California's crackpots

I'ts been a few days since California ruled that same sex marriage is ok. The nuts have come out of the wood work like mad. If it's not christian "love" a la "kill all homos" (only the guy ones, you rarely hear diatribes against lesbians), it's how "unnatural" de gayznezz is, or it's how California has violated the will of the voters (amusingly enough, that's happened LOTS of times, but as long as it benefits them it's ok). They desperately grasp for any string that will pull the horses back. They swear in November it'll be different, or they threaten to overturn the state constitution.

Amazing, isn't it, how fast they turn on our US Constitution or their state Constitution when it doesn't do what they want?

Realize folks, if there had been a vote for interracial marriage the majority would have voted against it. If there had been a vote to allow women's rights, it would have been the majority against it. However, I now have the right to vote, marry a black man, or hell, marry a black woman. Get used to it. You keep pushing it and there will be an over turning of our Constitutions. The right to arms can be removed as fast as gays can be added. The right to freedom of religion can be removed as fast as same sex marriage added. You want to open this can of worms, go ahead. But realize, there are educated folks out there, that know that the right to bear arms is there to fight against tyranny, that freedom from religion serves both the atheist AND the christian, and that same sex marriage is a HUMAN right. You're gonna have to give up something, it seems you'd support same sex marriage because it's the least of your worries.


That and it's none of your fuckin' business to start with. I promise, I will be the first in line to vote against gay marriage if it passes and gay men show up to your house in droves to make you marry them. Somehow though, I don't think they want anything to do with your stuck up, bigoted ass. I wonder why?

Kids should be seen and not hear, EVER

I don't have to comment on this:

GARDEN CITY, N.Y. — It's what kids do: squeal in delight when they're having fun.

But to some Long Island residents those squeals were unwelcome noise, and they wanted two neighborhood girls playing in a backyard pool to pipe down.

The complaints fell on deaf ears Wednesday night when Bayville's acting village justice dismissed a summons accusing the girls' parents, William and Rachel Poczatek, of violating a village noise ordinance.

"I think the village did the right thing," William Poczatek said.

Poczatek said he was shocked when he and his wife were slapped with a summons. Sure, he said, Ashley, 11, and 5-year-old Chloe make noise when they're outside enjoying their aboveground swimming pool.

"What, are you telling me that a kid can't make noise?" he protested. "It's not fair."

The Poczateks were cleared because the ordinance is usually reserved for "the shouting and crying of peddlers, hawkers and vendors, which disturbs the peace and quiet of the neighborhood," their attorney said.

The statute didn't apply," insisted attorney Andrew Campanelli, who got no argument from the judge or prosecutor.

Before the hearing, neighbor Sheila Brown said the children's squeals were not your usual brand of merriment.

"I have five dogs," Brown said. "Five dogs don't make this much noise. This is not something that started yesterday. They have been asked politely, but this is an ongoing issue far beyond children just playing in the pool."

Neighbors did not speak with reporters after the court proceeding.

Poczatek offered a conciliatory message: "Yes, we will try to keep them quieter."

Screw keeping them quieter. If these people don't like the noise of children, I suggest they find another place to live away from them. 5 dogs make less noise than 2 children???? I have FOUR children, and when we get them all together my mother's 4 dogs make more noise than my 4 kids at full throttle. What, kids can't laugh and yell when playing? Fuck off...you don't like it, MOVE where there are no children. I'm sure you think children shouldn't exist, and you have your right to feel that way. But you have no right to stop them from being what they are, children, who laugh and play.

Oops, forgot the link: Fox News

The problem with people

While I type this, instead of smokers sitting back, cigarette in hand, quietly chuckling, I see many afraid. And those with some intelligence in the non-smoking side of things sit in fear as well. Naturally the stupid and the anti's out-scream them both. We smokers watched as you enroached upon everything. Talking bullshit about "choice", while steadily removing real choice in favor of the the false "choice" you offered...the anti-smoker way alone. ANd we told you then, "They will be after your food next." And everyone of you stupid little twats said "Well that'd be stupid!" Stupid or not, yep, they are. However, we smokers can't sit back and chuckle, because quite frankly, this shit isn't funny. It's a long article, but it's definitely worth the read. I know you don't want to be scared, but you damn well better prepare yourself. A couple of quotes and we'll get on to the real point of this entry.

This extraordinary development, which will forever change the face of pediatric medicine and private family life — eliminating the ability of doctors to practice quality medicine and of families to make their own choices on their foods and lifestyles, and even how parents may parent — was completely ignored by mainstream media.

This may sound melodramatic, but it won’t after you’ve read the new recommendations for the medical management of fat children and teens just released by the AMA, CDC and HHS from the “Expert Committee on the Assessment, Prevention and Treatment of Child and Adolescent Overweight and Obesity.” Before getting into just who is this Expert Committee and who is funding it, let’s get right to their harrowing clinical practice guidelines, which were posted on the AMA website.

Every well-child visit is now to include a qualitative assessment of eating behaviors, which must include identifying how often the family eats meals away from home, consumption of sweetened beverages, portion sizes, how often and what children and teens eat for breakfast, how much fruit juice is drunk, how many fruits and vegetables and foods high in fat or calories are eaten, and the frequency and types of snacks.

Each pediatric check-up should also include a determination of physical activity which is to include “at a minimum” if the young person is meeting recommendations for 1 hour of moderate to intense physical activity everyday and, if not, why and what social, environmental or familial situations are standing in the way; and how many hours they watch TV or videos, play video games and use the computer, to ensure screen time is less than 2 hours a day.

Every child deemed “overweight” or “obese” by these new standards should have not just blood pressure measurements, but a complete work-up for all “obesity-related risk factors” — one that appears more appropriate for an elderly, ill cardiac patient — as the referenced table shows:

If this doesn't scare you, you're a retard. Not the "I'm going to insult you by calling you names" kind of retard. I mean you HAVE to be functionally retarded. I mean, like Corky. Go read the article. It SHOULD be required reading. Check her links...and now on to the point of this entry:

The trouble with most of you people is you can't be bothered to think. You have your work, your tai-bo classes, your suburban mommy playdate suck your husband's cock every Wednesday at 10 bullshit. And while you're living your life in your little perfect fuckin' bubble, those of us with more intelligence than, say, the average pile of shit are to sit here and run your life. "We'll let the doctors/lawyers/politicans figure it out, that's what they are there for." "Doesn't the DOCTOR know more about this than we do?" "That's what those scientist guys do is figure this out so I can sit on my porch with those neighbors I hate and brag about little Timmy's little league homer?"

I have a little newsflash for you: We're no more honest than you are. And some of us smart people DO look down on you and say "Yeah, we can fuck you in the ass without lube, because your too busy hiding your little pharmaceutical addiction to worry about how much it's gonna hurt when we're done." You're too busy worrying about a non-existent "War on Christianity", your next tai-bo class, when you're gonna cheat on your wife, or whether your little Timmy gets the grade you WANT him to have rather than the one he deserves. You sit in your little bubble, voting in retards and power hungry warmongers cuz your afwaid. You sit in your little bubbles, where nothing has changed except the cost of everything, thinking about shit that means NOTHING. You sit in your little bubble, with your big ass skeletons in the closet, judging smokers and fat people and drug addicts while you tell us how to live our lives. Your perfect little bubble, that really isn't so perfect. Because obviously if everything was perfect at home, you wouldn't be out looking for ways to bug others. You'd be at home in your perfect life.

And now they're after your food...and to torment your children. But that's ok right? You're still stupid enough to think that little Tommy hasn't noticed the pharmaceutical company you keep in the medicine cabinet. Don't you think it's time to wake the fuck up?

The Death of Common Sense

Stolen from Stephanie:

Sunz--
No worries about excess Common Sense. Alas, Common Sense died recently. Here's the obit:

Obituary

The Very Sad Passing of Common Sense

Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old common sense was since the birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape.
Common sense will be remembered as having cultivated valuable lessons such as knowing when to come out of the rain, why the early bird catches the worm, that life isn't always fair and that just maybe it was my fault.
Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you earn) and reliable parenting strategies (adults not children are in charge).
Common Sense's health began to deteriorate rapidly when well intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place....Reports of a six year old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing his classmate, teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student , only worsened his condition.
Common sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly children. It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer panadol, sun lotion or sticky plasters to a student, but could not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.
Common Sense lost the will to live as the Ten Commandments became contraband, churches became businesses, and criminals received better treatment than their victims. Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from an intruder in your own home and the burglar got the right to sue you for assault.
Common Sense finally gave up the will to live after a woman working in her office failed to realise that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled some in her lap and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.
Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth and Trust. His Wife; Discretion; His daughter; Responsibility; His Son Reason....

He is survived by three stepbrothers, I Know My Rights; Someone Else Is To Blame and I Am A Victim....
Not many attended his funeral because so few realised he was gone. If you still remember him, pass this on. If not, join the majority and do nothing!

Amen

Let's go after ME!ME! Roth again

Why not, she's made a target of herself. What a bitch....to look at a human being and see nothing but disease??? Not an individual but disease??? What a disgusting, sick INDIVIDUAL ME!ME! is. And what a mean little bitch. Yeah, I know,coming from me that's rich..pot meet kettle..HOWEVER, I would NEVER tell someone what a cow she is unless she ASKED me. And then at least I'd TRY to be nice, not saying I'd succeed, but I would TRY. Of course, ME!ME! is the type that would steal candy from a baby.

I repeat, what a sick, disgusting, lazy person ME!ME! is. To not see the good things about Jordan, but only to see what's bad, and not even THAT bad at that. To want to hold Jordan back for no other reason than Jordan is "fat". I'm sorry, but the girl ain't fat..chubby? Maybe. I hear her father is an NFL linebacker...that girl will NEVER be a size 2. Obviously the Jordan has SOME talent (apparently more than ME!ME! has) and that's what we should see. Look, it's none of my business how she eats or how she chooses to live. Quite frankly, she's a breath of fresh air. I'm really sick of the anorexic bitches. It's hard to find pictures of ME!ME! that haven't been doctored, but the head shots I saw aren't encouraging. You can "count her vertebrae from her neck" to quote someone else.

Look, with people like ME!ME! it's no wonder that we have two conflicting problems, NOT EPIDEMICS, problems: obesity and anorexia. If you harp on one to the extent ME!ME! does, you're going to have a problem with the other. She is entirely too skinny to try to tell fat gals to lose weight. She and the Olsen twins are poster kids for anorexia, I wouldn't be going and giving shit to folks who aren't THE perfect size. Especially when YOU can afford a personal trainer. Especially when I can count your rib bones when you're slouching.

Look, ok, so some people are fat, guess what, NOT YOUR BUSINESS. You need to be taking care of you and your family, not sticking your nose in other people's faces. This isn't just for ME!ME!, but for all you nosy bastards. And no, it's not FOR THE CHILDREN. The children are quite well protected, ever heard of the CPS and doctors? Well, if your kid gets obese, they can have your kid removed for that. There is NO reason for people to make new little laws and rag on other people. There is NO reason to stick your nose in another adult's business.

Look guys, you wanna know where this shit leads? Here's some links for you:

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/05/medical-privacy-update-healthcare-for.html

Massachusetts: According to the CCHC, like all managed care plans, the MA state plan includes a provision for monitoring people’s lifestyles and their compliance with “wellness” goals established for them by the state

Minnesota: People would have no choice but to buy the health plans the state determines and these, again, are managed care programs, not true insurance plans. People would be forced to get the screening and preventive care, treatments and medications the state determines; lower their health indices to state-approved numbers; and their medical care would be managed by the state.

California: As the Los Angeles Times reported, “people who refuse to obtain health insurance could be tracked down by the state or a private contractor, enrolled in a plan and fined until they pay their premiums.”

U.S. Health Freedom on Verge of Collapse

This new bill panders to concerns of Americans regarding the safety of drugs. This legitimate worry is used by Kennedy and Enzi to garner support when in reality the bill does just the opposite - exposing Americans to almost unfathomable new drug risks and dangers while simultaneously making it possible to remove super safe, therapeutic, and helpful dietary supplements. The entire Critical Path initiative is a plan to race new and untested powerful biological drugs onto the market and experiment on patients all over the country – throwing caution to the wind as far as drug safety is concerned.

While S1082 also pretends to address the issues of drug safety, in reality all the needed Big Pharma loopholes are firmly in place. Additionally, the establishment of a clinical trial database as written in this proposed law will enable Big Pharma to hide experimental and undesirable side effects. Instead of full disclosure we will have a sterilized clinical trial database that will have the net effect of being used as a tool by Big Pharma to promote off label use of drugs. This is a far cry from disclosure that results in safety.

Be afraid, be very very afraid.

Ah look! A new toy!

My comments in red!

ASH: New Frontiers and Victories in the War For Nonsmokers' Rights (While we're discussing rights, while I may not have the right to pollute your air, you don't have the right to clean air. That's not covered anywhere. However, the right to the pursuit of happiness covers us both!)

by Public Interest Law Professor John F. Banzhaf III,
FAMRI Dr. William Cahan Distinguished Professor Executive Director and Chief Counsel
Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)

Presented at the Medical Symposium of FAMRI {Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute)
in Miami, Florida, May 2007

I’ve been asked to talk with you about the many new battlefronts which we at ASH have helped to open in the war to protect nonsmokers’ rights. (cuz nonsmokers have more rights than smokers, and white people have more rights than black people, bigotry is bigotry, no matter your target)
Here are more than a dozen – all in less than ten minutes.

■ 1. More than a dozen states are virtually smokefree, with smoking banned in all workplaces, including bars and restaurants
almost a dozen more are effectively smokefree, but with smoking still permitted in bars
thousands of local jurisdictions have similar prohibitions
some now beginning to ban smoking even in gambling casinos (yay! you knocked how many of the people you're trying to protect out of work??? Dave Hitt guys, look it up...LOTS of job losses, but hey! no SHS...well, not at work anyhow)

■ 2. More than a dozen countries also are already virtually smokefree, with more on the way,
this occurred largely as a result of a new world antismoking and nonsmokers’ rights treaty known as the “Framework Convention on Tobacco Control”
which ASH helped to get adopted, and now – through the Framework Convention Alliance – has a major role in enforcement
Thus there are no more smokey Irish pubs, and, when you arrive at the main airport in Norway, you see the sign:
"THE ONLY THING WE SMOKE HERE ARE SALMON" (not many pubs in Ireland left from what I hear from someone who actually LIVES THERE)
NEW proposed guidelines under the FCTC to protect nonsmokers can be found at: http://ash.org/fctcguidelines

■ 3. Others people – including (Batty) Patty Young of FAMRI, Billy Williams, and Jack Cannon –
are now using the Americans With Disabilities Act [ADA] to obtain additional protection for persons with conditions which make them especially susceptible to tobacco smoke,
a concept ASH helped pioneer first with the predecessor Federal Rehabilitation Act, and then with the more expansive ADA
and one which will soon be extended oversees – as you will hear (wait, those motherfuckers get protected from the MAYBE RISK of SHS but you won't make them stop mowing their fuckin' lawns for me?? I can't even leave my fuckin' house in the summer because of my allergies...I HAVE THE RIGHT TO GO OUTSIDE AND NOT SUFFER!!! *whine whine whine* And another fuckin' thing, I'm going deaf, I INSIST everyone learn sign language so they can better take care of me whenever I finally CAN go outside....I have a disability, 2 of them actually!)

■ 4. More than 800 jurisdictions, including several states, now ban smoking in various outdoor areas
commonly on beaches, in parks or playgrounds, on lines, and near entrances to buildings
Calabasis, CA, with urging from ASH, banned smoking virtually everywhere outdoors – it’s now permitted only in “smokers’ outposts”
In Calif the Air Resources Board (ARB) has declared tobacco smoke outdoors to be a Toxic Air Contaminant because it can cause lung cancer, heart attacks, and even breast cancer in nonsmokers, and this ruling may ultimately force outdoor bans throughout state (it can't cause shit..there MAY be an increased RISK..notice how there are no numbers supporting this claim. No science studies referenced. He can't point you at one, you might read it and know he's lying through his fat teeth)

IMPORTANT: It is important to note that these various victories, in addition to their primary purpose of protecting nonsmokers, also are a major factor in discouraging smoking itself, in several ways;:
they make it more difficult, or at least inconvenient, to be a smoker;(but we don't hate smokers...just smoking..right ASH, isn't that what you said)
they also remind smoker that smoking makes them stinky and smelly, rather than suave, sexy, and sophisticated as the ads claim (so does sports...stinky smelly motherfuckers...oh, and that fuckin' shit you call cologne...that stinks too...wait, don't fat people stink too? Mmmmm..I know someone at ASH that needs their stomach stapled...and since when don't I have the right to stink if I so choose...*throws out the deodorant*)

■ 5. In almost two dozen states, judges have ruled that nonsmokers may have legal rights to be protected from toxic tobacco smoke which drifts into their apartment or condo – even in the absence of any statute. We have been successful in using three major legal theories
trespass by particles (fuckin' A...I got the lawn defense..fuckin' neighbors can't mow now, their particles are trespassing on MY property)
breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment (the anti-smokers screams don't fuckin' count??? here you are, quietly enjoying a cigarette and here comes some loud offensive jackass)
nuisance (unhealthy & offensive) (prove unhealthy..I also find Glantz offensive, why isn't he banned yet?)
In addition, Calabasas and Dublin California have by statute declared tobacco smoke to be a legal “nuisance” (California is full of nutballs...Ahnold is their GOVERNOR for fuck's sake)
thereby simplifying the problem of brings law suits. (yeah, don't want to make you actually WORK for it)
Thus, while a man’s home may still be his castle, he doesn’t have an unlimited right to smoke in it if the smoke drifts into other castles
OR HARMS OR PUTS CHILDREN AT RISK -- WHICH LEADS TO THE NEXT SEVERAL VICTORIES (oh yeah, not out to attack our homes at all..isn't that what you said? just public places)

■ 6. In about 35 states, courts have ruled that it is appropriate for judges deciding custody disputes to consider if a parent subjects a child to toxic tobacco smoke in the car or at home
thousands of court orders have banned smoking in cars, and even in homes, when children involved in custody disputes are involved, some 24-48 hrs before they arrive
and, in a few cases, parents have lost custody if, after being warned, they continued to subject their child to toxic tobacco smoke (yeah, because actual parenting has nothing to do with it...better to choose a bad nonsmoking dad than a good smoking mom...and hey, taking children from their loving parents doesn't hurt anyone at all)

■ 7. Largely as a result of a new movement ASH began two years ago, more than a dozen states, and many local jurisdictions, have ruled that smoking should be banned in cars and in homes when foster children are present
particularly in view of the very high concentrations of tobacco smoke to which the children are subjected in cars – much higher than in a typical home or office, or even in a smokey bar.
This, by the way, seems to be have opened the door to banning smoking in cars when any children are present – something which, prior to this development, could not be done through legislation.
Now legislators are beginning to realize that banning smoking in cars when only certain children are inside makes no sense, and that all children in cars should be entitled to the same protection from toxic tobacco smoke as those in foster care or involved in custody disputes.

■ 8. So now at least two states – Louisiana, Arkansas – and several local jurisdictions, including Bangor Maine – have banned smoking when children are present in a car,
and California is considering a similar measure

IMPORTANT: In addition to protecting children, who are the most vulnerable and helpless victims of toxic tobacco smoke, these bans discourage smoking:
by making it more difficult to continue being a smoker (but remember ASH does not hate SMOKERS, just the smoke...and the KKK doesn't hate black PEOPLE, just the color black)
and by forcefully reminding smokers that their smoking is putting their families at risk (prove it....again, no references here...in fact, the WHO found children of smokers 22% LESS LIKELY to get lung cancer..guess who has references? ME! The only statistically significant number was a decrease in the risk of lung cancer among the children of smokers. PDF here)

■ 9. Tobacco smoke itself is hazardous, but even the residue of tobacco smoke which remains on a smokers’ clothing and hair after smoking can be dangerous, at least to people who are particularly susceptible. (prove it)
So ASH, opening up still another new front in the battle to protect nonsmokers, threatened to take legal action against a university when they forced a sensitive pregnant nonsmoker to work in the same office as a person who smoked – even though not in the office.
We cited letters from her physician that these tobacco residues endangered not only the health of the nonsmoking woman but also her fetus, and legal precedent that she was entitled to special protection.
The university backed down immediately – and we hope that this new movement attacking tobacco smoke residue,
as well as tobacco smoke itself, will likewise continue to spread. (notice the uni BACKED DOWN, it never went to court...with REAL scientists...rare these days I know...but I'm sure we can find ONE..anyhow, it probably NEVER would have won)

■ 10. At ASH we think nonsmokers’ rights extends beyond protection from tobacco smoke, and that nonsmokers and their families should have the right NOT to be killed or injured in fires caused by cigarettes –
cigarettes the major cause of residential fire deaths (prove it)
At this moment, more than half a dozen states – including California – and all of Canada, have laws in place which require that only cigarettes which have been demonstrated NOT to cause fires when carelessly dropped by a smoker can be sold.
These so-called “fire safe” cigarettes, also called RIP for “reduced ignition propensity,” do not continue to burn as most US cigarettes do,
Rather, they generally self-extinguish quickly. (ahhh..and what about YOU poisoning me with more chemicals...oh yeah, only non-smokers have any rights)
And, one possible additional advantage is that the annoyance of having to relight such cigarettes is that it may discourage consumption. (FWIW, I'm gonna keep smoking JUST to piss you off)

ECONOMIC: As you may know, the US Surgeon General has estimated that smoking costs the American Economy about $140 BILLION a year,
and that most of it is paid by nonsmokers in the form of higher taxes and bloated insurance premiums. (Harvard University professor Kip Viscusi has repeatedly demonstrated that smokers paid more in excise taxes than the social costs of their habits even before the 1999 Master Settlement Agreement raised the price of a pack of cigarettes)
Well, that’s beginning to change, because of several new frontiers in the battle to protect nonsmokers' rights"

■ 11. I recently obtained a governmental ruling re-establishing the right of health insurance companies to charge smokers more –
or nonsmokers less, which is really the same thing,
for health insurance, because smoking adds thousands of dollars to the costs of providing medical care to people who smoke. (see the link I made above)
More and more companies are moving to do this.
There are at least THREE Reasons Why Charging Smokers More Reduces Smoking:
1. For many smokers, it provides for the first time an immediate and very concrete incentive for them to quit (no it doesn't...not one smoker I know has quit over that...not ONE)
2. Strong reminder that the dangers of smoking are very real (no it doesn't...we kind of knew there was some danger before..nothing has changed except your hand in my pocket)
3. Monthly bills serve as a constant reminder and reinforcer (nope, sure doesn't...just makes us really really hate anti's)

■ 12. In a related move, ASH is pressing states to begin charging smokers more for health insurance services under Medicaid, and Tennessee has now become the first state to do so. Such charges will also help to reduce smoking, for the same three reasons. (nope...it won't)

■ 13. Finally, some companies are going even further, insisting upon a workforce which is both smoke free as well as drug free –(oooo...more discrimination! can't kick out the niggers and wops, but can the smokers! Don't jump my ass...I'm not the one who coined the term "nico-nigger")
and refusing to employ or promote workers who smoke, even off the job – since the dramatically-increased health care costs are the same whether they smoke on or off the job. (and telling us what we can and cannot do on our own time...wow..who knew the company ran my life...apparently fetuses have more rights than us too)
ASH is defending that practice, one which has now been adopted by many leading companies, as well as by the World Health Organization. (yeah, because denying smokers a living will definitely make them quit smoking..let me come to your house and tell you that you will either stop doing something legal or I'll fire you....yay bullying tactics! ooo..I got an idea..let's burn crosses on their lawns...it won't HURT them..only make it more clear that being black is bad for them...doh...wrong discrimination..sorry)

AND now a quick look at some possible new frontiers in the war to protect nonsmokers’ rights

■ A. ADOPTION: We are considering asking or even requiring adoption agencies to consider if an adoptive parent is a smoker who will be subjecting the child to toxic tobacco smoke, and perhaps permitting the mother putting up a child for adoption to insist that the adoptive parents be nonsmokers (also make sure they are christians and rich...don't worry about anything else, that's all that matters)

■ B. AUTO ACCIDENTS; Banning all smoking while driving, as New Delhi has just done, and as England and several other countries are now considering, not to protect children, but rather to help reduce automobile accidents (sure, as soon as you ban eating, talking on cellphones, televisions in the front seats, GPS trackers that require you to look at them, anyone think of more?)

■ C. PETS - Since there appears to be a growing body of evidence that secondhand tobacco smoke can affect the health of pets as well as people,
we may want to consider using that as a argument for smokers to quit, OR
even seeking to use animal protection laws to limit smoking around pets (Pets have more rights than human smokers)

■ D. ENVIRONMENTAL: With all the recent and apparently growing concern about Global Warming and Environmental Harm, we might want to take advantage of that movement to stress how much smoking contributes to both:
obviously not just the heat generated by smoking, but by the deforestation it contributes to, the fossil fuel used to grow, transport, and even cure tobacco and to make cigarettes, etc. (first you have to explain why, if global warming is peoples fault, the other planets had the EXACT same reaction...clue: there's no people on other planets)

■ E. LITTER: A closely related problem which also adversely affects nonsmokers is that of tobacco-related litter
in many areas, such as beaches, cigs are the major cause of litter (but NOT fast food and drink containers)
Not only can we use this as an additional argument for banning smoking in many outdoor areas, (but NOT fast food and drink containers)
but perhaps even move towards requiring a deposit on cigarette filters such as many states have for soft-drink soda bottles. (but DON'T ban fast food and drink containers)

And before you jump my shit on using the race card...I got a little newsflash for you...you don't HAVE to be black. I think Micheal Jackson has proven that. You CHOOSE to stay black. Now, there is NOTHING wrong with that. I don't have a problem with anyone based on race. I think people are all idiots equally..color has nothing to do with it...however, you can CHOOSE to turn white. Don't give me that "black people don't have a choice" shit..because technically speaking, yeah they do. Look, you want to be a bigot, fine, just be honest...race/lifestyle, it doesn't matter how you split them up, you're still a bigot.

And before you tell me how smokers should die and be killed, tell me why pedophiles aren't castrated? You wanna talk about a sick, disgusting disturbing motherfucker...legalize castration of pedophiles on their first offense...then you have a right to talk shit about anything less...and if you think pedophiles are less offensive than smokers, you're a sick motherfucker.

Various things

I got a bit upset at the Doc (Doctor Seigal.linked), so haven't been hanging out at his site here lately. I'm sure he saw it as an overreaction...but y'know...when you start bringing words like "normal' into, that means someone that's not following your guidelines is "not normal". Let me at least put the comment:

With that said, I do not suggest that people will get used to it overnight. But over time, they will. I remember a time when people would have said that smoking in a restaurant was inherent to dining. Or inherent to flying in an airplane. People are able to adapt to these changes. Over time, yes. But social norms can and do change.

Social norms...yes they can and do change, but to put it like this change is "good" and "welcome" is beyond the pale. It's neither. For one, it appears with such a comment that society's idea of normalcy wins. But you can't get two people to agree on WTF normal is. And for society as a whole to be identified as "normal" then there must be those opposed to societal norms and therefore "not normal". By showing agreement with this, you are showing that there are folks you consider "not normal". And well, I got a bit annoyed....in fact, I said, and believe, it's the most hateful thing Doc has written. Actually, considering THIS is the most hateful thing I think he's written shows how nonoffensive he actually is. However, I suppose I expected more of him. It's so easy to label those who don't agree with "society" as the outcasts, the freaks, the wierdos. Howeve,r while society occasionally does do something right when the social norm NATURALLY changes, for the most part its just a bunch of idiots who are being led around by the nose, yet again. While for the good you have elimination of slavery, you also have Prohibition for the bad. Social norms are no indication of anything except how far you can manipulate society. And one's person's "normal" is another person's "FUREAK!".

Which moves us right along...be sure to read the recent Fundie Watch about the Hate Crimes bill. I won't try to go into it, because Watcher has, as usual, addressed it in his much more pointed fashion...but I do encourage you to read it...well. As I said, one person's "normal" is another person's "FUREAK" and well, I found one of my freaks at Faith 2 Action. Just go read it...

In other news, the Disney channel is pushing it's own brainwashing...yeah, it has been really, but this one really pisses me off. My kids like Little Einsteins and the Mickey Mouse show...then we flip it over to Nickolodean. However, I noticed the two little shits doing a "for your own good" clip and stopped to watch. Most of this stuff you roll your eyes and move along. I think my teachings will go much further than Disney's in my house. It wasn't WHAT they were saying, because I happen to agree with a good portion of it, it's HOW they go about doing it. I have a huge objection to my children getting the idea that it's ok to dress me down like they are the parent because some cartoon shows it's ok if it's for the "right" reasons. Encouraging children to, even politely, chew their parent out is, to me, a very bad idea. Like we as parents don't have enough trouble getting around their peers, now we have cartoons with what appears to be two 4 year olds telling dear old dad that he's breaking the rules and that they have *every* right in the world to jump his ass. Newsflash, they don't. I'm an adult, if I choose to break a rule, then I will be living with the consequences. This whole thing about adulthood is supposed to be the idea that you don't *need* parents anymore (hear that you busybodies?). We're supposed to be able to make our decisions and live with the consequences (hear that you wienies?). While it is one thing for my child to bring something to my attention, it's a whole 'nother for them to TELL me what I can and cannot, should and should not, do. Last I checked, I was the parent. I get to tell YOU what to do. I try to raise my kids with a mutual respect for the most part...but there are limits. My job is to guide my childrento become productive adults that can live with THEIR own choices. And hopefully impart a basic guideline of what "good" is. Me, the one with more experience in how the world works and what it requires to live in it. To fill them with these ideals, and not with the whole story is ridiculous. Yeah yeah, don't litter is a fine lesson to teach. But don't have children chewing out their parents, and tell them they don't need NEW laws, just folks with the balls to enforce the old ones. And don't fuckin' tell my kids to tell me how to vote. If I'm not going to listen to George Clooney, I'm damn sure not going to listen to my 11 year old who's only seeing half the story. Y'know, there should be laws against you type of people....if you can't appeal to the public with honesty and truth and let us make our own decisions, then you probably don't have a legitimate fact to stand on.

As far as society, well, if you act stupid, they treat you stupid. So quit acting stupid. You know why we're suffering from all the things we are now? Because YOU'RE an idiot. The government and the media have seen how you let yourself be manipulated...Don't get mad at them because they USE that knowledge. You've been so stupid in the last 12 years that well, they believe your stupid. And apparently, you are.

That goes for the anti-smokers too!

WWJD

I can say what Jesus wouldn't do: deny anyone medical care due to someone's appearance. But this good doctor decides he has some kind of right to judge others and to hide behind Jesus' robes when he does it. Dr. Gary Merrill, not so Christian to deny treatment to anyone, let alone a child. I suppose one can refuse to treat gays because "AIDS is God's punishment". Or maybe refuse to treat blacks, how about we refuse to treat old people, I mean shit, their old, they won't live too much longer anyway.

The "good" doctor has set his standards for treatment, and he decides if you are "worthy" of his precious time.

Let me say something here: If you cannot reconcile your religion and your job, get a new job. One would think being a doctor would be the ultimate way of practicing Christianity, I mean, you get to HELP people, save lives. Apparently at least ONE idiot has found a way they can't work together. It's really easy, if your job puts you in a position to do things you don't agree with, GET A NEW JOB! Mr. Merrill, and yes, I leave off Dr. on purpose because you are not a real doctor since you can't seem to follow basic human decency, Mr Merrill who made you God? What a stunning example of Christianity! Using your religion to judge others and deny them their basic human dignity!

Yeah, makes me want to go out and make a new Christian friend! Jesus was known for treating the undesirables...one would think that if AMA didn't hold him to that standard, Jesus would.

However, let me point something out. He IS hiding behind Jesus' robes...He has up in his office "Standards of Dress" apply. I don't recall Jesus having a dress code...perhaps I'm wrong. It's been a lot of years since I read the bible, but I'm pretty certain he didn't. What this sounds like is a class issue. You're obviously poor and I don't want my rich patients to be forced to look at you.

Regardless of which, you're a sorry ass human being...and like most other Christians who like the limelight, you're a sorry ass Christian.

Please, tell the good doctor what you think...maybe a few hundred Christians can convince him that Jesus wasn't a dickhead.


Christian Medical Services 2920 F St # C6, Bakersfield, CA(661) 324-8990

Verra verra interesting....

Posted on Wed, Jan. 15, 2003
NORTH DAKOTA LEGISLATURE: Groups
question tobacco banMeasure would make it a misdemeanor crime to sell or use
productAssociated Press
BISMARCK - Health groups that discourage smoking
lined up Tuesday to fight legislation what would make North Dakota the first
state to outlaw tobacco, a stand that left some lawmakers perplexed.
The measure, introduced by Rep. Michael Grosz, R-Grand Forks, would make it a
misdemeanor crime to sell or use tobacco. Sellers would face up to a year in
jail and a $2,000 fine, while casual smokers or smokeless tobacco users
could go to jail for 30 days and be fined $1,000.
"The education approach is obviously not working in North Dakota," he said. "Should we not prohibit the sale and use of tobacco just because it may be difficult to enforce, and let nearly 1,000 North Dakotans die every year?"
Bruce Levi, director of the North Dakota Medical Association, called the measure "novel," but said it "introduces an approach to tobacco control that has not been proven effective or even implemented in any other state."
"Our goal is to prevent and reduce tobacco use. There is scientific evidence to support the programs that are beginning to move forward in North Dakota," Levi said.
"Prohibition has not been shown to prevent tobacco use."

Aww..I've been looking all over for this darn link. So tell me, tell me true, why if prohibition has not been shown to prevent tobacco use, why o why are they going crazy to prohibit it in restaurants/hotels/etc? If it doesn't work, then you're just being an asshole. And who says that it has to be proven in another state before ND could do it? Seems a catch 22 here. But here's the million dollar question: Why is it the anti-tobacco organizations the ones that cried the loudest AGAINST it?

At a hearing where the House Finance and Taxation Committee voted 9 to 4 in
favor of tobacco prohibition, a line up of anti-tobacco special interest groups
denounced the bill in no uncertain terms. Given the chance to support
their goal of a smoke-free society The American Lung Association, American Heart
Association, North Dakota Medical Association and North Dakota Public Health
Association all spoke out against the ban on Tuesday, much to the dismay of some
lawmakers on the committee.
Even in written form their panic was palatable. How can this be? To oppose this bill is the only proof anyone needs that all the talk about health and reducing death rates is a complete lie. The anti-smokers are frantic that the cash flow they receive
from cigarettes may come to an end. Their greed can their only motive
since, if what they have been preaching for years is true, allowing cigarettes
to be legal means that those who permit it have blood on their hands.

Perhaps it's because they would have to find new jobs? Yeah, this happened back
in 2003..it was never passed, but I wouldn't be quite so quick to push it under
a bridge. If you are against smoking you need to ask yourself a few questions.
One of the excuses given by the anti groups is it would drive smoking
underground. Wow, with that kind of logic why even have drug laws? Or rape laws?
Or murder laws? I mean, you're just "driving it underground". What interest would these groups have in pushing how "deadly" a product is, but keeping it legal, all the while imposing more and more taxes, prohibitions, etc on the user? If smoking is really killing so many and this is a matter of public health, what do they have against making the manufacture, sale, and use of it illegal?

It's really funny how disgusting, evil, distasteful, sickening, etc smokers are until you have their money in your pocket.

http://www.tobacco.org/news/114664.html

Belter told the House that committee members were frustrated last week with
the testimony from anti-tobacco groups that testified against the tobacco ban .
. .

You should wonder if the anti-tobacco groups have your best interests at heart, or their wallets...

You know what drives me absolutely batshit?

http://www.cavalierdaily.com/CVA...=29524&pid=1556

Then there is James E. Enstrom, a cancer research rogue at UCLA. He claims that most research about second-hand smoke reflects the efforts of a vast disinformation campaign that perverts data with hyperbole. Enstrom might be a credible source -- if his research wasn't funded by Philip Morris. A timeline compiled by Jon Krueger, a contributor for tobacco industry watchdog tobacco.org, reveals that Enstrom incessantly begged the tobacco industry for money to support his research. J.R. Reynolds and Philip Morris, over a span of 25 years, gladly obliged, providing more than half a million dollars.
But the difference between studies conducted by the University and researchers like Enstrom is that the University's research probably won't produce data in support of the tobacco industry.


I call bullshit. No, I believe that Enstrom might be funded by Philliip Morris. What I call bullshit on is how it is wrong to accept money from Phillip Morris because of their vested interest in their agenda, but it is NOT wrong to decide public policy based on anti-tobacco funded studies, pharma studies, and government studies. ALL with also a vested interest in their agenda.

Anti-tobacco has an agenda. If you believe this is a health issue, then tell me why tobacco is not banned? And why is anti-tobacco, supposedly so worried about everyone else's health (including forcing smokers to quit) not asking for the ban of it's use, sale, and manufacture? You are aware of how much funding they get to "prove" tobacco is naughty naughty?

Pharmaceautical studies--Did you ever wonder, if nicotine is so dangerous a drug that you can't smoke it, and you can't chew it...why can any 8 year old walk into Wal-Mart and buy nicotine patches and gum? There is nothing against the law about a child buying this stuff. In fact it's encouraged. Ah, I see, kids shouldn't do the evil nicotine unless Pharma sells it. Ah, I see. And umm..how much money do you make again for pushing your products as a "stop smoking" aid when it's been proven that only 24% of those that quit smoking do so with NRT? And wait, how do the rest quit again? Ah, cold turkey...wow...funny how cigarettes are as "addictive as heroin" but heroin users can't seem to jump that ship without more help than a fuckin' patch huh? And who keeps telling you that you'll NEVER succeed quitting cold turkey? Aww...that would be those disinterested Pharma companies huh? No agenda there...

And let's go to goverment--Naughty naughty government, who not only receive (each state) MSA money (that's master settlement) but also receive..hold on, let me check that--14.7 billion dollars to the state of Texas for suing cigarette companies, then let's include the 1.00 tax hikethis year estimated to bring in 986 million dollars

And according to that site smokers cost $10 billion a year to care for. So even IF, IF they were actually using the money to cover smoker's health care (which they aren't,more on that),we're still paying about 5 million more (and if you think the cost of that lawsuit isn't being passed on to the consumer, that's smokers, you're a goddamned idiot). But what they are actually doing with that money is get ready

balancing the state budget and funding education. Yeah, I know that last link says it will fund tobacco education. No it won't. Ricky Perry stated very clearly that it's to fund schools. And in the meantime, the non-smokers see a nice school property tax cut. No vested interest there, huh?

So, umm..where's the hypocrisy? Oh, you bet your sweet ass I call BULLSHIT...

By the way, you better hope I don't quit smoking, or Texas will crash and burn..

I support your child's education, I buy by the carton.

I'm sooo vacationing in the UK

Ok, gotta post the whole article here, but link up top too!

Fat Fighters: We Couldn't Make This Stuff Up
By
ConsumerFreedom.com
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
The obesity panic fueled
by crazed food activists is now spreading across the ocean.
Today Marks & Spencer, one of Britain's largest grocery store chains, announced its plan to hire 1,500 food police to patrol supermarket aisles and lecture shoppers on the contents of their carts. Reminiscent of grade-school Hall Pass Monitors, these health food patrols will donofficial Healthy Eating Adviser badges while harassing customers about the fat, sugar, and salt levels of their purchases. Not to be outdone, retail competitor Sainsbury's has launched its own set of gastro guards to walk the beat. And the store donated £3 million ($5.9 million) to MEND (Mind, Exercise, Nutrition and Do It!), a government sponsored program that trains "food advisors" and deploys them at stores and classrooms. With more patrols, police, and monitors filtering into every aspect
of life, the United Kingdom's big brother looks increasingly like a vice
squad.
The English city of Bolton is a prime example. The city's director of
public health admitted to the town's local paper that "just providing
information on healthy lifestyles is not enough." Instead, officials rely on
strong-arming citizens through community initiatives. So Bolton health and education officials have teamed up to deploy squads of fat fighters and surveillance teams to local schools. Taking from the workload of local bullies, these groups will actually pull kids out of class for mandatory
weigh-ins.
The Center For Consumer Freedom is a nonprofit coalition supported
by restaurants, food companies, and consumers, working together to promote
personal responsibility and protect consumer choices.

It's gonna be great! I'm going to camp out in the grocery stores waiting for someone to get punched! I swear there will be at least ONE riot and I sure don't want to miss it!

And I swear by all that's existing in this world, if anyone EVER tries this shit on me or yanks my kid out of class for a fuckin' weigh in there will be HELL to pay. Revelations will look like a fuckin' vacation resort utopia. Of course, America is right behind in this kind of fucked up shit so we're not far.

NYC councilman asks: How much caffeine?

Schools tag out contact games

FCC wants to regulate TV violence

So much for "America". What choices?

ME!ME! Roth

Me!Me! Roth has decided that you have an "obligation" to stay fit for others, whether it's your family or well just the public in general. Me!Me! Roth has an objection to fat women. Whatever her reasons (and due to her claims of fighting her own inner fat person, one must wonder if she just REALLY wishes she could have a cookie), it's patently obvious she looks down on a woman who is fat. She wants to turn on an obesity "epidemic" because you live your individual life and choose what you eat and she's decided that apparently YOU are offenisve. And for all her harping on SIZE, well good for her to encourage the next generation of anorexics and bulemics!

Me!Me! decided that making people feel accepted for who they ARE is not good enough, women must conform to HER view of healthiness. One must wonder under what obligation we are to to remain healthy for others? Because we're mothers? Because we have loved ones? Mmm..well, according to Me!Me! we are encouraging our children into a "fat" lifestyle. Ah, do we hear it...yes yes, FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!!! Ahhhh...the cannon fodder for whatever agenda is on the books...load the cannon with FOR THE CHILDREN and watch normally intelligent adults fall all over themselves trying to prove they LOVE THE CHILDREN. If you're a parent, until you prove me wrong, I will assume you love your children. Don't worry, Me!Me! and her ilk will not make me wonder how devoted you are to your little ones if you don't run after her in a fear of your image as a parent or human being or whatever that cry is supposed to make you afraid of. Be yourself here. I know you love your little ones, I don't need you to prove it. No need to follow that orgasmic cry..(don't smoke after!)

Sorry, kind of rambling because well, Me!Me! has so many little viewpoints that are so important. She's judging you by your weight. One would think the doctor would be able to tell you that being overweight is unhealthy and then YOU would be able to decide what you want..but no apparently we need Me!Me! to go after "fake food"..WTH is fake food? If you can eat it, it's real food. Anyhow, no we need Me!Me! to make sure you know you are a bad parent for BEING fat, no matter how well your kids are doing. And that if your family and friends love you anyhow, well they are encouraging your abuse (of yourself). Apparently, skinny people should not love you if you're fat if they REALLY love you. Don't believe me? Redbook. She wants Redbook boycotted because as part of an article series they did "Whether your size 2 to 20W, we love you". Redbook damn sure doesn't want to start off a whole new batch of anorexics and bulemics. Me!Me! didn't read the next article in the 3 part series, something about a beautiful and healthy makeover". Let me make clear here, Me!Me! is not a doctor, well, at least she doesn't say she is. She doesn't appear to be a nutritionist. Quite frankly, she seems to be nothing but a skinny woman out to put down fat people. In fact, apparently the only thing she's done is organize a wedding gown challenge to spend the rest of your life in the same size as you were when you got married. Ok, ladies, we'd all like that, wouldn't we...however, when do we have time? I'm a SAHM who lives lower mid income. Is Me!Me! going to pay my gym membership? Babysit my kids? Yes, there is stuff you can do at home...mmm..so what do we say when the 3 year old gets kicked in the face from those Tai Bo videos...oops? Do it at naptime...mmmm..so yeah, one kid is napping, that's the baby, my 3 year old does not nap...Of course, these are all just excuses to Me!Me! because well, SHE does it.

Jeez, so much to address..this must seem a mess. But well, I'm greatly perturbed that because SOME people can't seem to keep their children's weight down Me!Me! finds justification in removing our rights as parents and apparently, our foods. Her website makes it clear she's out to eliminate some foods. Me!Me! obviously has enough time left over from parenting (I hope she's parenting) to come raise our kids too! Well of course she doesn't, instead she'll do like the anti-smoking agenda and legislate it so she doesn't have to. She's even coined the term "2nd Hand Obesity". Mmm..Glantz says good grasshopper. Quite frankly, well I think she's an idiot. A skinny person on a mission to denormalize fat people like smokers. It's not "normal" to be fat. The funny thing is who is SHE to decide it's not. Maybe it is. What the hell is normal anyhow except one person's perception of how things are supposed to be?

"Somewhere between the wedding reception and delivery room, many women abandon their brains, body and libido."--Ah, let's take this one apart here. Abandon brains? So if you're fat you're stupid? Libido--I have a fairly healthy sex life. In fact, I know quite a few fat women with a healthy sex life. Quite a few fat men too. And well, if we're happy, what business is it of YOURS. Body--I haven't abandoned my body, I'm still in it. Do you mean abandoned the media perception that counting rib bones is healthy? Yeah, I definitely abandoned that. I'm hooking toward 145 and that's where I intend on stopping. I could care less about BMI, at which I can assure you I will be over. That's when I look my sexiest and feel my best. I refuse to drop down to 125 and look sickly and feel sickly like an idiot.

"It's wrong to be fat. It's easy, but it's wrong." It's wrong? Who says it's wrong? YOU? So what about those fat women who are wonderful, nice people who do good things? I guess they are still the assholes here because they are fat. If you are deciding someone is wrong based on their WEIGHT and not their behavior, you're the one with a problem. I've known some wonderful generous fat women and some skinny little cunts. And vice versa...I can assure you, weight has nothing to do with it. Being skinnier will not make you a better person, and THAT'S what's important.

Look, buy the girl scout cookies, if you're weight is bothering you give them to a friend, throw them in the trash, eat one cookie instead of a box. I know I'm harsh on the fat people. And unfortunately I agree with Mrs. Idiot that it's YOUR fault you're fat. Hell, I am fat and it's my fault. However, if YOU are happy with yourself then I don't care. It's none of my concern. You are not stupid, you are not wrong, you are just you.

Be fat, be skinny, smoke, don't smoke, just be good to one another. Be happy, be considerate, be honest, be loyal. If I meet you and love you, I'll love you fat and all, skinny and all, smokes and all, If you're just an arm I'll love that arm with all I"ve got. If you can't even get out of your bed, I'll do the same. And Me!Me! sweetie, if you can't love yourself, noone else will. I'm sure it's easy to go jump on fat people because you're dissatisified with your own looks. If looks is all that important to you, then go surround yourself with shallow people who never are an ounce over the "acceptable" and have the perfect hair. Myself, I'm gonna go out and find a really nice fat person and make her my friend, and just to piss you off I'm gong to tell her everyday how beautiful she is..because even if she may not be outside, she probably is inside. I surround myself with beautiful people, not beautiful bodies.

Where do we start today? Idiots of the world unite!

Please unite, it's very difficult sometimes to know what part of who's being a moron today when you have to pick and choose between so many options.

Ah why not cover something local for a change?

Last night we are on our way back from the MIL's house (that's mother in law) and for the last 3 days there's been heavy enough smoke over the area to blanket us in a fog. So as we pass and I realize that yet again we're going to have to run the baby through this into the house, I think to myself "Thank goodness Beaumont implemented a smoking ban because it's sooo much worse than this!" I thought by their little smoking ban they were saying "we want clean air". Well where the fuck is it? I thought by banning smoking they were all yelling "We want clean poison free air!" Ok, then WTF? Ok ok, let me get this straight:

You want "clean air" and so ban smoking from places you don't HAVE to go to and that noone HAS to work at (there were many non smoking establishments, I know because I kept a list of where NOT to go and they all needed help because we are still recovering from those in the hurricane last year too scared to return to the area), and where's the damn clean air? You mean to tell me it's not acceptable for my ONE cigarette (or in the case of a restaurant, 10 people's ONE cigarette each) in favor of a plant that is burning who knows what and putting out enough air pollution to BLANKET THE AREA IN FOG? And of course there's not just one plant around here, no no no, there are MANY. And the plant puts out enough smoke that you have no choice but to breathe it in, NO CHOICE at all. It even gets into your house. Ok ok, so we can't smoke in places your too stupid to vote with your feet and not come to, but apparently we should all breathe deep in our homes of a type of pollution not even matched in car exhaust? Talk about NO CHOICE, talk about being FORCED to inhale unwanted toxins. I never ever forced anyone to breathe in cigarette smoke, at no time have I ever waited until people were home and then pumped thier house with smoke....but I'M the asshole? It goes to show you, this is not, nor has it ever been for the health of anyone. This is all about we don't want you here. But you do want me to fund your child's education?

Texas raised the tobacco tax simply for child's education. Don't try that guilt trip bullshit on me, emotional blackmail "but you can't object cuz it's fer da chilren". You know what that means, because you don't smoke you obviously don't support education. hmm..gonna go by a t-shirt...

I want to know Beaumont, where's the clean air promised to all the inhabitants of this area? No smoking in Beaumont, that's automatic clean air..where is it?

getting married in Second Life

Ok, I really have to get this up even if my page is down.

That is so wierd, my husband and I were discussing this the other day. My question was how many people roleplay themselves into a real life divorce? I can only wonder if they really truly know what they are getting into.

While I consider many of my friendships, not just in SL, but on the net as very real, I just cannot see throwing over your entire real life for a person that may or may not be real. Is this the person you will see when you meet? I know I'm a whole 'nother character when I log on. In second life I am comfortable being silly, nice, and friendly/socialable. But that is something that I cannot acclompish in real life. I just can't get over that mental hump that would allow me to be that way in the real world. I'm a whole different person in the real world; quiet, rude, I find it hard to get to know people or talk to them (makes me extremely uncomfortable). The me you see is not the me you will get when you meet. I mean, SL Jales will still be there and a little more forthcoming than usual...but you see a whole side of me you would never see. How many people are the same? How can anyone accept a SL persona as THE person when you are leaving out so much of their personality???

I guess one could say that this is more of the person than you might ever see in real life. That this is purely them, but no, it can't be purely them. Even in SL you may find yourself in a real life situation (cheating on your SL spouse with another married persona??? ack! LOL), your reaction will still be different for many reasons. Take the cheating instance, even if it is a little extreme:

1. You have no fear you will get shot or the shit beat out of you, so your reaction will be based on that. No fear, so will you wrap your arms around your dolled darling and tell him to go fuck himself? STand up and tell him what a man he's not? Ooo..what a shoutfest...and hey, you can log when you get sick of it.

2. Ok, you probably don't feel badly. Your SL wife comes in and she's been IM'ed with the news from the jealous husband "Your husband was found with my wife in my house today". That much easier to tell her to go fuck herself. I mean, you can do what you want right? And it's not like it's your real life wife (let's negate the whole discussion for the moment on whether you are cheating on her by being married in SL)

You know as well I do that there are no real consequences of your actions. The guys at work are most likely not going to hear about this. There is no real shame involved..well maybe in a very few cases, but you get my point.

So that's not YOU, maybe you are a coward and if this would have happened in real life this dolled darling's shining knight would have been on his knees begging for mercy. Not so pretty a picture now.

So hey geekboy, put down the "uber hottie" avatar here slowly and back away. Little miss plain jane, drop the "sex goddess" avatar. Remember, you don't really KNOW this person, not really. They may have deep thoughts and a great personality online, but don't throw your real wife/husband away for someone you can talk to (no, sex is NOT necessary! imagine that!) without punishment.

Tomorrow: Why the hell would you wanna fuck via avatar? I mean, if you can't touch it, where's the damn fun?

Ah, the joys of small town living...and of course, idiots

For the record, before I get off on my little bitchfest, I'm moving the blog to a personal page of my own where I can set up everything exactly as I want it....as soon as I have everything exactly as I want it. I will link it when I get it done.

I spoke with several members of my family yesterday and caught up on what's going on with them. Well, my gran wanted to know if I knew so and so and I said no. He ran for some small town office back when we lived there, but I never knew him personally. He ran for like mayor or judge or something. It was before we moved and I don't recall if he won or not (obviously not now that I think about it). Don't really care. And the town isn't big enough to actually use a website for the news (hell, they barely have a newspaper) so no linkage ftm. Hmm..might check Abilene news..one sec. Nah, guess not..maybe soon. Anyhow, so the fella was somehow implicated in child porn. His home was searched, and boy is he guilty. Pictures found (ones HE took, not downloaded ones), etc.

Apparently this man was left with a baby daughter to raise when he got divorced years ago (and who knows what he did with her and her friends *shudders*). And apparently this all came about when his daughter moved out and he was still picking up young girls and having them stay the night. HIs modus operandi seems to be buying the girls gifts, extending to even new cars. I think as a parent, I'd be a bit suspicious if my little girl brought back a vehicle one day and I didn't pay for it! Not to mention cell phones and lingerie....So apparently these rumors of his proclivities have been going around for YEARS. So, here's the questions:

I KNOW small town gossip, I lived in this town off and on for years as an adult and a child. This guy was a "upstanding figure", so you could be deaf and you heard people talking about him. Where the hell were the parents and what were they thinking? A man is picking up your young daughter (13-16 and there's the possibility of younger) to come stay the night at his house, gives her nice gifts, NOT SUSPICIOUS???? Ok ok, so you can't lock your child in a box, gotcha, I agree. However, someone starts buying gifts for my child and she's asking to stay over, I would definitely say the "safe than sorry" route would be paramount in my mind. Of course, I also don't believe the tv is a babysitter, so I'm a little wierd to start with I guess.

Why is it people think just because someone is "upstanding" means they can do no wrong? Especially considering the news today. Congressmen picked up for child porn, Jeffrey Dahmer, but yet Joe Blow who ran for county judge can't be any less than a swell guy because well, he did run for judge! And stop and think about this, you are not blowing off a guy who might come in and steal your tv. You are blowing off a man that can hurt your CHILD. Really people, is it worth the fucking chance???? Have you lost your everloving minds???? This isn't an adult or a tv, this is a CHILD. You know, young, naive, defenseless?? Are you getting a picture here? We're talking YEARS of therapy, possibly medication, unwanted pregnancies, their future in ruins, and the possibility that they become so messed up that they become sickos themselves. THIS is what you want for your child just so you can say "I know this guy"????

Now, I'm not one of those "everything for the children". Nope, can't stand it myself. I truly believe that when it comes to the things I do, I'm no longer a child and refuse to halt my behavior just because you want to raise your child in a vacuum. However, in those cases we are talking about cursing, watching violent television. We are NOT talking about the rape/molestation of a child.

He moved one girl in: So um, hey mom, what the fuck were you doing? What kind of mother lets her young daughter move in with a middle aged man and shower her with gifts?????

Maybe I'm getting a bit irate at the wrong thing. Having come from this town (and boy has this happened before there), I know some girls there are a lot less than innocent. However, isn't it our job as parents to watch out for these things and to keep them from happening to our children? Even if our children are a lot less than innocent, does that negate our responsibility to teach them that they are not prostitutes? Or to protect them from those that would take advantage of them? Has society succumbed to lazy parenting? YES, it has.

With the government running more and more of our households, taking decisions away from parents that used to be the parents decisions, we have encouraged parents to let society raise our children and not ourselves. Who knows our children better than we do? Who knows what our individual children need more than we do? Who knows what signs our children are showing more than we do? Damn sure not 100 guys across the country who's never met US, let alone our children!

Our job as parents is to protect our children and guide them to be good adults that are happy with themselves. By protection I do NOT mean "no tv except Disney" and "cover up that statue of David so little Annie doesn't see a penis". I mean that sometimes to protect you have to educate. And you CAN educate your child without scaring the living shit out of them or making them terrified of everyone who passes them. I've discussed sexual molestation since before my girls could understand what I'm talking about. Make it a regular occurence and stay within what they can understand. Even a 4 year old knows pain and shame. It's not too hard to say "If someone touches you somewhere that bothers you or makes you feel bad or hurt you, you come tell me". And don't leave it at that! These predators are masterful manipulators! They will say things to convince your child not to tell, and they are GOOD. You can use the feelings your child has to help them. You know almost all children believe that mommy and daddy are invincible and can save the world. USE THAT! "No matter what anyone says, you come tell me. Noone is big enough to kill me, especially if they have hurt you." "Don't ever let someone tell you that if you tell me something I won't love you anymore. I will always love you no matter what happens." And SHOW them...a child cannot believe in your love, have faith in your protection unless you show them that it's warranted. And for goodness sake, pay attention to your children. I know where my kids are at all times. I know how they react to stress, I know how they act when they've done something wrong, I know how they react when they feel they've been denied fairness or justice or have been unfairly punished. Don't stop mentioning just because now they are 13. Reinforce it! Now they are dealing with a whole new set of possibilities. Like the girls in the town, now they are getting to an age where they are learning they can get a man's attention (or a woman's, this doesn't sexually discriminate) and that sometimes you can get stuff out of a man. And at this point this is not just about rape/molestation, this is also about values and self respect. This is about the new things they will be told and tempted to give into or believe. Remember back to when you were a teenager and the goofy shit you fell for...your kid is no more immune than you are to fall for the goofy shit. And sometimes the goofy shit can hurt them (my mother once told me that there was a rash of bouncing girls when she was a teenager because some of the guys told the girls that if they jumped up and down after sex they wouldn't get pregnant, big surprise a bunch ended up pregnant huh?)

Ah, why bother? Red flags were thrown up about this guy for years and so many ignored them. The good parents are already paying attention and the rest never will...

Simple People

Gravity kills, smoking kills, obesity kills, breathing kills. People actually believe this shit...People. Are. Idiots.

Let's go into how this all started: Yesterday my daughter asked a question about gravity. Actually, she asked about inertia, but she didn't know that when she asked. She ASKED about gravity and was corrected. Anyhow, that's really not the point. The point is the subject came up. Later she makes the statement "gravity kills". Naturally S and I want to know where this conclusion comes from. As far as we know, gravity has never killed anyone. So H explains how if you jump from a 10 story building you will die. Ok, I laughed. Not the demeaning "you're an idiot" laugh. Just the simplistic child view of things that is generally amusing. So I explain that no, gravity doesn't kill and neither does falling, it's the sudden stop at the end that gets you. At which point, with all of a child's logic (and from her end of things this is quite logical and technically I could suppose she is correct), that if there was no gravity then it wouldn't kill you.

And then it hit me. How many fuckin' adults have the logic of a 10 year old child and refuse to progress to something more advanced. My 10 year old actually now grasps why one would be wrong to say "gravity kills", however she has acclompished something that many, hell most, adults have yet to acclompish...reasonable thought is in her grasp. And I thought about it, and the fallacy in the statement, and yet how many otherwise intelligent people continue to make such idiotic statements AND DEFEND THEM! Even when normally they wouldn't!

Let's go here: "Smoking kills". Big anti tobacco thing, you just say smoking kills and watch the little idiots run in fear, screaming their heads off. However, if you say "breathing kills", these EXACT SAME PEOPLE will SCOFF at you for being so simplistically ridiculous. They will even give you the EXACT SAME ARGUEMENT that proves why "smoking kills" is such a ridiculous statement and yet if you point it out, these idiots have the unmitigated gall to actually say "well that's different". But it's not.

While technically the statement "gravity kills" is ultimately correct, it's a highly misleading statement. If gravity kills, then we'd all be dead if we jumped 4 cm off the ground. As I've yet to see a rash of jumping related deaths, I'm going to assume gravity works the same as usual. You jump from a 20 story building, no parachute, make it through the fall as usual, hit the ground and die. You jump froma 20 story building, parachute, make it through the fall, land lightly on the ground, live. So there are two several seperate factors here: parachute possession, impact with the ground, gravity, building size. Now, building size is the same, so that's not what makes you live. You don't die from the fall, so gravity is not the issue here. You have two things that changed; 1. You had a parachute in one, and not in the other 2. The impact with the ground was changed by the parachute. While being slightly more honest one could stop here and say lack of parachutes kill, but that's not really the case is it? I mean, that's a pretty broad statement. People go without parachutes all the time and they don't die. One could say height kills, but being up high didn't kill you either. In fact, both times all was actually going very well until you got to the impact part. There is the fundamental difference! One could stop there and say Impact kills, and you'd be a hell of a lot closer to correct than gravity kills is..however, there are various kinds of impact right? At what level is impact fatal? So you do 500 experiments with different heights etc until you can narrow it down, then you release a completely accurate statement: "Impact with hard objects are fatal from 20 miles an hour on up if you land on your head"Maybe you release 30 statements "Impact with hard objects with your legs are fatal at 30 miles and up" "Impact with hard objects from a height of 20 stories no matter what you land on are fatal" Whatever. But all are now accurate and thoroughly educating statements. So what we now know is that you can jump and play in gravity all day long and nothing will happen to you, but if you climb a large building and jump and impact with a hard surface at certain speeds, you will die. Obviously a statement of some significance or we'd lose the entire sport of basketball...In fact, if we had been raised on the simple statement of "gravity kills", we wouldn't have had basketball, jump ropes, and a good portion of follow the leader would be gone. All this is very logical. In fact, it's so naturally accepted we don't even quote studies anymore to prove that gravity does not kill, impact with the ground from certain heights or at certain speeds do. It's pretty much common sense that gravity does not kill.

So wtf is wrong with people that they accept these scare tactic statements that "obesity kills" or "smoking kills"? Hell, with the simplistic, childish arguements like this, I can prove with NO effort that breathing kills, because you wouldn't stop breathing if you weren't breathing to start with.

Personal Responsibility

It's funny how that phrase has altered so much in the last few years. It does not mean that one must act in the socially defined "responsible" way. It means that an individual be responsible for the choices they make.

Which shows you how the notion of "personal responsibility" gets easily twisted . Nowadays it means that each individual, even in his deepest, most intimate choices is actually responsible to Society at Large-- a fine Maoist concept-- or else to His Employer-- a fine Fascist concept. (Walt)

So for those unsure of what personal responsibility actually is, here is a definition of what personal responsibility means:

Accepting personal responsibility includes:

Acknowledging that you are solely responsible for the choices in your life.

Accepting that you are responsible for what you choose to feel or think.

Accepting that you choose the direction for your life.

Accepting that you cannot blame others for the choices you have made.

Tearing down the mask of defense or rationale for why others are responsible for who you are, what has happened to you, and what you are bound to become.

The rational belief that you are responsible for determining who your are, and how your choices affect your life.

Pointing the finger of responsibility back to yourself and away from others when you are discussing the consequences of your actions. (not btw, how MY actions influence you, but YOUR OWN actions and choices)

Realizing that you determine your feelings about any events or actions addressed to you, no matter how negative they seem.

Recognizing that you are your best cheerleader; it is not reasonable or healthy for you to depend on others to make you feel good about yourself.

Recognizing that as you enter adulthood and maturity, you determine how your self-esteem will develop.

Not feeling sorry for the ``bum deal'' you have been handed but taking hold of your life and giving it direction and reason.

When you have not accepted personal responsibility, you can run the risk of becoming:

Chronically hostile, angry, or depressed over how unfairly you have been or are being treated.

Fearful about ever taking a risk or making a decision.

Overwhelmed by disabling fears.

Over responsible in your need to rescue others in your life.

What do people believe who have not accepted personal responsibility?

I want you to fix me.

How can you say I am responsible for what happens to me in the future? There is fate, luck, politics, greed, envy, wicked and jealous people, and other negative influences that have a greater bearing on my future than I have. (Yeah, blame McDonald's and the smokers)

What terms are used to describe those who have not accepted personal responsibility?

martyrs. self-pitying, depressed, losers, quitters, chronically angry, BLAMERS, fearful, hostile, aggressive, irresponsible, weak, neurotic, obsessed

In order to accept personal responsibility you need to develop the ability to:

Be open to new ideas or concepts about life and the human condition.

Refute irrational beliefs and overcome fears.

RECOGNIZE THAT YOU ARE THE SOLE DETERMINANT OF THE CHOICES YOU MAKE.

RECOGNIZE THAT YOU CHOOSE YOUR RESPONSES TO THE PEOPLE, ACTIONS, AND EVENTS IN YOUR LIFE.

Realize that you are the party in charge of the direction your life takes.