Tuesday Night Open Mic for October 27, 2009

Open Mic 1Open Mic night once again rises. I have to admit that I feel a bit liberated this evening (which is WAY different than feeling liberal). I got an email from one of the readers on the site that was really nice and helped me to feel better about ignoring the petty claims against me. Basically pointing out that many will attempt to place me in a box that they can attack because they aren’t willing to discuss the merits of my arguments. I am sure there are some who will want to argue the point. You can make that USWeapon Topic #5 if you like. You know who you are who sent that email (and I will respond I promise), so I want to thank you for that. Tonight’s topics are quite varied, and I hope they will spur some vigorous debate. A little bit of disgust with American political figures, a little bit of disgust with further moves for government to control business, and a little bit of bullshit partisan politics on the Republican side. Release the Hounds!



  1. USWeapon Topic #1

    Report: Rep. Grayson Calls Bernanke Aide a ‘K Street Whore’

    Florida Rep. Alan Grayson called an aide to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke a “K Street whore” during a radio interview that aired last month, Roll Call reported.

    According to the audio posted on YouTube, Grayson, a Democrat, reportedly said on the Alex Jones radio show, “Here I am, the only member of Congress who actually worked as an economist. And she’s, this lobbyist, this K Street whore, is trying to teach me about economics.”

    Grayson, a first term congressman, was allegedly referring to Bernanke adviser Linda Robertson, who Grayson said had headed up Enron Corp.’s lobbying shop in Washington, D.C., the newspaper reported.

    Read the entire article here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/27/report-rep-grayson-calls-bernanke-aide-k-street-whore/?test=latestnews
    (note from USW… by the time I posted this article they had already changed the URL to this story about Grayson apologizing, replacing the original. The quotes above were from the original article)

    There comes a time when I have to stand up and say enough. Grayson has been making idiotic statements for a couple of months now. You may remember that he was the idiot that made the statement that Republicans want people to hurry up and die. Yes, I am well aware that all you democrats can point out similar examples of Republicans who have stepped over the line in speaking this way about their opponents as well. And I can sure point out many other examples of this on both sides. And that is the point….

    At what point will Americans begin to say “enough”? This man is an elected official, a member of what is considered an elite group of 535 people who are the representative of the people to the United States government. Shouldn’t we expect better? Shouldn’t we demand better?

    I would like to see all Americans begin to come together around at least this one issue. It is time that we required our elected officials to carry themselves with the dignity and honor that is expected of someone who is the representative of the people. How do we do this? I don’t know. It seems to me that the American public has come to accept the absolute worst behavior imaginable from our Senators and Congressmen. We have allowed this partisanship and dishonor to become the norm for these 535 jackasses. It needs to change yesterday.

    • Sadly, Greyson IS representative of the people. That’s the problem. How does the American public climb out of the gutter, so to speak? Too many Americans are guilty of the same sort of behavior as Greyson. I think they’ve learned that there really aren’t any consequences for poor, stupid or irresponsible behavior. It would take each of us holding all offenders actountable every time an offense is committed, no matter how small. This would have to go on for decades to undo the damage that has been done by the coursening of our society. It would be a constant and exhausting battle with rewards that if they come, will be far off in the future. It isn’t an impossible task, but a daunting one.

      • Good Morning, Cyndi. You are quite correct in your statement “Too many Americans are guilty of the same sort of behavior as Greyson.” Prepare yourself for your statement, “It would take each of us holding all offenders accountable every time an offense is committed, no matter how small.” There are those that are going to argue with you that you would be infringing upon their rights to “free speech” and that will be taken out of context. You are quite correct in that behavior is a responsibility of individuals and to turns ones back upon such drivel is cowardly. This…(I don’t know what to call him) person (and that is putting it mildly) needs to be held to the same standards as calling the President a liar. He should be censored and he should be stripped of any and all responsibility in Congress…although he is a first term. There are individuals in Congress that are simply egoistic and unintelligent. Grayson is both and worse. If there is anyone to be called a whore, it should be all the congressmen and women that take payoffs, bribes, earmarks, subsidies, etc. They are the true whores in this society. I guess that makes me no better than Grayson in my feelings and public statement on this blog. Now, I need a shower.

        He will not be censored nor will he apologize and what he did was equal to or worse than calling the POTUS a liar….but he is democrat and, therefore, untouchable. Is a Congress person held to a higher standard than the general public? I should think so.

    • I could never be a member of Congress because I would punch someone like Grayson in the nose. Wilson called Obama a liar when Obama was lying and Congress took action against Wilson, even after he apologized. Grayson got a free pass from the Democrats. Before the Civil War broke out, one southern Senator or Representative took his cane and beat another Congressman with it. He broke his cane which was promptly replaced with numerous other canes from sympathizers.

      My frustration with Congress and the POTUS is at the breaking point. If they pass Health Care and Cap and Trade I think that there is a possibility of another Civil war. I am convinced Obama is a Marxist and wants to change our country once and for all. I hope the people do rise up.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      USW – hmmmm – weird post considering what you posted yesterday regarding a t-shirt. Pretty sure Grayson was using the expression as a figure of speech, and didn’t mean that the woman is actually a whore as is commonly viewed. I understand he is an elected official – but why impose political correctness on him when you so reject it for everyone else? FTR – sure – he says some attention-grabbing things sometimes – but I’d suggest we need our attention grabbed so long as the forum where its done is appropriate. Floor of the House = bad. Radio talk show = ok.

      • Good morning, my friend. How are things in your part of the world? Plenty of rain down here and more to come.

        I will have to say that you and I will disagree here. 🙂
        Taken out of context? Hmmmm…perhaps. I posted to Cyndi and called all representatives that take money, put in earmarks, subsidies, payoffs, and bribes the same thing. So I guess that I am no better than Greyson. I am not so sure he did not mean it in the street value sense because I meant it in the street value sense. As a matter of record, I probably hold a lady (or gentleman) on the street corner applying her/his wares on a higher plane than I would a Congressional member now days…..and I mean that from both sides of the aisle. At least a street walker, prostitute, whore or whatever you want to label them are working….moralistic or not. I am not sure what our elected officials are doing.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          D13 – plenty of rain in Philadelphia as well. My well loves it, the gutters (with leaves in them now) do not.

          I guess I just ask – do we want political correctness or not or some of the times?

          • Yeah…with our rain here, since we get so many warm fronts off the gulf, we get high winds. Today winds are about normal this time of year,,,,20-35 MPH out of the South…..until tonight when the cold front arrives…then tornados and hail and more rain…but you are right about the gutters…full of leaves….and pecans.

            As to political correctness…I would rather have none. At least you will know where people stand. PC is so out of control.

            Have a great day, my friend. If you need a little imputus, let me know…I will say something apolitical for you. 🙂 Always willing to help.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


        You are conflating and confusing insulting behavior (and the condemnation thereof) with advocating “political correctness”. The two are not the same.

        The doctrine of political correctness states that you may not display a cross for fear of offending someone. You may not display the flag for fear of offending someone. You may not state that your religion teaches you that homosexuality is wrong for fear of offending someone. Political correctness takes every-day things and attempts to turn them into something divisive and offensive.

        What Grayson said has NOTHING whatsoever to do with policial correctness one way or the other, he was simply being flat-out insulting. There is a BIG difference, and one which you apparently do not understand.

        • Thank you Peter… you said exactly what I was thinking. Ray understands the difference, he is just trying to be difficult.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          “Political Correctness” is in fact a “reverse insult”… it is someone’s way of saying, “you are an idiot to display the flag” or “you are an idiot to display a cross” or “you are an idiot to believe it when your religion tells you that homosexuality is wrong”

          It is simply a back-handed and thinly disguilsed way of disparaging someone else for their beliefs, which actually IS insulting.

          So “Political Correctness” is merely a veiled insult to traditional values, norms and behaviors by creating the notion that such traditional values, norms, and behaviors are “offensive”.

          Now, I will personally say that there are SOME traditional values, norms, and behaviors that are indeed insulting, but there are also MANY traditional values, norms, and behaviors that are perfectly wonderful.

          If you are taught by your religion that homosexuality is wrong, go ahead and say so if you want to. You have every right to say that. You do NOT have the right to use force or threaten to use force to get people to CONFORM TO YOUR BELIEF, so that is where I draw the line.

          Just because I do not AGREE with what you say does not mean you do not have the right to say it.

          “Political Correctness” is the doctrine which states, “You are not ALLOWED to say that, because it might be OFFENSIVE (regardless of whether it is right or wrong)”

          I’m sorry, last I checked I am ALLOWED to say whatever I want. There might be CONSEQUENCES for me saying something patently false and/or obviously malicious, but last I checked no one has the power to tell me what to say or what not to say.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          You’re entitled to your definition Peter – no matter how narrow or wrong it is. Political correctness (or lack thereof) can also include potentially offensive figures of speech as what this bozo said.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


            You are entitled to your definition as well, even if your definition is wrong because it includes things which are not examples of actual “political correctness”.

      • Try again Ray. I despise political correctness, and you are well aware of that. But there is a big difference between political correctness and what we are seeing here.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          How so? Because you don’t like Grayson? Is it more politically correct to say that she ‘shills’ for K Street?

          • As I clearly stated in the comments in the article. I think it is time we expected better behavior from our members of Congress.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


            As stated earlier, political correctness has nothing to do with it. REAL insulting behavior has everything to do with it.

            Keep trying though… if you repeat the “political correctness” theme often enough, someone here might actually believe you that it had SOMETHING to do with this incident 🙂

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              Oh wait, Grayson is a POLITICIAN, and what he said was ACTUALLY rude and insulting, which is INCORRECT behavior, so gee! I guess POLITICAL INCORRECTNESS did actually describe the situation.. sort of 🙂

      • Could Linda Robertson bring a civil case for slander against Rep.Grayson? Has ahs used words that imply that she sells her body for sex, and absent any evidence, she doesn’t.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          Insanity. Under your criteria Barack Obama could sue most of the people on this Board.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Have to partially agree with Ray on this one.

          I think that it was pretty clear that “K-Street Whore” in this case did mean a shill for political lobbying firms, so any Judge in the DC area would clearly recognize that I would think.

          Not sure I agree with the part about Obama being able to sue over half of the people on this board though… to my knowledge, no one here has called him a “whore” of any sort 🙂

    • Common Man says:


      First and foremost, ALL those in Congress and the Executive wing need to be removed!!! The apple barrell is far beyond stinky, even the fruit flies have left for other barrells.

      It doesn’t really matter who says what, since they are all in bed together and doing whatever, whenever they so choose. Whether they are speaking out against each other or responding to claims of violating the Constitution, they are indignant liars bent on administering government for their own ambitions and gain. Nothing they do is directed by or for the citizens of America.

      They have garnered control of the government and as such the country. Even if the majority of America did unite and make their wished well known, I believe the majority in Congress would not change. They are no more capable of becoming moral and honest than I am of becoming immoral and dishonest.

      It is a travisty that these people are elected to be our ‘representatives’, and even more so that they are re-ellected.

      As I have said before: “This Government needs an enema!”


  2. USWeapon Topic #2

    Obama Cannot Accept Nobel Prize Without Congress’ Consent, Three House Republicans Claim

    As critics continue to mull over whether President Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite says the U.S. Constitution does not allow him to accept the award without the consent of Congress.

    In a letter to Obama delivered on Monday, Brown-Waite, R-Fla., along with Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., and Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, claim the president is obligated under the Constitution to obtain Congress’ approval before he formally accepts the prize.

    Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution, the emolument clause, states: “And no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince or foreign state.”

    Read the rest of the article at Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/27/obama-accept-nobel-prize-congress-consent-claims-congresswoman/

    Speaking of partisan games. We have the Republicans in Congress all of the sudden wanting to actually follow something that is in the Constitution. Ever notice that the only time Congress wants to adhere to the Constitution is when it serves them in some partisan way?

    The only exception that I will give here is Senator Ron Raul. He has lost so many Senate votes 99-1 because he refuses to vote for anything that does not agree with powers granted by the Constitution. He is not a hypocrite, because he always wants to follow the founding document for government. But the other two are simply playing more partisan games.

    The first question I would ask is were the other Presidents that won a Nobel given Congressional approval? I am talking off the top of my head here since it is open mic and I am not doing research tonight. I understand that Carter was not in office when he got it. What about other awards or honors given to the Presidents while they were in office. Can anyone point to other similar situations, and what were the circumstances and results?

    But regardless of all this. If Congress wants to play this game, I want the word of the three involved that this is merely a formality, that the Congress is not going to debate or deny the award. I want to hear them say “we are just attempting to follow the letter of the law here” (which would be a first for a member of Congress) and “we will in no way oppose confirmation. We simply want to go through the process with 5 minutes on the floor to vote yes.” Anything other than that and I have to throw the bullshit flag and say to the Republicans to stop with the idiocy on this issue. Just laugh and chuckle at him getting an award he didn’t deserve and let it go.

    • Thanks USW. It always warms the cockles of my heart to see you stick it to the idiots on the right. You can go ahead and throw that bullshit flag now, no need to wait and see.

      Though I do wish I knew what he did to win, the fact is he won. They need to deal with that. Partisan BS like this just makes them look like the partisan hacks they are. I can see the adds now: “Obama accepted an award he didn’t earn and without Congressional approval.. in direct defiance of the Constitution. Is this a man you can trust to be re-elected?” This, of course, would be said in the Scary Voice and accompanied by gray-scale images of him looking ominous.

    • Though this is a perfect example of petty partisan politics… It is the law, no?

      I don’t think he’d have any problem getting approval, so I’m not really sure what they’re trying to accomplish…

      • They want to have a hearing. They want him to have to go on record and declare the reason he thinks he won. They want a soundbite where he says, “they awarded me this for _____.” Then they’ll have a field day with how ridiculous that is. To be fair, it’s absurd that he won, but they really just want to belittle the President on a personal level, and I’m not OK with that.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      “from any king, prince or foreign state” – who actually awards it?

      • Was going to point that out, they are a non-government organization, so as written, the Constitution would have no power over it. And I agree, its total BS to object to him receiving the award. And they want Obama to explain what he did to earn it? Shouldn’t that be addressed to the people who awarded the prize?

        My response to Brown-Waite, R-Fla. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla.(I will give Ron Paul a pass) would be to go piss up a rope.(Much classier than calling them whores)

      • Ray, it is an award administered by a committee on behalf of the King of Norway.

    • Its a great flaw in your politico over ours in that most of the time when ours have nothing to say they usually say nothing while your politicians yearn for the sound of their own voice no matter how disconnected from reality it might sound.

    • USW..you are correct and as much as Mathius and I disagree on things, he is also correct. It is bullshit. He won it and who pays attention to the Nobel prize anymore…anyway. Since I know Ron Paul pretty well, I can say that he is a strict constitutionalist. Look at his voting record and you will see why we like him down here. He is unusually straight forward and he sticks to his principles pretty well. He does not appear to be afflicted with the “fever” as yet….time will tell.

      Give the Nobel Prize the attention it warrants….since they give them out now from research on the sex life of a deer tick to humane issues….it has lost its luster. Whoever made the decision for whatever reason….live with it and move on. It has no value.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


      Let us say that the King of Norway does indeed confer these awards, and that many members of the committee that votes on the awards are either elected officials or employees of the Norwegian government.

      If that can indeed be shown to be the case, then would not the acceptance of such an award indeed BE a violation of this clause of the Constitution?

      I am a bit confused here, are you saying neither side should be able to use the Constitution for the basis of any argument because both sides are hypocrites? If that is the case, why not just officially throw the whole document out?

      • No, what I am saying is that I don’t believe that the reason for them doing this is because they want to abide by the Constitution. I believe they are doing it to play a political game. That is why I said I am completely willing to accept it if they come out and say, “this is just a formality required by the Constitution.” In that case we are following the law. If it is merely for partisan games, which I have zero doubt that it is, then I thrown the bullshit flag and call them out for idiocy.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


          Ok, that makes more sense. However, the time vanished long ago that either side used the Constitution for ANYTHING other than “political games”, so I must ask again, is the document in any practical way still relevant?

          • It applies to terrorists and prisoners at Gitmo.

            The constitution is no longer relevant to U.S. citizens.

  3. USWeapon Topic #3

    Too Big to Fail? Solution Proposed

    In an effort to avoid future taxpayer bailouts, the Treasury Department and a key House panel today unveiled new draft legislation that would give the federal government the power to wind down large, collapsing companies that in the recent financial crisis were viewed as “too big to fail.”

    The new draft bill, released by the House Financial Services committee and the Treasury Department, would give the government resolution authority, enabling it to wind down major failing financial institutions (banks not included), rather than decide between bailing them out or risking a failure that could damage the economy. The wind down process would be similar to the one that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation currently uses for smaller banks.

    The committee, chaired by Rep. Barney Frank, said in a statement that both the panel and Treasury are “committed to ensuring that the taxpayers are never again called upon to take responsibility for Wall Street’s business decisions.”

    Read the rest of the article at ABC News: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/big-fail-fix/story?id=8930590

    Here we go again. Barney getting his paws into the business of determining the financial future of Americans. You would think that people would begin to understand that Frank is not the guy you want to listen to when it comes to financial risk to taxpayers or companies that are too big to fail.

    I have many different issues with this legislation. First and foremost, how are we going to determine which companies or industries are “too big to fail?” As we saw with the TARP stuff, the government obviously plays favorites when it comes to determining which “too big to fail” institutions should be helped (the completely different treatment of Bear Sterns vs. Lehman Brothers). Again, I no longer trust government to act ethically or morally or in the American public’s best interest. So why give them this type of power?

    But one of the largest for someone with my mindset came with the statement in the article that, “Last year’s controversial $700 billion bailout of the financial system has led to numerous calls for reform to ensure that in the future, the government does not have to step in with taxpayer money to save systemically important firms from collapse.” That does not mean that we are looking for government to find another way to step in. As I have advocated from the beginning, we have to get away from this mindset that the government is the answer to our problems.

    • USW

      There may be more to it than just messing things up.

      Per my favorite economist, the Fed and Treasury DID NOT have the legal authority to do many of the things they did during the meltdown. In their words “we were inventing things on the fly”.

      So, now they are writing laws to authorize what they have already done, in the future.

      It will do nothing to stop govt from stepping in as it can’t prevent a problem in reality. It just reduces barriers to govt takeover of what IT considers to big to fail.

      We are so screwed.

    • USW….more government intrusion under the guise “common good”…I still have to stick with the principle… Nothing is too big to fail. Let water seek its own level.

      (Another metaphor..what would we do without them….actually think, I suppose).

    • The market place has no need to have government “unwind” businesses that have failed.

      The market already has that process and well tested for the last 500 years or more.

      …called ‘bankruptcy’.

  4. USWeapon Topic #4

    Scottish Courts Briefly Take Obese Mother’s Newborn Child

    A severely obese family in Dundee, Scotland, whose newborn child was briefly taken from them by child protective services while the mother was still recovering in the hospital, is now gaining international attention over the issue of whether childhood obesity can be a sign of abuse or neglect.

    The couple, whose names aren’t being released, has six children and told the British media that child protection authorities warned them they face losing custody if they could not get their older children’s weight under control.

    According to The Times of London, authorities already removed two children, aged 3 and 4, from the family home, leaving three other children with the couple. Investigations showed that the 40-year-old mother weighed at least 322 pounds before she got pregnant with her sixth child, a toddler with the family weighed 56 pounds and an older sibling weighed at least 224 pounds by age 13.

    Read the rest of the article here: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Diet/courts-obese-familys-newborn-neglect/story?id=8921808

    Since the United States seems determined to follow Europe into the realm of overreaching government control, I figured this was a relevant article despite the fact that it is taking place in Scotland rather than here. The bottom line with this story is that the government now feels it is within its rights to take a child away from the parents because of weight. To have a fat child is to be an abusive or neglectful parent. Madness I say.

    And before you start down that path of “it could never happen here”, think again. This government is working to become the most overreaching and instrusive government in our history. They are already punishing smokers with sin taxes and punishing fat people with taxes on non-diet soda in New York, trans-fat in many places. How long before we reach the point where overweight people are simply deemed unfit to raise children and therefore punished with removal of the children from the home?

    As we discuss in this country the idea of a national health care system, and simply ignore the fact that the government punishes social activity they don’t approve of as it is, do you really think that the government run health care system wouldn’t eventually punish those who aren’t acting in a way that is healthy enough?

    • Ah, the War on Fat People. Its just another diversion to keep us divided, not mention that fat people are really easy targets. I don’t think that weight in and off itself is demonstraitve of abuse or neglect. My daughter was born fat. Really. 8 pounds, 6 ounces, 18 inches. She was breast fed for 8 months. Guess what, she was still ‘heavy’. As a toddler she slimmed down but was still chubby. When she got to school, despite my best efforts, she would charm her way into the readily available snacks, candies, and sodas. This went on right through high school. I didn’t keep the junk food or sodas in the house. I sent her to school with a packed lunch. I didn’t give her money. She still managed to eat the stuff. I talked to her about the importance of good nutrition but was careful not to NAG. She’s 21 years old now and still has a weight problem. She was not abused and not neglected. I did every non abusive thing I could think of to teach, and provide, for her good nutrition. I don’t think taxing, punishing, and nagging is the way to wage The War on Fat People. Its a war that shouldn’t be fought in the first place. Most people will not achieve the Left’s vision of perfection. The Left should accept that, and take the resources used in The War on Fat People, and do something that might actually be beneficial to somebody.

      • 8 lbs 6 oz is not fat, a little above average maybe but not fat.

        • Hey Bob,

          I love her to bits, but she was the shpae of a watermelon. We didn’t see her neck unless we looked for it. People used to stop me in the streets “Oh, look at those cheeks!” they would say. She was the chubbiest baby I’d ever seen. She was also the cutiet baby I’d ever seen. To me, she will always be the most wonderful person in the world no matter what she weighs. I love her more than I do anyone else.

    • I know this sounds like a horrible story and it kinda is but yes it is neglectful to not provide good nutrition to your kids. The local council had spent $180,000 trying to help the family lose weight, the 10 year old girl weighs more than me and the toddler is half the weight of my wife. Obesity completely wrecks your body. it leads to heart conditions, diabetes and your joints eventually grind away and that is just a few of the things it does. Allowing your kids to get into that state shows a deficiency in your mental state.

      • I’m going to have to go with Bob here.. allowing your toddler (who has zero means of obtaining food on his own) to become 56 lbs shows a woeful neglect his his health and well-being. Allowing a 13 year old to become 224 lbs is equally bad. Yes, there are obviously some genetic factors here, but the bottom line is that if your child is prone to obesity, they still cannot become obese if you feed them appropriately. To do otherwise sets them up for a lifetime of health problems. Note, here I am talking about genuine obesity, not just being overweight. Would it be any different if you allowed your toddler to chain-smoke, or your 13 year old to drink scotch from the bottle?

        Adding, obesity in pregnant mothers also severely increases the odds of birth defects. While I can’t advocate for a program of saying who can and cannot get married, those of you who feel that a fetus is a person should consider this woman’s willingness to have a child while weighing upward of 300 lbs as a willingness to expose a child to a higher probability of spina bifida, heart problems, cleft palate and a number of other defects. (http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSTRE51979K20090210).

        • Typo: […] While I can’t advocate for a program of saying who can and cannot get pregnant, those of you who feel that a fetus is a person[…]

        • RWBoveroux says:


          Sorry, but you are wrong that if a person is prone to obesity, then they will not become obese if they “just eat right”. There are also possible medication issues that need to be taken into account. My wife is on several medications that have caused her to gain rather significant weight even though she is an avid biker and is not eating junk food.

          My other problem is that the government is sticking its nose where it does not belong. These children are the parents children and not the state’s children. I can understand the argument about the state having greater cost because of health issues from these children being obese, but I would propose that that issue is a non-starter and the responsibility of the parent.

          • There are some medical conditions that mean you can put on weight easier but there is one equation that means Mathius is quite correct. If you burn more calories than you take in, then you will lose weight. No two ways around that sorry, no matter how many people complain about genes, medical conditions and medication. If someone is discovered to still put on weight after they burn off calorie intake then they should immediately get a hold of the press as they have just managed to break the laws of thermodynamics.

            What if the parents did not feed them enough? Bought them cigarettes, alcohol and drugs? Is this still the right of the parents to do this? At which point does it become neglect?

          • I am thin. I have always been thin, and I eat whatever I want whenever I want, and rarely exercise. I am extremely fortunate to have the metabolism I have (a side benefit of a thyroid condition). That said, I do have some basic understanding of physics. A object can increase in mass only by so much mass as is added to it less what is expended as energy and what is expelled. Eat well, exercise and, equally importantly, eat less. I cannot speak to your wife’s condition, but in the case of obese children, except perhaps in special situations, it is tantamount to child endangerment.

            Why can the government stick it’s nose in their business? For the same reason it could if she were letting them play on the roof: she has no right to risk the health and well being of children in her care. If she will not keep them safe and healthy, the state should take them away and do the job for her.

      • Bob, Matt.

        It’s not your body nor your child and not your concern.

        • If we only discussed matters that directly affected us then this board would be pretty empty no?

        • Ah, but when the government is paying for health care, they think that makes it their concern; obesity increases health care costs, they say.

          Another reason to keep the government as far away from health care as possible.

    • To Bob and Mathius: Are you guys really serious or did I miss some sarcasm somewhere? Are you really serious on the obesity issue? Are you advocating that any state can determine what is relevant in the safety of a child? Seat belt laws are bad enough but where would you draw the line? What is next? Taking a child away because they live in a polluted city like Detroit? Or they live in the slums of New York? Where is the line?

      • The same question I posed to RWB.

        What if the parents did not feed them enough? Bought them cigarettes, alcohol and drugs? Is this still the right of the parents to do this? At which point does it become neglect?

        • What is that point, Bob?

          You are advocating the destruction of the family unit on marginal grounds – so the onus is on you to define what YOU think is ‘neglect’.

          • I would class leading your children into a future of being bullied, debilitating illnesses and early death neglect, yes. Just as I would class giving children alcohol, cigarettes and drugs as neglect. I think this was implied in my replies.

      • D, I thought we were doing so well agreeing with each other on the other thread.. oh well..

        Yes, I am serious. And Bob’s question is right on point. If the kid is heavy, I do not think the state should involve itself, but at some point, we need to recognize that the parents are not sufficiently caring for the safety and well being of the children. How, exactly, to define that is a tough call for me, but when your 13 year old weighs 60 pounds more than I do, I have to ask how that is not child endangerment. And seat belt laws make sense. Parents should have to make sure that their child, in the event of an accident, does not become a ballistic missile. Why is that so unreasonable?

        But I do see your slippery slope argument, I just don’t see how we can avoid issues because of what might conceivably come from them downslope. When they try to take kids away from Detroit because of its pollution, you will have my support.

        • Common Man says:


          I live north of Detroit and have had the displeasure of servicing clients in Detroit, and I can tell you that the kids of Detroit would be better off living in the country; less likely to die at an early age.

          Does that mean I advocate the government taking control and relocating them to my neck of the woods…no! Should the kids and the parent(s) choose to move out my way and work to improve their stature I would welcome them. If they choose to stay where they are, then good luck.

          You and others like you have no moral right to impress your wishes, beliefs, or expectations on anyone, and neither does the government.

          How would you respond if I demanded you move from the ‘big city’ into the country side and take up hunting to put food on the table?

          Just because my way of life is statistically more healthy and true to family values does not give me the right to issist that you live the same.

          BTW: I lived in a time that seat belts & helmets didn’t exist and sugar, butter, fried chicken, gravy and home made pie were common place at the table, but I am 53, and in excellent health.

          It all boils down to individuals deciding they have the right to enforce their views on others becasue the others are acting differently. It is immoral and unjust.


          • See, I think you’re confused about what I’m saying here.

            You should be able to eat whatever you want, however much you want. You should be able to live where you want. You can skydive, you can play in traffic, you can accept candy from strangers, you can do drugs, you can drink, you can smoke. You can engage in any kind of risky behavior you wish to and you will hear no objections from me at all (unless you want me to pay for it, or it poses a hazard to others).

            But if you have accepted the responsibility to care for a child, you must take appropriate steps to ensure the safety and well being of that child. Because the child shares your DNA does not make them your property, it simply defaults their care to you. You don’t own them. But because they are unable to make sound choices for themselves, you must do so. But you cannot take risks on behalf of another.

            Just as you cannot decide that I must risk my health by driving without a seat belt, you cannot decide that the child must risk his/her health by providing too much and/or unhealthy food.

            Or do you hold that it is perfectly acceptable to provide your young child with a bottle of Jack Daniels, because it is your child? Are you allowed to beat them? Torture them? Starve them? Use them as slave labor? Lock them in the basement for the first 18 years of their life? Could you perform a ‘female circumcision’? Could you deny them education? Can you choose not to treat their diabetes? Can you drive with your infant in the back of your pickup?

            There must be limits on what parents are allowed to do with their children. I say that if something causes a significant risk to the health of a child (and obesity does), then it is the parents’ obligation to protect against it if possible. You say otherwise?

            • You argument is faulty, Matt.

              The child is not your property either for you to make decisions on that child’s behalf.

              Even more so, you have no right to make any decisions since you are not its parents either.

              Your attempt to apply your argument of ownership so to ‘disown’ the child so that the State can claim it.

              But you or the State are even further of arms length of any such claim as you and the State need to penetrate FAMILY.

              This is the common fallacy of most Statists – they interpose themselves first between person and family – with no right to do so.

            • Common Man says:


              Football at an early age accounts for more brain injuries than any other sponsored sport, therefore parents are neglectful for allowing their children to play football before they are 18.

              We should advocate that the schools can no longer have football teams.

              Military Schools promote violence and military superiority, therefore promoting aggression and freedom through military might. We should then discontinue military schools.

              Farmers have their younger kids driving combines, tractors and other farm equipment at an age not approved by state and local laws. Therefore we should remove the children from the farmer parents.

              I taught my young children (8 and 9) how to handle rifles, shotguns and handguns properly, even though the state says they were too young. I should be prosecuted

              Where do you draw the line implementing your self righteous authority?

              I would suspect that I raised my children differently than you. I suspect that my parents raised me differently than your parents did you. Who says I am right and your are wrong, or visa versa?

              If someone is clearly ‘abusing’ a child in my presence I may choose (based upon circumstances) to intervene for the benefit of the child (my choice), but the government has no right to tell me too or not too.

              The real question is where and when does the government have the right to impose their ideals?


              • Football at an early age accounts for more brain injuries than any other sponsored sport, therefore parents are neglectful for allowing their children to play football before they are 18.

                They make the children where helmets and padding. And there are rules to prevent excessive risk and violence. There are benefits to this (increased athleticism, health, teamwork, and it’s fun). I played safety. The parents must do some calculus in their head and determine if the rewards justify the risk.

                Military Schools promote violence and military superiority, therefore promoting aggression and freedom through military might. We should then discontinue military schools.

                The military does not cause irreparable harm to the children. It teaches fitness, discipline, duty, etc. The parents must do some calculus in their head and determine if the rewards justify the risk.

                Farmers have their younger kids driving combines, tractors and other farm equipment at an age not approved by state and local laws. Therefore we should remove the children from the farmer parents.

                You don’t just put your kid on the combine and say “go for it,” you train them. You work with them until you are comfortable that they know what to do and how to do it safely. Once taught, they are not at substantive risk. If a parent just handed their kid the keys without training, that would be neglectful in my eyes.

                I taught my young children (8 and 9) how to handle rifles, shotguns and handguns properly, even though the state says they were too young.

                Did you teach them to be respectful of firearms? To keep them pointed away from other people. To always engage the safety when not in use? Or did you just toss them a Winchester and say “figure it out”? This is something you felt your children should know and you did it, I’m sure in a safe and educational manner.

                If someone is clearly ‘abusing’ a child in my presence I may choose (based upon circumstances) to intervene for the benefit of the child (my choice), but the government has no right to tell me too or not too.

                But the government isn’t telling you to intervene. It is intervening. And I find it interesting that you would be willing to intervene in the case of legitimate abuse. How do you determine what legitimate abuse is? Why does your judgment override another parent’s? If he believe that a good way to discipline a child is to put cigarettes out on her arm, who are you to say otherwise? If you can justify inserting your judgment above someone else’s then you open the door for the government to do so as well.

                The real question is where and when does the government have the right to impose their ideals?

                The government is made up of people. Some of these people write guidelines on acceptable parenting within the bounds of the law. There is a lot of leeway built in. But there are lines that have been drawn. Crossing those lines gives the government the right to intervene because someone has to. The children cannot do it for themselves. And the kindness of strangers cannot be relied upon.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                “If he believe that a good way to discipline a child is to put cigarettes out on her arm, who are you to say otherwise?”

                You almost have it right Mathius. If you replace the word “you” in the above quote with the words “the state” then you have it right.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                One other question… you state that in all the examples given, “The reward justifies the risk” or some such thing.

                You see, the thing is, that is a JUDGEMENT you are making. You are only qualified to MAKE such a judgement for your own children. You are NOT qualified to MAKE such a judgement for someone else’s children.

                You can offer an OPINION, but that is all.

          • >>>sugar, butter, fried chicken, gravy and home made pie were common place at the table, but I am 53,

            Ahhhhh – but you;re young yet !! Wait until you hit 55 and all that butter, sugar, starts to take hold ! LOL

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              There was a medical study done with adults who had already suffered at least one heart attack.

              Some of the participants were told to use real butter, while some of the participants were told to use products like margarines that were advertized to lower cholesterol or help keep it under control.

              The participants diets were controlled to a large degree.

              At the end of the study, those that used real butter suffered far fewer recurrances of heart attacks than those using the highly processed margarine products.

              The doctors theorized that this was because the body has been designed to properly digest naturally occuring foods.

              You will not find this study publicized anywhere for some reason, but I assure you it did take place and the results are exactly as I have described.

            • I agree Peter – my post was tongue and cheek about aging – 55 seems to be a new 45 for aging !! LOL Weight gain, arthritis, ED, etal !!

              On a more serious note – just 10-15 years ago or so(if I recall), the majority of Dr thought and proscribed for ulcers being caused by stress, diet etc , when it was discovered to be bacterial and antibiotics would cure it !! It takes quite a while for the AMA or any large organization to recognize new science.

              Ive only seen it a few places, but I think heart disease is caused more from inflammation rather than high cholesterol.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Most information I have seen recently seems to indicate that inflammation is the cause of Coronary Artery Disease, which leads to heart disease and stroke.

                It seems like Statins, when they do actually work, do not actually work because they are lowering your cholesterol level, but rather because they are reducing levels of inflammation.

                There are a lot safer drugs than Statins that will accomplish the same goal.

                In fact, you can greatly reduce inflammation in your body simply by modifying your diet, which does not involve any medications at all.

                It seems to me that the majority of “big money medications” these days are designed to perpetually treat simptoms rather than to cure diseases.

                If you continually treat a symptom without curing the underlying cause, you have yourself a goldmine.

                If you cure the underlying disease, there are no symptoms left to mitigate, so who wants to do that???

        • 🙂 Well, sir, we will have to agree to disagree here. You seem to subscribe to the Hillary “It Takes a Village” approach ( I could be very wrong here, just a surmise on my side ).

          I think obesity is over the line. True, the parent can control eating habits. True, they may have a moral responsibility to do so. To me, it crosses the line. I also have problems with seat belt laws. I wore mine anyway. I do not prefer to become a missile or my children to become a missile in the event of accident…..but that is my choice.

          My children are my responsibility and they belong to me until adulthood. I do have the right of control as to how I feed them ,clothe them, educate them, and raise them. There are horrible examples out there of bad parents but to control the population to control them is wrong.

          Oh well, my left leaning friend, I still like you. At least you are straight forward and that is great.

          Have a bodacious day.

          • And then a few years ago, I went to a new doctor, had the initial checkout by the nurse, weight, temp, height … Then she mentioned that I was OBESE !! WHAT!! Im only 10-20 pounds more that when I played college BB !!

            Seems that Ive SHUNK about an inch and a half !! LOL and just fell into the obese chunk of the chart !!

            Another example of unintended consequences – hey – maybe Im eligible for some bail $$$ Yum YUM !!

      • Heck if a state can take away kids because they are named after Hitler, then we are all doomed anyways.


    • http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Praying-Parents-Dale-and-Leilani-Neumann-Jailed-For-Letting-Daughter-Madeline-Die-In-Wisconsin/Article/200910115401065?f=rss

      Were these parents neglectful or has the states meddling ways punished them for doing something that is within their rights?

      • Those parents should be shot. Then they can pray their injuries away. I thought about making the comparison, but didn’t want to wade into that fight this early in the morning.. but since you brought it up, I have to agree 100%. If you do not utilize every tool at your disposal to help a gravely sick child, you are responsible for their death.

        Though, methinks there may be a pirate in these parts who believes that if the child would have died without you, then you are not responsible.. but that’s another fight entirely.

        • Mathius, for clarification, do you feel the same way about adults with do not resuscitate orders? Or do you feel this way only when it involves children who have no legal rights to decide for their own.

          • No, as an adult, you may choose to do whatever you wish with regards to your health. I have made it very clear to Emilius (though I doubt she’ll listen) that if I am brain dead or severely damaged (major stroke, etc), the plug is to pulled and my organs harvested. If you want a DNR or faith healing for yourself, that’s your call. But not your call for others – that includes your dependents.

            Personally, if I thought they’d go for it, and I were brain dead, I would want them to harvest my organs before pulling the plug (much lower rejection rate). But I just don’t think they’ll do it.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


            If you truly believe that those parents should be shot, please go and shoot them, and then make your case before the court that it was a “justifiable homicide”. Who knows, it might just work!

      • Common Man says:


        Maybe there is some merit to Social Darwinism, it works in the wild; at least when the wild is not comprimised by humans.

        Everyone has a right to live as they so choose so long as they don’t impede the rights of others to do the same.

        It is sad when individuals use stupidity, medical excuses, poverty, faith or whatever to justify their actions, but it is part of living in a free state.

        We are no more just in advocating how others live than the government. If I choose to participate in a dangerous activity and as a result wind up dead, it was my choice.

        Each time a government body enacts or interviens they set a precident and further expand their control. By allowing this, in any form, we further their course of action.

        Letting individuals live as they so choose could very well assist us in our mission to regain control of our country.

        This should get some hairs standing and some comments flowing.

        BTW: If we are all suddenly forced to live off the land me and mine are fine. “A country boy can survive”


        • You can decide for yourself whether to forgo medical treatment in favor of prayer. You are a competent adult. You may not make that decision for a minor in your care.

          The child in question had an easily treatable form of diabetes. Medical science had the answer and the tools to save this child. Choosing prayer instead (as opposed to in addition to, which would be fine) is willful child endangerment.

          • Matt,

            Someone needs to make choices for a minor.

            Your demand is that this is the State – but you provide no reason why this is so.

            You attempt to show that some parents are bad, therefore the State should sieze children.

            Yet, you ignore the fact that the State is murderous but that doesn’t matter to you.

            Thus you prefer a child to be with a prolific murderer and thief – instead of merely a neglectful (whatever that means) parent.

    • Bottom Line says:

      Stuffing a kid to the point of morbid obesity is neglegence and abuse.
      Parents have the right to raise a child how they want.
      Government shouldn’t take people’s children away or tell them how to parent.
      Nobody should, in good concience, allow this type of abuse to happen.

      I see a conflict of interest. Nice pick for a topic USW. Good food for thought.

      My answer: Let them turn their kids into 1000 lb. blobs if thy want to.

      Parents have the right to raise a child how they want. If they want to raise a 1000 lb. blob, it isn’t my right or responsibility to interfere, nor is it the government’s. I advocate “Social Darwinism” as the answer in this case.

      I’ve heard what you think about Social Darwinism, USW. That’s why it suprises me that you didn’t care for/”get” “THE CATCHER IN THE RYE”.

      The answer to the kids in the rye fields problem is to:
      1 – Gather all of the kids and get their undivided attention. Explain that there is a cliff over there and they should avoid it rather than die. Tell the where a safer place to play is located.
      2 – Take YOUR children, your family’s children, your friend’s children to a safe place to play.
      3 – Call parents and tell them that their children are playing near a cliff in a rye field

      Q: What about the children that end up falling off the cliff?

      A: Phuq ’em. They should have listened. Their parents should have been watching them.

      Q: So what to do about the fat Scottish kids problem?

      A: Offer the parents a free class on nutrition and fitness. If they still think it’s okay to raise a blob, …let them.

      They raise blobs. Their kids die early and/or don’t reproduce. Nature weeds out the weak. The rest of us benefit.

      Oh well.

      You are the weakest link. Good bye.

      • Phuq ‘em. They should have listened. Their parents should have been watching them.

        Here’s the problem. A corollary to Mathius’ First Law (People.Are.Dumb.): Children.Are.Dumber.

        There is a reason minors cannot care for themselves. It is because their brains are not fully developed. You tell the kids that there’s a cliff, and they’re not going to process that information in the way an adult brain would. So, because the parents are idiots, does not mean the children should have to suffer the consequences. Yes, apples don’t fall far from the tree, but that doesn’t mean the kid definitely will be worthy of removal from the gene pool. And it sure doesn’t mean that the kid deserves a lifetime of poor health as a result of his parents’ idiocy. The sins of the father should not be visited upon the son.

        • “if mathius jumped off a cliff, would you jump off a cliff too?”

          The old saying to compare you doing something stupid because your friend did seems to fit in right here. But you know what, I might have done the same stupid thing as my friend when I was 8 but I wasn’t jumping off any cliff.

          • Maybe you wouldn’t have jumped off a cliff, but you might have gone to look over the edge and slipped. And I would hold your parents accountable for allowing you (as an 8 year old) to play unsupervised near a cliff.

            And what if it’s not an 8 year old, what if it’s a 4 year old? Or a two year old? At what age to you become competent to make your own decisions? At what age should a child push the plate away and “mom, this isn’t healthy for me, I should go hungry and exercise until my BMI is back in line with a healthier point. Please don’t provide me any more Twinkies.”

            Compare it to a dog. If you keep giving your dog food, it is going to keep eating until it’s obese. And then it will die young. And it would be your fault because the dog does not know better than to eat what’s put in front of it.

        • Bottom Line says:


          Mathius – “You tell the kids that there’s a cliff, and they’re not going to process that information in the way an adult brain would.”

          BL – Good point. The age of independant reason is 7. The older,smarter kids would likely heed the warning. The others should have been supervised.

          Mathius – “So, because the parents are idiots, does not mean the children should have to suffer the consequences. Yes, apples don’t fall far from the tree, but that doesn’t mean the kid definitely will be worthy of removal from the gene pool. And it sure doesn’t mean that the kid deserves a lifetime of poor health as a result of his parents’ idiocy. The sins of the father should not be visited upon the son.”

          BL – Is it fair to the children? Is it their fault? Do they deserve the consequences of their parent’s actions?

          Of course not. Absolutely not. You’re missing the point.

          It’s about a mode of thinking. It’s about having the wisdom and maturity to factor in responsibility when reasoning. It’s about seeing the bottom line.

          “‘The mark of the immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause while the mark of the mature man is that wants to live humbly for one.”

          Die is to immature nobility
          Live is to humble maturity

          Bottom line: live vs die

          How noble it is to save the children. But in the process, you may just find yourself falling off of the same cliff. Why risk it? Who are you taking such a risk for? Is it really your responsibility to risk your life for them. Why aren’t they watching their own kids? Who’s gonna feed YOUR kids if their daddy is a blood stain on a rock? What if they don’t wanna go play elsewhere? Do you force them/drag them to safety? Is that your right to do so? What do you do?

          Bottom line: It’s not worth it. Your problem is taking care of your own. Their problem is taking care of theirs.

          Negotiate the moral/ethical dilema and do the right thing by making an honest effort to help them. But don’t sacrifice for something that is ultimately NOT your responsibility.

          Have the wisdom to know where to draw the line.

      • For the record, I liked Catcher in the Rye far more once you explained it to me.

        • Bottom Line says:

          It’s a great book. Makes ya think. I wouldn’t mind reading it again. I’m sure I missed something the firt time.

    • USW,

      Great topic. This shows the problem with government run health care. By giving them that power, you also agree they have the right to dictate how you live your life. You are giving up more of your freedom.

      And where will they stop? Likely never. How about outlawing red meat? (We’ll tax it first)

      BRZEZINSKI: [ignoring Joe, continuing to read] “In view of our obesity epidemic and the extra burden it places on our health care system – not to mention the problems it causes on a crowded New York subway when your neighbor can’t fit into a single seat – it is a reasonable proposal.” He goes on now to talk about red meat. And you all need to think about this.


      BRZEZINSKI: No, people who want us not to just be an obese, sick country. I’m going to read one more, Peter Singer again, Professor says –

      SERWER: It’s the tofu lobby.

      SCARBOROUGH: Who are against choice. Why were you anti-choice?

      SERWER: I like bacon.

      SCARBOROUGH: Oh, I love bacon.

      BRZEZINSKI: – “Meat eaters impose costs – first, eating red meat is likely to kill you. Large studies have shown the daily consumption of red meat –

      SCARBOROUGH: Mika, carbs kill you.

      BRZEZINSKI: – daily consumption increases the risks that people die prematurely of heart disease or bowel cancer. This is now beyond serious scientific dispute.


      • This is not about government health care though its about the neglect of children.

        • Bob

          The questions are identical in spirit.

          The State claiming superior right in determining individual health and welfare.

        • No Bob, its about freedom, If you have a child, you are responsible for them, not me. I am responsible for my children. Mika is a good example of how the nanny state grows and takes over. Tax tobacco, sugar, red meat. Ban smoking indoors, then outdoors. Its just a matter of time until they try banning the Big Mack.

          People talk about doing what is best for society as a whole, for the greater good. Sorry, they are just willing slaves.

          • I have a 18 month little girl, what would happen if I suddenly decided to stop feeding her? I am responsible for her and I have decided she should get her own food from now on. Should the state step in?

            • Bob,

              Why should the State step in?

              Where does the State get its right to do so?

              Where does the State get its rights BEFORE the rest of the family?

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              Bob, at what point WOULD the State step into the situation, and why?

              The state has no way of KNOWING that you have stopped feeding your child, unless they are monitoring your activities on a constant basis.

              At this point they are not. So, the state would only step in IF THE STARVATION WERE NOTICED BY SOMEONE ELSE.

              The SOMEONE ELSE would most likely be a family member, a friend, or someone you were employing to care for the child.

              Why do you think it is OK for the State to intervene, and yet it is somehow not ok for the family member, friend, or care-giver to intervene? Why is STATE intervention even necessary in this case?

              There are two possible outcomes of your scenario. No one notices that you are starving your child (you keep the child in the house at all times, you do not let friends and family in the house, you do not hire any outside help). In this case, the child will likely die regardless of whether the State exists or not.

              In outcome #2, a family member, a friend, or a care-giver in your employ will find out about the starvation and INTERVENE. In the event of such intervention, the child will likely live, regardless of whether the state exists or not.

              • Heheheh fine I will accept your outcome on the first scenario, now lets pretend the second scenario has happened. Do tell how they are going to intervene?

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Do tell, how does the STATE intervene now?

                The State cannot intervene without prior knowledge that abuse or neglect is happening.

                How do they discover this?

                From one of your own family members, one of your friends, a care-giver under your employ, or a doctor.

                The State has no way to obtain the knowledge of such an event WITHOUT THE INTERVENTION of someone else who is intimately related to the situation in some way.

                Let us say for example that you are starving your child, and the child is dangerously thin. If your mother-in-law comes to the house and says, “You had better start feeding my grandchild or there will be hell to pay!” Most likely you are going to start feeding your child out of fear of the retribution of your mother-in-law. Fear of the State is not required.

    • OK, there are medical statistics about why being fat is bad for your health. There are also statistics that say eating sugar is bad for your health. Are we going to legislate how much sugar parents can feed their children? There are a host of examples on this point. When does it become neglect? If I think praying is a more effective medical treatment than going to the doctor, must I be locked up? When it doesn’t work, does that prove the opposite? What about when it does work? For those of you who know any discrete math, a counterexample would only work if I said praying ALWAYS works better. Are parents putting their kids lives in danger? You say yes, they say no. Who is right?

      As a parent I’m sure you can tell the difference between baby cries. If you baby is making a hungry cry, do you feed them? If you say no, then you are abusing your baby by starving them. If your baby is genetically predisposed to obesity, now do you feed them? Apparently you are unfit if you do and unfit if you don’t. Who gets to decide how much food a baby can eat? Can a baby exercise?

      I agree that people should try to keep their kids healthy, but since when is a fat kid proof of neglect? So your kid enjoys eating.

      Should obese people not be allowed to have babies? Who is obese enough? Is it abuse to have a baby if it may have some defects? If that is true, is it ever not abuse to have a baby?

      Breast cancer runs in my wife’s family. Are we going to have our baby taken away because it may have breast cancer at some point in its life?

      My dog is a little overweight, should the animal cops come and take it away?

      Give me a break people.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Hell, let’s just make this simple. You need a license to drive, you need to register to vote, but you don’t need anything at all to become a parent! Before anyone is even ALLOWED to become pregnant, they should be required to run down to the DRS (Department of Reproductive Screening) where they will be administered a test which will determine their ability to be a suitable parent. If they do not pass the test with at least a 60% or above, they will be subjected to immediate and irreversible sterilization.

      Anyone who becomes pregnant without first attempting and passing the test will be subjected to forced abortion, mandatory testing, and immediate sterilization if they fail.


      Problem solved.

  5. A bit of financial insight…http://www.caseyresearch.com/library/articles/3040/daily-pfennig-10-27-09:-the-dollar-bounces-bank!-/

    “OK… Dr. Marc Faber was in the news last night, as he was giving an interview on Bloomberg TV… This is Dr. Faber’s words folks…

    “The dollar will become worthless when people eventually realize the fiscal situation in the U.S. is a disaster. It will go to a value of zero eventually, but not right now. Looking at Mr. Obama’s administration, it should already be there.” He went on to say…

    “In my opinion, about 50% of tax revenues will be used just to cover interest payments on the government debt. That’s unsustainable. Then you’ll really be forced to print money. The best investments right now are foreign currencies, commodities, and equities.” And then when asked about Fed Chairman, Big Ben Bernanke, Dr. Faber said, “He’s a money printer. He’s nothing else.”

    Sounds like something I read in Weh n Money Dies.

    • I mean When Money Dies.

      Its getting late here….

    • Its in the crapper once the rest of the planet gets its savings out of American dollars and into some other currency like maybe a world one. At that very point, the gloves come off and the American dollar will be free falling to what it should have been all along. Not a pretty picture but an accurate one nonetheless.

    • I will disagree with Faber on some points.

      (1) Interest payments on the debt are irrelevant. It is the left hand paying the right hand. The foreign holders of debt are being paid 1 to 5% – pittance.

      When inflation hits and the T-bills are going out at 20%, there will be no buyers except the FED. The government will pay the FED interest – nothing but a big circle inside the banking system and only interesting on paper.

      (2) The FED will no longer support the government when hyperinflation is threatened.

      (3) The government will default on some of its obligations – it won’t say that – it will say ‘delay, reorganize, change requirements’ – but they are all forms of default; a failure to act as promised and agreed. Social Security, Medicad for example are already insolvent. Delaying or changing these programs will be easy – they will lower benefits, delay entrance into the program, increase fees.

      His investment stratgies

      (1)foreign currency. What government on earth is not doing exactly what the US government is doing?
      Answer. None. Pan into Fire. It is only a short time while flying through the air that the heat is off.

      If currency is still exciting for someone, I’d suggest Asian. They’ll fail last.

      (2) commodities. They go up and down with the economies, and less so with currency. The shutdown of the global economy will drop their prices, even in the face of inflation. Perhaps only food and energy may go up – people still need to eat and move about.

      (3) equities. Who? What company is going to do well in a failed economy? Funeral homes, maybe.

      But I like Faber. He at least sees the upcoming disaster and speaks about it well.

  6. Holy crap…


    H1N1 virus, Cement his total control over every aspect of our lives
    Things to watch for during a “Declared National Emergency”

    By Marion Valentine Saturday, October 24, 2009

    As I predicted—though I was unsure whether it would be the H1N1 virus or the collapse of the dollar—the Communist Puppet would use something to cement his total control over every aspect of our lives.

    From the day he took office, Obama and his puppet masters have been building a shadow Government with all power vested in them. The Czars he has appointed, who were not vetted and approved by Congress nor elected, now have the authority to control every aspect of American commerce.

    I challenge you to look at the Executive Orders that have been signed over the last 30 years and are still in place. Also carefully read the provisions of the Violent Crime Control Act. They are listed here America In Peril and I include a partial list below.

    You will see that with the Executive Orders already in place, combined with the provisions of the Violent Crime Control Act, with the stroke of a pen Obama can suspend the Constitution, the Judiciary, Elections and in effect declare himself president for life.

    The next step In the wannabe dictators plan is to declare Martial Law, confiscate all privately owned firearms, round up all dissenters and move them to detention centers. Also there will be detention centers for those who have the H1N1 virus.

    A series of Executive Orders, internal governmental departmental laws, unpassed by Congress, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 and the Violent Crime Control Act of 1991, provides additional powers to the President of the United States, allowing the suspension of the Constitution and Constitutional rights of Americans during a “drug crisis”. It provides for the construction of detention camps, seizure of property, and military control of populated areas, has whittled down Constitutional law substantially. These new Executive Orders and Congressional Acts allow for the construction of concentration camps, suspension of rights and the ability of the President to declare Martial Law in the event of a drug crisis. Congress will have no power to prevent the Martial Law declaration and can only review the process six months after Martial Law has been declared. The most critical Executive Order was issued on August 1, 1971. Nixon signed both a proclamation and Executive Order 11615. Proclamation No. 4074 states, “I hereby declare a national emergency”, thus establishing an economic crisis. That national emergency order has not been rescinded.

    This, teamed with the Executive Orders of the President, enables Orwellian prophecies to rest on whomever occupies the White House. The power provided by these “laws” allows suspension of the Constitution and the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights during any civil disturbances, major demonstrations and strikes and allows the military to implement government ordered movements of civilian populations at state and regional levels, the arrest of certain unidentified segments of the population, and the imposition of Martial Law.

    When the Constitution of the United States was framed it placed the exclusive legislative authority in the hands of Congress and with the President. Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution is concise in its language:

    “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

    That is no longer true. The Bill of Rights protected Americans against loss of freedoms. That is no longer true. The Constitution provided for a balanced separation of powers. That is no longer applicable.

    Perhaps it can be summed up succinctly in the words of arch-conservative activist Howard J Ruff:

    “Since the enactment of Executive Order 11490, the only thing standing between us and dictatorship is the good character of the President, and the lack of a crisis severe enough that the public would stand still for it.”

    Next we will look at all legislation passed or attempted by the dishonest Socialist regardless if they call themselves Progressive, Liberal, Independent, Republican, or Democrat.

    If you have a computer you can look up the legislation.

    Here are just a few Executive Orders that would suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These Executive Orders have been on record for nearly 30 years and could be enacted by the stroke of a Presidential pen:

    EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.

    EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.

    EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.

    EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.

    EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.

    EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.

    EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.

    EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.

    EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.

    EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.

    EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.

    EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.

    Here are the later Executive Orders:

    EXECUTIVE ORDER 11049 assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period.

    EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months.

    EXECUTIVE ORDER 12148 created the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) that is to interface with the Department of Defense for civil defense planning and funding. An “emergency czar” was appointed. FEMA has only spent about 6 percent of its budget on national emergencies, the bulk of their funding has been used for the construction of secret underground facilities to assure continuity of government in case of a major emergency, foreign or domestic.

    EXECUTIVE ORDER 12656 appointed the National Security Council as the principal body that should consider emergency powers. This allows the government to increase domestic intelligence and surveillance of U.S. citizens and would restrict the freedom of movement within the United States and granted the government the right to isolate large groups of civilians. The National Guard could be federalized to seal all borders and take control of U.S. air space and all ports of entry. Many of the figures in the Iran-Contra scandal were part of this emergency contingent, including Marine Colonel Oliver North.

  7. Need help.. who said “I do not know where the market will be tomorrow, or next week, or next year, but eventually, it’s going up”?

    I can’t find the quote anywhere and it’s driving me crazy..

  8. I think this is a worthy topic, I have checked it out and its true except it was started under Bush, so Obama deserves neither credit nor blame.

    Subject: Safelink Wireless Free phones for welfare recipients

    Unbelievable.read this.

    I checked it out and the site link is below. I’m glad I’m paying for this now…..oh wait…. all you reading this are paying for it, too!

    I had a former employee call me earlier today inquiring about a job, and at the end of the conversation he gave me his phone number. I asked the former employee if this was a new cell phone number and he told me yes this was his
    “Obama phone.” I asked him what an “Obama phone” was and he went on to say that welfare recipients are now eligible to receive (1) a FREE new phone and (2) approx 70 minutes of FREE minutes every month. I was a little skeptical so I Googled it and low and behold he was telling the truth. TAX PAYER MONEY IS BEING REDISTRIBUTED TO WELFARE RECIPIENTS FOR FREE CELL PHONES.

    This program was started earlier this year. Enough is enough, the ship is sinking and it’s sinking fast. The very foundations that this country was built on are being shaken. The age old concepts of God, family, and hard work have flown out the window and are being replaced with “Hope and Change” and


    • I saw the commercials for the program. It sickens me to think that getting a cell phone from the government is now a ‘right’

    • v. Holland says:

      Wonder how long it will be before they will have to raise the number of minutes because 70 just simply isn’t enough.

  9. From FOX,

    PESHAWAR, Pakistan — A car bomb struck a busy market in northwestern Pakistan on Wednesday, killing 93 people — mostly women and children — as visiting Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton pledged U.S. support for Islamabad’s campaign against Islamic militants.

    More than 200 people were wounded in the blast in the main northwestern city of Peshawar, the deadliest in a surge of attacks by suspected insurgents this month. The government blamed militants seeking to avenge an army offensive launched this month against Al Qaeda and Taliban in their stronghold close to the Afghan border.

    Anyone care to bet the explosive was supplied by Iran?

      • Yes, I would take that bet. I do not doubt many of the sins our government has committed. I also can see a clear difference between the US, that would like terrorism ended in the Middle East, and Iran, that is using terrorism to destabilize the region. We would have been out of Iraq if they did not keep supplying weapons, money, training and insurgents to Iraq.

        If they want peace, all they have to do is lie low for a year, Obama claims victory and we leave. Then they are free to go back to business as usual.

        • “We would have been out…”

          Gee, doesn’t even register that it is because the USA is THERE that there is insurgents in Iraq!


          “Heck if the homeowners quit shooting at us, us thieves would have gone long ago!”

          • That’s funny, but you never know if/when they will leave.

            Phoenix police found Timothy Hartigan, 39, dead in a bedroom when they arrived shortly after 8:30 p.m. Saturday.

            Wilson Candee said the intruder’s motive did not appear to be theft. Money left in a wallet was untouched and no articles appeared to have been gathered for removal, he said.

            But he said he was told the house had been thoroughly vandalized with doors broken, glass smashed, and pictures and knick knacks knocked from the walls. Cutlery was strewn along the hallway leading to the bedroom. There also were signs that the intruder had cooked bacon and eggs, he said.


            7th story down

        • In conflict, LOI,

          …when the weaker power stops fighting the superior power, it is called “Surrender”.

          They will never surrender.

          ….when the stronger power stops fighting the weaker power, it is called “Armistice”.

          This allows for Peace Talks.

          In this conflict, which party do you believe is the stronger power?

          • Flag said, “…when the weaker power stops fighting the superior power, it is called “Surrender”.

            My post,

            A car bomb struck a busy market in northwestern Pakistan on Wednesday, killing 93 people — mostly women and children.

            Conflict? Yes, you are defending a country that makes war on women and children. That deliberately targets large numbers of them in an effort of terrorizing people into submission. And they are smart enough to wage this war in other countries, destabilizing their governments. They seem to want a religious war, that thankfully, the US has not bought into.

  10. A minor a human being with all the attendant rights… except… their brains are not fully developed and so decisions must be made for them. In accordance with the rules of nature, this defaults to the parents. The question now, is how to determine if/when a set of parents are harmful or neglectful to the point where they should be removed from the equation, why, and by whom.

    I posit that the society (state) has a vested interest in the child as a future potentially productive member. As such, should the parent’s behavior become detrimental to a significant extent (we’ll probably wind up hashing out what this means), the state may step in and remove the child. The child can then be placed in foster care while CPS figures out what to do next.

    You, Mr. Flag, if I understand correctly because that the state is evil and thus is worse than the parents. In any event, the state has no more claim to ‘ownership’ of the child than the parents, so it may not ‘take by force.’ In order to remove the child, it must violate the family, and this is unacceptable. Further, who is the state to decide what an acceptable harm is? Let me know if I’ve got the gist.

    So I have questions:
    (A) In the event of legitimate child abuse (beatings, rape, etc), how can the child be protected if he/she is too small and weak to defend himself/herself? Who has the right to intervene?
    (B) In the event of legitimate neglect (near starvation, no winter clothes, etc), how can the child demand these things when he/she has neither the power to enforce nor necessarily the knowledge that they should be provided?
    (C) In the event that a young child (say 2 years old) is provided with addictive drugs by his guardian, how can this be prevented since the child is addicted and will not refuse further drugs?
    (D) If the child has diabetes and instead of insulin, the parents choose to ‘treat with prayer,’ and the child dies, is this negligence?

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      “I posit that the society (state) has a vested interest in the child as a future potentially productive member.”

      Mathius, the first problem with what you posit is that you equate society and state. They are not synonymous. From that point forward, the rest of your analysis/question makes no sense, because that which you posited made no sense.

      I do think that some of your questions have merit as to how they would be dealt with in a free society (if I personally equated society and state I could not logically use the term “free society” because I wouldn’t be able to even conceive of such a thing).

      However, let me point some things out to you:

      In a STATE RUN society:

      In the event of legitimate child abuse (beatings, rape, etc), how can the child be protected if he/she is too small and weak to defend himself/herself? Who has the right to intervene?

      In a State-run society, the child cannot be protected. The rape/beating/etc. has ALREADY OCCURRED. The State intervenes AFTER THE FACT and punishes the abusive parent for abuse that HAS ALREADY OCCURRED. This has the corollary effect of protecting the child against FUTURE ABUSE BY THAT SAME PARENT, but it did nothing to protect the child from the abuse that already occurred.

      In the event of legitimate neglect (near starvation, no winter clothes, etc), how can the child demand these things when he/she has neither the power to enforce nor necessarily the knowledge that they should be provided?

      In a State-run society, the State does not have the power to enforce that a parent provide food, winter clothing, etc. either. The State only has the power to PUNISH THE PARENT AFTER THE FACT of the child being brought to near starvation or overexposure to cold. The State does NOTHING to protect the child from starvation or over-exposure to cold. It can only intervene AFTER THE FACT in order to attempt to prevent FUTURE OCCURENCES.

      In the event that a young child (say 2 years old) is provided with addictive drugs by his guardian, how can this be prevented since the child is addicted and will not refuse further drugs?

      In a State-run society, NOTHING can be done to prevent a 2-year old child being given drugs by his guardian. The state can only PUNISH THIS AFTER THE FACT.

      You continue to engage in the idea that government SOMEHOW PREVENTS THESE BAD THINGS FROM HAPPENING. It most assuredly does not. These kinds of things happen with alarming frequency IN SPITE OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOVERNMENT. The government can only punish perpetrators after the fact, and that will only occur if the government finds out about the perpetrators.

      How does the government discover when a child is being abused? Ususally through a friend, neighbor, teacher, doctor, other family member, etc.

      The only way to PREVENT evil acts from occurring is to exert 100% control over the situation 100% of the time. Thus, to prevent child neglect and child abuse completely, the state would have to seize and raise all children, and ensure 100% that they would staff all child-rearing facilities with people who were guaranteed not to neglect or abuse any of the children in their care. In order to do that, we better replace the human staff with robots, because any of the humans on staff HAS THE POTENTIAL to treat the children in an abusive or neglectful manner.

      So seize all children as soon as they are born, and raise them in government-run robot-controlled child-rearing facilities, and eliminate all exposure of the children to human adults, because with any adult human there would be a risk of neglect or abuse of the children.


      Problem solved.

      • Peter B:

        You are on a roll! I love it. Ultimately, the state would love to have that authority.

      • Mathius

        A minor a human being with all the attendant rights… except… their brains are not fully developed and so decisions must be made for them.

        “…. On their behalf” – Yes, it appears to be a minor difference from what you said – but it is an important difference.

        “For them…” is a overrule of their authority.

        “On their behalf…” is using the grant of their authority.

        In accordance with the rules of nature, this defaults to the parents. The question now, is how to determine if/when a set of parents are harmful or neglectful to the point where they should be removed from the equation, why, and by whom.

        There is a far more primary questions.

        “By what right…..” does another party define or determine ‘harmful’?

        I posit that the society (state) has a vested interest in the child as a future potentially productive member.

        By what right does the State claim such an interest?

        To claim upon the productivity of a person, without right, is slavery.

        What I read here is the premise that the State ‘owns’ the individual, and therefore all that comes from the individual – his production.

        As such, should the parent’s behavior become detrimental to a significant extent (we’ll probably wind up hashing out what this means),

        It is the core.

        the state may step in and remove the child.

        By what right?

        The child can then be placed in foster care while CPS figures out what to do next.

        What does the CPS have the right to determine this?

        You, Mr. Flag, if I understand correctly because that the state is evil and thus is worse than the parents.

        The State is evil because it is derived from evil. It can be nothing else, since that is what is its root premise.

        “Worse” is a value judgment.

        There are many evil people, and it is likely they are parents.

        This does not (1) make all parents evil (2) give the State the right to take children (3) absolve the State from evil or (4) make the State the default for resolving parent/child rights abuse.

        In any event, the state has no more claim to ‘ownership’ of the child than the parents, so it may not ‘take by force.’

        The State is inferior to any claim upon the children, as they are never the State’s.

        My child is mine, not yours. My child remains mine, even if you cloak yourself behind the Mask of the State.

        In order to remove the child, it must violate the family, and this is unacceptable. Further, who is the state to decide what an acceptable harm is? Let me know if I’ve got the gist.

        To act against another, one must demonstrate the right to act against another – this holds whether you are masked by the State or yourself without the mask.

        Thus, the question is synonymous whether you as Matt, or you while wearing the cloak of State and calling yourself CPS.

        You can simplify the debate by leaving the “State” out of any discussion.

        When you, Mathius, can discern a RIGHT to act against another in the favor of another, you will provide sufficient right for ANYONE to do the same thing.

      • Wasn’t there some experiment with monkies back in the 50s or 60s that did something similar? The robot raised monkies were emotionally disturbed. Does that count as abuse?

  11. Morning All

    Thought this would fit in one of the topics for today.

    Hope you are all having a good day.


    Too fat to kill? Fla. man uses weight as a defense
    BETH DeFALCO – 10/28/2009 3:26:58 PMBookmark and Share

    A Florida man accused of killing his former son-in-law in New Jersey says he was too fat to have committed the crime.

    When Edward Ates takes the stand in his defense Wednesday, he’s expected to tell jurors he didn’t have the energy to accurately shoot Paul Duncsak (DUNS’-kak) and make a quick getaway.

    Ates was 62 years old, 5 feet 8 and 285 pounds when Duncsak was killed in 2006.

    Duncsak and Ates’ daughter were involved in a bitter custody dispute after their divorce.

    Prosecutors claim Ates drove from Florida to Duncsak’s home in Ramsey and climbed a staircase to shoot the 40-year-old pharmaceutical executive.

    A defense attorney says Ates’ weight caused asthma, sleep apnea and other ailments.

  12. Cartoon of the day.

    • Judy, I am enjoying those, thanks for sharing.

      > Gotta Laugh …. to keep from crying:
      > The economy is so bad that I got a pre-declined credit card in the mail.
      > It’s so bad, I ordered a burger at McDonalds and the kid behind the ounter asked, “Can you afford fries with that?”
      > The economy is so bad that CEO’s are now playing miniature golf.
      > The economy is so bad if the bank returns your check marked “Insufficient funds” you call them and ask if they meant you or them.
      > The economy is so bad Hot Wheels and Matchbox stocks are trading higher than GM.
      > The economy is so bad McDonalds is selling the 1/4 ouncer.
      > The economy is so bad parents in Beverly Hills fired their nannies and learned their children’s names.
      > The economy is so bad a truckload of Americans was caught sneaking into Mexico.
      > The economy is so bad Motel Six won’t leave the light on anymore.
      > The economy is so bad the Mafia is laying off judges.
      > The economy is so bad Exxon-Mobil laid off 25 Congressmen.
      > And finally…
      > Congress says they are looking into this Bernard Madoff scandal.
      > Oh Great!! The guy who made $50 Billion disappear is being investigated by the people who made $1.5 Trillion disappear!

      • Hi LOI

        I just get those off of onenewsnow.com

        Thanks for the laugh, I needed it. Lost my job yesterday, But not to worry, something else will come up. Thanks for you jokes, they keep a smile on my face.


        • Hi Judy,

          My friend here on island lost her job yesterday too. Her husband still has his so she’s okay with it. She has all sorts of nice things lined up. She’s making the best of it. Please try to keep a happy outlook on life. I know it can be hard but being stressed out won’t make it better. At least now you’ll have more time to spend with your mom. You can’t put a price on that. Hang in there. I’ll keep you in my prayers.

          • Hi Cyndi

            I’m not worried,Was going to wait until after the first of the year to start looking again, not unless something comes up between now and then.
            I used to take my mom to work with me everyday. I worked for my brother in law at his environmental lab so he didn’t mind.
            What happened was, is that he sold his business to our cousin, and he hired a new gal to do the work that me and my Husband did, yea, he lost his too, but not totally.

            Thanks for keeping me in your prayers, I appreciate it very much.

  13. Mathius

    Ah, Flag, my old nemesis, how are you today? Get your foot out of that bear trap yet?


    I haven’t seen any reply from you yesterday, other than promises.

    You are a Statist thru and thru 🙂

    All promises of glory, no delivery or worse, delivery of disasters instead.

    So do I read your argument to be that genetic proximity equates to priority in determining treatment for a minor? If so, why are siblings (who are closer than the parents) not given priority?

    No, I am asking you for your reasoning that the State has greater right than family.

    The fact that the parents beget the child makes the child ‘theirs’ in all matters. If you demand a destruction of family to enforce your belief, you will need to provide very specific and powerful reasoning.

    If the parents are beating the child, does the state not have a right/obligation to intervene? If they are torturing it? In your world, who speaks for the helpless?

    Before you go into hypotheticals, let’s get your basics set first.

    • I wish, I wish I had time to fight you as much as I would like, but I do not. It is sad.

      I do not recognize the right of the parent to exercise demonstrably poor judgment in their stewardship of the child. It is the society which allows a child to stay with a parent to provide a because this is the natural default, but when the parent’s guardianship becomes destructive to those ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new guardianship, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that precedent long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and neglects, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such guardianship, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

      The People created the Government. That it has grown large and unwieldy is irrelevant. If the People truly wished it disbanded, it would be so. So the People’s government has the CPS, and the CPS has the authority to dissolve parental bonds if they are destructive to the child.

      • Common Man says:

        Mathius and everyone else:

        I think Matt hit on another discussion point for a future ‘guest Commentary’ with his statement below. Does the majority of Americans really want the government step aside and leave us to our own accord?

        The People created the Government. That it has grown large and unwieldy is irrelevant. If the People truly wished it disbanded, it would be so.

        Mathius; Do you really feel this to be true?

        I believe that the majority of Americans are prepared to remove some of the governments control, and that is the problem.


        • I think the vast majority of the US wants the government to continue. Many, perhaps, as a smaller institution. Many would affect large-scale changes, but few would abolish it entirely. Even here on the fringe, there are very few who seek this.

          Yes, the proletariat need only rise up and shake off the government like so many flees from a dog to be rid of it. The military, the police, they are all people, they will not obey a government they do not recognize as legitimate (BF’s point, I believe). Thus, how could the government stay in power without the will of the people?

          • I agree, Matt.

            As long as the People feel they need to use evil to solve problems, government will exist.

            I also agree that most people feel the need at times to use evil to solve problems.

      • v. Holland says:

        “It is the society which allows a child to stay with a parent”

        Are you kidding? Society, or the Government may have assumed a right to PROVE a parent is not fit to raise a child but unless I went to sleep and woke up in another Country, the government doesn’t just allow us to keep our children, though I do fear that one day what you state as acceptable and I see as a nightmare just may happen.

        • It’s not the government, it’s society. There’s a difference. You see, you do not “own” your children. They are human beings and not property. You exercise control over them and make the pertinent decisions until they are able, but that is beside the point. The society determines that you should be the one to make said judgments. But if the society views you as unfit, then they will remove that authority.

          • v. Holland says:

            Well, lets see society try to tell parents they don’t have the right to keep there children without government backing and see how well that works.

            • The society owns the government. The government is a tool of the society it represents. We created it. We elected people to it. We endowed it with legitimacy and power. If the People who make up Society did not wish for the government to do something, it wouldn’t.. with a caveat. There is corruption, politicking, and inertia in the government to be sure, but a forceful will of the People can never be denied.

              But you are arguing the means by which Society removes your children. We were discussing whether it has the Right.

              • v. Holland says:

                Perhaps I am being naive-but I thought that was why we had a Constitution, one which I might add shouldn’t be a living document, for reasons such as this one, so we wouldn’t just be open to the whims of anyone the majority or the government.

              • It has to be a living document. The Founders couldn’t possibly have conceived of the modern world. They understood that. One could argue the legality of CPS laws, within the framework of the Constitution. I would be hard pressed to find a justification for it on the federal level. But we were arguing morality, no?

              • v. Holland says:

                If one can’t get CPS Laws past the Constitution federally than we shouldn’t have federal CPS Laws-if they are deemed necessary they should be handled by the states. The government has already ignored the Constitution or it wouldn’t be as big and powerful as it is and if one treats it as a living document, you might as well tear it up and just tell the Supreme Court to use their own personal judgement.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


            Once again, “society” cannot determine anything… society has no brain.

            Only a being with the capacity to think and reason can make a determination.

          • Mathius

            It’s not the government, it’s society. There’s a difference. You see, you do not “own” your children. They are human beings and not property. You exercise control over them and make the pertinent decisions until they are able, but that is beside the point.

            No, that is the point.

            Society is a figment of your imagination.

            Society is merely a concept of the organization of people.

            My child is mine. She is real. I made her. You didn’t.

            Ergo, whatever opinion you may have in her regard is moot.

            • And at what point does she stop being your possession? Until that time can you do with her whatever you like? Interesting that, to you, fetuses are people with all the attendant rights, but you seem to be implying ownership of a child as though she were an object or slave.

              Are you within your rights to beat her? Are you within your rights to punish her with starvation? Why or why not?

              If you saw your neighbor doing that to their daughter, would you intervene? Even in consideration of your moral theories, are you telling me, that you could stand there and watch your neighbor beat his young daughter and not act? What if he was raping her? If he wouldn’t listen to you when you tried to talk him out of such behavior?

              Say it to me, in so many words: “It is his daughter and I, Black Flag, have no right to impose my judgment over his. His child is his. She is real. He made her. I didn’t. Thus he may rape and beat his daughter and I would not forcefully interfere.” Could you look yourself in the mirror ever again?

              • I humbly submit that, ethical theories be damned, you would put a .44 sized hole in his head within seconds, and that you would have done nothing wrong.

                Because you know, deep down, that you have an obligation to protect that child. And that duty supersedes your obligation to respect your neighbor’s right to raise his child in his own way. And that obligation supersedes your belief that you cannot initiate violence on a man who does not threaten you and yours.

              • ethical theories be damned

                No, sir – and that is where you fail.

                You cannot describe nor understand Human Rights.

                As long as you stumble around in the ethical no-where-land, you will be subject to the whims and flaws of irrational action under the guise of “society”.

              • Will the representative from the pirate cave please give a direct answer? Yes or no, do you believe that you would be ethical in not forcefully stopping your neighbor from beating and raping his young daughter if he will not listen to reason?

              • Oh, Evil One.

                How do you know my answer is right or wrong if you do not understand the reason?

                Is my authority so great upon you, you will accept my answer, and change your life?

              • Does my answer

                “He does not have the right to do what he is doing” help you?

              • But that was not my question, sir. Please answer the question.

              • It is not my right.

                It is the child’s right.

                Do you understand this, so far?

              • The child cannot exercise her right. She lacks sufficient force to counteract the force being used against her. So whose place is it to help her escape this situation if you deny the right of the government, society, or yourself to do so? Or is she simply doomed to suffer?

                You would not lift a hand to stop a man from raping a child, and this is ethical to you because of some notion of rights?

                And I think we’ll have to leave it there for tonight. Good night, and good luck.

              • Mathius

                The child cannot exercise her right.

                The point is, sir – which why we have sloooowwwed way down on your example is that it is HER RIGHTS that are violated.

                Because someone’s rights have been violated does not give you blanket reason to violate EVERYONE else’s rights.

                She lacks sufficient force to counteract the force being used against her. So whose place is it to help her escape this situation if you deny the right of the government

                Precisely, it is NOT the right of government to violate someone’s rights because someone’s rights have been violated.

                society, or yourself to do so? Or is she simply doomed to suffer?

                She MAY BE DOOMED to suffer and no amount of destroying people’s rights can change that.

                SHOULD I CHOSE to act, I would only act in protecting HER RIGHTS.

                There is no right to do more.

                You would not lift a hand to stop a man from raping a child, and this is ethical to you because of some notion of rights?

                This is hypothetical for discussion.

                And yes, understanding WHY one acts and FOR WHO specifically and carefully will avoid the pitfalls that devil you.

                Because you would act – because you believe you have some sort of RIGHT.

                But it is not your right that you are acting from – you are acting FROM HER RIGHT.

                Because you think you have a RIGHT to act, you carry this RIGHT of Action over and over again in instances where there is no grant!

                It is important to pierce to the core how, why and by what right action can or cannot be taken and to what measure and degree.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        “It is the society which allows a child to stay with a parent to provide a because this is the natural default,…”

        Mathius, “society” cannot allow or disallow anything, it has no brain. Only a being with the capacity to think and reason can decide what is allowable and what is not allowable. This is the basis of morals and ethics.

        • Vox populi vox dei, my friend.

          The mind of the society is the mind of its constituents. A violent people make a violent society. An enlightened people create an enlightened society. A people which does not tolerate abuse of minors by their guardians creates a society which does not tolerate abuse of minors by their guardians which then removes said children into the care of the society.

          Our society has declared that it does not tolerate child abuse or child neglect. Thus the society, by means of the government, removes the children.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            You have it backwards as usual my dear friend. It is WE as INDIVIDUALS who have decided that child abuse and neglect is immoral.

            Our society has declared nothing of the sort, society has no brain and no voice. In addition, society has no morals independent of those of its constituents.

            If individual people did not have morals and ethics, society would not have morals and ethics.

            Society does not “magically create” morals and ethics which the people then magically adhere to.

            The individuals within the society think and reason and come up with morals and ethics. The morals and ethics that are deemed to be sensible and functional for a society composed of individuals are generally then adopted by a majority of individuals within that society because they make sense and promote the prosperity of the society.

            You argue it backwards. In your mind, society creates morals that help the individual to prosper. This is physically impossible. In reality, the individuals create morals that allow the society to prosper.

            Reverse your thinking completely and you will be well on your way to actually understanding.

            • Methinks you need to re-read what I wrote… I said pretty much exactly that.

              But I went a step further. The people pool into a society. The society’s rules are an amalgamation of the rules of the constituents. The society then codifies itself into government. At this point, it is a ball rolling down hill. It his it’s own force and power and direction. The people can always change this, but it takes an act of collective will to do so.

              So the people say “child abuse is immoral.” So the society rules say “we do not tolerate child abuse.” So the government creates a law that says “you may not abuse children,” and enforces it (removal of said children and/or penalties for the parents in the form of jail or fines).

              But it all comes from us. The People giveth, and the People taketh away.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                Well put Mathius – the confusing gist of the absolutist is that their arguments in the end will fail them. If Black Flag feels it is his moral foundation to reject any particular aspect of law or more that is drawn from government or society due to his reasoning (‘government is evil’, society has no right whatsoever over what I do with my kids), then by definition he can and must logically reject ALL laws and mores of government and society. That is the dilemma of the absolutist – but their own ability to carry this out is neutered – they will still pay taxes, they will still drive the speed limit.

                It reminds me of a short dialogue I had with Kent a while back with respect to land ownership. The dialogue essentially broke down as – the anarchist/objectivist/libertarian desires little/no interference from government with respect to land ownership. It’s mine, keep your hands off, I am the rightful owner – and importantly – you have no right to ‘steal it’ from me. But again, here is where this type of argument breaks down. You see, typically, be it myself, Black Flag, USW, or Kent – it is likely impossible that the land on which you live is ‘rightfully’ yours. In most all cases, it was likely ‘stolen’ or taken inappropriately from the originating settler or owner. In our cases, that usually means a native American tribe.

                Over the generations or years, as we move further and further away from the original theft, it somehow becomes more legitimized. I may have ‘bought’ my house and land from the previous owner, but in an absolutist sense, it really originally belonged to the Lenape tribe a few hundred years ago. To paraphrase Kent, at some point we have to say ‘screw it’, we cannot fix what happened a hundred or more years ago, we should just accept it as it is now. Not that I disagree with that – its just a contradiction for the absolutist to (a) think this way and (b) not see the hypocricy in their argument that any form of government with respect to controls over land is evil and thievery. Not hard to understand thus why Ayn Rand didn’t think highly of native Americans.

                To use an even more germane example. If your car is stolen today, and over the next five years is ‘sold’ ten times over on the street and then Ward and June Cleaver end up buying it for little Beave (for sake of argument your title was either stolen as well, or a new one fabricated) – is the car still a stolen car? Are the Cleavers the rightful owners of the car?

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                Forgot one thing – Black Flag will likely claim that the native Americans were savages and thus it is all irrelevant – savages cannot subscribe to that which the rest of us do (logic, morals, etc), but this fails the test of – if it is acceptable for Black Flag to term another human being or beings as savages to thus place himself in a different and/or better light or position, then is it not acceptable for someone else who disagrees with Black Flag’s morals, actions, behaviors to classify him as a savage for purpose of controlling or stealing from him?

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                All that happened here Mathius, is I pointed out that you were arguing backwards (which you were) and then you said “no I am not, see, I agree with you!”

                Ok, fine, so now you agree with me… now what?

  14. Free Meal for Veterans
    on November 11th, “Veterans Day”


    FREE Meal At Applebees on November 11

    Valid Veteran and Active Duty Identification to Obtain Free Entree:
    * U.S. Uniform Services Identification Card
    * U.S. Uniform Services Retired Identification Card
    * Current Leave and Earnings Statement (LES)
    * Veterans Organization Card (i.e., American Legion and VFW)
    * Photograph in uniform
    * Wearing uniform

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Thanks LOI, that is pretty cool. I cannot wait to see the liberal blowback and calls for boycotting of Applebees because they are offering this! It should be fun to watch.

      On a more serious note, many people do indeed enter the armed services because they believe that their job will indeed be to DEFEND the country and preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

      Even though that rarely ends up being their actual job, it is nice to see a company like this recognize them even in a small way for their service.

      • Bottom Line says:

        PeterB in Indianapolis – “On a more serious note, many people do indeed enter the armed services because they believe that their job will indeed be to DEFEND the country and preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.”

        The mark of the immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause…

        Funny how the DOD targets 17 yr olds for recruitment, then psychs them up about acccepting the responsibility of all things noble.

    • Bottom Line says:

      Vets have families and friends.

      I’d give a meal away if it meant being able to charge for the meals of 2 guests.

      “A man always has two reasons for doing anything: a good reason and the real reason.” – J. P. Morgan

    • Bottom Line says:

      Perhaps I’ll go to Applebee’s alone on Vets Day. I’ll bring my 214 and take them up on that free meal.

  15. Greetings to all!

    With a short break from deer hunting due too a very wet morning, thought I’d chime in and say hello! Not surprising in this part of the country, opinions about the POTUS and Pelosi and the rest are not very good at all. I’m surprised at how many people are paying attention in the rural/country settings as compared to the city setting. Hope today finds all of you well!


  16. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Once again today we have people for whom the belief in paradox seems insurmountable.

    There are those here that believe that the State (which is itself evil) can somehow prevent people (some of whom are evil) from doing evil things. I find this ridiculously unlikely.

    As I like to point out, the State does NOTHING to prevent evil from occurring. The State can only punish something that has already occurred AFTER THE FACT.

    Some will claim that such punishment acts as a deterrent against future evil acts, but anyone with a brain recognizes that not to be the case, because no matter how many people are punished by the State, evil acts continue nonetheless.

    So, for those of you that posit any question that begins with, “How can the government prevent XYZ”, the answer is, “The government CANNOT PREVENT ANYTHING WHATSOEVER.”

    • Common Man says:

      Ah young Grasshopper Peter;

      You are wrong in your statement that the government ‘CANNOT PREVENT ANYTHING WHATSOEVER’.

      They can, when left unchecked, negatively hinder and/or prevent prosperity, free speech, liberty, freedom, the pursuit of happiness, and economic gain.

      And with that we slide into what THE GOVERNMENT CAN DO, which is just as evil and preverted.


      • Common Man says:

        And more:

        The government can also prevent children from developing an independent mind by indoctrinating them as the government believes they should think.

        The government can prevent a socially depressed child from obtaining the drive and assertativeness to seek a better life, by continuing to enable them via wellfare, social subsidies, and other government structured/supported programs.

        The government can prevent small businessed from succeeding by increasing their tax burden, mandating specific health care for employees, regulating payroll, and enacting laws that prevent the small business from expanding overseas.

        The government can prevent its citizens from realizing their rights are being violated by using the media to continually pound the idea that anyone disagreeing with government action to be redneck, homophobe, racist, right-wing crazies.

        The government can and does PREVENT A GREAT DEAL


      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


        I PARTIALLY agree with you. However, I still feel that those things which you mentioned still fall under “things which the government ATTEMPTS to prevent”. I say this, because in spite of the best efforts of government, there are still those of us who have developped independent minds in spite of public schooling, there are still those of us who have escaped welfare and become not only productive but wealthy, there are still those of us that succeed in small business, and there are still those of us who realize our rights are being trampled on, regardless of what the media says or calls us.

        So, I still don’t think that the government has actually succeeded in preventing anything. They try really hard in some cases though 🙂

  17. No even Halloween yet, and this begins.

    It’s that time of year again – nativity scene banned
    Charlie Butts – OneNewsNow – 10/28/2009 7:30:00 AMBookmark and Share

    The first lawsuit of the season over refusing a Christmas display has been filed in Michigan.

    The case is being handled by the Thomas More Law Center. Brian Rooney, an attorney and spokesman for the Center, provides more information.

    Nativity Scene”In this particular case we have a Michigan town in Macomb County, Michigan, that had allowed a nativity scene for upwards of 63 years, and they get one threatening letter from the Freedom from Religion Foundation and decide that nativity scenes are no longer allowed,” reports the attorney.

    Rooney says the town of Warren requires a permit process, a process Rooney’s associates attempted.

    “Well, lo and behold we asked for the permit, and [our client] gets denied because they say it’s of a religious nature,” he explains. “And that’s classic unconstitutional denial of somebody’s right to put a nativity scene in a public forum that has been opened up by the city.”

    According to the attorney, the city does provide permission for secular displays, but religious ones are no longer permitted. Rooney believes Warren officials were so frightened of a lawsuit by the Freedom from Religion Foundation that they put themselves in a position of being sued by the action they took.

  18. v. Holland says:

    Curry compound kills cancer cells: scientists

    Wed Oct 28, 6:02 am
    LONDON (Reuters) – A molecule found in a curry ingredient can kill esophageal cancer cells in the laboratory, suggesting it might be developed as an anti-cancer treatment, scientists said on Wednesday.

    Researchers at the Cork Cancer Research Center in Ireland treated esophageal cancer cells with curcumin — a chemical found in the spice turmeric, which gives curries a distinctive yellow color — and found it started to kill cancer cells within 24 hours.

    The cells also began to digest themselves, they said in a study published in the British Journal of Cancer.

    Previous scientific studies have suggested curcumin can suppress tumors and that people who eat lots of curry may be less prone to the disease, although curcumin loses its anti-cancer attributes quickly when ingested.

    But Sharon McKenna, lead author of the Irish study, said her study suggested a potential for scientists to develop curcumin as an anti-cancer drug to treat esophageal cancer.

    Cancers of the esophagus kill more than 500,000 people across the world each year. The tumors are especially deadly, with five-year survival rates of just 12 to 31 percent.

    McKenna said the study showed curcumin caused the cancer cells to die “using an unexpected system of cell messages.”

    Normally, faulty cells die by committing programed suicide, or apoptosis, which occurs when proteins called caspases are ‘switched on’ in cells, the researchers said.

    But these cells showed no evidence of suicide, and the addition of a molecule that inhibits caspases and stops this “switch being flicked’ made no difference to the number of cells that died, suggesting curcumin attacked the cancer cells using an alternative cell signaling system.

    U.S. researchers said in 2007 they had found curcumin may help stimulate immune system cells in the Alzheimer’s disease.

    (Reporting by Kate Kelland; Editing by Janet Lawrence)

  19. More on the same theme from yesterday – it’s OK to disrespect Christianity.

    Larry David Blasted for ‘Curb’ Episode Where He Urinates on Jesus Painting


  20. Results of “Cash for Clunkers”, surprise, surprise, we got hosed!

    the president’s Council of Economic Advisors issued a report stating that the actual number of vehicle sales generated by the C4C program was about 330,000. The report concluded that about 200,000 clunkers would have been traded anyway, and another 160,000 units were shifted from June, September, October, November, and December sales.

    That means taxpayers actually are on the hook for about $9,000 per incremental sale. The Obama media ignored that bad news, leaving its audiences with the false impression from earlier reports that C4C led to incremental sales of 700,000 units, even after it had been refuted by the administration.


  21. I'm learning! says:

    What a story I am just reading! I hope when I reach the end, I don’t find something that makes me regret sharing this, but I since it is open mic nite, and I am in a little lull at work, I was going to share what I was just reading.

    I am a Trans Siberian Orchestra junkie. Once I realized that their CD’s are really stories instead of a strange mix of music on a single disk, I was hooked and bought everything they ever made. So naturally I bought Night Castle since it was released on Tuesday. This is not the normal heartwarming Christmas story. It is still appearing to be a heartwarming story, but a very different message so far (although I am only about ¼ of the way through it and don’t know if I will finish it before things get crazy again).

    This story is about a Special Forces solder overseas that ends up lost at sea and is at some unknown place with a castle that has 1 room lit up. Upon going there, he finds an old man named Erasmus who describes himself as the “keeper of all things lost and found”.

    In conversation with the soldier, he talks about how deeds matter most in life. How it takes thousands of skilled craftsmen to build a ship and any idiot with a stick of dynamite to sink it. And what is more important than having power is what you do with it. He explains what we need to learn about the history of the world.

    Here are some lines I like so far in the story…

    Beware of any individual or ideology that claims to have all the answers but does not tolerate any questions.

    Do not dwell on the monstrous injustices done by humanity to humanity, since the dawn of mankind, more than you study how these wrongs and injustices were corrected. The study of the individuals and civilizations that overcame these evils is the key to mankind moving forward. Also, judge individuals, nations and civilizations by the times in which they existed. It is easy to criticize the child labor of the industrial revolution, just as it will be easy for our descendants to criticize our destruction of the earth’s forests, despite the warnings of places like Easter Island. People who lived in the past are responsible for the past. We are responsible for now and the future. The unique magic of being human is that, “if we listen to our better angel” we have the ability to leave the earth a better place than it was before we were born.

    To achieve that, one must always be aware of evil. Evil comes in many disguises; nationalism, religion or ethnic and class differences. Quite often it has a brilliant mask and a voice that mixes a little truth to help distract from its myriad of lies, but in the end, evil’s deeds always force it to reveal itself. Evil, can also be unbelievably patient, therefore, good and civilization must be ever vigilant. History has too often shown that civilizations are at their most vulnerable the longer they have peace and prosperity. Its citizens, that had inherited its bounty, then tend to forget the sacrifices and efforts their ancestors gave to get them there. What a thousand generations took to build can be lost by a single generation’s carelessness, insouciance or simple indifference.

    There are only two types of humans; those of good will, who care about others and those who care only about themselves. The latter like to divide the world into us and them. But in the truly great battles of humanity, you fight for everyone or you fight for no-one.

    Beware those who profit and thrive on chaos, anarchy and hatred. Beware of men who twist the truth or accuse the innocent scapegoat without proof, so they may more easily seduce the gullible, ignorant and desperate to follow them. Good, spreads its ideas by persuasion and reason, and if it makes a mistake, reason and logic cause it to change its path, while evil will always cling desperately to its lies. Evil usually needs the sword to spread its ideas and often can be stopped by no other way.

    Beware governments that use armies, police and walls to keep their own citizens contained and silent. And most importantly, like Thomas Edison, Andrew Carnegie or George Orwell, if you do make a mistake in your life, announce it as loudly as your triumphs, so that others do not have to make the same errors.

    That’s all the farther I am right now, hopefully I get a chance to finish the story today, but this is a 2 disk CD and I always read the storyline in the CD jacket then listen to the song that goes with it, the pause the disk to continue with the story the first time I hear one of their disks.

  22. Great discussions! It’s important to have someone to butt heads against, and it’s done here as highly evolved rams would. Without physical horns. Virtual butting. 😀 ! The tech age might help the shadow government from staying on. But, the Nixon Executive Powers Act, in the wrong hands, must be taken away. Maybe Obama’s genda could be more properly accomodated in his own private school or something. This America. He’s got the wrong audience. IMO.

  23. Great discussions! It’s important to have someone to butt heads against, and it’s done here as highly evolved rams would. Without physical horns. Virtual butting. 😀 ! The tech age might help the shadow government from staying on. But, the Nixon Executive Powers Act, in the wrong hands, must be taken away. Maybe Obama’s genda could be more properly accomodated in his own private school or something. This is America. He’s got the wrong audience. IMO.

  24. if my calculations are correct SLINKY + ESCULATOR = EVERLASTING FUN

    The reason Santa is so jolly is because he knows where all the bad girls live.

    Just remember…if the world didn’t suck, we’d all fall off.

    I dream of a better tomorrow… where chickens can cross the road and not be questioned about their motives

    A Freudian slip is when you say one thing but mean your mother.

    Girls are like square numbers, if they’re under 13 just do them in your head.

    Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

    Sometimes I wake up moody; other times I let her sleep

  25. The dollar looks like it may have bottomed on an intermediate time frame, in my opinion. I still think it is doomed in the long run due to all the problems in the U.S. financial system. But it appears that some of the big institutions may be betting that all of those who are short the dollar may need to unwind their positions quickly, as I just saw at http://www.goldalert.com/gold_price_blog.php/ that 10,000 Dec $23 calls were bought in the UUP dollar bullish etf, and then that 130,000 March $24 UUP calls traded later int he day. Bearish sentiment on the dollar is stronger now than in July 08 when the dollar index was lower, which to me is a bullish sign given that the dollar index may have bottomed last week in the 75 area. If it has, the market could be in for a lot of trouble, much like in the 2nd half of 2008.

  26. Mathius

    I wish, I wish I had time to fight you as much as I would like, but I do not. It is sad.

    I do not recognize the right of the parent to exercise demonstrably poor judgment in their stewardship of the child.

    You do not have a right to judge another person’s right.

    You do not want me to judge whether you have a particular right or not, and I most certainly do not accept such from you.

    You either do not have a right, or you do. There is no “judge” to determine this, because what right does the ‘judge’ have that is superior to me?

    It is the society which allows a child to stay with a parent

    Society does not allow anything. It is merely a concept.

    as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

    By what power did Go give “them” to know what another wants?

    What right do these “them” people have to determine this for another?

    But when a long train of abuses and neglects, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such guardianship, and to provide new
    Guards for their future security.

    By what right?

    The People created the Government.

    On what premise?

    The government is a tool of the society it represents.

    Government does not represent society.

    We created it.

    On what premise

    We elected people to it.

    What right do people gain by checking a box on a piece of paper that they did not have before they checked a box on a piece of paper?

    We endowed it with legitimacy and power.

    Legitimacy – based on what right?

    We were discussing whether it has the Right.

    Yes, so again, by what right?

    The society then codifies itself into government.

    You are establishing a theory of government creation that I believe holds no merit or demonstration out of history.

    So the society rules say “we do not tolerate child abuse.”

    Base on what measure, by who, and by what right to determine the measure, the person and the means?

    But it all comes from us. The People giveth, and the People taketh away.

    You do not give me my rights. By what right do you have that grants rights to me?

    It has to be a living document. The Founders couldn’t possibly have conceived of the modern world. They understood that

    They did not make it a living document. They provided a mechanism to amend the document so not to constrain the People.

  27. Mass grave site in Texas

  28. Another

    • And another, by Phoenix news station

      • Bottom Line says:

        The World Health Organization is going to re-organize global food disribution. An estimated 3 BILLION people will die as a direct or indirect result of food shortages.

        Google “codex alimentarius”

        There are approx. 6.5 billion people on planet Earth. Half will die? Whoa!

    • I saw these videos sometime back – what do they mean? Anyone?

      • Hi

        Haven’t got a clue. BF, where did you come across these, I’ve never seen this before.

        • On one of my economic blogs

          If it concerns economists, it must be a real concern

          • BF,

            We can’t get YouTube very well out here (SLOW and intermittent connection). Can you please summerize what the videos are conveying?

            • Thousands of coffins in mass graves (empty).

              • Why does it concern economists? Who ‘discovered’ and made the videos? Are they trying to imply something ominous????

              • Kind of scary after I watched those videos. I can’t believe they can put 4 to a box in those.

                Sorry, but I think soldiers should have their own grave sites, not have to share with others outside his wife.

                But, that’s MHO anyway.

              • Bottom Line says:

                That’s just their cover story.

                It’s not really for soldiers.

                We’re all gonna die from malnutrition, starvation, and disease.

              • Below

              • It has nothing to do with the economy, but simply someone raised a red flag.

                These are usually boring guys who are not easily bothered.

                He was rather bothered.

              • I’m interested to know his thought process. Why is he bothered, and what is the significance? I guess I just need some context since I can’t view the videos….thanks, BF.

              • No explanation is forthcoming, no one knows anything about it, it is huge numbers, and it is government.

  29. Mathius

    And at what point does she stop being your possession?

    She is in my possession so that you don’t get her.

    Therefore, the moment you (and your society myth) are no longer a threat…..

    Until that time can you do with her whatever you like?

    No, because I do not have that right.

    But because I do not have that right does not automatically give that right to you.

    If you saw your neighbor doing that to their daughter, would you intervene?

    Figure it out, Matt.

    What right exists to intervene?

    I know you figure this out….

  30. D13 and any other Texans, What is the deal with KB Hutchison and Gov Perry? Why does she want to leave the Senate? I thought he was pretty popular in TX? Any inside info?

  31. v. Holland says:

    Time for some music-take a little time to appreciate what we have.

    • HI V

      You’re not going to believe this, but that is one of my favorite songs, and by him too. Can’t believe how thin he got.

      Thanks for that song.

      Hope you’re doing well.


      • v. Holland says:

        I’m glad Judy and I am doing pretty good. Had to work today, actually still am just taking a break, I stayed on here to much yesterday having to make up for it today. 🙂

        • Glad to hear you’re doing pretty good. Yes, I always liked that song, something about it.

  32. Remains of Long-Missing WWII Airman Given to Family in California

    Wednesday, October 28, 2009

    Oct. 28, 2009: The remains of Air Force Sgt. Robert Stinson arrive under military escort at Ontario International Airport on a flight from Hawaii.

    Oct. 28, 2009: The remains of Air Force Sgt. Robert Stinson arrive under military escort at Ontario International Airport on a flight from Hawaii.

    HIGHLAND, Calif. — For two decades after her son’s bomber went down in the Pacific Ocean during World War II, Vella Stinson faithfully wrote the U.S. government twice a month to ask if his body had been found — or if anyone was looking.

    The mother of six strapping boys went to her grave without the answer that has finally reached her two surviving sons 65 years later: the remains of Sgt. Robert Stinson are coming home.

    Military divers recovered two pieces of leg bone from the wreckage of a B-24J Liberator bomber found at the bottom of the ocean off the coast of the island nation of Palau. DNA testing showed the femur fragments belonged to the 24-year-old flight engineer who died in combat on Sept. 1, 1944.

    Stinson’s remains arrived under U.S. Air Force escort Wednesday and will be buried Friday at Riverside National Cemetery with full military honors. In between, the body will be kept at a mortuary less than 100 yards from the home where Stinson grew up with his brothers.

    “He’s not someplace on a little island or at the bottom of the ocean. He’s home,” said Edward Stinson, who was 9 when his brother died.

    For Robert Stinson, the journey home was far from a sure thing.

    Stinson’s family knew only that his bomber had gone down in the Pacific Ocean. The government politely responded to his mother’s letters but said again and again that no new information had surfaced.

    The family learned that Stinson, who joined the Air Force right out of high school, won several medals in the summer of 1944 for participating in dangerous attacks on Japanese airdomes, military installations and enemy ships.

    In 1994, a nonprofit group of adventurers and scuba divers began to search for the missing bomber off the waters of Koror, Palau’s biggest island. The 15-member group, called BentProp, travels to the island nation each year for a month to search for some 200 missing U.S. World War II aircraft.

    Half of the wrecks scattered in the waters around the archipelago’s 300 tiny islands have missing crew members associated with them, said Daniel O’Brien, a member of the BentProp team. Stinson’s plane, dubbed “Babes in Arms,” had 11 crew members — and there were eyewitness reports of where it went down. Eight crew members went down with the plane; three parachuted out, but were captured by the Japanese and are believed to have been executed.

    The group attended reunions of Stinson’s bomber squad and the aging veterans told them where they thought they had seen the plane go down as the rest of the formation raced back to base at 200 mph. BentProp members methodically searched that area for six years, but found nothing.

    Then, in 2000, several members of the group doing more research stumbled upon obscure black-and-white aerial photos in the National Archives that were taken by a crew member aboard another bomber just moments after Stinson’s plane went down. The team thought it odd the photographer had taken shots when no bombs were falling, and then realized the pictures were probably an attempt to document where the bomber crashed.

    The pictures indicated a splash zone eight miles from where BentProp had been looking.

    An elderly fisherman bolstered that evidence: he had seen plane wreckage in that area while spear-fishing about 15 years before.

    The team dove the site in 2004 and instantly hit a jackpot: a B-24 propellor at 30 feet and then the plane, broken in three parts around a coral head where it had sat for more than 60 years. Debris was scattered at up to 70 feet deep.

    The divers quickly turned over their findings to the Joint Prisoners of War, Missing in Action Accounting Command, or JPAC, the government agency that searches for U.S. prisoners of war and missing soldiers.

    Military divers soon confirmed the plane’s identity and recovered hundreds of items from the ocean floor, including dozens of tiny bone fragments, a rusted metal eyeglass frame, a tangled parachute cord attached to singed parachute, a shoe sole, coins, dog tags and one intact shoelace.

    In 2006, Edward Stinson and Richard Stinson, the other surviving brother, gave DNA samples. On Feb. 1, Richard Stinson got the call: their brother, the 6-foot-4 clown with curly hair and a love of sports and poker, was finally coming home.

    Four other missing crew members were also identified and are being returned to their families. Three could not be identified, but the remaining bones will be buried together at Arlington National Cemetery next spring.

    “There’s finally an ending to it. We never expected something like this,” said Richard Stinson, now 87. “We knew that three of them had gotten out of the plane and … you always hope that the three that got out, that one of them would be him and that maybe he survived.”

    With Stinson’s remains coming home, his brothers are overwhelmed with the memories they have stored away all these decades — memories that, until now, are all they had. And, after years of imagining their brother lost and alone at the bottom of the ocean, his brothers have finally found their own peace.

    “He hasn’t been lonely the last two, three weeks. He has risen,” said Edward Stinson. “Welcome home, brother.”

  33. Does this have anything to do with 2012, and all those stories I’ve heard about some major big thing that’s going to happen?

    • Bottom Line says:

      I’m not sure anyone really knows. But there are some real interesting theories. I’ve actually seen one of those “coffin storage” sites in Conyers Ga., which is right down the road(I-20) from the place in the video BF posted. I’ve read some interesting things about global food distribution and management, malnutrition, and starvation.

      “codex alimentarius”

      I was just trying to offer a possible explaination for all of the coffins.

      • This was the first time I heard of it. I haven’t heard too much on the theories, in fact I haven’t heard too much on it at all, except for here when G-Man has mentioned it. Guess I must be living under a rock or something. Either that or I’m just not paying too much attention to it.

      • Nubian, are you out there? We need your help with this one.

  34. A lesson of the importance of ‘being on time’

    Price to PepsiCo for Not Being in Court: $1.26 Billion

    What’s the cost of not showing up to court? For PepsiCo Inc., it’s a $1.26 billion default judgment. A Wisconsin state court socked the company with the monster award in a case alleging that PepsiCo stole the idea to bottle and sell purified water from two Wisconsin men.

    Now the company is scrambling to salvage the situation. The damages award was handed down on Sept. 30. PepsiCo filed motions to vacate the order and dismiss the claims on Oct. 13, saying it wasn’t even aware of the lawsuit until Oct. 6.

    The litigation began in April when Charles Joyce and James Voigt sued the soft drink maker and two of its distributors, alleging they had misappropriated trade secrets from confidential discussions the plaintiffs had with the distributors in 1981 about selling purified water. The information was illicitly passed to PepsiCo, which used it to develop and sell Aquafina bottled water, the plaintiffs allege in the case filed in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County before Judge Jacqueline Erwin.

    In court documents, PepsiCo argues it was improperly served with the Wisconsin lawsuit in North Carolina, but also asks the court to excuse the corporate bureaucracy that buried a legal document for weeks. While plaintiffs say they served the lawsuit in June on PepsiCo’s registered agent in North Carolina, where the company is incorporated, PepsiCo says its law department at the company’s Purchase, N.Y.-based headquarters was not notified until September.

    “The bottom line is there was a defect in the process for us, but also for” the plaintiffs, said PepsiCo spokesman Joe Jacuzzi, who called the case “highly dubious.”

    Robert Roth, a lawyer for PepsiCo at Menomonee, Wis.-based Niebler, Pyzyk, Roth & Carrig, couldn’t be reached for comment. Another lawyer for PepsiCo, Dean Panos, a partner at Chicago-based Jenner & Block, declined to comment.

    In court papers, PepsiCo claims it first received a legal document related to the case from the North Carolina agent on Sept. 15 when a copy of a co-defendant’s letter was forwarded to Deputy General Counsel Tom Tamoney in PepsiCo’s law department. Tamoney’s secretary, Kathy Henry, put the letter aside and didn’t tell anyone about it because she was “so busy preparing for a board meeting,” PepsiCo said in its Oct. 13 motion to vacate.

    When Henry received a forwarded copy of the plaintiff’s motion for default judgment on Oct. 5, she sent that to Yvonne Mazza, a legal assistant for Aquafina matters. Remembering that she still had the other document, Henry passed it to Mazza too. The next day Mazza sent the documents to David Wexler, a department attorney, and he “immediately” called the agent to get a copy of the complaint.

    Lawyers for PepsiCo distributors Wis-Pak Inc. and Carolina Canners Inc. made court appearances in June and July. PepsiCo was at a loss to explain why it hadn’t heard about the case from them. “It’s just another unfortunate thing that didn’t come together,” Jacuzzi said.

    In seeking to dismiss the case, PepsiCo argues that the statute of limitations should preclude the lawsuit, brought 15 years after the company started selling Aquafina and more than two decades after the alleged confidential talks. Moreover, “the $1.26 billion judgment that has been entered is unprecedented in size and justice requires that PepsiCo have a chance to defend itself,” the company said.

    The lead plaintiffs lawyer, David Van Dyke of Chicago-based Cassiday Schade, said Wisconsin courts have been “pretty clear that they don’t like” vacating default judgments. “There is a possibly that a judge may say we’re going to litigate the damages aspect of it,” Van Dyke said.

    A hearing is scheduled for Nov. 6.

  35. “Author: Black Flag
    No explanation is forthcoming, no one knows anything about it, it is huge numbers, and it is government.”

    That’s very unsettling. Let me know if anyone finds a link to something written on this. Thanks.

  36. Asteroid explosion over Indonesia
    From Watt’s Up

    This really happened on Oct. 8th around 11 am local time in the coastal town of Bone, Indonesia. The Earth-shaking blast received remarkably little coverage in Western press, but meteor scientists have given it their full attention. “The explosion triggered infrasound sensors of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) more than 10,000 km away,” report researchers Elizabeth Silber and Peter Brown of the Univ. of Western Ontario in an Oct. 19th press release. Their analysis of the infrasound data revealed an explosion at coordinates 4.5S, 120E (close to Bone) with a yield of about 50 kton of TNT. That’s two to three times more powerful than World War II-era atomic bombs.

    The asteroid that caused the blast was not known before it hit and took astronomers completely by surprise. According to statistical studies of the near-Earth asteroid population, such objects are expected to collide with Earth on average every 2 to 12 years. “Follow-on observations from other instruments or ground recovery efforts would be very valuable in further refining this unique event,” say Silber and Brown.

%d bloggers like this: