Here is an article that is pretty interesting. I should say it hits close to home.... for all of us, no matter what color, no matter what race, no matter what nationality, political view, sex, you name it. I am not an explicit tree hugger, and I don't think anyone has to be if they take 5 minutes to stop, and do a little reading, or news watching. Every day with natural disasters and catostrophe's, and listening to people bark about the world coming to an end. This article is about we as humanity, having destroyed the earth by the year 2050. Now, thats only 40 something years away, I may actually still be alive at that point, which is scary. The article claims that we will need two planets by the year 2050 because of having used up all earth's resources. We populate and consume so much, that the earth is becoming unstable to support life. For every year we cause the damage that we do, the earth only heals that damage every 3-5 years. I start to think about all those Sci - Fi movies where people in the future need breathing masks, the population and marriage is controlled, and several other things.

 

Read the article at: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15398149/?GT1=8618

 

   I had to add this little theory a good friend once told me. He once told me that everyone would suffocate on a hamburger, and I'm starting to think he was right. His theory went: One day everyone in the world will suffocate on a hamburger! It's plain and simple you see. We as humans eat beef, lots of it. It's our number 1 source of meat. Beef is cattle and cattle eats grass. We cut down trees and wipe out forests that produce oxygen to make room for fields for the cattle to eat, so we in turn can eat the cattle. So one day you'll be happy and content, sitting at your favorite burger joint, minding your own business, happily and unaware, and then it hits you. You bite into your favorite chunk of meat you've consumed all your life, start chewing and suffocate because you've wiped out the forests that produced the oxygen, to make the fields that feed the cattle, so we could feed ourselves.

   As I always tell people I meet, "About 95% of the technology we see in Sci-Fi shows and movies is possible". This article I am writing is just another story to back up my statement. It's about Cloaking Technology, not to be confused with Stealth Technology. Stealth technology simply confuses detection devices, to make an object appear invisible and undetectable by sensors like radar so it can't be seen. Cloaking technology takes Stealth technology further. Not only does it hide and confuse sensors, but is able to let light pass through it in such a way that the object appears translucent, or invisible. The best way to describe what I am talking about, would be the cloaking devices the aliens use in the Predator movies. In the movies, the creature uses a device that lets light bend around it in such a way that they damn near pass as invisible. However, everytime they show a really nice close up shot of the alien up close under his cloaking technology, you can still see some outlines. Such a technology has been held in the hopes and dreams of Sci-Fi writers and fans across the world for a long time....until now.

 

Read the full article at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15329396/

   Another article that peaked my interest. "Court upholds woman's right for topless protest" is the big headline, and under it "Florida resident believes nudity laws are applied unfairly to women".

 

Read the full article at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15241829/

 

   An appeals court has ruled that women can demonstrate topless as part of a legitimate political protest, but why not any other time? I live here in Oklahoma, a very hot southern state. Men, Boys, Males, etc.  walk the streets topless/shirtless all the time and I don't see them getting arrested. They have chests, they have nipples, so what the hell is the big deal? Do women who breastfeed get arrested for flopping out a tit in public to feed their children? The answers is "Yes!". Women can get arrested for breastfeeding in public, but men don't get arrested for going topless.

   Why should we women get arrested for going bare breasted? The following is an informative site on laws reguarding brestfeeding for women: http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/breast50.htm . None of us were born wearing bra's you know. I realize that some women wouldn't go bare breasted, just like some men choose not to take their shirts off. Though if a man does it, he can, without fear, or without the reprecusions of being arrested for it. We on the other hand, get fined, thrown in jail, and are brought up on different charges. I for one find it discriminating and extremly sexist. Even my roommate agrees and belives that it's our choice. "The government shouldn't be able to tell anyone who should or shouldn't be able to wear clothes", she says. Also she states, "We have big boobs, we probably wouldn't go topless all the time, but it should still be our right to choose wether or not we wan't to".

   My sarcastic comments are: Perhaps we should make it against the law for any man to urinate while sitting down...EVER! and If were not going to have it legal for us women to go topless in public, men should start being fined or arrested as well. I for one support the right for us women to be topless. Not that I would do it all the time, but it should be an equal right.

   While reading headlines as usual, this article stood out to me. I read it and I found it funny, and at the same time extremly serious.

 

Read the article at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15287560/

 

   Now to rant on it all. From what I read, the article never says the man hit his wife, it just says that he didn't want to be involved for her planned festivities. It says he went out on Christmas eve, got drunk, and the next morning got into a confrontation with his wife and two young children. It says he 'tried' to prevent his wife from calling for help. Though no actual violence is reported in this article.

   The man was charged with: family violence battery and obstructing and hindering a person making an emergency telephone call. In addition a court ordered dinner, he was also sentenced to serve 12 months, although the time is suspended while he continues an anger management course, and also has to pay a $1,000 fine. In addition, attorneys said dinner at a top restaurant with his wife and two children could set him back more than $300, which he has to submit a reciept from the dinner to the court no later then Jan. 5th. The 33-year-old man has no prior criminal record.

   I don't know about anyone else, but I have a couple of questions. Question #1: What the hell gives the court the right to do this? Can anyone say invasion of personal life? I think the courts have way too much power when it comes to invading peoples personal lives, and ordering them to do things like explained in the article. I know the man is going along with the sentence willfully, but do you think if the role's were reversed it would be different? What if it was turned around, and the fight was because the wife didn't wanna give her husband sex? Would the court order her to give it up to her husband against her will or face jail time, fines, and penalties?

   Question #2: Now that he has been "ORDERED" to do these things, will he resent his wife and children because he is being forced to do them? I'm sitting here thinking about being in his situation as best I can, and I answer yes to the question myself. If the courts did to me what they did to him, I would be thinking hard about a divource. Yes, the court will get their reciept, but if I were him, I'd hire two escorts from an escort service to go to the dinner as well. It doesn't state he has to be nice about it, just that he has to do it. I would also file for divource, and file it at the time I had to take the reciept from the dinner in.

   I think there is also a bigger picture here. Something to think about. Not everyone gets along, What do you do or can you do if you can't get along with someone? You can only move away so much, or away so far. People just ' CAN'T ' be forced or made to get along. What right does anyone have, forcing two people who don'g get along to try? In this case, it's the court's and the court judge. The jusge in his all high and mightyness, may feel he's done the right thing, and be proud of his ingenious ruling. Did he concider that by forcing this man to do all of the things mentioned, that he may have very well just destroyed 4 lives? If the man starts to resent his wife, and is angry at all of this, he my leave his wife. Thus, the man's life, the wife's life, and their two childrens lives, could very well be ruined. I'm sure the judge will sit back and say, "Well, if that's what happens, it wasn't my doing". However, I dissagree.

   First off, let me say that I had a hard time deciding on what catagory to put this article in. It fits into Conspiracy Theories, Random Rant's, and Random Thought's. I have been telling people for a long time, nay, a very long time, about how we have very little privacy and it dwindles more and more every day. Everyone has always looked at me and said, "Your just paranoid". Perhaps I am, maybe they are right. I know after reading this article, even I learned some new things about how privacy is invaded. Things I had never thought about before. So without any further procrastination, here is the article.

 

Read full article at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15221095/

 

   When I sit here and think about everything I've read in the article, I start to belive it more and more. We have so little privacy, and it dwindles more and more every day. Some people, like the article states will say, "Well, I have nothing to hide". They truely belive this. What happens when their private lives get invaded? How would they like to find out one day that there is a website of them, telling all their most intimate details. Like full name, nick names, social security number, drivers licence number, address, their likes, their dislikes, how many rooms in their houses, everything they own in their house, Spouses information, Kids information. Alot of people will belive there are good aspects for everything I've mentioned.

   What happens when it goes further? Your sexual orientation, your favorite sexual positions, what gets you off, if you buy adult sex toys, adult magazines, even stating your penis size and describes if it hangs to the right and left, or is curved or straight. If your still reading this you may say, "Anna, I think your going too far". Am I? This is what we are talking about, 'Information Gathering'. When has it gone too far? The article mentions that some collage fraternity members may have problems getting a job because of parties they post pictures of on the internet sites like MySpace.com.

   Here's a scenario, your single and go out for a night on the town, you see this hottie at the bar and approach him/her in hopes for a little romance. You tell him/her your name and they pull out their internet capable phone. In less then a minute, they know every aspect of your life. If you graduated school, how you did, what your grades were like, from kindgergarden on up. They know if your employed, They know how much money you make, they find out every aspect of your 'supposed to be private love life'. If you've ever cheated, how many times, if you've had same sex relations ever. Again, your probably thinking or saying, "Anna, your crazy, you really take this too far". As before I ask, "Do I?"

   If you think camera's on every street corner is science fiction, you should really pay attention to that article, or what is going on in the world. As the article says, they hope to have 500 or more of those camera's on the street corners by a certain date. I have a friend in Evansville, I.N. who told me that she ( a mother of 3 now) had to sign a waiver when she went to enroll her kids in school. The waiver was so that she gives permission for her children to be recorded on video. Apparently they now have camera's in all the classrooms. She said she was going to refuse to sign the waiver. Wether she did or not, I don't know, but what are the reprocussions of not signing it? If her kids are in school, they're still going to be filmed, with all the other kids, as you can not block out specific people while recording. If she doesn't agree, are her children refused education? It's against the law not to have your kids in school unless they're home schooled which you have to get approval for by the courts, and it's something hard to obtain permission to do.

   I am not without fault, I worked in a Casino for 5 years, never giving thought to the camera's overhead, going about my daily routines at work. I never paid attention to them, we all know they're there, we didn't care because 'we had nothing to hide'. We all know we are being watched at some point or another. However, when I moved out of state to here, and worked for a casino as a Surveillance Operator, I became extremely aware of all the camera's, and what can be seen. We had camera's that are positioned all over the place, We could see every inch of the place except for into the bathrooms. It's against the law to have video in the bathrooms. There is no law against having audio recording devices though. Speaker boxes which operators can listen to, to hear everything being said in bathrooms.

   Do you know our camera's sit a great deal of distance in the air, you need one of the scissor trucks to get up to alot of them, but with those camera's we could read the fine print on a driver's license if you were to hold it in your hands. Outside we had special camera's that are all in full color during daylight hours, but at night they switch to infra red/day night vision. We used to bust people and dispatch security officers out to peoples vehicles who were engaged in sexual activities, or drinking on the property in unauthorized areas. By now you can figure, I've seen alot of things! and you would be surprised at things I've seen. Still not paranoid yet? The last bit of technology we were talking about installing in the casino I worked at, was camera's and a facial recognician system. In other words, anytime and everytime, someone walks in and out or around the property, it will check the person for facial features and start comparing their face to a database of people ejected from the casino previously, or to police wanted informations, and alert and notify us.

   We could program these things to set accesses to areas like, only drop team members are allowed in the drop room, it records and stores their features, anytime someone goes into that room who doesn't have the right access, it will sound an alarm and alert us. Think of this technology on a grand scale. You go to a convience store, forget to pay for gas one day, they have you on film. You go on having not realized that you forgot to pay. The next thing you know, your standing at your atm, or shopping at a grocery store, and cops tackle you. They knew exactly where you were because the stores facial recognician system recognized you and alerted them. Just something to think about. I could really go on forever about this topic, and many aspects of it, like digital ID's, Microchips embedded under the skin. Why not in humans? We already have places that do it for our pets! If everyone had this type of chip in them, a court would never have to ask for an alibi, because they will already know where you were. If they improved the chip so that it not only tells where you are, but your bodies vital statistics, like increased heart rate, they may even be able to tell when you are sleeping, or having sex. Not only when you were engaged in the act, but could make the chip locate others chips close to you, and give them a read out of who's chip is closest to you, and they could say, well we know who you were having sex with, or who was near you in the same room or building.

    In closing I just want to say, Wake up people. If you think everything I have described is not real, think again! Take a little time to do some research and find out for yourself. You will be unnerved at what you discover. Privacy is a very fast fading freedom. Do something about it now, before it't too late. For once it's gone, there is no undoing what has already been done.

 

 

   The Big Headline reads, "Secret Service questions teen over Web threats". The under Headline says, "California girl quizzed over threats to Bush she made on her MySpace page".  The 14 year old freshmen was taken out of her biology class, and questioned for about 15 minutes by Secret Service Agents from our lovely, and beloved country.

 

Read the full article: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15258484/

 

   I've seen way more harsh threats, that people have held on posterboards in other countries saying much much worse. You might say, "yes, but that's other countries", while I say, "Thats my point!" We are America, We are supposed to have the freedom of Speech. Even if I don't like the government, or don't like the president, I don't wish anyone that kind of harm. Reguardless, others find ways to get their anger or emotions out of their system, one way or another. I belive, if people want to say what the little girl did, they should have that right. It's when you try to act upon it, that it becomes wrong.

   In the article, you learn that the agents told the mother they would come back once her daughter was home. Go figure! , they lied!, what else do you expect from our government and its agencies? They went and pulled this girl out of class, questioned her ( without her parents or a lawyer present, which is our right to have per our law system), and made her cry by yelling at her (remember, 14yrs old), and threatening her by telling her she could be sent to juvanile hall. The assistant principal said the agents gave him the 'impression' that the girl's mother knew they were planning on questioning her at school. What the heck does this tell parents? It means your kids are NOT safe at schools, and the people in charge of those schools can't protect your children from anything.

   The Spokesmen for the Secret Service in Sacramento and Washington D.C., said they couldn't comment on the case? I'm sorry, but an adult should have been present. How about nailing the Secret Service for abduction/Kidnapping? Yeah, the girl was returned to her life after their 15 minutes of yelling or so, but they did Abduct her. I'm not sure about that state, but some states have a truency law, saying students must be in school/class, they violated that by pulling her out of her class. These agents may have laid down a barrage of sexual advances, verbal abuse, or anything else they wanted, and no one will ever know because no one was present. I know if I was her parents, I would be extremely pissed. This only goes to show, the people of the government feel they are above it. How would any of them like thier kids treated the same way?

   I find it un-nerving, that there is nothing in place that makes it a requirement that partents give their consent or for them to be present when their children are questioned at school by law enforcement officers. Are we saying because they are kids, they have no rights? As adults we have the right to have a lawyer present, as a part of our Miranda Rights, but do these rights exclude kids? I don't know, perhaps it's just me, but I just don't think these agents were right in the least. I hope the parents fight this, I hope they sue the government, and I hope it turns enough heads to adopt a bill, making sure it doesn't happen again. On a final note, So much for Freedom of Speech and Press.

   Here it is, the big Friday the 13th. A day that strikes fear in some, unconcious superstition in others. But where did the whole friday the 13th superstition start? Why is it just Friday the 13th this big spooky unlucky day? Why not any other day on the 13th? After a bit of searching I found an article which explains quite a bit about this such hated day.

 

Read the article, "Why Friday the 13th is Unlucky" at: http://urbanlegends.about.com/cs/historical/a/friday_the_13th.htm

 

   The article above gives many reasons as how Friday the 13th could have become the feared superstitious day that it has become to date. Even those who view friday the 13th as "just another day", may still find the article to be a good read as I have.  You'll find that even in some cultures, friday the 13th isn't such a bad day at all, and is concidered quite good. So, enjoy the reading, and Happy Friday the 13th to all.

   Weird Al has done it again! The famous parody song maker has made yet another great installment under his belt. The original song is Ridin' Dirty by Chamillionaire. For those of you who havent heard it, its a catchy song about cops trying to catch the artist riding dirty, which means without insurence or a licence. Even though I myself am not fond of rap, I do like the song Ridin' Dirty by Chamillionaire. I was surprised when a friend sent me a link to watch a Weird Al video that parodies the song. Once I watched it, I couldn't help but fall out of my chair laughing. It may not be as funny to others as much as it hit me, but I've always been a big fan of Weird Al's music. I've even seen his movie UHF more times then I care to remember. So for those who would like to take a gander at the video I'm refering to, here's a link for as long as it stays active:

 

   http://media.starterupsteve.com/video/weird_al_white_and_nerdy.wmv

                                                  or

 

   http://www.starterupsteve.com/video/weird_al_white_and_nerdy.shtml

   I ran across this article and thought I would share it. It poses alot of good answers, alot of good questions, and alot of good thought.

 

Read full article at: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14061456/

   HOLY CRAP! is all I can say. 10 years with an erection?

 

Read the full article: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15018869/

 

   Aside from saying WOW and blushing a little, I'm trying to look at this article for what it is. This guy is suing because the penile implant is faulty. Should he get his money? Why did he put up with it (no pun intended) for 10 years without doing anything about it? I think at the very least the company should pay to have it removed, medical all paid for, I think that he deserves a little something for the trouble, but what kind of benefits did this man reap because of his awkward situation?

   This vehicle may look strange, but as I sit here and read about it, I find I could use it very practically. It has an expensive price tag though, too much for me as most cars do. Which is one reason I usually buy used cars. I do know theres several low priced cars like the KIA. After looking and reading about this vehicle here, I could definatly apply it to my life, as most places I go are inside the town I live in. It would be great just to use going back and forth to work, or to the store, but not practicle for long journey trips.

 

Take a Gander at the vehicle and information @:

   http://autoshow.autos.msn.com/autoshow/Paris2006/Article.aspx?cp-documentid=1016181&GT1=8592

 

 

   I was fumbling around reading through the North Korea Neuclear test articles when I happened to stumble upon this other article. The big headline reads, "Woman joins small club of 'consecrated virgins'". The small headline under it reads, "43-year-old in New York turns down sex for Jesus in rare Catholic ceremony".

 

Read the full article at: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15172758/?GT1=8618

 

   A few things I really want to point out and have questions about. The headlines say shes 43, the article itself says shes 42. They quote her saying, "It is a good and holy thing to want to be in a virginal state", yet later on they quote her saying, "Not that I never wanted to be married or never wanted children". She spent 2 years in seminary classes in preperation? what preperation, your a virgin! Yeah it's really time I stick it to this article. It says she was in a white gown and veil for the ritual, only a bishop can perform the ceremony, and is only available to virgins who agree to abstain from sex so they can dedicate their lives to Jesus Christ. There's some things I just want to know....

   What do they do to find out if she is still a virgin or not, since it can only be done by a bishop, I'm guessing something, not going to say what, if anything has to be inserted to check? Having an in tact hymen is what makes a woman a virgin, its a thin membrane in the vagina, so if he checks and it accidently breaks, does he say, "my bad" and the ritual is over because she's not a virgin anymore? Why is it they give alot of info about this woman including her name, her parish, her state, where in her state, they even say shes a cook at Christ the King Seminary in the buffalo suburb, and also says her home parish is Immaculate Conception. Yet there is NO PHOTO of this woman on the article. I'm actually wondering... why?

   She knew more then a decade ago she would be better off single, yet she dated? Did I mention I find the fact that her home parishes name is 'Immaculate Conception', and shes a 'Consecrated Virgin' kinda funny? For those who read this article I have written, it was not written about just because I wanted to write about virgins, even if the subject and article are somewhat amusing. In fact after I'm done writing it I'm actually going to go see what I can find out about it. Right now I'm looking at this all like it's a conspiracy set forth by the Catholic Church to get more people (women as this article pertains to) to stop having sex, because we all know the churches policies on no pre-maritial sex, no abortions, and no self gratificaion, because they're all seen as sins. Does anyone else smell a conspiracy here?

   I'm going to write this .... just because I can. Today I had to get up for work at 8am, so I could be at work at 9am. Somehow I woke up 30 minutes early then I needed too. So what did I do? I layed back in bed, what else? Got up at 8 when the alarm went off, layed back down in bed, got up at 8:01, when the second alarm went off, layed back down in bed, and finally got up after my district manager gave me a good morning wake up curteousy call. Yes, I don't like getting up early, can you tell? Anyways, I'm finally up, jump in the shower, do my whole beauty routine, get dressed and go to work. I drive to work half asleep and go in.

   I had expected to be cooking today since that's what I was told I was going to be doing, but as soon as I walked in I was told I was going to be waiting tables. I turned to my fellow co-workers and said, I'm sorry, I can cook in my sleep, but I can't wait tables that way. So I made me a cup of coffee and went out back telling them I'll be back in after I finish my coffee and wake up. Took me roughly about 5 minutes. Apparently one of the other waitresses had to go to the emergency room for a migraine (yeah... riiiiight). So I really wasn't happy with the work situation. I had to wait tables, and back up cook, and wash dishes, and basically every other damn thing that had to be done. The day was long, it was halfway busy, I'm glad it wasn't busy as normal though.

   For such a bad day and time, I still found myself in an extremely good mood. It was odd, I think I scared several of the regulars. The ones that know me really well couldn't help but laugh at my perky smiling tackle the world disposition. Normally when they ask me how I'm doing I look at them and say, "I'm here, how do you think I'm doing?", which always causes them to smile and laugh. Today I was just in a really good mood, I mean... REALLY GENUINE GOOD MOOD! I don't know why, I just was. My day at work, 9am to 2pm just flew by, I'm glad it did though. After I got off work, I stopped and put gas in my car, and came home. I changed out of my work clothes, got comfortable and parked my butt at my computer, with 2 Mt DeW's (yes, thats right 2!, because I didn't want to get up 5 minutes later to grab another).

   I got online, read the news articles, checked my blog as I normally do, chatted with one of my friends, who showed me a new Weird Al video. It made me die laughing as Weird Al seems to have a habbit of doing. The song is called "White and Nerdy", a parody of a song called, "Riding Dirty" by Chamillionaire. I think I listened to it for almost 2 hours while my friend sent me the video. While waiting for the video to download my bf logged on finally and I got to talk to him and downloaded another video. We all signed onto a game we play on, had a little fun hacking and slashing some monsters and stuff. I logged off the game, and surfed more Live Spaces or MSN Spaces, whatever they're called now, while chatting with my friend and my bf. My friend went AFK and I haven't heard from him since, and I'm still chatting with my bf. I'm still wondering why I've been in such a good mood today. I guess I shouldn't question why, and just be happy that I have.
   I know normally my days are pretty eventful, this day actually seemed like a lazy day. I'm not complaining! I have the next three days off to relax, get house work done, chill out, relax, and enjoy. I plan on being as lazy as I can possibly be, or I should say, lazy for me. I have to clean house, tend to the front and back lawns, laundry, and everything else or I go insaine. You know, for what seems like a very uneventful day for me, this post seems awefully damn long. So, I will end it by saying, take care, peace, enjoy, and have fun!

   Earlier I had opened my web browser, checked the headlines as normal and read a few posts. One of the posts actually said, 25 killed in violence across Iraq. It had a picture of a man holding the dead wrapped up body of his 3 year old son. I was going to write about the article then, but figured I would wait. I open my browser again and go to the same place, and now its titled "Atleast 26 killed in violence across Iraq". The photo that was on there has since been changed. I figured I would click on see related photo's, and I can't find the photo that was originally there at all. Can't find it, don't see it, have no idea where it went. I know the photo was a very powerful image.

 

Read full article at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15167288/

 

   I'm puzzled about what happened to the photo. I know it will forever be stuck in my memory. The man crouched down against a wall, holding the small body that was wrapped up in a blue blanket. The man had tears dripping down his face, you could almost feel his pain. The caption to the right of the picture gave the mans name, and said he is holding the lifeless body of his 3 year old son, dead due to either a bombing or violence. I myself couldn't help but cry. Call me emotional, call me whatever you like, the picture was sad. The child was 3 years old. 3! I have no sympathy for grown adults who want to kill each other, but keep the children out of it. They can't comprehend why adults don't get along, and certainly don't deserve to be punished for it.

   A Wisconsin lawmaker wants teachers and faculty to start carying guns.

 

Read the full article at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15142930/?GT1=8618

 

   While I read this article I tried to see think on both sides of the spectrum. It would be no secret that teachers were allowed to carry guns, and had them on them. What happens if a student gets ahold of one of their guns, since they would be readily available? Everyone is trying to scramble around and be "Safe" and "Secure". I was once told that nothing is ever safe and secure. You can "TRY" to be safe, but it just isn't always going to happen. I'm just not so sure I would want teachers carrying guns, where students out number them 30 to 1. I think it's just asking for trouble. It's bad enough that some schools have on duty officers, metal detecers, and drug dogs. How is this kind of environment easy to learn in?

   Perhaps eventually, all classes will be done like some collage classes are these days, all online. The simple line is, even if teachers and principals or faculty have guns, does NOT mean that it's going to stop anything from happening. In some places that are real bad, I think teachers do need to protect themselves, even from students. However, if something is going to happen, it's going to happen, and no ammount of guns is going to stop it from happening. Just thinking about it, it may even be more of a hinderence. Something else to think about, It is against the law to keep your kids home from school. Unless you are home schooling which is extremely hard to be do because of all the guidelines set forth by local, state, and federal laws, you don't have a choice but to trust your childrens lives with schools and it's faculty.

   A Georgia mother of four wants to ban the Harry Potter books because "she" believes that they are "evil" and are an attempt to indoctrinate children in the Wicca religion. The mothers name, Laura Mallory of Loganville, Ga.

 

Read the full article at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15127464/

 

   First off, let me make it clear that this Rant goes out to you Ms. Mallory, and every other person who feels as you do. Yes, the Harry Potter books are packed full of Magic, Wizardry, Dragons, Mythological Creatures and Monsters. Being Wiccan myself, I see NO relation between Harry Potter and the Wiccan Religion. If anything it portrays the Wiccan Religion in a very bad light. Wicca (aka Witchcraft) is a nature based religion of which you could even compare to the Native American Religions of America, and promotes peace above all. That set aside, if you would like to ban books perhaps starting with history books, since history is interlaced with "Witches" throughout the ages. A few examples would be, The Salem Witch Trials, The Inquisitions, Greek Mythology, Roman Mythology, and even most Disney books. Because Disney likes to use Witches, Sorcerers, and Wizards as their main villans. Even in the movie "The Little Mermaid" the villaness is a "Sea Witch".

   You should also move to ban any T.V. shows, such as Charmed, Sabrina the Teenage Witch, Holloween Town, or any other shows involving Fantasy related materials such as Dragons, Zombies, Mummies, Vampires, Werewolves, Monsters, Magic of any form, Luck of any kind, and then also start on movies. You are just going to have to learn to be tollorant of other people's religions lady. Wicca is a religion, it has been before christianity, and still is today, and as long as people have the freedom to worship as they see fit, it will remain a religion and practiced.

   I do want to thank the Board of Education attorney Victoria Sweeny who said, " that if schools were to remove all books containing reference to witches, they would have to ban "Macbeth" and "Cinderella". Victoria Sweeny also said, "There's a mountain of evidence for keeping Harry Potter", adding that the books don't support any particular religion but present instead universal themes of friendship and overcoming adversity. To show you how undeniably anal people can be, this article also states that in june the library board eliminated around $3,000 that was set aside to buy Spanish-Language fiction books. The reason you ask? The reason is simply because some residents objected to using taxpayer dollars to entertain readers who "might be" illegal immigrants. I'm just glad the the board reversed its decision even if only because of accusations that the move was anti-Hispanic.

   The title of this entry is pretty self explanitory. Please read the following article at:

 

Read full article: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15102492/?GT1=8617

 

   Oh hell, lets just state the truth here. The truth is if they do this, they can work someone for 39, or 38 hours a week, and get by without having to pay for any benefits. My roommie works at a place like this. She works 39 hours a week, 6 days out of the week. Every employee there is a part-time employee. Companies do this so they can cut so much money not having to pay benifits to its employee's. Benefits as, paid vacations, health care, and more. Wal-Mart exec's embrace the idea because, out of 1.3 million workers, only 60% according to the article will have benefits. Their workforce will be 40% part time employees. Doubling what it is now, means cutting bennefits for an extra 20% of its workers and fattening their own wallets for not having to pay extra, a great example of executive pay raises.

   In the article it says, "Clark added that it is important that Wal-Mart staff are working at times when customers want to shop". That is one big bogus statement if I ever did hear one. Recently in another article they put a stop to their lay-away program, which in the article says they need roughly 4 employee's for each shift for lay-away. They said they would place these employees in other departments to help them keep their jobs. So they can't say they couldn't put all those employee's on nights to better allocte staff. Nice try though! I see your stratagy though, keep all the lay-away employee's jobs, but now make more people part time to save more money. Doesn't sound like much to save a few grand a month not paying benefits for one employee, but on a mass scale of 1.3 million employees, thats a different story.

   An adult bookstore employee in El Paso, Texas, sued the state after his arrest for showing two undercover officers a device shaped like a penis and telling the female officer the device would arouse and gratify her. The employee, Ignacio Sergio Acosta, says a Texas law outlawing the manufacture, marketing or dissemination of an “obscene device” including those shaped like sex organs is unconstitutional because it prevents individuals from using such devices, violating their right to sexual privacy.

Read the full article: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15104529/from/RS.1/

   Can anyone say... Entrapment? Undercover officers or not, if you go into an "ADULT BOOKSTORE" just what exactly do you expect them to carry? Of course they sell adult related materials, and sexual gratification toys, and employee's should promote the sale of any item they sell. Perhaps "toy" is a bad slanderous name for them. We should call them "Tools" instead! A question I have is, who determined what is obscene, and what is not? Are men mad because women are having to turn to such devices to stay satisfied because they themselves can't satisfy their women? What about items that can be looked at as obscene, but are not devices? All I can say here without being too raunchy is, stop the sale of anything that can be looked at in a phallic nature. Some things to include would be: Vegtables, Bottles, Cans, Drinking Glasses, Ice Cream products, and many more. But while we are at it, lets not sell anything that can be used in any sexual nature, like: Beds, Music, Candles, Baby oil, KY Jelly, Various Lotions, Creames, Cooking oil's, Chocolate Syrups, Jellies, Fruits, Vegtables, Mirrors, Duct Tape, Rope, Lingerie, Boxers, Condoms! By now I guess you get the point, which is simple. What we do behind is closed doors is private and is "NO ONE ELSES" business. As long as what is being done, is done so by consenting adults. Simply put, there shouldn't be a law against selling such items, but provisions as to "HOW" to sell them.
   I know I wouldn't want an adult store across the street from schools that kids will walk by every day, who's main display is a giant dildo. Or even have such items on a window display. Blackened windows with signs that say "Adult Bookstore and items" should be enough. Something else I thought of while writing this article I find very, very disturbing. Apparently it's "OK" to sell item's which actually end lives, like.... GUNS. But it's not ok to sell things concidered to be "obscene devices". Just something to really think about. A device for killing = OK, a device for pleasure = illegal. In closing I ask what I find myself always asking... What is the world coming to?

   This article has made news in the last couple of days. It's about a man who went into a school in Baily, Colorado took six girls hostage in a high school classroom, sexually assaulting some of them before killing one and taking his own life. The man still holding two girls, soon cut off contact and warned that “something would happen at 4 o’clock,” authorities said. About a half-hour before the deadline, a SWAT team used explosives to blow a hole in a classroom wall in hopes of getting a clear shot at him, but they couldn’t see him through the gap, and they blew the door off the hinges to get inside, said Lance Clem, a spokesman for the state Department of Public Safety. The gunman then fired at the SWAT officers, shot 16-year-old Emily Keyes in the back of the head as she tried to run away, and then killed himself, authorities said. During the lightning-fast gun battle, police said, they shot Morrison several times.

   In another story in Lakeland, Fla.  SWAT team members fatally shot a man suspected (note it says suspected) of killing a sheriff’s deputy a day earlier, ending an intensive manhunt that had gripped this rural area, officials said. The suspect was shot numerous times after he was found in thick brush, just 100 yards away from where a deputy was killed in Thursday’s burst of gunfire, Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd said. The suspect refused to show both of his hands when officers commanded him to. He said the officers opened fire after seeing that he appeared to have Williams’ .45-caliber weapon, Judd said. It was unclear if the man also fired the gun.

 

My Rant and Thoughts:

   First off, my heart goes out to the students, and students parents, family members, workers at the schools, and anyone else who was affected by this. However, I have to ask.... What happened to negotiators? You know, they're the people that do whatever they can to end hostage situations peacefully, or without as much lethal conflict as possible. In both of the stories I have read, it doesn't ever mention one, yet it does mention the SWAT teams use of force and because of their use of force, the outcome has been deaths. Is news media leaving things out? It's possible, but it takes me back into my life when I was a teen, I had a friend who was killed by police who held his parents hostage, and even at that time I remember asking, what happened to negotiators? Any time theres a situation where HOSTAGES (people being held against their will by somone) there should be a negotiator to try to end the situation as peacefully as can be. Is it just me, or are law enforcement agencies no longer concerened with saving lives? and by that, I even mean the lives of the people causing the situation. If they kill themselves, or get killed, in alot of cases, it is really too easy of a way out. Something to think about if you ever find yourself as a hostage in a hostage situation, You can count on Police or SWAT to do their best in getting you killed.

   Last night I went to bed around 10pm, even woke back up and was online for a few hours more sometime during the night. It's like the only night I've gone to bed early, and heavily medicated because I am sick. At 10:30 this morning my roommate ran into my room and tells me that someone broke into my car. So, I jump up and go outside to look, and sure as sugar, the CD player I had in there is gone. The thief responsible is long gone. I should be happy though, they atleast didn't break my window to get to it, or cut/rip out the wires attached to it. They just simply unplugged it and took off with it leaving my car door open. I used to keep my car doors locked, but one time years ago I had another vehicle which was broken into as well, except they had broken the drivers side window to get it. I missed my $19 CD player from Wal-Mart badly. It did cost me $19 to replace the CD radio, $70 for a new window, and $30 to have it installed. The stereo that got taken last night I'm not even sure how much it cost, because it came with the car when I bought it.

   Really I don't care about the CD Player/Radio, I'll miss not having something to listen to while I drive back and forth to work, or to the store. The one thing that does really piss me off is the fact that it was stolen from me. I know I'm no saint, and have done stupid things like stealing when I was younger, until one day, and I'm really not sure what happened or why, but I quit and had a new value. The value is, I DO NOT STEAL and I don't wan't or need anything I do not work hard for or earn for myself. Now, I'm not talking about Christmas gifts, or Birthday presents, or item's people pass along because they either don't want or don't need anymore. I'm talking about a vow to myself never steal again reguardless the situation or desperation. I usually look back at things I've done when I was younger (usually a teen), and realize they were very, very stupid and I'm glad I've changed or grew up. I'm glad whoever it was didn't break into my house, for I would have nothing left.

   I live, or I belive I live in a very decent neighborhood, In a very nice house, and not some slum. Though I can't say much for this state because it's a poor ass state. Prices are always at an all time high, where wages are always at an all time low. I belive there are alot of druggies and alcoholics for it being the buckle to the bible belt. Anyways, back to what I was getting at, I called the police, and I am told that unless XXX ammount of damage is done, it's too petty to even do any good. This I find disturbing! On top of being ripped off, I get told theres nothing that will or can be done about it. I bet if I caught and shot the next thief/criminal who breaks into my car or house, something will be done about it. Though not in a good way because they'll probably put me in jail. Knowing my luck, I'd catch them in the act, call the police, and when the police come to arrest them, I'll get sued later for having ever called to turn them in. I'll be like, why are they suing me? and I'll be told that, when the police arrived they pulled out their guns on the victim (the thief) and it forever traumatized them. So they are suing you for damages.

   Don't laugh, because I've heard countless stories in the news about how, while some thief broke into someones house and were stealing things, they got hurt and sued the owners. Even stories about thieves breaking into businesses and getting hurt in some way and suing them and winning, so the businesses have to adopt safty protocols so they can be robbed without injury to the people robbing them. At this point I only have "1" question. What the F__K... has our society come to? Stupid things like these are outrageous. I heard on one case a career criminal sued someone for getting himself hurt in their home while he broke into it. You would think the owners would have won, filing tresspassing charges, breaking and entering, etc. The thief however still came out on top for filing neglegence claims, safty hazard in the work place, and a bunch of other off the wall things. I know there is alot more that can be said about ALL of this, but I hope what I've written here today makes everyone stop and realize how vunerable they really are, at any given time.