It never ceases to amaze (and enrage) me when I read some stories about the nanny state, I get incandescent when I read that the private sector is starting to take up the same wrap 'em in cotton wool, tell them how to live and die, watch your Ps and Qs, do as you are told, we are watching you attitudes. So Tesco staff have now taken it upon themselves to refuse the sale of BBQ sauce to certain youthful and good looking customers on the basis that it contains 2% alcohol.

Get a life guys, if you want to see the problems caused by real alcohol then get yourselves around here and stop nannying about.

Here's a video of Keith Floyd cooking duck with two bottles of fizz - up yours Tesco!

If you look under 25 you are not allowed to watch this video, and parents, don't even think of passing any tips on to your kids!

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

LOL, props on Glenn Beck.

Stupid.

Bob Barr makes it official!

Transcript here.

If you are tired of nanny statism and too much government control, support Bob Barr!

What folks are saying about Bob

May 15th, 2008 by Stephen Gordon

“Mr. McCain may believe he can attract the votes of young people with his green street cred, but he would be advised not to go too far in alienating his conservative base. Mr. Barr will likely be there every step of the way exploiting conservative discontent with the GOP nominee.” – John Fund [source]

Bob Barr on The Glenn Beck TV Program.

Here is the conversation of the Bob Barr interview on the May 14 episode of Glenn Beck.

BECK: I mean, does that resonate with you at all? I mean, if it does, who are you going to vote for? Will you please e-mail me because I have no clue?

Tonight, I want to introduce you to possibly an option, somebody who says they want to get back to the American principles and values that it was founded on. Somebody who real conservatives may want to spend some time getting to know.

Bob Barr is a former Republican congressman from Georgia, now a Libertarian candidate for president of the United States.

Bob, is that how you would describe a conservative?

BOB BARR (L), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Glenn, I`ll tell you, you not only described a conservative, but you described almost to a "T" a Libertarian. You did an outstanding job.

And I think what -- what your listeners and your viewers are hearing is that inside the heart of every American beats the heart of a Libertarian. Every American is Libertarian about something. There`s something in their lives that they want to keep government out of.

BECK: Yes, but you know what, Bob? Here`s the problem. Everybody, I truly believe, every American is a Libertarian until they can get free stuff or they can benefit somehow or another from a bigger government. Then, all of a sudden, they`re for that guy.

BARR: Well, and that`s really what we have. When you look at the political landscape, as you do day in and day out and know it better than anybody, when you look at that current political landscape, at the presidential level, what you see is, big government or really big government.

You don`t see conservative. You don`t see Libertarianism and you don`t see small government. And that`s what I`m going to be talking about as a Libertarian candidate.

BECK: OK. So let -- I want to cover as much as I can, and I`ve dedicated two blocks to you. Two segments here for you tonight, because I want to be able to get as much information out there, because there`s a lot of people that really would like a conservative to vote for.

So, let`s talk about spending. It`s not that taxes are too low. It`s that we`re spending too much. What are you going to cut?

BARR: What we`re going to do immediately, if I were president, when I become president in January 2009, is take that $3.1 trillion federal budget and start paring it back.

First of all, attack the executive office of the president. Those discretionary spending items over which the president has control. You immediately institute at least a 10 percent cut across the board.

Then, you announce that you`re going to have a spending freeze. You indicate to the Congress, as one of your first messages to the Congress, that if the Congress sends Bob Barr as president any piece of legislation that raises the national debt ceiling, it will be vetoed.

Now, if Congress decides thereafter to override and increase the debt ceiling beyond the $9 trillion and something that it currently is, then at least the American people know that they have a president that wants to stop spending in the red and a Congress that wants to continue.

BECK: All right, so help me out. For instance, corporate welfare, there was a story in "The Wall Street Journal" today about -- about farmers. You can make up to $2.5 million in income, and you still get federal aid as a farmer now. This is ridiculous. You`re going to cut farm aid?

BARR: Absolutely, I would. Something like, Glenn, 54 -- 54 percent, that is well more than half of farm subsidies that were designed to help struggling farmers a long time ago, go to farms and families, owners, that are making over $200,000 a year. That is ridiculous. It is the worst example of government welfare, corporate welfare, and it would be cut out.

BECK: What about -- what about corporate welfare to the oil companies? You going to give them tax breaks? You going to tax them more? You going to seize their profits? What are you going to do?

BARR: Certainly not seize profits. That would be ridiculous, and that goes for so-called windfall property taxes. That`s seizing money from, ultimately, the shareholders of this country, the men and women and sometimes kids who have bought into shares in corporations. No need to penalize them.

But, yes, what we would do is, first of all, get a handle on federal spending, start reducing it. And then tackle the tax structure so we completely revamp the way the government raises revenues. And part of that -- part of that would be doing away with corporate welfare.

BECK: OK. So again, back to the oil companies. Are you going to take away their special exemptions for oil exploration?

BARR: Not initially. What we would do, what I would propose to do initially, of course, because you can`t change the tax structure overnight. The first problem is to get a handle on federal spending, and ultimately, we would work to completely change the tax structure.

But, insofar as we do need desperately now to get U.S. oil companies to start once again exploring, increasing refining capacity, something we`ve not done in over 30 years, it is necessary to use all tools in the book, legitimate ones, that is, to begin increasing oil exploration, oil extraction and petroleum refining.

BECK: OK. Bob, you know, I told you the other day, we`re going to come back to oil and gas here in the next segment, but I told you before, the last time we spoke, that, you know, I am really Libertarian at heart, but then, it always goes off the track with national defense.

It`s -- I mean, look, I am not -- I am a Founding Father in my belief. I don`t want these foreign entanglements. I don`t want to be involved in - - I don`t want to be the world`s policeman. I don`t want to be involved in the U.N. and everything else.

But you know what? The world has changed. We now have oceans, not just between us. Airplanes and missiles can cross the oceans in 12 minutes. What are you going to do over in the Middle East? Which, where`s your support for Israel? How do you deal with the Middle East?

BARR: Well, first and foremost, what we do in the Middle East is what we do elsewhere in the world. And we send a very clear signal to the world that we will no longer be occupying foreign lands. We will not, as a matter of actual policy, be engaged in nation building.

And this isn`t just something that I, Bob Barr as a candidate, as George W. Bush did as a candidate, but will not allow during my administration.

BECK: OK. We just heard...

BARR: One thing we also need to be doing, Glenn, is to immediately begin reducing the size, the footprint of our economic and military security blanket that is propping up the Iraqi regime.

BECK: OK. Well, how do...

BARR: And giving them every incentive not to take advantage, not to be responsible.

BECK: How do you do this when yesterday, Ahmadinejad said, "Israel is a stinking corpse on its way to annihilation." These people, we leave that area, it`s going to create a vacuum, and the power`s going to go to Iran. And it`s -- I mean, the thing is going to melt down. How do you do it and stay out?

BARR: We actually have some very solid friends in some countries in that area, Ahmadinejad aside, including Iran, where there is a strong and vibrant reservoir of pro-U.S. sentiment.

Iran, unlike Iraq, when we invaded in 2003, is a country that has a very sound economy. It`s a country that has, unlike Iraq, a history of participatory government. There are many, many millions of Iranian- Americans in this country. We need to be using that base of support to develop sound economic policies and political policies with Iran.

BECK: OK. All right. We`re going to take a break. When we come back, I want to talk about the nanny state, the global warming, the stupid light bulbs that we`re all supposed to use and gas, what is the plan?

Also, to wear a flag lapel pin or not to wear a flag lapel pin? Are we this stupid? Coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: We`re back with Libertarian presidential candidate and former congressman, Bob Barr, who`s making the case as to why real conservatives who are frustrated with the current crop of candidates might want to give him a look.

Bob, we`ve only got a limited amount of time, and I`ve got a lot of things to cover here. And we will have you back to explain in detail, but if you can give me some just yes or no answers on some of these things.

"24," Jack Bauer, it`s the concept of, we think there`s a nuke going off. Do we get the information out of the people that we think have information any way we have to? I say, you can waterboard them in my pool if you think a nuke is going off in New York. Do you? Yes or no.

BARR: No.

BECK: OK. You got to come back and explain that one.

BARR: I`d love to.

BECK: Illegals, do you ship them home or not?

BARR: When you find them, you ship them home, absolutely.

BECK: OK. Do you fine the companies crippling fines who are hiring employees and bringing -- and being the bait to bring them in?

BARR: Yes, you do.

BECK: Do you build the border fence?

BARR: No.

BECK: You got to explain that one. Why not?

BARR: First of all, I think it would be terribly costly. And whatever border fence you build, people are going to find a way to get around it, go under it, go over it, somehow.

I think it would look absolutely awful. And even though it`s a fence to keep people from coming in, as opposed to the Berlin wall, it gives the same impression. Not the impression I want to give the world about America.

BECK: I mean, what am I on "Curb Appeal" all of a sudden? It looks bad? All right, we`ll put some flowers there.

Global warming.

BARR: Global -- global warming doesn`t exist. Nobody`s proved it to me, and I think it`s ridiculous for a presidential candidate calling himself a Republican to be buying into the Kyoto nonsense.

BECK: First of all -- well, may I say, I might French kiss you right now. If I was attracted to you...

BARR: No, the answer to that is no.

BECK: All right. To tell you, thank you for finally saying, somebody saying that this is nonsense. This global warming, they`re going to sneak it in the back door, and it`s going to cripple us.

BARR: It`s going to cripple us, and it`s going to cripple a lot of the western world.

BECK: OK. Let`s go to -- let`s go to oil. Oil is clearly not our future, long-term. But it is short-term and probably medium-term. What`s your plan for not paying $10 a gallon for gasoline?

BARR: Well, first of all, I say, let the truly let the -- truly let the market prevail. Get the government out of taxing gasoline. That would be one relatively easy tax to get rid of. At least easier than the income tax. So, let`s start with that one.

You do -- you go to the companies and you say, "Look, this administration, the Bob Barr administration, is going to do everything possible to remove the regulatory burdens." And that includes the limitations on drilling for oil and ANWR, drilling for oil off the coast of the United States of America. Drilling for shale oil in other areas.

You companies are free to go ahead, have at it, try and find that oil. And if you find it, then to the extent that we can, consistent with Libertarian principles of governing, we`re going to make it as easy as possible for you to do so.

BECK: OK. So you`re for coal to oil?

BARR: Absolutely.

BECK: You`re for drilling in the ANWR.

BARR: Absolutely.

BECK: Off the coasts?

BARR: Absolutely.

BECK: Will you -- will you let people who are drilling -- will you let states say, "No, you can`t drill off our coasts"?

BARR: I would -- I do believe in states` rights. And if they -- it is their position, then I would use the tremendous persuasive powers, shall we say, of the president to do so, to override.

BECK: OK. What about nuclear power plants?

BARR: Nuclear, heck, even the French are going the direction of nuclear power plants. There`s got to be something right about it if the French are willing to do it.

BECK: Right. I thought we were supposed to learn everything from these smart French people. They have 80 percent of their power coming from nuclear power plants.

Although I did hear that the Huffington post said, "This is ridiculous. That would take 800 nuclear power plants." My question to you is, what would be the problem with 800 nuclear power plants in America if they were safe?

BARR: If they`re safe, there`s absolutely no problem with it, the Huffing Post notwithstanding.

BECK: OK. Bob, I sense incredible disenfranchisement in this country like I have never felt ever, ever before. I -- I think Washington has been taken over by the special interest groups. I think Washington has been taken over by the political parties. I don`t give a flying crap if it`s a donkey or an elephant. I just want answers.

And I want somebody to unleash the might of the American people. Take the shackles off of us.

Zogby says, you`ll probably did -- I mean, if you did really well, which I believe is three times the amount that a Libertarian has ever gotten before, you might get 3 percent of the vote.

A, why do this? And, B, isn`t it really going to take a quiet revolution in this country to take these parties and unseat the corrupt power that is in both of these parties?

BARR: It`s going to take a very loud revolution. We`ve seen already the, you know, the echoes of it, the reverberations, starting with the Ron Paul campaign. The future is the young people.

The poll you mentioned, for example, the Zogby poll, that was done before I even announced an exploratory committee that indicated 3 percent. We intend to go far beyond that.

And the backbone of it will be two things: the young people and the use of the Internet. I think those are two tools that -- that show no party allegiance. The young people in this country are not wedded to the stilted, status quo, establishment, two-party system, as many folks in my generation are. And that`s the future and that`s where our message is going to be targeted.

BECK: Bob, I`d love to have you on the radio program and also back here on television, because I have a lot more questions. And I would like to understand some of your answers to some of them tonight when we have some more time. Will you come back?

BARR: Look forward to it, Glenn. You say "Jump," Bob Barr says, "How high?"

BECK: Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. We`ll -- we`ll have you back.

With all the hype about Obama being a Washington outsider and the candidate of change, I`m tell you why the lapel pin controversy proves to me it`s the same old-same old. That`s next.

Transcript of the full episode, here.

“So a lot of the scaffolding is there that could make this state a Libertarian target. Bob Barr, for example, voted for drilling in ANWR, and could lace into McCain on the issue. A higher-than-normal number of Alaskans will be voting Democratic down the ballot, and might want to split it…and hey, there’ll be another conservative candidate they can vote for if they can’t stomach Obama.” — David Weigel

Senate passes ban on smoking

Bill heading to the House would bar lighting up in clubs, restaurants, even bingo halls, casinos.

Charlie Cain / Detroit News Lansing Bureau

LANSING -- All Michigan workplaces, including bars, restaurants and clubs, are a big step closer to becoming smoke-free.

Good ol' nanny statism at work.

"I can now say Michigan will be a smoke-free state," said a jubilant Sen. Ray Basham, D-Taylor, following the state Senate's surprise vote Thursday to enact a widespread smoking ban.

"This is a huge victory for the people of Michigan who don't want to be subjected to second-hand smoke, which the U.S. surgeon general has said is unsafe in any amount," added Basham, who has been waging an often lonely 10-year crusade against public smoking.

I think all smoking voters in Taylor, MI should send their lovely senator a thank-you gift.  I said "smoking voters" because those who smoke but didn't vote have only thyemselves to blame.  I think I will send a gift too.  How about everyone send him a cigarrette with a cute little card that says, "For your vote on the smoking ban.  Place in orifice and light up!"  Or something along those lines.

The prospect of a smoke-free environment appeals to Stephanie Gant, 43, of Southfield.

"I don't smoke and I can't stand the smell of smoke," said Gant, who was bowling with her twin 4-year-old boys at Cloverlanes Bowl in Livonia on Thursday. "We should be able to go out and enjoy our time without having to deal with smoke."

"...enjoy our time..." is the key phrase here.  Smokers should be able enjoy a place to smoke, without gubmint telling the business owner to ban smoking.  Non-smokers should be able to enjoy their time at non-smoking establishments.  But those establishments should be non-smoking because that is what was intended by the business owner, not gubmint.  A true entrapenuer would see that there are many businesses that have smoking, see that there are many non-smokers with kids, viola!  An idea is born.  They open a business that is smoke free.  Everyone is happy and everyone wins.  But gubmint has their heads you know where to not realize this.

Until Thursday's vote, the Republican-controlled Senate had resisted a smoking ban, largely on grounds that it was a decision best left to business owners and their customers.

"I love my country, but, God, some days I fear my government," said Sen. Alan Sanborn, R-Richmond, who voted against the legislation. "This is another case of it sticking its nose where it doesn't belong."

Exactly!  Mr. Sanborn is a real man!  Smokers of Richmond, MI send this guy a thank-you gift, a real one.

The proposal, approved on a 25-12 vote, returns to the House for consideration of changes made by the Senate. The Senate version, unlike one approved by the House in December, makes no exceptions for Detroit's casinos, bingo halls and cigar bars. Both versions would ban smoking at clubs and fraternal organizations such as the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars.

I hate to say it, but if you are going to make a bad proposal, at least make no exceptions for anyone.

Governor would sign bill

Gov. Jennifer Granholm is eager to sign any smoke-free legislation that reaches her desk.

"I congratulate the Senate for approving legislation that bans smoking in public places," Granholm said in a statement issued by her office. "Their action sends a strong message across Michigan -- and the nation -- that we place a high priority on the health of our citizens.

Ms. Jenny, it ain't gubmint's place to put a priority on individual person's health.

"It will go a long way toward influencing the action of our young people, too. I urge the House to act as quickly as possible."

Again, it ain't gubmint's place to "influence the young people."  That is the job of the parents and pastor, rabbi or priest.  Hell, I would rather have Britney Spears influence the the youngins then gubmint.

Shana Dyas, a 28-year-old Detroit resident who works at the Majestic Theater Center near downtown Detroit, said she's smoked for seven years and doesn't decide where to eat or drink based on an establishment's smoking policy.

"To me, it's more something that should be up to the owner," she said. "If the owner doesn't want smoking, they don't have to allow it. For a food or family place I totally understand the ban. But nightclubs ... it will annoy some people. People will have to adapt."

I was so almost with Ms. Dyas, until the last sentence.  No, people should not have to adapt.

Lance Binoniemi of The Michigan Restaurant Association and the Michigan Licensed Beverage Association says this;

He said the measure, if enacted, will be unfair to many of his members who would have to compete with the 18 American Indian casinos sprinkled across the state. They aren't subject to state law and would be immune from any smoking ban.

It ain't right, but I do gotta say, maybe this will bring a little more tourism to the U.P.

Third of bars already ban it

Deloney said about 5,100 Michigan bars and taverns -- nearly a third of the state total -- have voluntarily gone smoke-free without government prodding. He noted that the number of establishments here that have banned tobacco use has grown by 131 percent since 1998 to accommodate the estimated three-fourths of Michigan adults who do not smoke.

This is an example of free market capitolism at work.  Certain businesses saw a need, and went for it, while the businesses who do allow smoking were left alone.  If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it.

Brenda Clack (D-Flint);

"The Senate did the right thing to make Michigan a cleaner and healthier state," Clack said.

This isn't Michigan's job.

Be right back, time for a smoke.

"This legislation is simply incompatible with free market principles I and many members of this chamber hold dear," Bishop told colleagues. (as in Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop R-Rochester)

"When will it stop? How much control do you want? And when will people have to stop thinking for themselves entirely?"

That's what gubmint wants, is for the people to stop thinking at all.

All Senate Democrats voted for the smoking ban except James Barcia of Bay City. Nine of the Senate's 21 Republicans also voted yes. [more here] 

Well at least one Democrat has common sense. 

Good thing that these "new" commies are promising that they will not become a one-party state.  They say that they want "pluralism".  Funny thing, since the entire basis of communism is a one-party system.  There is no such thing as a pluralistic communist party.  That is like saying that nazis would be interested in sharing power.

And let's not forget that China abandoned Maoism as a spectacular failure.  It only took tens of millions of dead Chinese to teach them that little lesson.  A little lesson that Nepal may never learn on account of the fact that they don't have that many people in their country.

Strange that people can believe the same old lies that wealth redistribution and collectivism.  If anyone has any doubts about how evil and destructive communism is, enjoy the night photo of North Korea:

Especially since most of the public is so incredibly ignorant about the day to day our military has in Iraq.  They get more information from Hollywood than they do from the people who live it.

Great, while these videos are obvious hackish attempts at propaganda from retarded children, at least they are as exciting to watch as paint drying.  How about we let the soldiers put their unedited views up for the public to see?  Should the Pentagon be afraid of what the troops think and do?  Because the "wrong message" might get out?

That probably sounds better in the original German anyway.

Yet we have people who are convinced that requiring a photo ID in order to select our representatives, who make the laws, would be disenfranchised by this. Their reasoning is that some potential voters would be too poor to be able to afford the burden of a state-issued ID. Are there really that many people who are so poor that they cannot afford to get an ID card? So many that it would influence any election one way or the other? I have a hard time believing that.

To put it into perspective, the Illinois requirement for a state-issued photo ID is found here. The fee is $20 for a first-time five year ID card in Illinois. For those under 18 it is $10. For disabled or over 65 citizens it is totally free. Anyone who couldn't come up with these documents is truly a sad sack. Or just the sort of voter the DNC has been looking for, apparently. Since they oppose any form of poll ID whatsoever.

Who knew the meth whores who blow gangbangers for the next score were a significant voting bloc? I didn't know that. And I learned something new today.

A prisoner is suing in federal court because-get this-he has lost too much weight while in prison. Apparently the 3,000 calorie a day diet is not enough for Inmate Fatass. Not only that, but he wants more hot meals.

Wah wah wah, cry me a river here. Shouldn't stab and beat people to death if you want to continue to be a disgusting fatbody.

"About an hour after each meal my stomach starts to hurt and growl. I feel hungry again."

He then goes on to complain about the lack of physical exercise, adding: "The only reason we lost weight in here is because we are literally being starved to death."

Wow. Mahatma Ghandi, eat your heart out.

I think that Obama is out of the loop and clueless about what the so-called Middle America wants. He wants to make himself a round peg to fit into a square hole. He sees his inability to make himself appeal to the "silent majority" as a problem with the voters. In reality, his problem is in the messenger not in the message. Not to mention the company he chooses.

The reason that he is not resonating with those "bitter" people is not because they are turning to guns and god instead of his socialist stoopidopia vision. It is because he does not connect with them where they live. He is already very familiar with G-d damned racists, terrorists and elitists.

His wife is also a great 'Merican, not proud of her country until her hubbie gets nominated for the presidency. Must be hard to take all the best that America has to offer and call it garbage. Must be the ivy league education. Or the six figure salary.

Fact is, Obama is a radical. You can judge a person by the company he keeps, and his familiars are very indicative of the Man from Hopeville.

None of his recent foot-in-mouth comments come as a particular surprise, however. Given that he went to the most exclusive schools, from kindergarten right through college, and has a background of privilege it should come as no shock that these embarrassing revelations are coming out. He has been in the ivory towers of elite educational institutions, and seen the ghettos. What he has no connection with is the 90% of America that does not live in these two extremes.

What he does understand is the Marxist "divide and conquer" playbook. He does understand, from 20 years of patronizing Jeremiah Wright, how to pander to people. He understands how to bilk billionaires for campaign funds in San Fransisco because he speaks to their beliefs. He has an ivy-league education that apparently taught him to hate 90% of the people in his own country.

He cannot understand the many Americans that treasure their 2nd Amendment rights (as yours truly does) to use firearms to hunt or for home protection. I seriously doubt if he has ever even fired a weapon in his life. He does not understand the empowerment of a firearm and sees them as something evil. Something that he is protected from by a round-the-clock security detail. Must be nice, but most of us in the real world cannot afford trained professionals to protect us the same way. Profile of a classic gun-grabber.

He cannot understand what it is like to pay a mortgage because he has his cronies buy land and houses for him in extremely shady "gray area" land deals. Land deals that are reminiscent of Whitewater. Not technically illegal, but extremely questionable nonetheless. Particularly when the person buying a lot for you so you can build a house on the cheap is under investigation for fraud.

Some questions I would ask Obama:

• Do you support terrorism against America, as Bill Ayers and Reverend Wright clearly do?
• Do you believe that we really are "AmeriKKKa"?
• Do you really think that America is a terrorist state?
• Do you really think that we deserved the attacks of 9-11?
• Do you really think that there was nothing to be proud of in this country until you entered the scene?
• Do you really think that black people can't be racist?
• What is your platform besides soothing bromides about change?
• Is it really OK for a freshly elected junior senator to take over half a mil for a lot, then buy a narrow strip for 100K from someone under investigation for fraud and bribery?

Change? Sure, change is good. But let's pay attention to the kind of change we are getting.

"Must be a yearning deep in human heart to stop other people from doing as they please. Rules, laws--always for other fellow. A murky part of us, something we had before we came down out of the trees, and failed to shuck when we stood up. Because not one of those people said: "Please pass this so that I won't be able to do something I know I should stop." Nyet, tovarishchee, was always something they hated to see neighbors doing. Stop them "for their own good"--not because speaker claimed to be harmed by it."
-- The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert Heinlein, Narrator (Manuel)

A new spring, a new violent video game, a new debate looms on whether or not we will need more legislation for said games. It seems to me that we need less moderation of content in all digital formats. We need to let parents and kids decide together what is right and appropriate. Moderating free speech "just a little bit" is akin to being "just a little bit pregnant".

Something that those in the seats of power could do that would be a boon to those of us who are concerned about what is being consumed by children is to simplify the ratings system. Right now we have three ratings systems, one for games, one for movies and one for television shows. Here is the ratings regimes for each format:

Video games (from the ESRB board)...

	EARLY CHILDHOOD Titles rated EC (Early Childhood) have content that may be suitable for ages 3 and older. Contains no material that parents would find inappropriate.
	EVERYONE Titles rated E (Everyone) have content that may be suitable for ages 6 and older. Titles in this category may contain minimal cartoon, fantasy or mild violence and/or infrequent use of mild language.
	EVERYONE 10+ Titles rated E10+ (Everyone 10 and older) have content that may be suitable for ages 10 and older. Titles in this category may contain more cartoon, fantasy or mild violence, mild language and/or minimal suggestive themes.
	TEEN Titles rated T (Teen) have content that may be suitable for ages 13 and older. Titles in this category may contain violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood, simulated gambling, and/or infrequent use of strong language.
	MATURE Titles rated M (Mature) have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language.
	ADULTS ONLY Titles rated AO (Adults Only) have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity.
	RATING PENDING Titles listed as RP (Rating Pending) have been submitted to the ESRB and are awaiting final rating. (This symbol appears only in advertising prior to a game's release.)

Movies...

A G-rated motion picture contains nothing in theme, language, nudity, sex, violence or other matters that, in the view of the Rating Board, would offend parents whose younger children view the motion picture. The G rating is not a “certificate of approval,” nor does it signify a “children’s” motion picture. Some snippets of language may go beyond polite conversation but they are common everyday expressions. No stronger words are present in G-rated motion pictures. Depictions of violence are minimal. No nudity, sex scenes or drug use are present in the motion picture.

A PG-rated motion picture should be investigated by parents before they let their younger children attend. The PG rating indicates, in the view of the Rating Board, that parents may consider some material unsuitable for their children, and parents should make that decision.The more mature themes in some PG-rated motion pictures may call for parental guidance. There may be some profanity and some depictions of violence or brief nudity. But these elements are not deemed so intense as to require that parents be strongly cautioned beyond the suggestion of parental guidance. There is no drug use content in a PG-rated motion picture.

A PG-13 rating is a sterner warning by the Rating Board to parents to determine whether their children under age 13 should view the motion picture, as some material might not be suited for them. A PG-13 motion picture may go beyond the PG rating in theme, violence, nudity, sensuality, language, adult activities or other elements, but does not reach the restricted R category. The theme of the motion picture by itself will not result in a rating greater than PG-13, although depictions of activities related to a mature theme may result in a restricted rating for the motion picture. Any drug use will initially require at least a PG-13 rating. More than brief nudity will require at least a PG-13 rating, but such nudity in a PG-13 rated motion picture generally will not be sexually oriented. There may be depictions of violence in a PG-13 movie, but generally not both realistic and extreme or persistent violence. A motion picture’s single use of one of the harsher sexually-derived words, though only as an expletive, initially requires at least a PG-13 rating. More than one such expletive requires an R rating, as must even one of those words used in a sexual context. The Rating Board nevertheless may rate such a motion picture PG-13 if, based on a special vote by a two-thirds majority, the Raters feel that most American parents would believe that a PG-13 rating is appropriate because of the context or manner in which the words are used or because the use of those words in the motion picture is inconspicuous.

An R-rated motion picture, in the view of the Rating Board, contains some adult material. An R-rated motion picture may include adult themes, adult activity, hard language, intense or persistent violence, sexually-oriented nudity, drug abuse or other elements, so that parents are counseled to take this rating very seriously. Children under 17 are not allowed to attend R-rated motion pictures unaccompanied by a parent or adult guardian. Parents are strongly urged to find out more about R-rated motion pictures in determining their suitability for their children. Generally, it is not appropriate for parents to bring their young children with them to R-rated motion pictures.

An NC-17 rated motion picture is one that, in the view of the Rating Board, most parents would consider patently too adult for their children 17 and under. No children will be admitted. NC-17 does not mean “obscene” or “pornographic” in the common or legal meaning of those words, and should not be construed as a negative judgment in any sense. The rating simply signals that the content is appropriate only for an adult audience. An NC-17 rating can be based on violence, sex, aberrational behavior, drug abuse or any other element that most parents would consider too strong and therefore off-limits for viewing by their children.

Aaaand TV...

All Children
This program is designed to be appropriate for all children. Whether animated or live-action, the themes and elements in this program are specifically designed for a very young audience, including children from ages 2 - 6. This program is not expected to frighten younger children.

Directed to Older Children
This program is designed for children age 7 and above.It may be more appropriate for children who have acquired the developmental skills needed to distinguish between make-believe and reality. Themes and elements in this program may include mild fantasy violence or comedic violence, or may frighten children under the age of 7. Therefore, parents may wish to consider the suitability of this program for their very young children.

Directed to Older Children - Fantasy Violence
For those programs where fantasy violence may be more intense or more combative than other programs in this category, such programs will be designated TV-Y7-FV.

General Audience
Most parents would find this program suitable for all ages. Although this rating does not signify a program designed specifically for children, most parents may let younger children watch this program unattended. It contains little or no violence, no strong language and little or no sexual dialogue or situations.

Parental Guidance Suggested
This program contains material that parents may find unsuitable for younger children. Many parents may want to watch it with their younger children. The theme itself may call for parental guidance and/or the program contains one or more of the following: moderate violence (V), some sexual situations (S), infrequent coarse language (L), or some suggestive dialogue (D).

Parents Strongly Cautioned
This program contains some material that many parents would find unsuitable for children under 14 years of age. Parents are strongly urged to exercise greater care in monitoring this program and are cautioned against letting children under the age of 14 watch unattended. This program contains one or more of the following: intense violence (V), intense sexual situations (S), strong coarse language (L), or intensely suggestive dialogue (D).

Mature Audience Only
This program is specifically designed to be viewed by adults and therefore may be unsuitable for children under 17. This program contains one or more of the following: graphic violence (V), explicit sexual activity (S), or crude indecent language (L).

Got all that? Wouldn't it make much more sense to have ONE simplified ratings regime for all these formats. Say the movie ratings one since it is clearly the oldest and best understood one? As it stands right now, we have three sets of standards for three different formats. Therefore we can easily have a movie based off a video game that has a spinoff TV show based on the same subject material. This material can get three different ratings for essentially the same content. Let's take Blade, for example.

The Blade 2 video game has an "M for mature" rating based on the Electronic Standards Ratings Board. So, only those 17 and up may purchase the game. Blade 2 the movie has an "R" rating, which means that only those 17 or above, unless accompanied by an "adult" may watch the movie in the theater. And Blade the series has a rating of TV-14. For the same stuff, basically. Wouldn't it make much more sense to have one regulatory body give one set of ratings that is standardized so everyone can "get it" much easier?

This is assuming that there needs to be any government regulation at all. Short of actual pornography, there is little need for government to be telling me what is and is not appropriate for children. An advisory board, sure. Give me an idea what is going on. But spare me the nanny-statism, mmm-kay?

]]> http://yobbo.wordpress.com/2008/03/18/drugs-cheaper-than-beer-in-uk/ Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:23:47 +0000 Sam Ward http://yobbo.wordpress.com/2008/03/18/drugs-cheaper-than-beer-in-uk/ The drug war has failed so abysmally in England that not only are drugs freely available, they are cheaper than the legal alternative.

A line of cocaine is now as cheap as a pint of beer after the latest alcohol tax rises took effect.

An average pint in Britain has topped £3 following a 4p rise in the budget – making it the same price as a line of cocaine, according to official government figures.

In London the average price of a pint – at £4.06 – is dearer than a hit of heroin.

A line of speed or the cannabis resin for a spliff now costs the same as just two cigarettes, according to separate figures released by the Independent Drug Monitoring Unit, which provides street prices for evidence in courts.

The average price of an ecstasy pill is now £2.91, with some costing as little as £1, while an average hit of heroin is just £3.50.

The charity Drugscope, which has seen a sharp rise in cocaine use, warned it was now cheaper to spend an evening bingeing on cocaine than to spend a night in the pub.

At least "Harm Minimisation" seems to be working. Getting high on Cocaine or Ecstasy is certainly less dangerous than getting a skinful in a UK pub. So if that was the intention, then the UK government should all give themselves a big pat on the back.

That being said, this post is merely educational. I'm not for any of the front-runners right now over another; I want to illustrate that, in their own words, we are careening ever deeper into the inevitability of fat discrimination in the next presidency.

Hillary Clinton

From her Senate web page:

Obesity/Eating Disorders

The prevalence of overweight, obesity, and eating disorders is increasing at an alarming rate in our country. It is time that we recognize the causes and costs associated with poor dietary behaviors and physical inactivity and begin to focus on promoting healthy lifestyles and behaviors. To address these issues I have co-sponsored the Improved Nutrition and Physical Activity (IMPACT) Act with Senators Frist (R-TN) and Bingaman (D-NM). This legislation, which passed in the Senate in the 108 th Congress, would provide grants to train health professionals and students in obesity and eating disorders; grants to promote increased physical activity and improved nutrition; and provides funds to collect and analyze data related to obesity and youth health behaviors.

Here's my analysis:

Line 1: indicates that she firmly believes in the verity of the junk science behind the so-called "obesity epidemic."

Line 2: indicates she believes that obesity causes disease and poor health, and suggests the government intervene with anti-obesity programs.

Line 3: confirms she believes in government-sponsored and -enforced programs to 'combat' obesity, and in fact has co-sponsored a bill to that effect.

Line 4: details the anti-obesity initiative: the first part would either create new anti-obesity sections in health classes in high school or reinforce those existing, as well as "training" care-givers to accept and/or promote the junk science behind the so-called "obesity epidemic;" the second part would give monies to create programs which would further regulate and ritualize what children eat, and get them to exercise more; and further creates programs to find more correlations between "youth behaviors" and "obesity," cementing the idea that obesity is behavioral, not genetic, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

John McCain

From his personal website, bullets taken from his "health system reform" page:

Childhood obesity, diabetes and high blood pressure are all on the rise. We must again teach our children about health, nutrition and exercise - vital life information.

Public health initiatives must be undertaken with all our citizens to stem the growing epidemic of obesity and diabetes, and to deter smoking

Bullet 1: confirms his believe in the so-called "obesity epidemic" rash of diseases. "We must once again teach our children about health," etc indicates that the Thin People of Yore had apparently more nutrition and exercise training than children do now. "Vital life information" suggests that fatter people won't live as long, which has been shown to be false.

Bullet 2: not only indicates that obesity/diabetes is a choice like smoking, but says that "public health initiatives" i.e., government intervention, "must be undertaken to stem the growing epidemic..."

Barack Obama

Taken from his official healthcare policy.

The nation faces epidemics of obesity and chronic diseases as well as new threats of pandemic flu and bioterrorism.

...

This nation is facing a true epidemic of chronic disease. An increasing number of Americans are suffering and dying needlessly from diseases such as obesity, diabetes, heart disease, asthma and HIV/AIDS, all of which can be delayed in onset if not prevented entirely. One in 3 Americans—133 million—have a chronic condition, and
children are increasingly being affected.52 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported that 1 in 3 children born in 2000 will develop diabetes in their lifetime.53

...

Childhood obesity is nearly epidemic,59 particularly among minority populations,60 and school systems can play an important role in tackling
this issue. For example, only about a quarter of schools adhere to nutritional standards for fat content in school lunches.61 Obama will work with schools to create more healthful environments for children, including assistance with contract policy development for local vendors, grant support for school-based health screening programs and clinical services, increased financial support for physical education, and educational
programs for students.

NOTE: Obama uses statistics from this CDC 2004 obesity study, referenced in his plan. This study was investigated and shown to have inflated its numbers. A JAMA study later on showed that the CDC's numbers had been, in fact, inflated by about 400%. A good exposition of the CDC 2004 study is here.

Points: I don't have much to say about this that hasn't already been said in response to Clinton's and McCain's plans and observations. Also, my "NOTE" at the end of the quotes from Obama's plan discredits his major source of information, likely cherry-picked to push forth an agenda considering it just took me a quick Google to discover the JAMA refutation to this study (which his staffers should/could have done).

Conclusion

A fat acceptance activist would be hypocritical to support any of these candidates, given their anti-FA beliefs about fat, obesity, and required government intervention. Furthermore, there is every indication that they would vigorously promote those same anti-FA beliefs, spending tax dollars on ignorant and biased programs that would only serve to in one way or another harm future generations of Americans.

Plan of action: Write in your own candidate. Seriously. Stand against fat discrimination, ignorance, and hate in a consistent manner. What does it serve you to vote for these candidates based on 90% of a platform you agree with, when that last 10% is so discriminatory, ignorant, and potentially harmful?

Given that I don't expect all FA activists to do this, and most to vote for one of these three front-runners, please resolve to do all you can to educate your favorite future administration as to their error of their ways. For their error will become our terror, if we give them, with our vote, the power to commit it.

Contact forms:

Hillary Clinton

John McCain

Barack Obama

Comparing Oppressions

I observe much apologizing to other oppressed groups whenever someone tries to analogize fat oppression in a way those who still don't quite accept fat oppression can understand (there's always the disclaimer: "I know this isn't the same thing, etc"). To say that one group's experience is invalidated because they didn't suffer as much, or in the same ways, as another group is out-and-out fallacious, and is itself just reinforcing the oppression of the group that doesn't meet some kind of 'standard' of oppression. No one will argue that blacks can't objectively understand the oppression of Jews, or aren't oppressed themselves, since they didn't experience the Holocaust. No one will argue that women can't objectively understand the oppression of blacks, since they didn't experience slavery or Jim Crow.

Oppression is oppression. It is the categorization of a group based on arbitrary characteristics that don't define the individual, and the unequal treatment of individuals based on sort of collective group characteristic. I.e., the assumption that one brown person's life experience has been the same as another brown person's life experience, is just as racist as calling them vile names. There's the same dynamic at work: that the individual can be summed up or even in some part approximated based on group characteristics.

Positive and Negative Perpetuation

This dynamic is very active in our current day and age, and there are just as many apologists and Benedict Arnolds out there - what I call 'positive' perpetrators - as there are out-and-out haters - what I call 'negative' perpetrators. Both perpetuate classification based on group characteristics.

I'm aware the above is an extremely controversial view, and it's a deep split between where I stand and where most liberal progressives stand. I think 'positive' perpetuation is as harmful as 'negative.' I think you cannot separate the two, as they're married by an absolute (categorization based on group characteristics).

Many liberal progressives disagree with me. They claim that the way you 'fix' negative perpetuation is to throw positive perpetuation at it. If a bully steals your kid's lunch money, you steal the bully's, instead. But then, in order to do that, you have to define what it is to be a 'bully,' and that often require further grouping of individuals by group characteristics. "All bullies are X, and so if we see someone who is X it is okay to take his lunch money."

It's a simplistic view, and boils down to a knee-jerk, revenge action. What makes us better than the bullies, if we're doing the same to them, but since we sport the label "righteousness" or "you started it," it's okay? Does that really change things, or does it just shift power to another group, since it's now popular to pick on the bullies? Don't we realize there is no absolute difference between what they did, and what we're now doing?

In fat acceptance, one may think the active conflict is between fat and thin. That's not true; thin people see the same media messages, they have friends or family members that are not-thin and they're exposed to the pervasive diet-message just as we. The conflict is between the dieters, and the non-dieters. Though we're categorized based on physical characteristics, there is a philosophical fight going on here that's very important to grasp.

"You can change, hence, you must."

People can lose weight. To a fat person this is a vile statement, filled with nuance and implication. But it's true, we all know it: people can lose weight. It's as simple as not eating. You won't live forever, and you might be able to extend your life if you stop not-eating and start eating again, and then not-eat once you've gained back your strength; or you could semi-eat, constantly battling with balancing proportions. It's no different from non-eating for a while and then eating again, you just mix it up a little and shorten the time span to a day, or a week where are certain times you non-eat when hungry, or abate hunger pains with Splenda-flavored air. You could also effectively non-eat by exercising to the point that whatever you did eat went solely to fuel your exercise regime, with nothing left over. There are lots of ways of doing it: they are all, in effect, non-eating.

It is understandable that our bodies cannot function fully under such regimes and, sometimes, are merely hanging onto a thin thread of life, those few calories doled grudgingly to it, the abatement of over-exercise in favor of rest, whatever the 'compromise' to non-eating might be in order to extend life, or to improve the quality of a life undergoing starvation.

Now we can put these methods together and give all non-eating regimes another name: dieting. And now we have a launch-point:

The true conflict ravaging the fat community is this idea that since most fat people can temporarily or under great physical and psychological duress, lose weight, then, henceforth, they must, regardless of the consequences.

And, to put it simply, we don't want to starve anymore. We want what we believe is afforded by birth to thin people: a life free of weight-related self-flagellation. In other words, a normal existence where we can pick the fruits of knowledge, love, beauty, family like anyone else. Where we can turn our minds away from the exhaustion, obsession, stress, and anxiety surrounding the psychological effects of weight discrimination and the physical and psychological effects of non-eating regimes.

This is a conflict between those who believe some are born with a scarlet letter signifying a life-sentence of non-eating regimes, and those who bear no such letter.

To be anti-diet is the very core of the movement. The diet is our cross to bear for the sin of being non-thin. In order to "change the conversation," we must refuse to carry the diet cross any longer.

Fat people are in a semi-unique situation, when one undergoes the study of historically oppressed groups. No matter how 'hard' he works, a black cannot become non-black, a Jew not a non-Jew, a gay not a non-gay, a woman not a non-woman (all of these have qualifying arguments that I'd be happy to supply at request, but I'm not going to do it in-essay since it would derail the focus).

So we're facing an opposition that claims if we don't bear our cross-by-birth, dieting, we are bad, ugly, and immoral. The scarlet letter is bright, and apparent to all: they know us for who we are. How we got there is irrelevant, whether it is pushing ourself to the top of our setpoint range, gain-back + 10% after crash dieting any number of times, PCOS or other weight-gain related conditions, just being at a higher setpoint range than is socially acceptable, metabolic syndrome, and so forth. I'm not going to stoop to apologizing by constructing a: "But some of us are good fatties!!!" argument, which is ultimately destructive to the core message of the movement. The science of weight concludes, ultimately, that body size is most largely determined by genetics, and that we each have differing setpoint ranges that can be screwed with environmentally, but only in a small manner with respect to our genetic predispositions (it may indeed be possible that the worst way we screw with our metabolisms is by engaging in non-eating regimes).

And there are some out there who are more honest about it than most. Instead of insidiously suggesting that we should just cut out the soda and get out butts off the couches for a 10-minute daily walk, they say things like, "Yeah, we should just ship all the fatties to a concentration camp," or "I/he/she could use a little anorexia." We should listen very carefully to these people, because they're merely the extreme product of a culture which shoulders some of us with a diet cross, and not others. They completely accept that we have to starve away the pounds, and they want to ensure that it's done, at all costs.

Isn't that what everyone is saying, really? Recently, it was found that Florida schools were underfeeding their students in an attempt to 'reduce childhood obesity.' When they were criticized for it? The Broward County administrators responded:

“We always worry when we have a review. If you bake a chicken, it's much less calories than if you fry it,” said Penny Parham, who oversees school meals in Dade. “Let's hope the USDA can help us out and revise some of those guidelines.”...

In other words, in response to the criticism that they were underfeeding children by up to 200 calories, they pointed the finger at the USDA and claimed that, in fact, the USDA's guidelines were too high, and should be "revised" to make them more stringent --- because the kids in the county schools hadn't lost any weight, regardless of the underfeeding during school hours.

So the answer: starve them more. Lower the federal requirements so journalists and parents stop knocking on our doors, and we'll get those fat fatties nice and trim for you.

It's going to get worse before it gets better. Even now, the WW campaign "Diets Don't Work" is a sign of, not victory for FA, but rather a deeper plunge into what will one day be out-and-out encouragement of adopting life-long non-eating, semi-starvation regimes for those who are born with the scarlet three letters: FAT.

In conclusion: whatever the name, whether it be "diet," or "lifestyle change," it is the same animal: a cross of starvation imposed by the 'privileged' on the 'non-privileged.' That is why any acceptance of/apologizing for dieting on a personal level is in opposition to true fat acceptance. And, until we throw off our own diet crosses, we cannot hope to dislodge the great weight made to bear by fat people as a group.

The diet is our cage, our cross, our scarlet letter for the original sin of being fat. It is the tool of our oppressors; we must rip that tool from their hands. We must rip it from their hands to save ourselves, our family, our friends, our children. Without that tool, without us believing in our original sin, believing in repentance under the cross, they cannot harm us any longer.

I am writing "Her Chapter Was Cut" as a serial, to be completed in 'parts' when I have an extra hour or two. The parts will be largely unedited, in the sense that they'll be checked for grammar, spelling, and consistency, and published directly thereafter. Depending on the success of the serial, it may be brought together as a single work and edited thusly.

Of course, it goes without saying, that this work is copyrighted. This and future parts are exclusively the property of the author (me), and shall be distributed only in the form of links to the original work, which I shall gather together by category.

Her Chapter Was Cut

Prologue: 2010

Elsie Brooke's face was inched up to the dirty low mirrors of the girls' bathroom. She hated being so close to the rust and the grime, but she needed to find the tiny slivers of rock lodged in her cheek. Picking carefully, so was relieved to see the red scrape starting to fade. At least it won't leave a mark, so it won't remind them what happened. If she were lucky, her classmates would have forgotten, blithely discussing whatever it was ---those--- kids discussed.

Finishing up, she washed her hands and took a second look before rushing up to class. Recess would be over soon, though she had a bathroom pass. The recess monitor, an older lady who doubled as a second-grade teacher's aide, had looked at her disapprovingly while writing out the pass. "Go get yourself cleaned up," she'd rasped, quickly turning back to the gaggle of first-grade girls who surrounded her in adoration. Elsie didn't think twice about the aide's callous response, for she'd expected no better.

The bell rang as she slipped into her desk, surrounded by the group of children she internally qualified as her friends. Nick, her best friend from before they'd gone to public school, came over. "The book fair is coming after school. Are you gonna to stay?"

"Yeah. My mom's gonna pick me up, since I'm helping Mrs. Qualters."

"Yeah, me too. Can I get a ride home?"

"Sure."

Elsie never thought twice about helping Nick. His dad was never available to pick him up, or spend much time with him; even when she slept over Nick's house, his dad was downstairs, watching movies and drinking thirstily. She and Nick would make soggy microwaved French fries, or eat cereal with milk on the edge of going bad. Nick's dad never seemed to notice, though once in a while he asked forlornly if they were okay.

One time they came down after midnight, having stayed up giggling over Mad Libs. Nick's father was sprawled on the living-room floor, face-down, an empty brown bottle sitting next to his head. Nick's childish face hardened, telling Elsie to go upstairs. She climbed to the top and sat, resting her head against the cool white wall, listening to Nick, feeling protective. "Dad, get up," he pleaded. "Dad---Dad, you should go to bed. It's bed time. Let's go to bed, Dad."

But the last year or so she'd stayed over Nick's less and less. He always seemed busy with the boys he'd befriended. She grudgingly acknowledged them, which seemed necessary since she didn't want to be squeezed out of Nick's life. But they were strange to her, always talking about uninteresting things like Transformers, model cars, and the girls in class they wanted to "go out with" (she was never included in those particular speculations).

Nick went back to his desk as the bell rang, and she tentatively touched her cheek. It was still a little warm, but she thought that probably the redness had gone away. She didn't understand people or how she was supposed to be a part of a group. She thought she and Nick would have fun staying after school together. Since it wasn't recess, and those boys would never stay for a book fair, she wouldn't have to worry about him pushing her down on the tar like he did today, running away, laughing as joined in their calls of, "Moo! Moo! Moo!"

The rest of the day went by quickly, and soon she found herself staring at row upon row of books. She took a slow breath in through her nose, relishing in the sharp sawdust-y smell of new paper and the glue of the bindings. The book fair was wonderfully empty, being on its last day at the school. She tidied up the rows, running her finger over the smooth backs of the colorful bindings: "The Babysitter's Club," "Goosebumps," "The Black Stallion," "Harry Potter," and other series called to her seductively. E. B. White's The Trumpet of the Swan, the book from which she learned to read, smiled at her like an old friend. Sometimes she found a book she hadn't read yet, inviting her with a dog, horse, or cat on the cover. She'd slip the thin tome from the shelf and flip it open, the smell of its newness pouring out with the promise of great adventure.

The yellow words, dripped over a pink background, were what she noticed first. She pulled out the book and smiled at is substantialness, liking the way it felt in her hands. Real Stories of Real Girls sprawled yellowly over the pink cover, with stars and a few subtle hearts sprinkled to frame the faces of a group of girls her age. They were of all nationalities, all hair colors, different heights and one girl, she noticed eagerly, larger than the rest. She flipped it open and read a few sentences, one of the girls talking about how she didn't feel like she "fit in," and that she had entered third grade very lonely.

Elsie eagerly paid for it, and a few other selections, with the book money her mother had given her. That afternoon and evening found her, with the exception of hurriedly eating a bland, low-fat dinner, in her bedroom, devouring the pink-covered Real Stories. She was looking for Marie's story - it was Marie, a description of the photo in the introduction explained, who was the larger girl of the group. The stories were alphabetical by first name, and after reading about Leisl, a German exchange student who had been nervous about going to America (though fortunately discovering her classmates were warm and receptive), Elsie turned to the new chapter in anticipation.

Chapter 10: Natalia.

Confused, Elsie checked the index. Marie wasn't there.

She made sure she wasn't dreaming up Marie, checking the photo again. Maybe they only featured a few girls from the group? But no: Andrea, Catie, Elizabeth, Fei, Georgia, Kysa, Leisl, Marie, Natalia, Rheanna, Tayla, Vicki, were listed, and all those girls - except Marie - had gotten chapters.

Disappointed, Elsie read to the end of the book anyway. She wondered what had happened to Marie; she got a bad feeling in the pit of her stomach, a feeling she couldn't quite explain.

Most of the stories ended on an anticipatory note, as a girl was entering a new grade, or starting a new life after finally fitting in, or getting ready for the Olympics. The Epilogue was called: "Followups." There, she discovered, was mentioned Marie!

The year after Marie told us her story, she enrolled in High Pines Summer Camp, determined to finally lose the weight and come back to school in the fall a new person, ready to make friends. While her story was the saddest in the volume, we hear she's now buying the clothes she's dreamed about since she was little, and is considered one of the most popular girls in her school.

Elsie swallowed. Marie's chapter had been cut; but they'd forgotten to take out her follow-up. Why did they try to erase Marie? And the follow-up --- it left Elsie feeling mortified, small, like a big hand had reached deep inside and crushed her.

It would be years before Elsie would notice her Real Stories had been edited by CHWC, the Child Health and Wellness Committee, appointed the year before to make sure that not only were children getting low-calorie foods and plenty of exercise in public schools, but that they were also not being subjected to "unhealthy" messages. That included obliterating fast-food commercials during cartoons and on children's networks, and making sure that books fairs, funded with grants from the federal government, didn't have books that contained unhealthy messages.

Marie's chapter, they'd agreed, was very sad, and it might make a heavy child angry, indignant at her treatment, feeling like she had the right to be treated like the other children. It sent the message that Marie was just another "real girl," to be accepted in the group of other "real girls." The committee found this dangerous. They never saw her followup and, when the book was edited to erase Marie, this important bit had remained.

Indeed, it was on the 20th anniversary of the "War Against Obesity" Elsie discovered the CHWC stamp of approval on the back cover of her now-worn copy of Real Stories. She'd been going through her children's books after having her first pregnancy confirmed, and the sex of the baby (a girl) divulged. Her hands shook slightly as she held the garish pink book, recalling her school years afterwards, and her struggle through college.

She brought the box of books down to the livingroom, wanting to catch the news as she sorted. Old book smell, really just as nice as new book smell, enveloped her pleasantly as she created piles to keep, donate, and throw away. "Welcome back, folks," chittered a perky, female newscaster. "And welcome to our special 20th anniversary report on The War on Obesity. The last segment was the history of the struggle for the health of our nation against America's growing waistline, and now we have breaking news. In honor of the anniversary, the Health and Wellness Committee is announcing its "Break the Cycle" campaign. That's right: the HWC wants to finally obliterate childhood obesity for good, starting with the next generation. Parents who are obese or who have "risk factors" of obesity will be required to register their newborns with HWC, who will enroll the babies into the Break the Cycle program, monitoring their health, offering the services of special schools, camps, and after-school sports and wellness, all the way until the children are 18. Break the Cycle will be a significant cost to the taxpayer, opponents have claimed, but supporters of the program say that cost will be more than made up for in avoiding the medical bills from problems associated with obesity. More on this later, now, the weather."

Elsie dropped her book.

To be continued....

More on this later, right now I have to get back to work.

 * Note: "right" is usually only "right for some." Until we all think with communal brains and hold communal opinions, someone is always going to be left out in the cold when leaders are given this kind of wide-ranging power over the lives of individuals.

Truth: the last 6-7 months have been tough. My husband is in the trades (an electrical contractor) and starting about that time, there's been a precipitous decline in work. There’s been a few jobs here and there, but for the most part, since mid-November, I’ve been the breadwinner. Hey, we make the mortgage, the lights and the Internets are on (the latter when Cox complies), there’s food in our and the pups bellies, we make it.

In January or so, we got notice that the City is going through with their plans, and building three low- to mid-income homes behind our house. Two homes we could have dealt with moderately well, but three? When there were only two houses back there previously? That disturbed my husband. A lot. He’d searched for a house like this. And he specifically looked in areas that were fully developed. He searched, and found, what he could finally call home. He was devastated.

Also during the last months, my job has attained a certain level of dissatisfaction. I’m an editor. I was hired to edit, parse, and convert back to English, automotive information – with an occasional stint backing up Customer Service if they get busy. So in January, when we lost one of the Customer Service reps, I hoped it wouldn’t be long before they found a replacement. I couldn’t have been more wrong, because typical of corporate culture, the leaner the better. When I last looked at the numbers, 60% of my job is now spent doing Customer Service.

[quick time out: thank you for reading this far]

There are two talents I lack: the ability to sell, and the ability to suffer fools gladly. I’m not proud of the latter, but it is what it is, and I’ve learned to accept that about myself. I’ve applied for two Marketing Communications positions internally. I continue to look elsewhere, so it’s not as though I’m sitting around on my tush, I am doing the footwork.

This week has provided the last straw. In the mail, we received a letter from the City. Trust me when I say we eye these with extreme trepidation – it’s NEVER good news. The bombshell? In their infinite wisdom, they’re now going to build a 90-unit low-income housing project less than two blocks from my house. This makes the ninth subsidized housing project in a 10-block area – my home being the epicenter. There’s no amount of protesting, petitions, meetings with the Mayor, or voicing opposition at City Council meetings that will have any effect. We’ve been there. We’ve done that.

For myself, when I add the rhetoric coming out of the administration and its lackeys over the immigration bill, I feel a fair amount of guilt for finding the situation no longer tolerable. And for no good reason should I. We’ve reached the last straw. We’re out.

In the next few weeks, maybe sooner, we’ll be traveling to Texas seriously looking for a new home. Thankfully, we know some good people in the state, and have made the acquaintance of a couple more. Trading on their insider info, I trust we'll be able to find a place that suits us. Bottom line, it's change and neither I nor my husband handle that with a whole lot of grace.

My HS history teacher believed that every 10 years, you should change your career, your life. Looking at it from her perspective, we’re well past due.

Thanks for sticking through the tale.

Here's a short list of things that have been banned at sporting events since I have been a sports fan:

1:) Full-strength beer. (However, it is still acceptable to sell 5% alcohol mixed drinks like Johnny Walker + Coke Cans, presumably because stadiums refuse to give up the ridiculous profits from that stuff).

2.) Smoking

3.) Balls of any kind

4.) Streaking

5.) Entering the playing arena for any reason (kids at the cricket used to jump the fence to field boundaries all the time)

6.) Musical Instruments (And yet, every time Australia plays in the Carribbean, we get to hear the commentators gushing about the great "festival atmosphere" from the steel-drum bands.)

7.) The Mexican Wave

Who is asking for these changes? It certainly isn't the cricket fans. The Barmy Army trumpeter is probably the least annoying part of the Barmy Army. At least you can't hear his stupid accent when he's playing the trumpet.

If the batsmen were the ones complaining about the trumpet I could understand, but all the players LOVE the Barmy Army trumpeter. And the fans. And everyone, it seems, except the stadium managers.

Why? Because when you give someone a little bit of power, they always lust for more. Even if that power is only over a few cricket fans, the most common trait shared by those in positions of authority is the absolute glee they take in shitting all over those they have power over.

Cricket Authorities banned the Barmy Army trumpeter and the Mexican wave for one reason: Because they can. And making other people sad makes the power-junkies happy.

I went to the test match this year in Perth. Unless you are a member, you can only buy mid-strength beer from the drink caravans. And you can only buy it in plastic cups. And because plastic cups don't have lids, if you buy 4 of them you need a tray to carry them. And they charge an extra $2 for the carrying tray.

And if you go with 4 friends, you need to make 2 trips for your round, because it is against regulations for the staff to sell you more than 4 beers at a time. Presumably if they didn't do that, you would buy 5 for yourself and drink them all when they were hot, or something.

And after the tea break, you can only buy 2 at a time. So you'd have to make 3 trips. It takes a special kind of sadist to come up with all these rules, but they somehow always manage to make it into positions of authority where they can cause the most annoyance.

The funny thing is that none of these regulations apply to the members areas. So presumably, the ability to stump up $200 at the start of the year instead of paying for each day as you go makes you a more responsible drinker, or something.

I don't mind paying through the nose to go and see the occasional game of cricket or footy. I don't even mind paying $7 for a home brand hamburger patty in stale bread on the odd occasion I go. I don't even mind paying $6 for a hot beer.

What I can't stand is being treated like a child by someone who decided his calling in life was to be a security guard at a sporting stadium. For that reason I rarely go to any live sporting events in Perth any more. I'd prefer to watch them on TV at home where I can do whatever I please.

Anyone with any sort of pride in themselves would refuse to attend events with these sort of restrictions in place. It's just pathetic.

Update: Saltation explains it even better in comments.

Sly-grogging in sheds, garages and backyards had been reported in about 30 towns across Tasmania, with up to two or three unlicensed premises per town, Australian Hotels Association, Tasmanian manager Daniel Hanna said.

Most reports were from regional or country areas, although some "shed drinking" was occurring in the suburbs, usually in areas with a large proportion of traditional clientele, such as smokers not interested in gaming facilities.

So now, because of restraints of trade placed on them by do-gooders, the AHA is now trying to get "shed-drinking" (otherwise known as sharing an esky with your mates) banned so they can still earn a buck.

After all, this dangerous new practice experts are terming "Having a drink at home with your mates" is incredibly dangerous and irresponsible:

"There is no responsible serving of alcohol, no supervision of minors, these places are not licensed and they are not regulated.

"The situation is setting the scene for irresponsible drinking, drink-driving and the sale of alcohol to minors."

The AHA is willing to go to utterly ridiculous rhetorical lengths to shut down this worrying situation:

"It's an illegal activity no different from drug-pushing. We want it nipped in the bud as quickly as possible," he said.

So, when the cops come knocking on your door this Australia day, just remember when you supported the smoking ban, nanny-state-lovers. And remember how you pooh-poohed the slippery slope argument against it.

The cops can have my esky when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.

GOVERNMENT'S have been urged to consider banning the sale of caffeinated soft drinks to children following new Australian research showing caffeine only increases addictiveness.

And yet haven't been urged to send newspaper journalists to remedial apostrophe classes.

A Melbourne study, published in the most recent issue of international research journal Appetite, found caffeine added to cola-based drinks did not enhance flavour, but did increase their addictiveness, adding to childhood obesity problems.

Study co-author, Deakin University's Russell Keast said his findings were "absolutely conclusive" that people could not detect the caffeine flavour added to cola-based drinks.

But he said children might find themselves becoming addicted to the caffeine, without realising it.

"It's a problem for children," he said.

I seem to be detecting a common theme. Perhaps we should consider banning children instead, before they usher in a new era of totalitarianism?

Oversize clothes should have obesity helpline numbers sewn on them to try and reduce Britain's fat crisis, a leading professor said today.

The condescension is appalling, isn't it?

Or, they'll all start using lard instead.