Bassinet Recall

Read here


I used one for my 3 youngest, the oldest of which is 5. You aren't supposed to lower the flap with the bar there. If the flap is lowered the bassinet is supposed to be pushed up against your bed and the bar isn't supposed to be on the bassinet. Any of you read those instructions it should say the same. Mine was the Graco one, btw.

IMO, they weren't the irresponsible ones and it's a shame the babies were hurt and not the stupid parents.

Supreme Court disappointing

We've all heard about the Arizona girl who was strip searched over a single accusation of possessing Ibuprofen..you know, that dangerous drug that's been known to.....umm...ummm.....well you know, it's dangerous.

While she partially won her case in that the actions taken were wrong, noone's going to be punished for it. Because we know we all should reserve the right for school officials to strip our children at will. It's not like schools sometimes house sicko perverts...right? Right?

If I were this girl's parents the question wouldn't be "could I sue them"..the question would be "under which criminal charges can I charge them". That is, if there was anything left to sue after I beat the ever loving shit out of them. In my eyes, this is sexual abuse.

The Supreme Court's decision is disappointing in that the official receives no punishment. However, in all honesty I can't hold them solely responsible. The parents went the wrong route. The sexual humiliation of your child you want....money? No...you want jail time, honey. Who sues a fuckin' pedophile??? And while the principal may not be a pedophile...maybe...the idea is that his misuse of his authority permitted the sexual abuse of your child....that's jail time. I don't understand why he can walk, what was daddy doing? Maybe it's uncivilized of me, but a beating does leave a lasting impression. Ok, so *I* believe in a beat down, but really, what kind of parents want MONEY??????

Does anyone know if they tried criminal charges and maybe that route didn't work? I mean, then I could understand the money route..I mean the guy needs to suffer SOMEHOW....but only if they tried criminal charges first and those didn't work out. Although, it seems to me it'd be a landmark case. I mean, this isn't the first child to get strip searched by school officials. There was that gal who had to raise her dress during prom to make sure she wasn't wearing a thong (and didn't the teacher feel her up a little too?). Some kids were strip searched in a private school for $42. Hey, I got an idea! How about we waterboard the kids until they 'fess up!!??

So why didn't the school call the police and the parents...oh wait, she wasn't accused of a CRIME. So a strip search is justified how? The word of another 13 year old girl. ONE. That's it. No history of trouble, excellent GPA....and for what? Heroin? Crack? A gun? No, ibuprofen, that horribly dangerous substance you can't get unless you.....walk into a pharmacy with $10.

“My thought process,” Justice Souter said, “is I would rather have the kid embarrassed by a strip search, if we can’t find anything short of that, than to have some other kids dead because the stuff is distributed at lunchtime and things go awry.

Embarassed?? Embarassed??? Do you have any idea of the mental and emotional trauma related to this? Thanks for the next pedophile defense when they take naked pictures of children. I appreciate that. "Oh, the naked pictures don't HURT them, just embarass them a little..teehee". But hey, as long as they're school officials, they don't NEED a defense. They just have to pay a student $20 for a verbal accusation and they can ogle to their heart's content. Don't worry, you won't get in trouble.

One has to wonder how the result would have turned out had the girl gone to child services and said "my daddy strip searches me everyday".

Politesse dear, always

Y'know, sometimes, ok, all the time, the sheer impoliteness of people drives me nuts. I mean, I know coming from Queen Asshole that's funny, but I may be an asshole but I'm a polite asshole. The thing is, my assholishness (yes I made it up) is just honesty that pisses folks off. So I'll tell you there's birdshit on your head, but unless you're making fun of someone's hat, I'll take you to the side to do it.

So I'm in this email group with other moms of gifted kids. One mom is, well, stuck up is the word I'd use. Her 14 year old spends his free time playing video games and wants to be a game designer when he grows up. I feel sorry for the kid, because his mother obviously believes that since SHE thinks so low of games then he should have higher aspirations and "quit wasting his time". Apparently she missed all the after school movies that show that parents like that drive their children away.

So anyhow, she writes in how this is what he does in his free time and how to make him stop because video games are immature and she knows of some adults who play and goes on to imply that adults who game are emotionally deficient and how worthless her son is going to be for making this his career. I do take offense at the attitude, but not her, I mean, how is she supposed to know I'm a gamer? So I sent in my two cents....it took me 2 hours, but I was pretty confident that I had come off as "you seem kind of misinformed, I'd like to show you the other side of it". I told her I was a gamer, I explained the intricacies, the studies. I promise, every line I wrote was combed over and over in order to inform and not sound rude. It may seem like a waste of time, but all I could think of was this poor kid being raised by a woman that tells him his dreams are worthless, which to a kid could imply that he's worthless for having such worthless dreams.

Now, I expected, as we're a polite group, maybe not agreement, but maybe a tone down of the immature, worthless gamER attitude. I mean, as much of a bitch as I am, *I* would have toned it down. Hell no, she writes this passive aggressive email back about how this is her opinion and reiterates over and over and over again how worthless and useless and he needs to stop. I mean, says it to the point where I know two things: 1. she's not interested in the other side, 2. this is a personal attack. So I write another email, changing tactics and focusing on the need to not let her personal opinion influence her treatment of her son and deriding his dreams. A sure fire way of installing a wall between them. Which was a lot nicer than the other response from another mom: "I feel sorry for your son for having you for a mother."

Which rates yet another PA email in which she relentlessly pursues the worthlessness and immaturity of someone who plays games. I quit at this point. Not because I don't want to give the poor kid a break, but hey, there's only so much you can do from email with a jackass and engaging in the "you're a cunt" fight accomplishes absolutely nothing for the boy. And quite frankly, here's my elitism showing, but she's obviously not sophisticated enough to engage in a conversation on a topic without letting her personal opinion permeate every inch of it. I mean, she won't get the larger point of "you're causing you and your child issues" because all she cares about is the topic itself "gamers are idiots".

How stupid can you be? I mean, look, I have a lot of opinions and many are set in stone. Not because I'm closed minded, but because I've thought long and hard about each of them. If anything directly proves them wrong, I'll change them, but as things stand, through much consideration, they are my opinions and I'm very vehement about them. However, your opinion on a subject cannot override the greater issues, especially if it's someone you profess to love.

This is a story I shared with her: I find sports fucking useless. I think players are overpaid and it's pretty sad to get paid so much for running around with a ball while there are men and women who work harder or contribute more to society that barely scrape by. I could go on and on in very derogatory terms that would make my opinion on sports crystal clear and make people who watch them feel like I personally think that person is useless for watching them.

One problem here: *I* dont' see the point. That doesn't mean that there isn't one. That damn sure doesn't mean that people I care about or know are useless over one thing *I* don't get. My husband LOVES sports, he's a jock through and through. To let my personal opinion override the big picture would cause our marriage issues. I know my husband isn't worthless. I know my friends are not immature and worthless. To define them over my personal opinion would be stupid. I'm very careful to keep my opinion out of his day to day ball games. The only time it comes up is if we're trying to find new ground, which has happened once. LOL

My husband feels the exact same way about my gaming. He thinks it's worthless and stupid. He also does not deride it, though I'm sure he wants to sometimes. We give each other shit sometimes, in joking. "ah, look, he's playing with the ballie again, another million!" or him: "Ooooo double experience weekend?" *orgasm sounds follow*. It's all in fun and we each try to make time for the other to engage in their chosen activity. He frequently heads out with his buddy to watch UFC pay per view fights at a bar, I try to leave him alone during important games. I get to play for a few hours while he takes over child care. For one, while he is a jock and I'm a gamer, these only define us to some extent, it isn't who we ARE. These things don't invalidate why we love one another. To let these opinions override who that person is, it would ruin our marriage. To be honest, no matter how much I don't like sports, I still love that part of him.

You can't let your opinion on something ruin something with someone you love. There are times when you have to set that to the side because to not do so would drive you apart. You wanna drive a wall between you and your kid, do it because he beats up old ladies or does drugs, don't do it over fuckin' video games.

This was a rant on politeness that turned into a rant over stupidity, but hey, you've read this enough, can you honestly say you didn't see the turn coming?

Gor: or you asked for it

"Gor" refers to the lifestyle some people have committed themselves to based on these books by John Norman. Go see Wikipedia, I haven't read them. I might, I have some friends who like this type of living, but I personally am not into anything that gives me a "master".

The basics, man is Man/Master, woman is slave, freewoman (not enslaved), or panther (won't happen except by force). Please understand I'm getting my info from Second Life, NOT from the books. Now, slave is slave. Easy to get, you want to please anyone free, particularly your master. Freewoman is a woman living by gor rules not enslaved, but if she acts in any fashion outside the rules, she becomes slave. By doing a slave activity, she can be enslaved. She has to be covered all the time. Panther is refusing to live by man's rules and lives outside the Gor society. Basic gist, it gets far more complicated than that.

What we are discussing is the slave aspect. Don't picture the panther, being brought in a kennel (yes you heard me) against her will kicking and snarling. No no, we have women who VOLUNTEER to be slaves. I've asked them why and there's this long discussion of "wanting desperately to please a man", of women already being slaves to men, or women not being slaves not living their full womanly potential. I'm picturing fundie women on crack here. None of this resonates with me, I don't get it. But hey, if you like it, more power to you. I have gor friends, masters/slaves/freewomen/panthers. If they like it, no issues. This isn't about Gors, there are some lovely wonderful people who RP or live gorean.

My problem lies with the fundie haters. Most of which are women who had a "bad experience" with Gor. I get it, something like this is frought with those who wish to take advantage of it. Men who overdo it. Yet, you VOLUNTEERED. Are you really stupid enough to think that men who choose this type of "life" are all decently wonderous men who only look to love a woman? I mean, it's OWNERSHIP, SLAVE is the operative word here. What the fuck did you think would happen? The men would give you cookies? If you go into something ASKING to be treated like an animal, how can you expect there won't be some with a distorted view of what animals should be treated like?

Yeah yeah, I've heard it. "You don't understand, it's a mental hold they get over you. They manipulate your emotions and blah blah blah". This is the same shit I have heard from abused women except one key part. Abused women don't hear a man hits them and say "oooo I want some of THAT". No no, the beatings are a SURPRISE. These women don't volunteer for the abusive husband.

These gor chicks ask for it. It's not like you can be enslaved at the grocery store. Now, get this, there's more. This isn't REAL LIFE, this is SECOND LIFE. In other words, you can teleport away and log out and bye bye gor lifestyle. Most of these men? Long distance. You might be from Maine and your "master" from France. In other words, he can't come get you. You don't even have to permanently log out on that character. You can do all the neat computer things that put him on ignore and he can't do anything to you you don't allow. He can grief you, but that's what landowners and Mentors are for. This isn't something that happens against your will, you have to approve of every thing he tries to do to your avatar. And don't give me that mental "he trapped me" shit. YOU have issues if you let a guy ONLINE control you and fuck up your self image. YOU need therapy. I'm not saying he doesn't, but this isn't about him.

So don't be surprised if the next time I say "gor" and you react negatively I tell you to get over it. YOU ASKED FOR IT, literally. I am completely unsympathetic to your bad experiences. You ASKED for it. You are the idiot who jumped in there, and I don't want to hear a damn thing about "he hurt me". Good, what the fuck did you expect? This isn't a set up for men worshipping women, this is women worshipping and being enslaved by men. That's what you volunteered for.

"Well, he said he'd respect me". Well, when I was in high school the guy I gave my virginity to said he loved me. Both of us were stupid, move on. The fact is, you cannot claim the abuse the married woman claimed. You ASKED for it. You said, "you're my master. I am yours to command as you see fit." How can you be surprised when he sees fit to mistreat you? An abused wife isn't looking for a master, she's looking for a husband. She can claim abuse. All you can claim is stupidity.

So, I don't care about your bad experience. I don't care about how he "abused" you. I don't care that you were looking for a nice master and picked the wrong one. I was looking for a good husband and have a divorce under my belt. Hardly a call for abuse, just picked the wrong one (the first time). If you want to cross me off your list because I have friends who live Gor and I don't tell them what to do or cut them off, good. Most likely you've been crossed off for being stupid, so we're even. Go take your sob story to some one who gives a shit.

Black Friday (How stupid are you?)

I don't want to know which of my friends participated in Black Friday. I really don't. I don't want to know how many of you chose to participate in an event that grows more and more out of control every year. L, I would like to note this is not a response to YOUR post, but a response to the many others who have decried ANY responsibility on the part of the shoppers.

I know it's "IN" now to blame those nasty corporations. It's all their fault for everything. I'm not a real corporate friend myself. There's much they do wrong and Black Friday COULD be handled better. However, in our rush to blame everyone else, let's not forget to lay this directly where it belongs: on you. Every single one of you that participates in Black Friday, ie going to the store and waiting in line, have contributed to this man's death. I get a good deal, I know how it is, especially when you're poor. However, many of you participating are not. I know some folks that have plenty of money and buy things not only they don't need (I mean, they did not WANT these items until they saw the deal and do not use them), but also don't have them in mind as gifts. Really, what is the point in buy 6 of an item you know you will not use and don't know if anyone you know will use? Just because it's cheap? Really? You do realize that the $200 you just spent will now sit in your closet until it's obsolete? Gape like a fish, but you know it's true. Well, maybe not, some of you will not consider your friends on their birthdays in order to get rid of this stupid thing and justify your shopping. You will then tell yourself next year, "Well, I got rid of them all, everyone loved them!" Maybe, and maybe they are better friends than you are. Since you all chose to queue at the doors of stores like animals, you have told the corporation yet again, "do with us as you will".

But let's get back to the real point here. Are we adults or are we not? Are we the decisionmakers in life, or are we sheep steered hither and yon for the corporate cash box? Are WE in charge of ourselves, or are we nothing more than ignorant masses here to feed the corporation? I say this in all superiority because I STAYED HOME!! I shopped some awesome deals online at midnight Thanksgiving night and was in bed by 1 am secure that my shopping for the entire Christmas season was over. I was in my pajamas, at home, cigarette in hand, getting free shipping. I know, not everyone can do this sort of thing, but if you can and you didn't, then you are a problem.

*coughs* Sorry for the gloatfest, but I do so love shoving your stupidity in your face and grinding it in. It's orgasmic. Anyhow, the fact is, we are in charge of ourselves and our behavior. While certain blogs (which will remain linkless) will decry the corporations as it's the responsabilité du joure, let's not rule out free will. We all know the madness of Black Friday, provided you didn't crawl out from under a rock buried in the center of the Earth yesterday. We are all aware of what our needs and wants are. It's not that I wouldn't LIKE to participate. We aren't broke, but a good deal sure helps out. It's just that I don't let what I want overpower my decency. My decency says we do not contribute to the madness. My decency says as I could do just as well elsewhere and lessen one person contributing to the standard mob mentality that we allow to run our nation. Black Friday is not the disease, it's a symptom of us, the human disease.

Ah, that's not the right analogy, as we're not a cancer, mindlessly reproducing, ignorant of our effects...we just don't CARE. Look at the AP article.

Other workers were trampled as they tried to rescue the man, and customers stepped over him and became irate when officials said the store was closing because of the death, police and witnesses said.

Shoppers stepped over the man on the ground and streamed into the store.

"When they were saying they had to leave, that an employee got killed, people were yelling 'I've been on line since yesterday morning,'" she said. "They kept shopping."

How is Walmart responsible for THIS? How is any company responsible for the people who chose to continue shopping and whine because a man had the gall to die when they trampled over him in a rush to get to their "deal"? I get why not stop and help him, you surge forward or get trampled yourself, but to whine because the store is closing after you helped kill a man???? You want to blame the corporations for our "fellow man" (not mine) being so crass and having no decency? The corporations didn't foster this behavior. Something is seriously wrong with these people. If I hurt someone I will stop and try to help and suffer over what part I may have played. I DO NOT CONTINUE SHOPPING! You have decided a plasma tv is worth more than this person's life.

Look, it's bad enough to show up and later say, "I never expected this" after watching this shit on the news every fuckin' year. We'll just stamp "Retarded" on your head and put you on the special bus. But to then WHINE and continue shopping? You are a criminal. Not only have you possibly contributed to a wrongful act, but you have NO remorse. You're no better than a serial killer. I'm not exaggerating, you really are no better. If you want to blame the stores, the fundamental problem is not Black Friday, but YOU. You are trying to remove the blame that SHOULD cling heavily to your own shoulders. It doesn't matter that the corporations COULD find a safer way or better way to do this. This does not remove the responsibility for your actions and your behavior from yourself.

Are we human beings, theoretically capable of rational thought, or are we nothing but animals throwing feces? I can tell you what you damn well look like...

The True Dangers of Internet Porn

Wow. I'm not a big porn fan (hehe, I said big). While I'm a fairly lenient parent in letting my children view sex on tv provided it's in a context that they observe natural behavior in life, I do not subject my children to blatant sex for sex/entertianment's sake. We do not watch shows when there is no rational reason to throw a graphic sex scene in the middle other than to pull in the male viewer or titti-late. ;) While the Matrix 3 was not bad, I to this day do not see the purpose of tossing in Neo and Trinity's sex scene throughout the tribal scene. I do get the sexuality in the tribal dancing. One seemed sex for sex sake, the other was making a point of the culture. I can't explain it too well, but I get it.

So understand, I have a healthy view of sexuality in that I understand it's a fact of life and I'm no frigid virgin scared of a little willie (I know, I gotta stop that). I refuse to raise my children with that view myself. Now, going a bit further, if you're new to this blog, I'm a HUGE fan of personal responsibility. I tend to put a lot of people's behavior on their own shoulders. One should act, not react. If you choose to be reactionary, then you are choosing to give up responsibility of your behavior to your emotions.

Knowing all this, you can probably understand a few of the problems I may have with the above website. (Yes, I'm well aware it's selling a product, however, if you think this is the first time I've seen Vagina Madness, you're blind) If you click on the title you get taken to the Reefer Madness of Porn. I say this because this:

The price our young people pay is more often than not, addiction. The sexual images our teens view release chemicals in the brain (endorphins), our body eventually craves these feel good chemicals like alcohol or drugs--- serious problem though, the alcoholic can avoid the bars and situations… how do you avoid the images that pop into your head when you’re trying to study? When you see a new face at a party? You don’t, that’s why Internet Porn has been compared to crack cocaine– but worse!


sounds suspiciously like this:

At the heart of the campaign are two studies on the neurochemical effects of THC, marijuana's effective ingredient, published recently in Science magazine. The putative results: Marijuana is not only a "gateway" drug to heroin, but addictive in its own right. Just like alcohol and cocaine, marijuana is capable of "hijacking the brain's so-called reward system," Science reported, and priming it for future addiction.

Really? Seeing a penis is a "gateway" drug to donkey shows? Please say your fucking with me..please?

Internet porn is not a romance novel. It is not a sex education for beginners. In its simplest form it teaches a complete lack of intimacy—using another human being to masturbate oneself, and most often degrading the other.

Wow, and who would imagine that after thousands of years of some version of porn (do you really think there were no voyeurs in Ancient Rome? wrong) that the sudden slight convenience of internet porn verses mailed/cornerstore porn is going to ruin the view of intimacy, ESPECIALLY if the parents display a healthy view of intimacy? Now I'm not trying to be an ass, but if your kid is that stupid, the problem isn't porn. We have survived the advances of porn for thousands of years and, because of the internet, we are suddenly brainless monkies?

When viewing porn on the internet starts becoming an addiction, the viewer becomes obsessed with making/stealing time for this activity. He/she will turn down healthy invitations to social activities, preferring time with the computer, will find excuses to be home alone or locked in their room, etc.

Because no young boy discovers masturbation unless someone points it out to them, and they'd hardly disappear to the bathroom when they did find it. C'mon guys, admit it, for the first little while you did it a lot. I'm not giving you shit, but be honest.

Don Juan, move over—there is a new role model for young good looking guys—the predator! There is a generation of young men who think that sex is a game. They are the hunter and any girl is the hunted, the concept of relationship does not even cross their mind. They emulate the role models they see on porn sites, and strive to be like them.

And where the hell are you dad? While it's apparent that every generation would far prefer to lay the blame on something else, let's get down to brass tacks: Your fault. Now, it could be because we as parents do not get a handbook. We're flying by the seat of our pants here. However, at least admit you've made mistakes. We all have, nothing to be ashamed of. It could also be the example set by dear old dad. Dear old dad who divorced mom after 20 years because that hot thing on his arm is younger and prettier. Don't worry dad, mom does it too. You and your friends teach these boys where to get their ideas. Predators are glamorized as "playas" on tv yeah, but where the hell were you, from when he was a little boy? You obviously weren't teaching him proper respect for a woman. And the worse you treat women, well, the more he gets the idea that they aren't meant to be treated respectfully. Studies still show that the biggest influence on a child is his or her parents. So guess who's falling down on the job? The buck stops here, you are the weakest link, pick a phrase, but get it.

If you read "understanding your critical role" you see a ton of good ideas. I can't argue with any of these really. I suppose I could question just what exactly they mean by "protect" as it's constantly misused as "don't even let them know it exists", but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

I can't argue with "things you should know". Those ARE things you should know...if you're doing your job.

In the "6 Signs Your Kid Could Be At Risk" I have a problem with. At risk of what? A disturbing scene? Have you seen the NON-porn things these kids have sent to each other? What exactly is the risk here? Getting an idea? Knowing young men, they probably have already heard it from a friend and decided to accept/discard it. I'm really not sure what the risk is.

1. The family computer is conveniently placed in the basement, attic, back room
2. Your child has a computer with internet access in their room
3. Your child has their own laptop with internet access
4. You have not set parental controls on the computers that your children have access to
5. You never check the history on you’re computers browser
6. Your teen creates/finds situations to be home alone and on the computer

In other words, shadow your child constantly. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of supervision, but you have to learn at some point to start trusting your kid a little. If nothing else (especially if you're one of those constantly harping on what the "right" way to raise a child is), trust the method you used. Just as those who seek to be enlightened must maintain a state of unconscious wakefulness, you must maintain a state of watchful trust, tailored to your child. Some children need more watching than others, but they all need to feel that you believe in them to make the right decisions. By setting parental controls and checking their history and not leaving them alone, you show that you don't believe they can handle responsibility. This being the same little brat you bought a 2 ton metal machine that goes in excess of 100 mph. Wow, schizo much? You'll trust him to not run over someone and speed around (though it's been proven that damn near every teenage boy does) and yet can't trust him to not go into a sexual frenzy over the site of a vagina? Please be aware, this says a lot more about you than it does him.

The younger your children are when you start your action plan the less resistance you will meet; the following are the basic House Rules for all ages at all times.

Wow, David Koresh's guide to brainwashing: the sooner you can get them under your thumb, the sooner you can laze back and let the threat manage things. I'm not saying don't teach them young, but this phrase suggests making them malleable to better able to control them. Just remember, when you have made them so and are in control, you've left the back door open to everyone else that would like them malleable and controllable. Also, a sign that you're too lazy to BE a parent. As long as you maintain control over them, you don't have to actually teach them a thing, huh? What gets me is you treat them like little children as long as possible and then SEND them off to college. When the dean calls for the 8th time about Johnny's alcohol stash and Jenny's been busted blowing the football team again, you're surprised! Really? And it's all porn's fault, not yours for treating them like they're 5 until the day they moved out. You gave a 6 year old a credit card and now you're pissed because he spent 10k on toys.

Look, I see what it is. You're lazy. It only takes a village to raise a child when mom and dad don't want to do it. You have relegated the responsibility of your child to everyone else. The schools teach them sex, political views, acceptable behavior. The church teaches them values. The internet, the tv, the books must all be modified to suit what you want them to learn. What the hell do you do? Not a fuckin' thing. What gets me is you are the same lazy asses who get mad at what the schools teach them. "I don't want my kid learning that liberal bullshit/redneck religion". Well, they gotta teach them SOMETHING, you're damn sure not doing it. Don't bitch if you don't like it. You bitch, and yet you STILL don't take responsibility. You don't change it, you expect everyone else to change.

The buck stops here. We are the ones who CHOSE the responsibility of OUR children. I don't want to raise your kids. Chances are, I don't LIKE your kids. I may feel that some of the "child free" are some stuck up bastards but there's one thing they have right: They didn't choose to have children, YOU raise them. I didn't choose to have more children so what the hell makes you think I want responsibility for yours? If you want a village raising your kids, put them in a state home. Look how well that whole village thing is going for THOSE kids.

Homeschooling, unschooling and "Bad Parents"

There's this site called babble.com. Apparently they allow articles that go against the grain of standardized parenting. Some homeschoolers on there. Joanne Rudnall wrote an article on her first attempt at homeschooling. She has chosen to use an unschooling method. IMO, a perfect method at least to start with seeing as how her son is 5 years old. The article is fine, I'm sure we could find places to disagree were we to talk, but the article doesn't bother me. The comments, WOW. What a bunch of losers. What gets me is the hoops they jump through in their mind to justify their OMG reaction with.

1. The little boy gets the appropriate amount of sleep for a young child, he just stays up late. Why is it that everyone thinks that everyone else has to follow THEIR timetable? I'm sorry, I'm not a morning person. I get my energy and my drive after dark. Since we've started homeschooling the kids sleep as they wish. My older children are up at the butt crack of dawn, greeting the sun as it rises to the sky. Myself and my younger children come blearily stumbling through the house after daylight to find that my oldest children are eating breakfast and have already started on today's lessons. I would hardly find this abuse. Ok, so their lives aren't lived by bells and whistles, ordering them when to stay or go. They learn punctuality, as I'm a great believer in it. We have appointments just like any other family and those times are strictly adhered to. Just in the rest of our life, a clock doesn't run it.

2. She took him to a bar. OMGOMGOMG!!!!! Ok, not the bars YOU hang out in, but a family friendly pub type bar. She's English, as I understand it, that's normal. Where's the objection here? Is it the alcohol? If so, arrest any parent who's ever had a drink at home. I don't care if it's an upscale bar...it's not the dive we go to where there are fights every night, someone's always loudly sloshed, and the waitress has brained a guy twice with her tray because he can't keep his hands off her ass. He's not even getting alcohol, he's drinking cranberry juice. Get over it.

3. Why do people assume homeschoolers are some elite bunch with a ton of disposable money? I've never met or heard such a person. Sorry, but we make sacrifices to be able to stay home with our kids and teach them. We don't get Red Lobster every night, we don't drive a new car, we don't have a cool tv, our clothes are not in style (but they are comfortable). Every homeschool parent I know or have heard of barely make ends meet. We aren't taking advantage of a easy life, we are sacrificing for something we feel is more important.

4. A beer doesn't equal getting wasted. So if we get to have a beer or margarita at 2 pm at the playdate, that's no different than you coming home to your kids and having a martini in front of them. We don't assume YOU get roaring drunk, why do you assume we do?

5. The children were naked, playing in the mud. It seems if you're going to let kids play in the mud, nudity is the best option. Especially if you're riding a subway home. I get it, to you nudity means everyone is having sex. I'm sorry, not all of us tie sex to nudity. Some of us actually get naked for other reasons. I took my clothes off last week for a strange man, spread my legs wide open, and accepted his entry. He was my gynocologist. No sex involved...pervert. If you think those paper gowns mean anything except to make you feel better, you have issues. I mean really, they are up your cooch, is the paper gown really doing anything to keep him from seeing it? It's just there so you feel dignified.

6. She hasn't read the unschooling handbook. I find it amusingly strange that an unschooling parent has said that another unschooling parent is at fault because she didn't get information out of THE unschooling handbook. Waitwaitwait, you mean to tell me, the person who believes learning is best on hand and in the world (not from books) is telling another unschooler that she can unschool best if she gets it from...waitforit....a BOOK?????

7. He watched Juno. THAT'S NOT APPROPRIATE TV FOR A LITTLE BOY....Ok, YOU watch Disney every day. Who are you to say what's "appropriate" for a kid you haven't met? Ok, I get it, YOUR kid isn't smart enough to get it so other people's kids can't watch it. Why don't we tell all the kids who can read 4 grade levels ahead of their own that yes, I know you understand it and yes, the "baby" books are simple, but you are only 6 and so MUST only read the "baby" books. That's no different from telling an intelligent child he can only watch Sesame Street and Blue's Clues because it's for his "age group". You want to keep your kid limited, I suppose that's your business. MY kid however is going to be challenged at every opportunity. I think all the "oh so now your so cool because your kid can watch Juno" comments are jealousy because their kid can't UNDERSTAND Juno.

8. She's being arrogant? So are you, you are arrogant enough to think you know her whole life from an article. You are arrogant enough to think your method of raising children should override anyone else's. You're arrogant enough to think your rant should matter to anyone. She's ENGLISH. Different sense of humor, different way of talking, get over it.

9. Why do people think sending a child to school is the way to prepare a child for "real life"? I really don't know anyone who sits at a desk all day with only breaks for bathroom and lunch, calls his boss to get permission to use the bathroom, never talks to anyone, and listens to someone else lecture them for hours on end except for breaks on pre-made worksheets. No one, my husband doesn't know anyone either and he knows TONS of people. (My husband doesn't need a fave five, he needs a fave 60). We all know people who have to take responsibility for their own job, have meetings, take lunch and sometimes have lunch with a client, leave the office to go work on clients things, talk all day on the phone, and stop between clients to make sure their paperwork is filled out. They can take an hour off at any point in the day to go for a workout if they are stressed, accept phone calls from their wives (except during meeting times), and stop for a coke and a snack. If you're more working class (such as a roofer or welder) you definitely don't see a desk that day and you INTERACT (not merely in the presence of) with others. Oh wait, I DO know one guy who does that (except for listening to someone lecture him all day, he does do that part). He's a programmer and he has deplorable social skills. People consider him abnormal because he doens't talk to people much. Ok, so this situation is abnormal for adults, but acceptable for children because they are in the presence of 30 other kids they can't talk to? Wow, you're right, that's SO much better. Also, that whole segmented day thing, is your day segmented? I mean do you ONLY work on certain things at certain times of the day? What happens if something happens outside it's segment? Yes, I'm being deliberately obtuse, but really, you people SHOULD think about it.

Hell, you people should think, but I suppose that's entirely too much to ask.

Catch up on Kathleen

So, you all saw the motion to squash was granted and Shoemaker was ordered to show cause.

So now she has responses. I urge you to go read this mess, but I'll try to sum it up here.

1. She (Kathleen) doesn't agree with us, and that harms us. Lots of folks don't agree with me, I think it's a bit of a stretch to call it harm.

2. She used science and sense to prove us wrong, thereby making us look like we're wrong and forcing us to defend our science.

3. Her husband uses the wikipedia...oh the agony.

4. You have to post this verbatim:

Ms. Seidel states in her web site that others aid her, including her husband. That renders her activity a conspiracy to dissuade potential Federal litigants and their witnesses by intimidation and to penalize those who are not dissuaded by injury to their property interests, particularly their employment.

Others help her and somehow this turns into witness intimidation. I missed the part where it was proven she intimidated anyone. But then again, legalese confuses me.

5. My personal favorite. She claims to be a wife and mother, but she is so smart she must be getting help. Apparently us wives and mothers are entirely too stupid to look things up for ourselves and have good study skills.

6. She agrees with the pharma companies, so she MUST be getting help from them. Although you gotta love a man that puts someone else's opinion up as "beliefs" in quotes...as if they aren't real and poor little dumbass Kathleen, wife and mother, was led to a toxic well and dumb enough to drink. You guys know how much I hate pharma companies, but even I don't jump to this conclusion without a good reason.

You ought to go read this stuff..there's even testimonies as to how Kathleen's opposing viewpoint has harmed those involved. Quite frankly, if they were harmed it was due to their own behavior in objecting to having opposing viewpoints published. It's my understanding that this isn't the first time they've tried to use the courts to undermine science because they felt threatened that it didn't agree with them.

Neurodiversity

I'm not a legal person. Legalese tends to make me feel that my brain is going in circles and is not under it's own control ( can we declare legalspeak detrimental to one's health?). But this sounds like the worst kind of idiocy I've ever heard. Pretty much, this man's defense seems to be wives and mothers are entirely too stupid for this level of sophistication and there's some things I don't understand going on. Which says a lot more about him than it does about anyone else. He appears, in his response to show cause, using his own words, as a neanderthal and a whiner ("no one agrees with me, I"m going to squash opposing viewpoints so I don't look stupid"). IMO, he doesn't need outside help to look ridiculous, he does just fine on his own.

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.

In all fairness

The national office of the ALA has seen the ad and pulled it from the air and YouTube. They apologized and expressed their disgust.

To quote Dr. Siegel (link on the right)

Apparently, the spot was produced by an ALA affiliate, and the national office was not aware of it until seeing my blog post this morning.

I will post a statement of regret from John Kirkwood, the president and CEO of the ALA, momentarily.

I applaud the American Lung Association for pulling the ad, expressing its thoughtful sentiments, and for its sincere apology.

ALA, John, this is called "damned if you do, damned if you don't". You're own fault however. You have spent so much time lying, I don't believe your sorry for your, albeit distant, involvement in this commercial. I think you're only sorry it wasn't the reaction you hoped for. I like this quote from a reader over at Doc's website:

The lies and frauds of the antismoking movement go beyond the damage to science: they hurt people and they hurt our society. The action of the ALA with regard to this ad is commendable, but I wouldn't give them an award any more than I'd pin a ribbon on a soldier who spared a month old newborn after gunning down its mother and a half dozen of its 1 to 8 year old siblings.


Michael J. McFadden
Author of Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com

Smoking commercial more offensive than you think smoking is

I have posted it elsewhere and repost it here. I can not link the video at the moment because it was taken down and I must find a new site. Suffice it to say that a anti-tobacco commercial was made (please read this first paragraph before you go view it, for your mental health) by Ramaa Mosley at Triofilms.com. It is a very emotional video and if you've ever been the victim of child abuse, please be warned that this video may be very...well offensive, but look, be sure you're ready to deal with a possible reliving of your childhood if you watch it. I'm so angry right now I can't hardly think straight. Her post to her right to air such a tasteless commercial is here as well as my own response.

Her post:

I directed this commercial because I believe that people who are complacent enough to continue smoking in front of their children need a huge jolt - something powerful to alter their way of seeing their actions.

People may be furious with the comparison between second hand smoke and child abuse - this is not a surprise. It is extremely disturbing to hear the sounds of the child in the spot being abused - as it should be. It's also extremely disturbing that there are still parents out there who know that smoking causes illness and possible death in children, yet they continue to smoke in front of them!

First off, the definition of abuse is "to treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way..." In webster's it's "a corrupt practice or custom".

What happens to babies when they are exposed to cigarette smoke?
--Babies and children who are exposed to cigarette smoke have a much higher incidence of pneumonia, asthma, ear infections, bronchitis, sinus infections, eye irritation, and croup.
--Colic occurs more often in babies whose mothers or fathers smoke or if
a breastfeeding mother smokes.
--Researchers believe that not only does the nicotine transferred into mother's milk upset baby but the passive smoke in the home acts as an irritant.
--Babies of smoking parents fuss more, and mothers who smoke may be less able to cope with a colicky
baby (due to lower levels of prolactin).
--Heavy smoking by breastfeeding moms occasionally causes symptoms in the breastfeeding baby such as nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramps and diarrhea.
--Babies of smoking mothers and fathers have a seven times greater chance of dying from sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).
--Children of smoking parents have two to three times more visits to the doctor, usually from respiratory infections or allergy-related illnesses.
--Children who are exposed to passive smoke in the home have lower blood levels of HDL, the good cholesterol that helps protect against coronary artery disease.
--Children of smoking parents are more likely to become smokers themselves.
--A recent study found that growing up in a home in which two parents smoked could double the child's risk of lung cancer later in life.

I will confess that I grew up in an extremely abusive household - this commercial is tame in comparison to some of the things I experienced
and witnessed as a child. I also have have known a child raised in a family of smokers who died from cancer. Growing up I was friends with two other children who had terrible asthma and chronic respitory infections - all were raised in families where the parents smoked around the children.

Now that we're adults who is worse? I've gotten counseling, resolved most of the issues with my family and am living a productive life. My
friends still have constant asthma attacks and have had respitory infections that have lead to three bouts with pneumonia. Not to mention the fact that their father passed away ten years ago from lung cancer. So... who is worse off?

No one is is. That's the point. Child abuse is horrible. Smoking around your children is abuse.


As a mother of two small children, I believe that no child should be subjected to abuse of any kind. I'm proud of this spot - I believe it is a powerful statement on the behalf of children. My sincere hope is that parents who are currently smoking around their children will see this spot and make the right decision to NEVER smoke around their child again. We're not telling people to quit smoking - just quit smoking around your child. Take that cigarette outside, don't smoke in the car...

Sincerely,
Ramaa Mosley
Triofilms.com

Ramaa, not all victims of abuse would agree with you at all. I know I don't. I WISH my parents had ONLY smoked around me. That never bothered me at all. It didn't bother my asthma, no one in our family or neighborhood died of lung cancer.

MY children and the children of my neighbors and the children I grew up with are just fine. I did know a girl way back that died of cancer, but she was in a non-smoking family, and even if she wasn't it was a brain tumor, something I have yet to see attributed to smoking. If we were going by anecdotal evidence alone, my evidence would be just as important as yours.

I am also highly offended at your trivialization of my childhood. While YOU may feel that you have some right to do something like this because you are a fellow sufferer does not make it true or even ethical. To think so would to also say that since I was abused I have the right to rob your house and you must acknowledge that right and NOT file charges. Your commercial did shock me into one reaction, reliving briefly my own childhood. What right did you feel you have to do that? Just because you have an agenda you'd like to push? Just because I have overcome my childhood does not mean I want to relive it EVER, especially not for your lies, not even for a few seconds. It takes a lot of work to put that behind you, which you OUGHT to know if your claims are true. Even if the information was factual, it was still in VERY poor taste.

Also, if you people would BOTHER to check the information you've been fed you'd find that many are inaccurate. The WHO found that children of smokers were 22% LESS likely to develop lung cancer. Link here: http://www.obscurious.co.uk/ comp...smoking1440.pdf

You would also find that "there are no documented allergens in cigarette smoke. An asthmatic is potentially allergic to thousands of things, the most common being dust, pollen and pet hair. If cigarette smoke contained allergens there is no possible way millions of asthmatics could possibly be smokers." I am a smoking asthmatic, and the man who wrote the quote is a 40 year smoker and asthmatic, Warren Klass.

You would also find information about SIDS, linked here:
1. a letter from the Sudden Infant Death Syndrome Alliance to John Bazhaff http://www.forces.org/evidence/f...iles/ cohe01.htm in which it's stated very clearly:

"To date, no direct causal relationship has been established. " I encourage you to actually read and understand the whole thing.

2. http://www.data-yard.net/10p2/sids.htm

Brain Stem Abnormality Seen in SIDS Babies, Study Shows

Thank you very much for leaving your company name. I will be sure to include it and your name to every abuse victim who finds this a disgusting, tasteless act. And I can assure you there will be many. Unfortunately, not being as callous as you, I will be sure to let them know that the commercial is extreme and they may want to consider it before viewing it based on their own feelings and whether or not THEY have gotten over their childhood. Not everyone has you know.

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!