put down asthmatics, but should a small business owner who does okey but has no great profit really have to invest in some super-duper vacuum cleaner just in case the next applicant for a job is asthmatic, when a broom does the job just as well?

Maybe my feeling that this is pathetic comes from the fact that I’m really getting sick and tired of all the tip-toeing and changes I have to make in my life to “protect” another group of people. At what point am I allowed to actually live my life? I am quite fortunate that I am so very healthy (smoking and all no less), and I know that. I feel for people who aren’t healthy, and while I’m all for being considerate and courteous and making concessions………….it seems to be lately that those who aren’t as healthy are no longer required to do what it takes to live in this world, but rather control-freaks are demanding the world change to accommodate them.

Are sick people truly the majority today? You have to wonder why. Since I’m not part of them, I can only attribute my good health to all the new UNhealthy lifestyle choices I make (coffee, salt, fats, smoking). I’ll keep doing what I do thank you, it obviously keeps me healthy.

This second story I’m actually not surprised to see, given the horror stories we hear and read daily. However, this serves to show just how bad things can/will get when you throw common sense out the window and allow fear to rule your life.

Father-of-three branded a ‘pervert’ - for photographing his own children in public park

By David Wilkes
Last updated at 1:46 AM on 16th July 2008

When Gary Crutchley started taking pictures of his children playing on an inflatable slide he thought they would be happy reminders of a family day out.

But the innocent snaps of seven-year-old Cory, and Miles, five, led to him being called a ‘pervert’.

The woman running the slide at Wolverhampton Show asked him what he was doing and other families waiting in the queue demanded that he stop.

Picture of innocence: The photograph Gary Crutchley took of his sons Cory and Miles

One even accused him of photographing youngsters to put the pictures on the internet.

Mr Crutchley, 39, who had taken pictures only of his own children, was so enraged that he found two policemen who confirmed he had done nothing wrong.

Yesterday he said: ‘What is the world coming to when anybody seen with a camera is assumed to be doing things that they should not?

‘This parental paranoia is getting completely out of hand. I was so shocked. One of the police officers told me that it was just the way society is these days. He agreed with me that it was madness.’

Father-of-three Mr Crutchley, a consultant for a rubber manufacturer from Walsall, West Midlands, was with his wife Tracey and their sons when the pleasant Sunday afternoon out turned sour.

He said: ‘The children wanted to go on an inflatable slide and I started taking photos of them having a good time. Moments later the woman running the slide told me to stop.

~snip~

All together now, smile: Gary and Tracey with Cory, left, and Miles

Read the FULL STORY here.

How many of you parents out there have taken pictures of your kids while out somewhere? Did you ever think about IF other kids were being captured in the background? Did you ever worry if someone might think you are some kind of pervert or out to harm other children?

What’s really sad is the fact that I’ve actually been waiting to see just this kind of story, as I KNEW it was going to happen. I knew that “keep the children safe“, “protect our children“, “save the children“, “for the children” battle cries were going to go to the extreme and start labeling parents perverts. I knew one day that some poor innocent father out with his kids (though I hadn’t considered mom being there too as in this case which makes it more pathetic) would have someone screaming “pervert” in his face from some such innocent thing as taking his toddler to the bathroom, or taking a picture.

I think those mothers (and fathers too) who are so afraid that every other person on the street is out to harm their child, should keep themselves and their children home inside a bubble, where no one can ever harm them, instead of assuming an innocent father is a pedophile for playing with his kids in a public place with other children, or for wanting to capture the picture of his kids having fun.

Those so terrified that every man at the park is a pedophile should stay home, innocent people should not be forced into feeling bad for being normal parents. Innocent people should NOT be assumed to be guilty until proven innocent just because there are some real twisted perverts (and a small minority no less) out there.

Hope they never find out about the bathtub picture I have of my son and nephew when they were in the tub together at ages 6 and 3 respectively. Ssssshhhh.

God/Goddess but I miss the world I grew up in.

Sometimes You Have to Wonder…

swfreedomlover — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:13:49 +0000

A story in today’s Arizona Republic caught my eye. Actually it was another story on the front page about pediatric melanoma rising drastically that caught my eye, which led me to actually reading the paper and seeing the second story.

The first story was full of the usual fear-mongering in the end. It was about a 5-year having surgery for melanoma. While I feel for the child and her family, I can’t help but wonder if they slathered sunscreen all over that poor child every time she stepped outside. I find it amazing that the increase in skin cancer correlates with the increase in sunscreen/sunblock use. And yet they still blame the sun and tanning beds. Just once I’d like to see them also mention family history (genetics), hormones, or perhaps the sunscreens they all promote. But no they don’t.

Before you all think I’m a raving idiot here. I speak from personal experience (actually with both these stories). I’ve had melanoma. I was 8 months pregnant with my second child when it was discovered that I had level 4 melanoma. This was back in 1981. Here I am 27 years later telling you about it.

Of course, my first question then was “do I have to stay out of the sun”? Now, I wasn’t a sun worshipper then [didn't have time to be] but I did love the sun and the sunlight. I was informed that it wasn’t the sun in my case, but my hormones.

But this post isn’t about me or melanoma. It is about how parents of children with some form of disability has to beg, borrow, fight to get any kind of help for their child. Even with health insurance, these parents are forced to jump through extremely high hoops and try to bend totally inflexible ideals to get any help. In this I too have experience as my first-born was born physically different (by general standards). If you are a hard-working, tax-paying citizen/legal resident in this country, when you need help or a little assistance this country suddenly doesn’t care to know you.

From the Arizona Republic:

4-year-old just wants to be like others

Laurie Roberts, The Arizona Republic

Jul. 23, 2008 12:00 AM

Cathy Humphrey isn’t asking for a lot. She wouldn’t ask at all but, you see, it’s for her daughter.

She wants Maria to have a chance to walk. For that to even be a possibility, she needs $5,000 in equipment, but the state has turned her down. The reasons seem to change with every denial.

Basically, it comes down to this:

State and insurance officials don’t think Maria Humphrey will ever walk. So why bother?

Maria is the only child of Cathy and her husband, Manny. She was born four years ago with hydrocephalus. Since then, the hits have just kept coming: cerebral palsy, scoliosis, seizures, severe delays in every aspect of her life. Doctors have told them that their daughter will be deaf and blind, that she will never be able to feed herself or walk.

With every blow, the ceiling on Maria’s life drops lower. Yet her parents don’t easily accept such limits, as parents never should. They believe their daughter can do more, if given a chance.

In fact, she already has.

The will and determination of children is amazing. I’m not surprised this child is disproving the doctors at all. And huge KUDOS to her mother for nurturing her determination rather than just accepting the fate the doctors have bestowed upon her. These children are the lesson that shows us to never say “never”.

“We’ve been told she’s going to be blind her whole life, she’s going to be deaf her whole life, she’ll never drink from a bottle and she’ll never walk,” said Andy Humphrey, who works with his niece two days a week. “So far she’s disproved three of those and she’s working real hard on disproving the walking one.”

For that, though, she will need help. Last year, the family requested a walker and a stander through Care1st Health Plan Arizona, an insurance company that contracts with the state Division of Developmental Disabilities. Cathy sent in letters from Maria’s physical therapist and several doctors explaining that having the ability to stand could prevent further deterioration of her body, explaining the importance of taking steps and how she will need this equipment if she is ever to walk, explaining that the sooner she is upright, the better.

Reach Roberts at laurie.roberts@arizonarepublic.com or 602-444-8635. Read her blog at robertsblog .azcentral.com.

Read the FULL STORY here.

You have to wonder why, when someone shows such determination, the agencies designed to help in these cases don’t even try to help. I understand about being careful and not abusing the system. I understand they can’t help everyone, but when you have a situation where it is not a lifetime commitment to help that is needed but an amount of money that won’t come to more than $5,000 for a couple of pieces of equipment that could in fact help this child learn to walk……….is that not worth the investment? With a little help now this child could, and probably will, grow up to be a fully productive member of society. $5,000 now to help her learn to walk on her own for the rest of her life, or do nothing and then get requests for the rest of her life for electric wheelchairs that cost a good $20,000 and up and depending on usage end up needing replacing every 5-10 or so years? Seems like a no-brainer to me to try to help a child grow normally and be like her peers. Especially a child that has already made liars out of the doctors predictions [which I'm sure they don't mind]!!

I understand rules and regulations also, but come on, let’s face it…………you also need to look at these cases on an individual basis. This one-size fits all mentality that government and charitable organizations have is beyond ridiculous. While you can’t help everyone, making someone already stressed out from years of caring jump over high hurdles without looking at the case individually, is just flat-out stupid in my opinion. And how rude and cruel to make such a person have to beg for help to help their child.

For more information on hydrocephalus see HERE, and HERE, and HERE, and HERE.

Are Home Invasions REALLY Next?

swfreedomlover — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 22:31:41 +0000

A town in the UK has decided that it can conduct “home invasions”. And apparently they don’t need just cause to do so. This is downright frightening!

I can almost hear some control-freak here in the States drooling over the prospect of enacting such a thing here.

Home invasion by the State

By GEORGE PASCOE-WATSON
Political Editor

Published: 21 Jul 2008

HOMEOWNERS must let council inspectors in to check for DANCING BEARS after they were handed 1,043 powers to pry.

Armies of clipboard-touting officials can demand entry to check on everything from pot plants to fridges.

Details of the vast array of laws were quietly slipped out to MPs last Tuesday by the Home Office.

The list includes 430 new powers of entry brought in by Labour ministers – a year after a report said there were only 266.

The checks include whether POT PLANTS have pests or imported “passport” documents, or if HYPNOTISM is being practised illegally.

Inspectors can demand to know if homeowners are keeping RABBITS.

Brits must also reveal if their HEDGE is too high under the AntiSocial Behaviour Act, and whether their FRIDGE has the correct EU energy rating under little-known Energy Information Household Refrigerators and Freezers Regulations 2004.

Bureaucrats can also make a sweep for WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

Additionally, penpushers are embarking on a new council tax regime. It allows them to poke around a home and fine those who refuse access.

© 2006 News Group Newspapers Ltd.

Read the FULL STORY here.

Now in trying to find this “AntiSocial Behaviour Act“ I found some sites mentioning it. Scotland seems to have it’s own also. However, apart from general nusiance and crime, I’m not finding that this “Act” allows for such gross intrusion into anyone’s life without probably cause.

If this is allowed, it WILL spread to other towns feeling they too can do the same thing. Next thing you know, it’s here in the USA…………after all, we can’t have the Brits’ beating us at something can we? hehehehehe

I can’t believe that people are just sitting back and allowing this.

I’m So Bummed……..a little side trip here

swfreedomlover — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:04:39 +0000

I know this is a bit off my usual beaten path, but I just read something that bummed me out.

I’m not a big commercial TV fan, just because I hate all the commercials. They are annoying and most just insult the intelligence of every person out there. Then the majority of shows are just as rude and insulting to the intelligence of the average person.

And those reality shows? They are the worst, and show just how dumbed down we have become if they are what people enjoy watching (the sneakiness and lies and cheering them on for it). Yep, I really hate those reality shows and I’m entitled………………never watch them except for a couple of them once to see what the fervor was all about.

Mostly I watch the movie channels that I pay for. However, I do have a couple of TV shows I enjoy: CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, Ghost Whisperer, NCIS, The Unit, Moonlight. The weird thing is that I only like the original CSI show. I don’t care for the spin-offs (CSI Miami; CSI New York).

My favorite show though is CSI. I just love watching Grissom…….a little too chubby these days, but still a hottie in my eyes. I’ve always liked William Peterson. He’s a good looking man, and has great eyes that speak. So imagine my surprise, not to mention dismay, to read that he will be leaving the series!

From CNN:

updated 4:11 a.m. EDT, Wed July 16, 2008

William Petersen’s run on ‘CSI’ coming to end

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) — William Petersen is leaving “CSI: Crime Scene Investigation,” a move that might have fans of his brainy crimebuster Gil Grissom screaming bloody murder.

William Petersen will leave “CSI: Crime Scene Investigation” in the middle of the upcoming season.

Petersen has agreed to return for occasional guest appearances and will remain a “CSI” executive producer but his run as an original cast member will end this coming season, executive producers Carol Mendelsohn and Naren Shankar said Tuesday.

The air date for his final episode, the season’s 10th, has yet to be determined but probably will be at the beginning of 2009, the producers said. The series debuted in fall 2000.

A number of familiar characters will return in the episodes building up to Grissom’s departure, among them his former colleague and flame Sara Sidle, played by Jorja Fox; the Miniature Killer and sexy Lady Heather.

“Who better to turn to when you’re a scientist in crisis,” Mendelsohn said jokingly of Heather (Melinda Clarke).

The decision to leave was Petersen’s, the producers said, declining further comment. A call to Petersen’s publicist was not returned Tuesday.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.

Read the FULL STORY here.