Evil in Action

Once again, Radley Balko produces another bombshell investigative article. In his latest, Manufacturing Guilt? he provides video evidence showing the state medical examiner for Mississippi framing a man for murder.

West stands over Oliveaux's body, which now contains a striking red abrasion on her right cheek—an abrasion that wasn't there before. West then takes the plaster cast of Jimmie Duncan's teeth and pushes it into the scrape on Oliveaux's jaw. Over the next few minutes he jams, drags, and scrapes the dental mold across Oliveaux’s cheek 17 times. For the entire 24-minute video, West uses Duncan's teeth mold on Oliveaux's skin more than 50 times.

More terrifying is that the prosecutors and the judge on the case saw the video, and West's bite-mark 'analysis' was still presented as evidence at trial. Sick sick sick.

My Idea for 'The Bailout'

$700,000,000,000* is roughly 50% of the individual income tax collected by the U.S. in 2006. (I couldn't find 2007 numbers.)

So here's my alternative plan for bailing out the economy: Instead of giving the assholes that got us into this mess that $700,000,000,000, why doesn't the Govt cut refund checks equal to 50% of the individual income taxes each of us paid for 2007? I don't know about you guys, but for me, 50% of my individual income tax isn't small potatoes.

A large chunk of that would go to paying down debt. Another large chunk of that would go into my savings account - injecting my bank with the additional liquidity they claim they so badly need. Those homeowners having trouble paying for their mortgage would have a cash infusion that - if they actually are responsible - would go a long way to avoiding foreclosure. Less foreclosures = good for businesses with too many mortgage-backed securities and the housing market. Giving the money directly back to the people who sent it into the Govt in the first place strikes me as a better idea than throwing tons of cash at a crew of executives who made really stupid decisions and are now trying to avoid any consequences for it. And it's more fair, since it's not screwing over renters and people who lived within their budget rather than going out and buying a McMansion on a liar-loan - everyone gets money back, instead of giving money to just the people who couldn't resist doing dumb shit.

Even if a certain percentage of people in financial trouble turn around and blow the windfall on new rims, video games and weed, rather than avoiding foreclosure or paying their bills? They may end up losing their homes anyway, but they'd totally deserve it, and spending all that money still helps the economy.

I don't think my plan is any dumber than giving a bunch of failing companies a shit-ton of cash with no oversight. Instead of giving all of our money to people who have already demonstrated they're too stupid or too corrupt to use it wisely, and just hoping we see the benefits down the line, give the money to us, and we can decide which companies we want to save by investing in them through savings, purchases, and well, actual investing.

* Saying 'billion' just doesn't have the same impact that that insane line of zeroes does. Billion is only two syllables. Typing out enough zeroes to make a billion takes counting up to 11 while I hit the 0 key.

Black-Market Milk

Russ and I have already had to deal with the depressing knowledge that when the Farmer's Market season ends, we'll have to go back to buying our dairy products from the grocery store. We were looking forward to just two more weeks of real, raw, farm fresh milk and butter though. Seriously, if you haven't had raw (meaning unpasteurized) milk before, it's like sex without a condom... there's just so much more enjoyable about it. There's none of that gummy milky after-taste at the back of your throat. The flavor seems both fuller and more delicate. We liked it so much we were discussing the possibility of doing regular pickups somewhere nearby after the market ended, so we could keep the milk-love going.

Trust The Man™ to spoil the fun, though. Russ and I showed up at the Archwood Green barns yesterday, rubbing our hands in anticipation of our next batch of fresh milk and butter, only to find our milk vendor had only a supply of baked goods, some canned vegetables, and this article from the Washington Post sitting out on a shelf, to explain why there would be no more raw milk or butter forthcoming.

I already knew half the stuff I was buying at the farmer's market existed in a legal gray area at best. I figured it was somewhat like illegal fireworks though... as long as no one was complaining, the cops would leave you alone. I should have known that the state that tried to starve out the homeless by outlawing private food donations and thought the hopsicle was a danger worthy of regulation wouldn't be able to resist sticking their nose in the farmer's market business though. The Post devotes most of the article's space to a Charlottesville farm that we hadn't dealt with before, but Mark Nolt was responsible for the fantastic milk we were drinking, and Satyrfield farms are regular vendors at Archwood Green barns.

Russ and I have endured food-poisoning from the 'inspected' kitchens in Warrenton's restaurants enough times that we're leery of eating out in general. We've never had so much as an upset tummy from something we've picked up at the farmer's market. We know from experience that inspection and certification means very little in terms of actually making you safe. We'll continue doing what we can - even if it means clandestine sales to avoid the feds - to continue supporting local growers and producers. That white gold - and knowing my food money is going to my neighbor, not Venezuela - is worth it to me.

Compensation at least... but not Justice

Forty-two years after they were wrongfully convicted of a murder that the FBI knew Joseph Salvati and Peter Limone had not committed, a federal judge has ordered the government to pay more than 101 million dollars to Salvati, Limone and the estates of Henry Tameleo and Louis Greco.

Salvati, Limone, Tameleo and Greco were convicted of the 1965 murder of Edward Deegan, which FBI officials knew at the time was actually committed by one of their own informants, but allowed the prosecution to continue in order to protect their informant. And then they dragged their feet for decades in admitting it, in order to cover up the fact that they'd let four innocent men go to prison.

Tameleo and Greco died in prison. Salvati served 29 years before his sentence was commuted. Limone served 33 years before he was freed in 2001.

Salvati and Limone were exonerated in 2001 after FBI memos dating back to the Deegan case surfaced, showing the men had been framed by Barboza. The memos were made public during a Justice Department task force probe of the FBI's relationship with gangsters and FBI informants James "Whitey" Bulger and Stephen "the Rifleman" Flemmi.

Now, six years after that, Limone, Salvati, and the families of Tameleo and Greco have finally succeeded in their malicious prosecution suit against the government.

The FBI encouraged perjury, helped frame the four men and withheld for more than three decades information that could have cleared them, U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner said in issuing her ruling Thursday.

She called the government's argument that the FBI had no duty to get involved in the state case "absurd."

This is not justice. Justice would be putting the FBI agents involved in this case in the same cell they consigned Tameleo and Greco to death in, and leaving them there to rot. At the least, though, 101 million split four ways is some form of compensation.

In other news, Mark O'Hara, of Tampa, Florida, was released from prison this week. He was serving a 25 year drug-trafficking sentence for possession of 58 vicodin pills that the prosecutors acknowledge he wasn't selling, and that he had a valid prescription for. Nonetheless, they charged him with trafficking, and apparently refused to allow the fact that he had a legal prescription for the drug as a defense. According to the prosecutors, the mere possession of the pills constitued drug trafficking. He served 2 years of the sentence before an appeals court ordered a new trial for him, with a decision using words like "absurd" and "ridiculous" to describe the state's position, rightfully pointing out that under their theory, simply walking out of a drugstore with a prescription you've filled makes you a criminal. But hey, at least it only took 2 years instead of 33 in prison before he got any sort of relief.

WTF - Albo running un-opposed?

The greedy lawyer-cum-legislator that figured out the easiest way to drive new business to his practice was to pass ridiculously unfair traffic fines targeting VA residents is actually running for re-election to his District 42 House of Delegates seat unopposed.

Isn't there any resident of Springfield *cough* *dad* *cough* willing to step up to the plate and try for election to the House of Delegates based on opposition to Albo's 'fine the poor into bankruptcy' fee-scheme? I say, write-in Roy Bilby for District 42 Delegate! Or not... but you'd think someone would see this as a golden opportunity to break into politics.

If you don't live in Springfield, you can at least sign the "Repeal the VA 'Civil Remedial Fees' for Traffic Offenses" petition (VA residents only, please). Over 153k signatures so far.

Me, I'm just very grateful it's been almost 8 years since I've had a traffic ticket, and that I have less than a year left to go in this crazy nanny-state.

Great Moments in American Legislation

Once you've convinced the public that it is reasonable and necessary to register buyers of Sudafed, in the interest of reducing meth production, it's not that far a leap to try and apply it to other products as well.

I present to you HB1189, which would create a registry of baking soda buyers and put Arm & Hammer behind the counter. Because crack cocaine is made with baking soda. The danger of crack cocaine is sufficient to justify creating a register that would encompass nearly every single household in the state of Missouri, and give the police a pretext to visit and search your home if your baking soda purchases become suspicious.

I doubt the bill will actually pass, but it's a shot across the bow; a testing of the waters, if you will, to see just how much bullshit we're willing to put up with. We're willing to give up our names and addresses and risk a visit by the police in order to get our hands on cold medicine that has been legally available without a prescription for years. Why not require the same for any other mundane or beneficial item that can be turned to ill uses? Growing lights, and hydroponic systems for example. These are the primary tools of any small-time domestic marijuana producer. We should require anyone wishing to purchase such equipment to register with the state. Ditto purchasers of blotting paper or stamps. And chemistry sets. And pretty soon we're gonna realize it'd just be a whole lot easier if we could track every person's purchases and run through their records to look out for suspicious behavior. Just because Total Information Awareness was tabled due to public outcry during the Bush administration, doesn't mean it's gone for good. I bet Hilary could sell it.

Britain Turns Into San Angeles

Wow. Just when I think Britain can't get any sillier, they turn around and prove me wrong. Their pervasive public surveillance cameras aren't enough. Now, the cameras are going to start talking if they spot you engaging in uncivil behavior.

"You are fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality statute."

The Great Soda Debate

Like chumming the water, Mom sends the following email to her daughters: An article on Reuters today about the strong positive link between sodas and type 2 diabetes. Even one a day, which is lower than national average can markedly increase your risks.

Of course, it has the expected result...(edited to decrease size, a teeny bit)

Livvy: :-D. Good thing I don't drink soft drinks. Never could stand the burning sensation of the bubbles!! Although...I don't know if all the candy I constantly eat helps any :(. THE CRAVINGS!!!

Celeste: Yeah, but note in particular the biggest point in the whole article, which wasn't really emphasized: The data reviewed by Brownell's team also show that higher intake of sugary sodas goes hand in hand with lower intake of milk, calcium and other essential nutrients, fruit and fiber, and higher intake of carbohydrates.

Don't worry about drinking the occasional soda. Make sure you're eating right, otherwise.

I wouldn't care about this stuff so much, except whenever anyone trumpets results like these, it goes hand in hand with a rush to ban something, or introduce more laws and regulations. Let's make selling soft drinks in school illegal! [...] At what point does it stop being the government's business what you do, and become your own, even if the choices you're making are considered dumb at the moment? People have a right to be unhealthy. We have a right to feed our kids corn puffs and trans fats if we want.

There's a certain segment of society that seems to think that if we just forced everyone to live a certain way, no one would die, and everyone would be slim and beautiful and we'd enter into a golden era of happy shiny people. Ain't gonna happen. Live on wheat bran and soy milk if you want to, you're still gonna die. [...]

Livvy: Yeah...YOU, the parents, have a right to feed your kids whatever you want, but that right is taken out of your hands when schools put soda machines in their lobbies, or let Chik-Filet's set up shop in their cafeterias. And I'm not saying that it's entirely the schools' fault, because if parents really didn't want their children to eat that crap, then just don't give them any money to buy it, or instill in them a strong sense of what qualifies as "good food" or "bad food" according to you.

It seems to me however, that a lot of stupid arguments would be put to rest if schools would just do away with these controversial things since it's completely unnecessary and extremely indulgent of them to have these types of food items available to kids anyways. Like you said Celeste, a school's only purpose is to educate, and if some parents are too damned lazy to pack a lunch for their children and would rather send them to school with some money to purchase a lunch, then that is fine, but the schools should only be providing what is necessary for a well balanced meal. [...]

I think that parents NEED to assert themselves and regain control of their kids lives and if that means limiting what the schools are allowed to "provide" to the kids, then so be it. If you want your kid to eat or drink whatever they want, then that's fine...give it to them yourself! It's not necessary for the schools to provide it to them. Not to mention that the simple act of providing easy access to these kinds of foods is in fact taking away the parents control over their kids.

Celeste: The right of a parent to direct their child's diet is NOT taken out of their hands by the availability of soft drinks or junk food in schools. To suggest that it is, is to also suggest that the rest of society needs to bow to your dietary whims, in order for you to control your offspring, and that sort of attitude leads to Britain considering banning pork in public schools, since the availability of it offends muslims. Do what vegetarian or mormon parents do. Tell your children they're not supposed to eat/drink that stuff. Because, if you're going to dictate that schools should only provide what is 'necessary' in terms of available food, there are going to be a whole lot of different competing factions telling you what they consider necessary and also what's harmful.

And there's no reason to pass a law about it. School boards are mostly run by elected citizens in the community, and they're the ones who decide whether or not Pepsi gets to put a machine in the school. If they don't want to offer that crap, they're free to take it out. There doesn't need to be an order from the government telling them that they have to. But the revenues the sodas in those machines provide end up paying for a lot of stuff around the school, and that's one of the reasons they're there. Because most people don't object to their kid having an occasional can of soda and not selling it in the schools isn't going to prevent them bringing it in on their own. It's just going to prevent the school from taking a slice of the soda revenue pie. So if a community finds the sale of sodas in the school so offensive, there's an easy remedy for it already in place, and it's being done around the country already. [...]

Mom: Ahhh...and then there's also the FACT that the schools get enormous kickbacks from the companies who manage to 'place' drink machines in their schools. Dr. Pepper worked very very hard to obtain the contract for each and every district in the area. You see, they figured that a customer gained in youth was a customer for life. So there's a huge money factor involved. Even the marketing people that I was working with thought that it was extremely unethical, and that they were contributing to the obesity problem. Not enough to quit though. Heh. [...]

The point made in the article about how drinking soda replaces the consumption of other, healthier foods was very important and one to remember in meal planning for our children. Cudos to Celeste for doing such an awesome job with Roy in this area. Believe it or not, I knew mothers who were putting soda in their children's baby bottles at his age.

Livvy: It actually is taken out of their hands. There are some parents who do not allow such foods in their homes because they do not want their kids to eat it. Thus, they make it UNAVAILABLE to their children. When schools make it available to them, the control of those parents is taken away. Which is why I say, as far as schools systems are concerned, that a minimalist approach is the best approach. [...] And, furthermore in allowing these types of products to be available at schools are they not bowing to your dietary whims? And "whims" being the key word, because foods such as the ones on topic are completely unnecessary; there is no cultural, or religious reason for them being there, and they are unhealthy in that they have little or no nutritional value.

Celeste: You can rewrite your statement to say:

There are some parents who are vegetarians and do not allow meat and meat products in their homes because they do not want their kids to eat it. When schools make meat and meat products available to them, the control of those parents is taken away.

There are some parents who are orthodox jews, and do not allow their children to consume anything but kosher food. When schools make non-kosher options available to them, the control of those parents is taken away. [...]

Sodas are not served with lunch. You can't get a soda with a meal card. You have to have cash. If you don't want your kids drinking sodas, don't give them cash, but meal cards, or the equivalent, or pack their lunches and send them in with them. By allowing people who want to, and have the money, to purchase a soda, you aren't infringing on anyone's right. You can not demand that the rest of the world change just to suit how you want your child to be raised. If we do that, we'll end up with a society so restrictive that everything that isn't mandatory is prohibited. Again, if a particular school doesn't want a soda vendor contract, they're free to not have one. I just don't want a state or national level law banning it. [...]

Alicia: Don't know what school was like for you girls, but since I was getting up at 6AM and then commuting or in class until about 4PM most days (then usually doing homework or working until midnight -- not to mention getting shitty sleep every single night in a super uncomfortable back brace), I was certainly glad for the cherry coke in the morning and at lunch. I could barely stay awake in Calculus even with that and a caffeine pill. Can we at least give these kids a coffee station if we are taking out the soda machines? Coffee has very good for you anti-oxidants (and the helpful stay awake juice I know I needed in high school). Also the article does not indicate it causes diabetes.

By the way, I also heard a worm can crawl up in your brain and eat out the inside of your head if you eat sushi.

Orianna: But Celeste, letting the general public choose for themselves is what led to the 60% obesity rate in the country. We gave them McDonald's and despite how unhealthy it is, they 'et it all up. They clamor for their superpiggies dipped in chocolate and deep fried. Really they are just too stupid to be making any kind of intelligent informed decision for themselves. I say we make it easier on them to make the smart choice, by eliminating the poor choices.

Who's with me?

Livvy: Hmmm...you could be being sarcastic, but I am totally with you. Seems to me that the 60% of the population that became obese, got that way because they were too stupid to make decisions for themselves, and were just following the lead of corporate powerhouses like McDonalds anyways. So instead, let them follow the lead of smarter people, so that they can then make smarter decisions. [...]

Orianna: Sarcastic. I want my superpiggy an I want it NOW!!!

Celeste: Wow. Who'da thunk Livvy was a mini-authoritarian? The problem with the idea that smarter people should be in control and make our decisions for us, in order to protect the too-stupid general public is that if you get the people you want in power this go around, I can guarantee it ain't gonna last. It's why the constitution was written the way it was, and why our country is structured the way is. There are plenty of people like you who want to gut federalism out of the notion that there are people out there in the country who could benevolently rule in the best interests of the people, but history has shown that to be patently false. It's why we don't have a King. [...]

Yes, freedom is bad for some people. When you are free to make stupid choices, some people inevitably will jump at the chance. It's a fact of life, and I don't want my right to have a chocolate-covered super-piggy stuffed with a little-piggy taken away just because some asshole is going to decide that's all they want to eat day in and day out. Who said we had to save everyone? Or that we had to protect people from themselves? If people make bad enough choices, they die, hopefully before they've bred, or failing that, before they've had a chance to train their offspring to do the same. I'd rather let them, than prohibit the consumption of chocolate cake in a vain attempt to keep them slim.

Orianna: Fatness could actually work out to be a new breed of eugenics. Studies have shown that obese couples have difficulty getting pregnant. And before Lissa chimes in, it's not because they are mistaking fat rolls for certain other body parts.

Livvy: You are wrong about that Celeste. My high school's cafeteria did consist of fast food restaraunts...and if you wanted, your meal card could definitely buy you a soda to go with your lunch, despite the wishes of your parents. [...]

No...you are totally right. In fact, I think that we should do away with any kind of organized education entirely and just let kids--and parents even--do what they want to do. If you want your kid to have an education then you and only you should be in charge of that. The whole problem with public education anyways, is that people cannot come to a general decision of how it should be implemented and what should be taught. So do away with the whole institution and let people decide for themselves.

IN FACT, I am a personal advocate for the overthrow of society in general. Large societies such as ours never work and in the long run eventually fall apart. People need to get organized into small communities...like tribes...and live together that way. It's the only thing that has ever EVER worked for long periods of time and still survives today. It wasn't until people started crowding in, and the groups got larger and larger that things started to fall apart. TRIBES...that is the answer!! We need to think small people!!!

Celeste: Dude, I finally agree with you. ;) The country was just fine before the introduction of public schools, and federal interference in public schools didn't come about until the 70s thanks to that bastard Nixon. Noteworthy that when centralized control became the norm rather than the exception, that's when things really started to decline.

But I don't think we need to go so far as tribalism. The current state system works just fine if you let it. [...]

Orianna: While I agree that people should be given the freedom to make their own decisions about their diet; I also agree that kids don't fall into that category. Celeste's argument swings both ways, just eliminate the crap altogether and whatever it is you want your kid to eat, they can bring with them. If the fatties are free to have vending machines full of cheetos, then why aren't the health conscious free to have broccoli vendors? Pack your god damn lunch and stop expecting the government to raise your kids for you.

Livvy: YES!!...Children do not fall into that category...and I do believe I mentioned at least twice, that I am not for the eradication of "junk" foods entirely...just in our school systems.

Although, ideally we would all resort to a tribal type of life and educate our children on our own terms.

Alicia: If soda's so dangerous it can't be in schools where younglings can get their hands on it, then it should be age restricted like porn, ciggies, and sudafed.

Livvy: Uhmm...you are a soda junkie and I believe that anything you say will advocate the consumption of soda. You are like the people on the street that go..."just one sip junior. You'll like it. It feels good...yeah...feel those bubbles...mmm" And all the while your eyes are glazing over and your voice is getting more and more high pitched and breathy, your tongue lolling out of your mouth...etc...

Celeste: But of course, soda isn't so dangerous. Soda on it's own is fine. Soda in conjunction with a poor diet high in carbs and low in fruits/vegetables, is bad for you. You can achieve the exact same bad effect as drinking a soda a day by consuming anything else containing an equivalent amount of high fructose corn syrup, which is in practically everything you haven't made yourself. And as Lissa pointed out, there are times when a soda is a damn boon.

There's lots of stuff available - in school and out - that's unhealthy. It's available because it's enjoyable or useful, and the average person has no trouble managing their life in conjunction with its use. That there are people out there who will abuse it is no excuse to make it illegal. People abuse sugar, sex, cigarettes, alcohol, coffee, human kindness, animals, cough syrup....

... in fact it's people like you who are the reason I have to give my drivers license and sign in a damn register just to get some fucking cold medicine. Because someone out there might buy a whole shitload of it and use it in their meth lab, I get to be treated like a common criminal, and the cops get to waste their time paying a visit to a family of 5 out in Arizona that was unlucky enough to all come down with the flu at the same time. Buying more than 3 packs of cold medicine in a month is suspicous, don't you know. We need to send the cops out, just for their own good. Guess they should feel grateful it wasn't a SWAT team, at least.

Alicia: Ha ha, or BATF. They would have just fire bombed their house and called it a day.

Livvy: Uhm...there are many alternative cold medicines to choose from if you are feeling ill. You do not have to purchase products containing sudephedrine you know. But, you are right. Let's do away with school nurses because kids should know how to prescribe THEIR medicine to THEMSELVES. In fact, there should be no reason for doctors or the like at all, screw just talking about schools. And all drugs currently only available by prescription should instead be sold over the counter. I mean, who has the right to stop us from using whatever we want whenever we want. And we are all certainly intelligent to know how to read a label so that we know what to take, for whatever ailments we are currently having, and how much to take, and all the side effects that can occur to go along with it. In fact, we do not need to have food or medicine regulated at all. Let anyone who wants to, manufacture, and make it, and sell it to whoever they want to. Let them do the testing on it, and create their own labels for it. People know better. I agree with you...let people do whatever the hell they want. Screw stupid laws and regulations. Whatever makes us happy should be the norm.

Celeste: Sudephedrine remains an over-the-counter drug available without a prescription. Its possible use in domestic meth production is the only reason such restrictions are now in place. So the fact that some people might abuse it, much like some children might get fat from drinking soda, suddenly justifies the ridiculous restrictions now in place? Let's keep in mind that, placing sudephedrine behind the counter has had NO impact on the availability or price of meth, much like banning the sale of soda in the schools will have NO impact on the availability of soda to children. In fact, it's quite likely that if you do ban it, a tidy little black-market of children with more lenient parents will spring up, selling soda to other students on the sly. We had kids in high school that would run to McD's for you and get you lunch for a price, too.

Being reluctant to ban or mandate things because of a sudden perceived harm, does not equate me with wishing for total anarchy or a society with no rules. Nice straw-man there. We banned silicon implants because of a sudden perceived harm, cost an industry billions of dollars, only to turn around recently and like Emily Litella say, "Never mind." We were encouraged to use margarine because it was supposed to be healthier for you than real butter... until the latest trans fats freak-out. I'm just arguing for a little more trust in common sense. The average life-span of Americans has increased steadily for decades - we're not doing that bad, no need to panic.

Livvy: Either way you put it, I am still standing by my argument, that if parents want their kids to eat whatever they want, then the parents should be providing it to them; not the schools.

It is because of people like you that there are so many idiotic law suits about how "my kid is obese and it's the schools' faults," "I am obese and it is McDonald's fault," "I went through a windshield because I don't meet the size restrictions on my seatbelt, so it's the car manufacturers fault for not taking into consideration the vast number of obese people that are the product of our nation." You advocate having people take responsibility for their own actions, but you forget that most people don't take responsibility for their own actions. And it is usually those same irresponsible people--the ones complaining on how it's not their fault that they are sick, it's someone else's--that are usually the reason why there are groups like MADD, TRUTH, etc.. out there. Would activist groups like MADD and TRUTH have considered these things problems if the people you support hadn't somehow managed to turn it into a problem? Doubtful. But it is the ignorance and poor judgment of these "obese" individuals that brought it to the attention of others...and guess what? Now these idiotic issues are dominating public opinion, such as should vending machines full of cheetos and cokes be allowed in schools?

Orianna: tee hee

Livvy: OMG...I want Nick to have that shirt :-D!!! Sooooo funny.

Celeste: I agree, if parents want their kids to eat whatever they want, they should be providing it. I just disagree that it's such a travesty if a school has a soda machine as well. I think it's up to the schools, and if the parents have such a problem with it, they can let the school know. Most folks don't, though, because soda isn't that bad for you. Nor is Chick-filet. It's when eaten in excess and to the exclusion of other things that it becomes a problem.

How does taking away even more of a person's choices do anything to enhance freedom or personal responsibility? It's because of people like you - the ones who insist we need to DO something, that society has a responsibility to take care of you and protect you from your own stupidity - that we get these lawsuits, not me. Once you freak out and ban, or try to ban something, you've just provided the evidence needed for a speculative lawyer to start filing. And the existence of societal leeches like MADD (alcohol) and TRUTH (tobacco) has absolutely no bearing on how much of a problem there really is with obesity.

And I think the reason these sorts of issues make headlines these days is because as a society we have it so damn good we can worry about crap like this, rather than spending our time actually worrying about how to put food on a table and a roof over our heads. No where else on earth are the rich people starving and the poor people too fat. I count myself lucky to live in such a country.

Orianna: You both need to stop with the name calling. Let's be realistic, it's not because of people like Livvy that schools are banning sodas. Livvy is not litigious, she just wants the best for people. It is not because of people like Celeste that there are so many idiotic lawsuits, she is not lobbying on capitol hill to protect the fatties. Be more constructive in how you couch your arguments, instead of lobbing personal attacks.

Livvy: Nick would die if he ate Chick Filet. Just one tiny little bite...and he'd keel over...dead. Just like that. Like that stupid tylenol story you hear in Elementary school. Fluke allergic reactions. But if you feel like you NEED a soda to stay awake during the school day, or even a cup of coffee...then bring one in from home. Anywho, I can't believe you'd advocate the selling of POISONOUS foods to children Celeste. Seems so unlike you.

Celeste: Well Nick knows Chick-filet is poisonous to him, right? You aren't suggesting he's too dumb to avoid eating food he knows he's allergic to are you? I'm not advocating selling it to Nick, but if people who won't die from it want to eat it, I don't see the problem there. And I'm sure it's an ingredient in their food, not the franchise itself that's so dangerous to him, so the same thing could happen whether Chick-filet was on campus or not.

Livvy: Well, obviously Nick is a genius and would not make such a stupid mistake as to kill himself....well, maybe I cannot say that...there was that one time when he ate the banana walnut muffin, and the other time where he ate the sandwich with pesto sauce, and the other time where he ate the green beans almondine, and these are just the times I am privy to....sooo, I guess, if a genius like Nick can make those mistakes.....and yeah, this thread has probably run its course I think ;).

Sooooo anywho...It's been fun Celeste, Anna, Lissa, Mom :). I do love to argue!! But now I am off to class...where I will probably make a totally worthwhile dinner out of vending machine products!



Orianna: Just for fun . . . .
it's Chick-Fil-A

Welcome Our New Speaker of the House

No sulking on my end, although I will say that I feel that it was not so much that the democrats deserved to win, but that the republicans richly deserved to lose.

Let the circus begin, since our prospective new speaker has been promising all sorts of investigations and hearings:


Photo stolen shamelessly from HotAir

Maybe when the republicans remember why they were put in the majority in the first place - democrat over-spending, corruption, immigration, high taxes, bloated and intrusive government - republicans will win again.

Theater of the Absurd

The political silly season has reached new heights lately, leaving me wishing I lived in Maryland simply because Steele is so much more an attractive candidate than Allen or Webb. Sheesh these guys need to grow up, and it's leaving me debating taking the time and trouble to load the baby up into the car so I can go vote. I'm tempted to just write "neither, they both suck" if there's a write-in place on the ballot.

Wolfe lost my vote as well. I've written him a couple of times in the past, and previously my letters were complimentary, congratulating him on some vote or other. I always received a nice, only semi-form-letter reply, within a week. The last letter I wrote him was to complain about his vote on the pork transparency bill, and the republican party's insistence on pushing distraction issues such as gay marriage and online gambling, over red-meat issues like taxes and illegal immigration. Mind you, this is a letter coming from one of his constituents, less than two months before an election. Silence is the response I've gotten. Well between the b.s. pork transparency vote (the bill passed, and he just looked like a pork-loving jackass for voting against it), and his lack of response, I'm voting for a third-party candidate. It's just a tossup between the optician and the CACI guy.

We need a real third-party. One that doesn't exist on the fringes on the issues, like the greens or the libertarians, but instead behaves in a sensible manner. Both major parties seem to have lost their focus. The dems are spending all of their energy attacking a lame duck president with a vice president who won't be running. The republicans have gotten as insane as the dems, and these days the only thing they stand up for is senate privilege, be it for freezers full of cash, and the right for a congressmen to be free from search even with a legal warrant, or the right to hit on teenage pages. They're too busy voting to make on-line gambling illegal, and baiting gays, and jailing bong retailers, to bother doing anything important or useful.

What happened to making the tax cuts permanent? What happened to fixing social security? What happened to strong borders? What happened to respect for state's rights?

If I don't vote this year, it won't because I don't believe my vote won't count; it will be because I believe it will, and I can't stand to pull the lever for anyone on the ballot.

... and I quote "Boo Freaking Hoo"

The Washington Post has an article up today about how states and counties are starting to enforce immigration laws. As per usual, the reporter supplies a "sympathetic" person for the story, the poor illegal immigrant caught up in this vicious and racist program. This is the best they can do?

Among those snared earlier this month was Guadalupe Lara, an 18-year-old Mexican carpenter.

The fifth of eight children born to farmworkers in Queretaro, he walked across the border when he was 16 to find work. Two years later, he has only a wispy beard and stands 5-foot-3.

He makes $7.50 an hour and lives with four others in a small, sparsely furnished apartment. Though they lack beds, they have a television on which Lara watches his favorite telenovela, "Heridas de Amor." He sends money home monthly and calls home every week.

"It's difficult," he said in Spanish. "When I call they say 'How are you?' I say 'I am fine.' " On Monday night, Lara was pulled over by police after buying a pack of cigarettes. He was not drunk but had an open bottle of beer in the car. He also lacked a license. He was arrested and when asked admitted he had no papers.

So this guy was driving without a license, with an open container of beer, under age, and in the country illegally, and we're supposed to feel sorry for him? Sheesh.

Cocaine and hookers

So Radley Balko led me to Steven Colbert's "Better Know a District" series, several clips of which are posted on YouTube. These have got to be the funniest political interviews I've ever seen. I woke the baby up several times laughing....

Colbert's Better Know a District... so far I still think the interview with Wexler is still the funniest, just because there's nothing better than hearing a congressman say "I like cocaine because it's a fun thing to do."... But they're all worth watching.

Cheers!