ELEPHANT RAGE

Government Considers New Rules for Truck Drivers to Reduce Fatal Accidents

I was on my way to Durham, North Carolina recently to pick up my daughter from a camp at Duke University when she called to tell me there was a terrible wreck blocking I-85. She said it involved an 18-wheeler and a fatality, and the wreck was going to have the entire interstate blocked for hours. I pulled over to look up a way around that disaster, and I saw that it would be easy to take I-40 around it.

Once on I-40, traffic came to a standstill and then crept along for a while. Finally, a wreck came into view in the lanes heading in the opposite direction. It was a terrible scene involving four vehicles and an 18-wheeler. I noticed there was a chunk of metal stuck to the front of the 18-wheeler, but I couldn’t tell if that was a car or a piece of a car.

You simply must look at this picture. A thousand words will not describe it, nor would you believe the description without seeing it. It shows what an 18-wheeler can do to a pickup truck. The photos after it show what it can do to a sedan and an SUV. These are images of the wreck I recently passed in North Carolina.

My first thought was that my daughter had given me the wrong information on where the accident was. It turns out this was an entirely different wreck, and it had three fatalities! The truck driver has been charged with DUI and possession of marijuana and methadone. In the past he was convicted of rape and burglary. The company he works for has been charged before with numerous violations of rules to prevent trucker fatigue.

The way the commercial truck driver managed to completely flatten the pickup truck is, according to police, he ran into the pickup truck, then with that truck stuck to the front of the 18-wheeler, he ran into three more vehicles before coming to a stop. Three of the drivers are dead, with a fourth in the hospital, while the commercial truck driver is essentially unscathed.

I can tell you that I was scared driving all the way to Durham, and all the way back, because of the number of truckers I encountered who seemed to be going too fast, not paying attention, changing lanes on top of people, not avoiding merging vehicles, stopping too quickly, nearly jack-knifing, etc.

Because of the number of horrible fatal accidents that commercial truck drivers cause, the government has proposed new regulations for them, and the decision on whether to adopt the new rules will be made this month by July 26^th. The new rules deal with reduced work hours to avoid driver fatigue. They basically propose reducing the maximum hours from 14-16 hours of driving to...14-16 hours, and just changing the methods of counting these hours.

Is that enough?! Would you trust yourself driving a fully loaded 18-wheeler in heavy traffic after more than 13 hours of driving? Just brainstorming here…but what about restricting which hours they are on the roads, so they are not out there during rush hour or even during the day at all? What about restricting the roads they drive on? Requiring more frequent drug tests? Even shorter work shifts like down to 10 hours? Drastically increasing the penalties and fines against employers of drivers who violate the rules?

I live in a large city where pre-recession I could easily count 50 18-wheelers on the freeway around me at any given time, and now that number is down to about 20. That’s still 20 humongous trucks that could crush my car to smithereens in a second. To think that the drivers may have been on the road more than 13 hours already when I encounter them, or under the influence, or with the truck overloaded, or with the driver distracted by food, cell phones and other things…I don’t really feel safe yet, but I applaud the government for trying to take a step in the right direction.

Gulf Coast: Swim at Your Own Risk

June 25, 2011 was supposed to just be about my 30^th high school reunion on Pensacola Beach, Florida. Instead, the day evolved into one of eerie enlightenment and concern about the safety of my friends and others who spend time swimming and surfing in the Gulf there.

While I was preparing to meet up with lifelong friends, hundreds of demonstrators were holding hands on the beach as part of Hands Across the Sand, a movement against nearshore oil drilling started by a Florida surfer just months before the Gulf Oil Spill last year. During my reunion, I talked to locals whose surfer friends were all coming down with a variety of illnesses, including fatigue, gastrointestinal disorders, and liver problems. I decided to find out what, if anything, is being done to track illnesses among recreational swimmers, and to compensate them for short-term and long-term harm. The answer, basically, is nothing.

BP is funding a 10-year, $500 million study recently begun of health issues among the thousands of workers and volunteers who helped clean up after the oil spill (call 1-855-NIH-GULF to participate), but to my knowledge there is no official study being done yet among the millions of swimmers. What’s more, BP’s deal with the government is to end payouts for damages through the Gulf Coast Claims Facility in 2013 – long before the worst consequences are likely to show up. What a deal! Do you think BP was unaware of how long it can take to come down with cancer, memory loss, fertility problems, liver failure, kidney failure, respiratory ailments, central nervous system problems, and blood disorders?

If you surf or swim in the Gulf and come down with inexplicable or unusual mental or physical symptoms, or if you eat seafood from the Gulf and become ill, of course seek treatment from doctors, but also go ahead and get a toxicology blood test done called a Volatile Solvents Profile. This test will determine the levels of oil-related chemicals in your bloodstream (learn more about the oil spill and your blood through a one-hour webinar). Chances are your levels are way beyond normal. Many divers, surfers and swimmers of all ages have already been tested with results considered alarming. This test can be used to bolster any potential claim for damages, and also direct you toward appropriate natural and medical remedies.

Also get a lawyer, the kind that specializes in pursuing oil spill injury claims. You should contact one as soon as possible, in case they recommend that you get in a claim before BP’s deadlines all pass. Lawyers nowadays make things as easy as possible. In fact, I chatted online with someone from Parker Waichman Alonso LLP around 1:00 in the morning about a hypothetical surfer friend.

[6/28/2011 0:49:10 AM] System: You have entered the conversation. Waiting on operator...
[6/28/2011 0:49:12 AM] System: Operator has entered the conversation.
[6/28/2011 0:49:16 AM] Talbot: Hi, I am Talbot. How may I assist you?
[6/28/2011 0:50:11 AM] Visitor: My surfer friend who spends a lot of time in the Gulf has gastrointestinal problems and liver problems that doctors are unable to diagnose. He thinks it is from the oil spill. What can he do?
[6/28/2011 0:50:33 AM] Talbot: We may be able to assist you with that.
[6/28/2011 0:50:41 AM] Talbot: Would you mind explaining the situation a bit more in detail, so that we could help you better?
[6/28/2011 0:52:22 AM] Visitor: He lives at Pensacola Beach in Florida, and has been surfing there for years. Since the oil spill he has developed liver problems, with pain in his liver, and other symptoms. I don't know all of them.
[6/28/2011 0:52:36 AM] Talbot: That is really unfortunate.
[6/28/2011 0:52:42 AM] Talbot: Thank you for briefing me.
[6/28/2011 0:52:52 AM] Talbot: Unfortunately, the lawyer who is best suited to assist you is unavailable right now. If it is ok with you I can ask them to call you at their next opportunity.
[6/28/2011 0:53:22 AM] Visitor: Can you tell me the lawyer's name, and I will pass it on to my friend?
[6/28/2011 0:53:36 AM] Talbot: Or if you could provide his contact details , I can request the attorney to call him. For a free initial consultation.
[6/28/2011 0:53:54 AM] Talbot: He can call us on 800-YOUR-LAWYER.
[6/28/2011 0:54:06 AM] Visitor: I will refer him to your website. Thanks for the number, too.
[6/28/2011 0:54:13 AM] Talbot: You are welcome!

In addition to that law firm, there are several others pursing oil spill injury claims that can be located through a simple Google search.

By the time my next 10-year reunion comes up, the results of BP’s long-term study of clean-up workers and volunteers will be in. Let’s hope that by then there are also plans to compensate those harmed, advisories and warnings for swimmers, new means of cleaning up the Gulf, and new laws to prevent future oil spills and use of dispersants. We should all hold hands and join together in this endeavor. The worst may still be to come – BP was betting on it when it made its payout deal to end in 2013. Let’s prepare to face all possibilities head-on.

Johns Learn to Control Their Johnsons at "John Schools"

Sometimes it seems like I cannot escape prostitution.  I encounter it everywhere.

Atlanta:

My parents and nephew spent a sleepless night in an Atlanta motel once, terrified while a whirlwind of illegal sexual activity took place all around them.  A pimp stood outside their door in the walkway.  The phone rang asking for someone with a strange nickname.  Someone pounded on their door.  The women were coming and going with their Johns to neighboring rooms.  This went on all night long while my nephew, who was twelve at the time, sat wide-eyed by the window, peaking through the curtains.  Finally, at daybreak, the riffraff departed and my parents felt safe enough to escape, glad to stay in my spare room the next night.

Another time I went to pick up a visiting friend of mine from a luxury hotel, and the people in the lobby looked at me strange as we came and went.  My friend said that the man across the hall from him had just had a prostitute show up, and the people in the lobby probably figured I was one as well.  Great.  Just great.

On yet another occasion I went with a friend to collect rent money from one of his rental properties, and I commented that the tenant (in her 50's) looked like a prostitute.  How did you know? my friend asked, explaining the tenant was a prostitute when she was younger.  Well, gee, I could tell by the way she walked, because years ago I lived on Peachtree Street intown and the prostitutes would walk back and forth past my residence all night.  You kinda get familiar with the whole posture, expression and movement.

Vacations:

While flying to Costa Rica, a real estate investor told me how he was going to meet up with some business colleagues to buy land on which to build a resort.  He had traveled separately from them, because he said they wanted to spend all their time locked up in hotel rooms with prostitutes.  He said they were all married, yet they made frequent trips to Costa Rica under the guise of going on "fishing trips."  Although he was single, his friends' morals and infidelity disgusted him, so he traveled separately. 

In Indonesia, I watched while a local prostitute rubbed the jean-clad butt cheeks of an American man in front of me.  After a few minutes of cuddling they headed out the door to find a more private location to continue.  I couldn't help but notice the man was wearing a shiny gold wedding band. 

Friends:

Male friends tell me routinely about their married buddies who go once a week (once a week!) to visit prostitutes on their boys' night out, and how they travel to Las Vegas and elsewhere to spend entire weekends with prostitutes.  And it was easy for me to find an actual John to talk to about a former red light district when I did a research paper on the subject as an undergraduate. 

Celebrities:

Then of course, there is Hollywood, which continually generates news about male movie stars caught with prostitutes.  And let's not forget about the politicians.  And the preachers!

Stock Market:

Yes, you can even buy stock in a brothel!  An Australian brothel called the Daily Planet was the first prostitution business to go public.  You can buy stock and hedge your bets on whether the industry will be profitable or not.  You could even guarantee profitability by frequenting the business yourself, or taking all your buddies on a regular "fishing trip" to Australia.  And you can add "pimp" to your resume, as every shareholder is basically a pimp of sorts, profiting from the activity.

Conclusion:  prostitution is ubiquitous.  What can we do about it?  What should we do about it?

The latest trend in law enforcement has cities across the U.S. trying to put a dent in those very profits by curbing the demand for prostitution.  They are sending all the lascivious men who get caught to "John schools" where they learn about the evils of prostitution, and why they should stop paying for sex.  About 50 cities are using John schools, with another 40 communities considering them.

At the John schools the men learn that prostitutes are desperate people, often sexually abused as children and drug-addicted.  They learn that the women are "victims" who are someone's daughter.  Would they want their own daughter (or sister, etc.) to wind up in the same circumstances?  They also learn about the dangers of STD's, and the harm prostitution causes society.

If the appeal to the heart fails, then the schools also provide some more stringent incentives for the men to get their johnsons under control and stop purchasing sexual favors:  the threat of increased punishment!  Adding a jail sentence is one tactic that some cities are trying, especially for repeat offenders.  Other cities are doing even more, like posting mug shots of the guilty on a special website, or adding their names to sex offender registrations. 

The idea is that if the demand for paid sex goes down, then so will the supply. 

If the plan is successful, then selling sex will no longer be profitable because there won't be anyone to buy it, and the estimated two million prostitutes in the U.S. will then turn to _____________________ for fast cash.   All optimists can fill in the blank with something legal, while the pessimists (realists?) can fill in the blank with yet another illegal activity.  Or perhaps the prostitutes and Johns will just flee to Australia or Amsterdam or some other place where the laws are more accommodating. 

Honestly, I think the John schools are a step in the right direction toward educating society, and I think increased punishments are a step in the right direction toward justice and fairness.  No point in continuing to send the prostitutes away to prison while their customers get a slap on the wrist and a fine.  Now, in participating cities, they get a slap on the wrist and a few hours of lectures.  Okay, so maybe it's only half a step in the right direction, but I applaud the effort anyway.  What they also need to do is go after the pimps more, and shareholders, too.

Nothing has sickened me more on vacations than encountering married men who travel alone or with their buddies on "business trips," "fishing trips," "gambling trips," and other excuses for trips to go places where their ulterior motive is to spend a few nights with prostitutes.  Or hearing about men who routinely visit prostitutes on their weekly "boys night out."  Or reading about "celibate wives" who never get any because their husbands are already satiated.  Or having my friends and relatives stay in hotels where they can't even get a decent night of sleep because of all the craziness going on around them.  Or living some place where I can't even look out my window at night without seeing a sultry woman slink by.

Sadly though, I believe there is a certain "element" out there that cannot be educated out of using prostitutes.  I believe some men simply want to pay for it, even if they can get it free from a wife or a girlfriend or a pick-up in a bar.  They want sex on demand.  They want as much control over that part of their lives as when they are sitting on a couch flipping channels with the remote.  Next, next, next....

While I'm sure some men seek out prostitutes privately with a measure of guilt, I believe that many do so with great openness among other men, even boasting about their exploits, and going after prostitutes jointly with their buddies.  It's a macho thing.  They feel great about it, and proud.  Until the male culture changes to where their peers disapprove and stop joining and enabling -- covering for them in their lies to their significant others -- then the demand for prostitutes will never go down.

So the forces of good will continue with their John schools and other education and punishment campaigns, and the forces of evil will continue to legalize and normalize sex for hire.    

IN THE NEWS: Get Weed, Coke and Meth in Mexico -- Legally!

Having studied criminal law in the Netherlands, I've been quizzed for years about all the "cafes" there with marijuana on the menus.  And I've met plenty of people who travel to Amsterdam primarily for the drugs.  Now Mexico has just left Holland in the dust by legalizing not only "soft" drugs like marijuana, but also the highly addictive cocaine, meth, heroine and LSD.  

The Mexican government claims the goal is to free up overworked and overly corrupt police officers to go after drug dealers who've gruesomely murdered more than 11,000 people over the past three years.  If you ask me, the real goal is to get more tourists, especially American tourists!!

Americans already flood across the border for cheap medical and dental care, and for alcoholic beverages for the 18-21 crowd.  Now people of all ages will be heading South to get high on marijuana, methamphetamines, cocaine and more.   Spring Break in Mexico, anyone?  Methico, Land of Cocanuts.  I give it about one month before the bookstores and language classes are offering Spanish for Drug Users.

Perhaps this is an attempt to counteract the decrease in tourism since the advent of H1N1 a.k.a. swine flu a.k.a. Mexican flu (the common term in Europe, which if used here would cause mass demonstrations).  Add to that the headline-grabbing violence from drug gangs, and many potential tourists are just too scared to travel there.  According to Mexico's Ministry of Tourism, as of June international overnight tourism was down 25 percent, and cruise ship tourism was down 54 percent.   

Drug users, however, are a unique market to target in this climate of danger and risk.  After all, they throw caution to the wind, with total disregard of the risks of using drugs.  Since many of them get their funds for drugs via illegal means rather than a regular job, they are also not likely to be as affected by the current economic climate.  What's more -- they're precisely the type of tourist to come back again and again and again, to feed their habit.  I suspect that many more Americans will be getting a passport very soon.

Excerpts from the AP Story on Yahoo.com follow:

Mexico decriminalized small amounts of marijuana, cocaine and heroin on Friday...

The new law sets out maximum "personal use" amounts for drugs, also including LSD and methamphetamine.  People detained with those quantities no longer face criminal prosecution...

Under the previous law, the possession of any amount of drugs was punishable by stiff jail sentences...

Anyone caught with drug amounts under the new personal-use limit will be encouraged to seek treatment, and for those caught a third time treatment is mandatory.

The maximum amount of marijuana for "personal use" under the new law is 5 grams -- the equivalent of about four joints.  The limit is a half gram for cocaine, the equivalent of about 4 "lines."  For other drugs, the limits are 50 milligrams of heroin, 40 milligrams for methamphetamine and 0.015 milligrams for LSD. 

Join the Bar, Drink and Be Merry...then Kill Yourself

When I was sworn in as a lawyer, I giggled at one point, which only prompted the judge to have me repeat the ambiguous part of the Attorney's Oath, saying I "swear that I will...demean myself... as an attorney....." 

Per dictionary.com, the first definition of "demean" is "to lower in dignity, honor, or standing; debase:  He demeaned himself by accepting the bribe."  Synonyms are "degrade, humble, humiliate, mortify."  I figured after making that pledge, all I had to do was live up to all the lawyer jokes and common statistics, and I would have been true to my word.  Of course, the pledge really meant that I would behave as a lawyer ought to behave, but how is that?

An examination of the Lawyers Club of Atlanta website is revealing.  That club was founded in 1922 and is very exclusive, only for experienced attorneys who are recommended by four other members, and then approved of after a reception.  The stated goals of the club are to "improve the standards of the legal profession" and "be militant in keeping high the honor of the legal profession."  That's why I find it odd that the only two employees of the organization are a director and a bartender.  A bartender!  For select members of the Bar!

The Benefits of Membership include the following:  "dinner programs" that "begin with cocktails;" "cocktail and hors d'oeuvres receptions;" "a holiday party;" "a libation after work and prior to dinner;" and "private parties." 

The Calendar of Events includes the following activities over the next ten months:  "Happy Hour," "Cocktails and Dinner," "Reception," "Happy Hour," "Wine Tasting with Quality Wines," "Happy Hour," "Whisky Tasting with Host Mac Irvin," "Cocktails and Dinner," "Holiday Party," "Wine Tasting with Quality Wines," "Cocktails and Dinner," "Happy Hour," "Cocktails and Heavy Hors d'ouevres," "Happy Hour," "Cocktails and Dinner," "Reception," "Happy Hour," "Wine Tasting with Quality Wines," "Happy Hour," "Cocktails and Dinner," "Happy Hour," and last but not least, "Happy Hour."

It makes me wonder what kind of Bar, exactly, I joined, and whether the judge really meant that I should humiliate myself as a lawyer by drinking till I puke, or perhaps just drink till I become an alcoholic, get depressed and kill myself.  Statistics show that lawyers far exceed the general population in alcoholism, depression and suicide, not to mention pessimism and divorce.  Depending on which study you consult, the rate of alcoholism among attorneys is up to two or three times that of the general population -- possibly affecting from one-fifth to one-third of all lawyers -- and the rate of suicide among attorneys is up to five or six times that of the general population.

With the economic downturn, I keep reading that these statistics are getting even worse.  Yet all I ever see in the way of an explanation is that the practice of law is stressful.  What about the culture of law? 

Clearly, if the highest club I can aspire to joining in my state is a glorified bar with drink fests, then perhaps the culture of the legal profession, more than the practice of law, is what makes alcoholics out of lawyers.  A year of "a libation after work and prior to dinner" and two or more special drinking events a month could potentially make an alcoholic out of anyone.  And alcohol is a depressant, and depression can lead to suicide.

The incidence of lawyer suicide hits me hard, because I was exposed to this reality my first year of law school, when one of my adjunct professors killed herself.  It occurred a couple of days before final exams.  We all just gathered to hear the news and then walked away, sort of matter of factly, like we had just been told the professor would be absent for a day.  I don't know what the other students did after they found a private space, but I cried deeply. 

I still grieve when I look around and realize the state of the legal profession.  Something needs to be done about the social culture among attorneys if the statistics on lawyer alcoholism, depression, divorce and suicide are ever to be turned around.  I don't think one drinking event after another is going to do anything to "improve the standards of the legal profession" or keep "the high honor of the legal profession."  To the contrary. 

Now that I've finally figured out what it means to "demean myself" as an attorney, I realize that isn't my lifestyle of choice. 

Maybe I should start my own lawyers club, with a different definition of "honor" and vastly different "standards."  One that promotes health and well-being among its members, with activities that support these goals.  Someone needs to do this, or else change existing lawyers clubs and organizations to put an end to pervasive drinking, and discourage rather than promote self-destructive -- and potentially self-ending -- behaviors that can bring misery to the attorneys and their families, and more shame and ridicule to the legal profession. 

Who knows?  Maybe the Lawyers Club of Atlanta will admit me one day, and put me in charge of this very objective.  And maybe the Bar will let me re-write the Attorney's Oath one day to something less ambiguous.  

Why Burkinis Should Be Promoted, Not Banned

It's getting old always reading about another swimming pool or beach banning burkinis.  So far I've seen stories about such incidents in France, the United Kingdom, and Australia.  Pretty soon it's going to be in my neighborhood, so I want to think through the issues in advance.

1)  Obesity.  Has anyone been to the beach lately?  I mean, don't you just wish some of those people would cover up more, not less?  Really, the vast majority of people do NOT look like the women on the cover of Sports Illustrated.  Here's how my daughter describes a typical American in a bikini:  "Their belly hangs over the bathing suit bottom so you can't even see it.  They look naked.  It's gross."  When I've taken slim Europeans to the beach, they find they have to sneak a photo or two to take back to Europe and show everyone -- yep, the news stories about obese Americans are really true, see?  I find myself feeling completely awkward, not sure whether to gawk, look away, or feel sorry for them that they don't have a whole lot of swimwear alternatives.  I imagine that if burkinis are not only allowed but fashionable one day, there will be a HUGE market for them!  Even pregnant women may find that they prefer such modesty.  Or elderly people who no longer have the firm bodies of their youth.  Or people with various types of bodily injuries and scars.  Many women would choose to cover up while swimming if they had the option.

2)  Religion.  Let's face it.  Muslim women are not the only ones with requirements or preferences favoring modesty.  Orthodox Jewish women are supposed to have their collar bone, elbows and knees covered at all times, and also wear loose-fitting rather than tight clothes.  The burkini would suit them just fine, if only the name were changed from a Muslim-sounding one to a Jewish-sounding one.  Kosherkini, anyone?  Ultra conservative Christians could also join the mix with a WWMD(WhatWouldMaryDo)kini.  Then there could be the Hindukini, the Buddhakini, and the Unikini (for the undecided).

3)  Logic.  Can someone please explain what the big deal is?  Are burkinis so appalling because they cover the arms and legs?  So do wetsuits.  Is it because some cover the hair as well?  So do swim caps.  Are burkinis disturbing because they are loose-fitting?  So are the guys' swim trunks worn in the United States.  Do we ban wetsuits and swim caps for covering too much, or loose-fitting trunks because we can't see every detail in they guy's body?  I'm just not seeing what is so outrageous about a burkini.  The last time I recall such scandals over swimwear was when thongs became popular, and a lot of American beaches and pools banned them.  But that's because they were considered too revealing!  What has become of our society when we ban something for not revealing enough? 

4)  Health.  Okay, I admit it, the official complaint these days is that the burkinis are "unsanitary" because allegedly the women wear them around town like clothes prior to jumping in the pool, and they could spread germs that way.  But if that's the case, let's ban swimming in burkinis that have been worn around town, not place a general ban on burkinis altogether.  In fact, I can think of a lot more ways that burkinis can actually contribute to health, rather than harm it.  People with fair skin or who are already sunburned could cover up with a burkini rather than continually slathering on a bunch of sunscreen.  The sunscreen industry might lobby against this concept, but hey, it makes a lot of sense!  People who are taking medications that restrict exposure to direct sunlight might also relish a burkini.  And if there are mosquitoes, especially the disease-carrying kind, near the swimming locale, it would be prudent -- not prudish -- to cover up more.

5)  Freedom.  I think people should choose for themselves how much coverage they want in swimwear.  The more options available, the better.  I've known several women who refused to even go to a swimming pool or beach because they were not "bikini ready" and were too embarrassed to don a skimpy swimsuit -- the only kind readily available and approved of.  Maybe the real outrage over burkinis isn't the way they are made or how functional they are, but that people perceive them as something that takes away freedom from women, as something forced on Muslim women like a burka.  Yet the burkini actually promotes freedom, the freedom of women to choose their own clothing, thank you.  It's the age-old problem of society trying to control what women wear.  Under the guise of preventing domestic oppression countries are allowing societal oppression.  There are plenty of other ways to address domestic issues than banning burkinis, which hardly differ from wetsuits.  The burkini may actually be preferred by millions of women out there, not just Muslims, if only given a chance.

  Splashgear burkinis.
 
  Zehba burkini.

  Billabong wetsuits.

Five Hours of Government Health Care

On Monday morning we walked into a local health clinic to get the immunizations and medical forms my exchange student needs for school enrollment.  Five hours later, they called our number 77, reviewed her health records, and said:  "She needs a chicken pox vaccination, but we are out of that today.  You'll have to come back another day."  

There you have it.  A look at what Obama has in store for us if we allow him to supplant private health care with government-run health care. 

I have many friends from socialist Europe, and what they always tell me is how many months they have to wait just to get needed diagnostic tests to find out if they have cancer and such.  They could be half dead by the time their problems are even diagnosed.  You see, a local clinic might make you wait a few hours or days, but a national clinic might make you wait weeks or months to get what you need. 

Want another glimpse of government health care?  Take a look at the veterans hospitals and treatment centers.  Thank God we have them -- there is a place for both state health clinics and veterans care -- but they are not the models we want for the rest of the health industry.  Just ask a veteran.  Google it.  Dogpile it.  There is always at least one news story out there about how the veterans are being failed and mistreated by their government-run health programs.

Obama is aggressively (and arguably illegally) promoting his plans, asking that people report to the White House anyone who speaks out against socialized medicine.  Yes, the whole country is supposed to report to the White House anyone using their Constitutional freedom of speech to criticize Obama's ideas.  So go ahead.  Turn me in.  I can hardly wait for Obama's goons to show up at my door and take me away to some secret labor camp to re-educate me.

In the meantime, I'm going to research what possible causes of action there are against the powers that be for using these Communist and dictator tactics.  Surely there is a way to stop a president from basically spying on the entire population.  Oh yeah, we didn't even stop him from running for office without proof of birth here, so he feels quite empowered at this moment.  Like the laws and Constitution just don't apply to him. 

Is anyone adding all this together?  Let's see...government motors, government banks, government pay plans for executives, government health care, limitations on freedom of speech, limitations on the right to bear arms, manipulation of the census and votes, weakening of the military, trillions of dollars of debt...and we're only a few months into the first year of his reign.  At this rate, won't be much left of our Constitutional rights -- or country -- by the end of four years.  God help us. 

My Neighbor, the Serial Killer

My recent vacation to Orlando was interrupted by a call from law enforcement officials, asking about my former neighbor, the alleged serial killer.  I had already spoken to the FBI and state investigators over a year ago.  Now someone else was calling.  It's the past that keeps coming back to haunt me, so I found myself crying once again, and spending my 4th of July holiday weekend researching serial killers.  Trouble is, there is not much to research, other than gruesome descriptions of their killings.

There is not much out there to explain why the United States produces 85 percent of the world's serial killers.  Nor is there any explanation of how I could have possibly known that the man I went hiking with 23 years ago would later be found guilty of killing and decapitating a hiker, and is now suspected in several similar killings involving hikers and mutilated bodies in the woods.  The details have come to light slowly for me, since the first news reports about Meredith Emerson's death in January 2008. 

I don't usually pay attention to reports of killings because I resent the volume of coverage they receive by the news media.  However, I kept catching glimpses of details in passing that rang familiar.  A man who lived in the woods.  Name Gary Hilton.  Always seen hiking.  Knew the mountains.  Then the clincher -- last known address...a familiar one indeed.  I began shaking when I realized it was really him.

I had lived a couple of doors down from Gary in 1986.  When the landlords decided to raise the rent, Gary decided to move to the woods, where he already spent much of his time hiking, and previously mountain biking.  He knew trails so remote you wondered how he ever found them.  It was just such a trail that he took me on one day while we were still neighbors, a steep trail along the Chattahoochee River.  It was beautiful.  I was never afraid of him, rather enjoyed the outing, and was amazed at his knowledge of the area. 

On another occasion, Gary took me with him to visit his friend, a brown-haired guy from New York.  I didn't recall much else about him and never saw him again, until this weekend, in a photo.  The person who called me had said that Gary's friend I met was Samuel Rael, an attorney.  Gary's attorney.  She said Samuel had represented Gary in a few matters long ago.  She also said Samuel had made a movie about girls in the woods.  It was strange to be driving down the interstate and have someone call and tell me the name of someone I had met 23 years earlier, a name I no longer remembered myself, and add more details than I cared to know.

My weekend research revealed that Gary and Sam, shown here just the way I remember them, were friends for a decade after Gary had moved away from me and into the woods (Sam even let Gary use his shower from time to time, per news reports).  They made a horror movie together in 1995.  Sam officially made the movie, but he claims that Gary gave him all the ideas about taking women into the woods and killing them, that Gary found the location for the shoot, and that he even gave advice to the actor posing as the killer.  Bizarre?  Makes you wonder...what came first, the movie or the killings.

Was Gary killing as far back as 1986?  Or did he start around 1995 at the time the horror flick was made?  Or did he only kill in recent years the few people he's so far been suspected of killing, including a woman, an elderly couple, and a man?  Or was it only Meredith Emerson, whose murder he admitted to, and whose body was found beheaded only 30 miles from where the movie was filmed?  Gary's confession was suggestive:  "It's not the first body that's been discarded here."

I almost want to go interview the man, to ask him questions, and see if he will reveal the answers.  How many unsolved crimes might we solve in one honest conversation?  How many missing persons might be accounted for?

It's been most strange that of all the tears I've shed over this, some have actually been for Gary Hilton.  I wonder what happened to him, and when, to turn him into a killer.  He was one of the friendliest neighbors I've ever had. 

People have different reactions when they learn I survived a hike with him.  It was not your time.  You were not his type to kill.  You were spared for a reason -- there's some reason you are still alive.  And lastly...I guess you learned your lesson.  Actually, the only lesson I learned is that anyone could be living next door to a potential serial killer and not even know it or suspect it.  I only knew Gary a few months.  Sam knew him for years, yet has told people he never suspected Gary of being violent.

There was no visible rage in this man when I knew him.  Nothing ever angered him or caused a bitter expression.  To the contrary, Gary was very lighthearted, energetic and smart.  He told me he had a high IQ, in the 130's, and I believed him because of his vocabulary.  I also attributed his oddities to his high IQ, as such intelligence is known to create people who think and act differently than others.

What do you think?  In his confession to killing Meredith, he used such vocabulary as the following:  "obtain," "establish control," "proximity," "feign," "compliant," "solicitous," "determination," "calibration," "inquisitive," "levity," "inquiring," "embankment," "restrain," "approximately," "distress," and "consistent."  He then casually described killing her with blows to her head, and continued with the following twisted commentary: 

She lost consciousness and uh, I kept striking her to ensure she was dead...

At that time [I] removed the head...

With a uh, serrated knife...a kitchen knife, just like it would come in a set of serrated knives, uh, one-sided, one, one sharpened edge...it's just your standard generic, cheap, twelve-inch, you would call it a butcher knife...and uh, it didn't seem real, it doesn't seem real, looking back on it...this is a knife, with a blade this long...that's serrated, and so it's a saw...It's just sawing.  All you gotta do is just keep sawing, sawing...sawing...sawing, sawing, and then get through the joint.  It's just like you would, that's what it's made for in the kitchen.  To cut up meat.  What you would use to, it's a little bigger than you would use to cut a chicken up.  But you'd cut up, uh, leg of lamb or anything else...

I bagged her head...in a white bag and took it with me...white trash bag...

It was like an, an out of body experience.  It was surreal...of course it's surrealistic.  Removing a head is just unreal.  Unreal.  And, you know, you look back on it and you say, that wasn't even real.  I was just in uh, you might say an altered state...

Despite being in an altered state, Gary found compassion on Meredith's dog.  "[Her] dog was microchipped.  If I wanted to ensure that, uh, no one would associate the dog with her I would have killed the dog," Gary said.  "But there's no way I could do that."  Instead, he found a nice safe place to let the dog go, making sure people were nearby, even reasoning that the people were at a pizza joint, and the dog would smell the pizza and approach them and be safe.

So now it's all starting to make sense.  This killer, for one, has Hollywood sensibilities.  Have you ever noticed that no matter how many people are murdered in a movie, the dog is typically spared?  The audience would presumably be in a bigger outrage and more distressed over the murder of a dog than that of countless humans. 

That still does not explain the nature of a serial killer though.  Because of the variations, the experts have not figured it out yet.  Haven't really got a whole lot of clues to identifying serial killers, except that an overwhelming number are white males (because the definition of a serial killer leaves out killings by gang members).  The experts also don't have a clue why the United States is producing so many of them, with 20 to 50 running around loose at any time.  My guess might involve the violent movies, someone else might point to the breakdown of the family or community, yet another person might say it's alcohol or drug abuse, and another person may suggest mental disorders.

Maybe it's just the yin and yang, like night and day.  The United States produces so many humanitarians who do great things, that by the power of opposites it necessarily produces those who destroy.  

Learning what became of Gary Hilton has certainly destroyed my memories of a friendly neighbor decades ago, and it destroys my peace of mind every time I have to answer questions about him.  But I contacted the authorities myself originally for the good of society, because I knew how long Gary had been in the woods, and I hoped they would use that information to solve more crimes.  Maybe they will.  In the meantime, I must discover my purpose in life, the reason I was spared.

IN THE NEWS: DUI on a Bicycle in Amsterdam

One of my favorite pieces of art on my wall is called, "The Night I Lost My Bicycle in Amsterdam, 1993."  It shows a bunch of distorted brick buildings, and a bicycle in a tree.  The artist explained:  "I came out of a cafe a bit intoxicated, and I couldn't find my bicycle anywhere.  I finally found it in a tree."

That one image brings back so much of everything "Dutch" that I observed during my study abroad program in law school in the Netherlands.  The stories of stolen bicycles are legion.  The person I rented my flat from had five bicycles stolen in just a few months.  Often, they wind up in the canals, so special barges routinely retrieve the bikes from the murky waterways.

Along with bikes disappearing, there is also the ubiquitous driving under the influence on bikes in this nation known for its tolerance and its legalizing of marijuana.  For example, one night I was walking back to my apartment late, and I heard a noise behind me.  It was a drunk driver crashing!!  But not to fear -- he was riding a bicycle, not a car.  I turned just in time to see him swerving left and right, and then toppling over.  Actually found it a bit humorous, considering there was no real harm to be done.

However, seems that the Dutch have taken their bikes and intoxication to another level since those days.  Now they have "bikes" that large groups of people can ride together -- all while drinking beer at a table.  Various businesses rent out these giant bicycles to tourists and locals.  Talk about drinking and driving!  If you look up "bierfiets," which is Dutch for "beerbike," you can even see videos on YouTube.  An excerpt from a Reuters story appears below:  

The bike, which can seat at least 10 people around a central "bar" as they pedal through the city center, is a frequent sight in the Dutch capital and is said to be popular with stag and hen (bachelor and bachelorette) parties.  A non-drinker steers the bike.

But two accidents involving the bikes since the start of April has prompted the city councilor...to investigate how many bikes there are and whether they pose a problem...A compromise could involve the council obligating all firms to supply a driver with the bike...Amsterdam newspaper Het Parool had reported earlier this week an accident last weekend resulted in various injuries, while three women were injured two weeks ago.

"It's an uncontrollable projectile," motorcyclist Karin Wolfs, who was involved in an accident, was quoted as saying.

Ban Comic Sans -- Frivolous Activism, Not Frivolous Business

"With so many things to be *actually* upset about in this world...a font?!  But then again, I knew you would appreciate what a font communicates.  Spencer was hurt...she *loves* that font."  And so began a request from a friend to blog about the campaign to ban Comic Sans, a font designed by Vincent Connare at Microsoft 15 years ago.  The campaign was just featured in the Wall Street Journal as a "movement," as if one day, the font might actually be banned and you would never get to see it or use it again.  Uh huh.

In reality, it would be impossible to ban a font in this country, and it would be a bad business decision for Microsoft to ever remove the font from its selections in Word, considering its overwhelming popularity.  And what the Wall Street Journal forgot to mention -- it is good business to oppose the font.  Dave and Holly Combs started Ban Comic Sans, a tongue-in-cheek attack on the overuse of the font, several years ago because the popularity of the "frivolous activism," as they put it, helps them sell stickers and t-shirts and promote their graphic design businesses.  So while WSJ and others might take their campaign seriously, they themselves never have.  The Ban Comic Sans website reads like an April Fools Day joke, with references to dubious authoritative material.

For example:  "The FoNT foundation has determined that according to these trends the only typeface anyone will use by the year 2030 will indeed be Comic Sans."  It is doubtful this organization exists, and the prediction is utterly preposterous, as people are creating and using new fonts daily.

Another quote:  "Ontario New Democratic Party (NDP) included the clause 'Ban the font known as Comic Sans' in its recent omnibus ban bill, proposed at the 2005 session of Ontario Model Parliament in Canada."  Note the word "Model."  This is a club at a Canadian high school and has nothing to do with the real world, in which it would be unheard of to introduce or pass such a law.  One of the club members even wrote a letter in which it was clear she didn't have a clue what the font was:  "You rock!  I'm glad people care about banning comic sands as much as you do.  I am happy to help you support it!  Peace out, Michelle!!"

And finally, a promotional one-panel comic on the website is "brought to you by the National Organization of G--damn is Comic Sans an Ugly Font."  Other items under the "propaganda" section of the website include a political-sounding flyer and a comic strip bearing the F-word.

So what is there to fear?  Nothing but how seriously people take this practical joke and money-making venture.  Dave and Holly started the campaign right along with GORILLAmART, a company that sells you the Ban Comic Sans stickers.  They further get a commission from any Ban Comic Sans products (t-shirts, caps, mugs, etc.) you buy from spreadshirt.com.  Then, too, there was a sticker magazine they published called PEELzine, that featured stickers by none other than GORILLAmART, plus included an entire spread on the Ban Comic Sans campaign.  And there was Dave Combs' Alias Gallery, an art gallery that featured none other than PEELzine.  This was all a nice set-up, with one business promoting another, until the magazine crashed and burned after reaching a circulation of 20,000, and the gallery crashed and burned within months of opening after having sell-out shows.

While Dave and Holly may one day find their niche in publicity -- after all, it's no small feat to get featured in the Wall Street Journal -- for the time being they are hurting.  Per their blog post last summer, they were losing their house.  Their advertising and publishing business Wicked Style Productions, LLC has had its corporate status revoked.  And the only thing still going strong, apparently, is their campaign to Ban Comic Sans.

But not to worry.  The Combs have a book called PEEL:  The Art of the Sticker, and their next project, per WSJ, may even be a joint venture with their nemesis Vincent Connare -- a book called "I Love/I Hate Comic Sans."  Surely this enduring "movement" will bring in the big bucks for them one day.  For now, let's see what's in it for us.

Per their website, if you send them a link to a story about Ban Comic Sans, they will send you free stickers.  So go ahead and send a link to this blog post to press@bancomicsans.com and see what happens.  Hmmmmm...wonder what they will give me for writing it.

Sick of Dieting? Diet Sodas Linked to Vertigo, Headaches, Nausea and More

I'm old enough to remember when men walked on the moon, and so I'm also old enough to remember when it was unheard of for people to be missing work or rushing off to the emergency room over severe vertigo, or suffering from recurrent headaches, nausea, blurry vision, or an assortment of other inexplicable ailments.  In other words, I remember the days before aspartame, although the diet soft drink industry -- and all consumers -- keep insisting that aspartame is not the culprit.  I beg to differ.

As the author of Dying for a Diet Coke puts it:  "'[I]t has often become difficult to find anyone in our immediate circle of friends who is really well, while a familiar pattern has developed of alarming new diseases and disorders developing at earlier and earlier ages...."  I agree!  A relative of mine suffers from severe vertigo, hearing loss and headaches.  A friend can't fly his plane because of vertigo.  Other friends suffer from "fibromyalgia," which is a mixed bag of problems with no known cause.  And so on.  It seems everyone I know is unnaturally sick.

According to www.aspartamekills.com, aspartame "victims" have complained to the FDA of many harmful side effects:

Aspartame accounted for more than 75% of all adverse reactions reported to the FDA's Adverser Reaction Monitoring System (ARMS)...Many reactions to aspartame were very serious including seizures and death. Those reactions included:

Abdominal Pain
Anxiety attacks
arthritis
asthma
Asthmatic Reactions
Bloating, Edema (Fluid Retention)
Blood Sugar Control Problems (Hypoglycemia or Hyperglycemia)
Brain Cancer (Pre-approval studies in animals)
Breathing difficulties
burning eyes or throat
Burning Urination
can't think straight
Chest Pains
chronic cough
Chronic Fatigue
Confusion
Death
Depression
Diarrhea
Dizziness
Excessive Thirst or Hunger
fatigue
feel unreal
flushing of face
Hair Loss (Baldness) or Thinning of Hair
Headaches/Migraines dizziness
Hearing Loss
Heart palpitations
Hives (Urticaria)
Hypertension (High Blood Pressure)
Impotency and Sexual Problems
inability to concentrate
Infection Susceptibility
Insomnia
Irritability
Itching
Joint Pains
laryngitis
"like thinking in a fog"
Marked Personality Changes
Memory loss
Menstrual Problems or Changes
Migraines and Severe Headaches (Trigger or Cause From Chronic Intake)
Muscle spasms
Nausea or Vomiting
Numbness or Tingling of Extremities
Other Allergic-Like Reactions
Panic Attacks
Phobias
poor memory
Rapid Heart Beat
Rashes
Seizures and Convulsions
Slurring of Speech
Swallowing Pain
Tachycardia
Tremors
Tinnitus
Vertigo
Vision Loss
Weight gain

Aspartame Disease Mimics Symptoms or Worsens the Following Diseases

Fibromyalgia
Arthritis
Multiple Sclerosis (MS)
Parkinson's Disease
Lupus
Multiple Chemical Sensitivities (MCS)
Diabetes and Diabetic Complications
Epilepsy
Alzheimer's Disease
Birth Defects
Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
Lymphoma
Lyme Disease
Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD)
Panic Disorder
Depression and other Psychological Disorders

A visit to the FDA website to verify this information brought up more than 3,000 hits for "aspartame" on the website, with FDA assurances that aspartame is safe to consume making the top of the list.  Believable?

One reason the FDA says the product is safe is because of the diversity of the complaints.  From the horse's mouth:  "To date, FDA has not determined any consistent pattern of symptoms that can be attributed to the use of aspartame, nor is the agency aware of any recent studies that clearly show safety problems. Carefully controlled clinical studies show that aspartame is not an allergen. However, certain people...have a problem with aspartame because they do not effectively metabolize the amino acid phenylalanine, one of aspartame's components. High levels of this amino acid in body fluids can cause brain damage. Therefore, FDA has ruled that all products containing aspartame must include a warning to phenylketonurics that the sweetener contains phenylalanine."

So there you have it -- brain damage.  That's all.  Just brain damage.  And since brain damage can impact any and every part of the body, it can result in a countless variety of symptoms.  Do you think the average person just happens to know if they are one of those "certain people" with "a problem with aspartame?"  Hmmmm...just look at how well or sick you've been lately, and how many of the above ailments you've experienced, and compare the onslaught of symptoms with when you first began consuming aspartame, and then judge for yourself.  

It's been proven time and again that big corporations and the lawmakers that succumb to their lobbying are not going to look out for your interests, unless protecting your interests becomes a concern to their wallet.  Until the laws are changed to make the FDA and the companies it oversees more responsive to consumer complaints and more protective of human health, it is up to the individual to be aware of the alleged risks of food additives such as aspartame, and take appropriate precautions by sticking to a healthier, more natural "diet." 

Feline Felons: Cats Kill a Billion Animals a Year, Including Endangered Birds, and Should Be Locked Up

As a dog owner, it has long mystified me why I get a $25 fine for letting my dog off the leash to play fetch at a park, while my neighbors' cats can roam all over my property, on my deck, and even on top of my car, 24/7; why I'm supposed to scoop the poop out of the edge of my neighbors' yards by the street, while their cats can -- and do -- poop all over my front and back yard, including right up next to the house and door; and why my dog, if he even bit another animal, would possibly be euthanized, and at a minimum I would be required to appear in court, while the cats roaming around can enter my property and kill my chipmunks, rabbits and birds -- including endangered species -- and neither cat nor owner face any legal penalty whatsoever. 

Are all legislators cat lovers?  Where are the laws to stop this nonsense and remedy this unfairness?   Why aren't even the laws protecting endangered bird species being enforced against cats and their owners?

Cats in the United States are estimated to kill hundreds of millions of birds a year, and more than a billion small animals, according to the American Bird Conservancy.  Much of this killing is done at night, but my daughter and I had the terrible experience of encountering such a murder in daylight while walking our dog on a leash around the block.  There was the unleashed cat, tormenting a cute little chipmunk to death, while its owners looked on nonchalantly. 

And I'm positive this scene goes on daily in my own yard while I'm away or asleep, as every time I step outside or look out my window there is at least one cat on the prowl, making sure that any wildlife I see there disappears promptly.  Spotted a quail in my bushes -- next day gone.  A rabbit in my backyard -- not for long.  A family of chipmunks -- bye bye.  I understand now why my grandmother used to shoot cats off her property with a BB gun.  Didn't get it when I was a kid and felt sorry for the cats, but now I totally understand.  These cats are killers!  And they're trespassing.

More and more people are beginning to speak up and demand that cats be kept under the same conditions as dogs.  While 65% of cat owners currently allow their cats to roam free, that would all change with laws like those imposed on dog owners.  Cat owners would be required to register their cats and get a license; to keep their cats restrained or indoors at all times; and be held accountable for damage caused should the cats get loose.  I'd also like to see my neighbors come over and scoop their cats' poop for a change. 

If you want to get legislation passed in your area, you can get some ideas and help from these guidelines.  It's high time for dog owners to speak up and demand equality, and for environmentalists to take stronger action to go after the biggest threat known to birds.  I have met one activist who walked her talk, and she decided to no longer keep cats as pets once she found out how many birds and other animals they kill.  Dissing cats as pets altogether may be a bit extreme, but keeping them indoors is reasonable and justifiable.  Want to help?  Lobby for better laws, and join the Cats Indoors! campaign of the American Bird Conservancy.

iFart Mobile v. Pull My Finger (Seriously)

Seems flatulence is big business these days.  There are now more than 75 fart applications (euphemistically called "flatulence simulation software applications") for iPhone, according to a lawsuit filed this past week over use of the phrase "pull my finger."  Why?  Because iPhone users like to hear farts!  Clearly.  The top two apps of this nature -- called iFart Mobile and Pull My Finger -- have been known to rake in more than $10,000 a DAY off the Apple iPhone App Store.  If a legal technicality can put the main competition out of business, or keep you in business, that's great!  Right?

The lawsuit includes a lawyerly (i.e., complicated, lengthy legal mumbo jumbo) definition of "pull my finger," and describes the iFart application as follows:  "The iFart novelty application boasts a number of unique features including a built-in security system designed to aurally surprise and discourage iPhone theft.  iFart also features a 'Sneak Attack' function using a timer that emits the sound of flatulence when it goes off.  iFart Mobile simulates 20 different sounds of passing gas, from short toots (the 'Butt Socket') to longer drawn out farts (the 'Wipe Out'), to every conceivable way of breaking wind in-between."  Gee, I'm sure the Court needed to know THAT to make a declaratory judgment on use of the term "pull my finger."  Needless to say, the competitor's application is not described in nearly as much detail.  We wouldn't want to inadvertently market the competition in our lawsuit now, would we?

If you're like me, you're probably asking...what kind of lawyer would file a suit like that (aside from one that wants to get in on the fame and fortune that these application developers are enjoying).  Try Kevin E. Houchin, a sometimes lawyer who proudly refers people to the infamous lawsuit on his website by calling it iFart Mobile v. Pull My Finger (Seriously).  The real case name is a benign Infomedia, Inc. v. Air-O-Matic Inc.  He also refers people from his law firm website to his Facebook page, where his profile picture shows him with a toilet plunger stuck to his head. 



He describes himself in his Biography as follows:  "Business and life are ultimately about connecting with people.  In spite of all the jokes, lawyers are people too -- or least this one (still) is."  He goes on to state the different professional hats he wears:  Lawyer, Teacher and Coach, Marketer, Designer and Artist.  Let me just say that he forgot one more:  Joker.

Obama's Freedom Of Choice Act Takes Away Freedom, Invalidates 550 Laws

The abortion-at-all-costs Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) that President Obama wants to get passed would more aptly be called the No Freedom of Choice Act, as it takes away the freedom of states to make and enforce their own laws, and the freedom of parents to supervise their children and look out for their welfare. 

The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution says:  "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."  Trust me, the power to regulate abortion has NOT been delegated to the United States by the Constitution, and therefore belongs in the hands of the States and the people -- not President Obama and his yes-men.  Yet here he is, trying to get a national law on abortion passed.  FOCA is grossly unconstitutional and overreaching, and reminds one that just as President Obama failed to convince everyone that his own election was constitutional -- by never putting forth a normal-looking birth certificate or properly countering evidence of his birth in Kenya -- it is clear that he cares little whether anything he does now that he is in office is constitutional either. 

Yes, yes, President Obama is good for the environment, and he's like a god around the world -- the President of the United States of the World.  But he scares me.  Some state legislators in Georgia have proposed a resolution that resonates with my own views on FOCA.  We need every state to pass such a resolution, and tell President Obama loud and clear that the U.S. Constitution left most laws up to the states for a reason, and we don't need the President and the federal government stomping all over those laws, and the people who elected the legislators to put such laws in place. 

State of Georgia Senate Resolution 156
By:  Senators Shafer of the 48th, Smith of the 52nd, Pearson of the 51st, Unterman of the 45th, Hudgens of the 47th and others

A RESOLUTION

Opposing the federal "Freedom of Choice Act;" and for other purposes.

WHEREAS, Barack Obama, the President of the United States, has promised that one of the top priorities of his new administration is to sign into law the federal "Freedom of Choice Act" which promotes government subsidized abortion on demand without restriction; and

WHEREAS, the federal "Freedom of Choice Act" would invalidate "any statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action" of any federal, state, or local government or governmental official or anyone acting under government authority that would "deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose" abortion or that would "discriminate against the exercise of the right...in the regulation or provisions of benefits, facilities, services, or information"; and

WHEREAS, the federal "Freedom of Choice Act" would nullify any federal or state law "enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of [its] enactment" and would effectively prevent the State of Georgia from enacting similar protective measures in the future; and

WHEREAS, the federal "Freedom of Choice Act" would invalidate more than 550 federal and state abortion related laws; laws that are supported by the majority of the American public; and

WHEREAS, the federal "Freedom of Choice Act" would specifically invalidate the following common-sense, protective laws properly enacted by the State of Georgia:
(1)  The Woman's Right to Know Act which provides information to a woman contemplating an abortion.  Such Act contains the following key elements:
  (A)  Informed consent (Code Section 31-9A-3) which requires that the soman be informed about the risks and  benefits of the abortion as well as other essential information;
  (B)  A waiting period (code Section 31-9A-3) which includes a 24 hour reflection period;
  (C)  Ultrasound availability (Code Section 31-9A-3) which provides information about the availability of an ultrasound and the option to view the results before making a final decision about abortion;
(2)  Partial birth abortion law (Code Section 16-12-144) which places restrictions on a particular method of abortion in which the person performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living human fetus befroe ending the life of the fetus and completing the delivery.  Georgia's current partial birth abortion law is in weakened form after a court settlement, and the passage of the federal "Freedom of Choice Act" would not allow the state to strenghten this law;
(3)  Restrictions on taxpayer funding of abortion (Division of Medical Assistance, Georgia Department of Community Health, Plicies and Procedures for Medicaid/Peachcare for Kids) which currently only allow taxpayer funds for abortion in the case of medical necessity;
(4)  Parental notification law (Code Sections 15-11-110 through 15-11-118) which requires that at least one parent be notified before a minor undergoes an abortion;
(5)  Requirements that licensed physicians perform abortions (paragraph (2) of subsection (b) of Code Section 16-12-141);
(6)  Conscience protection for doctors and medical professionals (Code Section 16-12-142) which protects doctors and medical professionals who object to participating in abortion; and
(7)  Health and safety regulations for abortion clinics (Georgia Department of Human Resources Regulations, Chapters 290-5-32 and 290-5-33); and

WHEREAS, the federal "Freedom of Choice Act" will not make abortion safe or rare but will instead actively promote and subsidize abortion with state and federal tax dollars and do nothing to ensure its safety; and

WHEREAS, the federal "Freedom of Choice Act" will proptect and promote the abortion industry, sacrifice women and their health to a radical political ideology of unregulated abortion on demand, and silence the voices of everyday Americans who want to engage in a meaningful public discussion and debate over the availability, safety, and even desirability of abortion.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SENATE that the members of this body strongly oppose the federal "Freedom of Choice Act" and urge the United States Congress to reject it summarily.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the members of this body strongly oppose the federal "Freedom of Choice Act" because it seeks to circumvent the states' general legislative authority as guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the members of this body strongly oppose the federal "Freedom of Choice Act" because it seeks to undermine the right an dresponsibility of the states and the people to debate, vote on, and determine abortion policy.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the members of the body strongly oppose the federal "Freedom of Choice Act" because the protection of women's health through state regulations on abortion is a compelling state interest that should not be nulllified by Congress.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the members of this body strongly oppose the federal "Freedom of Choice Act" because its enactment would nullify numerous laws in the State of Georgia; laws that the General Assembly and the people of Georgia strongly support.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of the Senate is authorized and directed to send an appropriate copy of this resolution to Governor Sonny Perdue, President Barack Obama, the President of the United States Senate, and the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives.

LGBTQ: Deciphering the Code for Our Youth

With all the talk about President Obama putting an end to "abstinence only" sex education programs in schools, it is easy to overlook the bigger picture of what is going on among youth.  For a glimpse at the real world, take a look at Atlanta's YouthPride organization for LGBTQ young people -- i.e., lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning youth ages 13-24.  This is a United Way agency, supported by United Way funds.

Years ago, when I was in that same age category and very naive in these matters, I received an award for writing promotional materials for an IBM charitable contributions campaign that raised more than $12 million for the United Way, American Cancer Society and the American Heart Association.  I was very proud of this award, and very sold on what I was promoting.  At that time, I thought that the United Way was a shining beacon of innocence and goodness.  Yet today, I see it funds at least one club that seems to promote not just sex, but nontraditional sex, among youth.  This is shocking to me.

Yet that is the real world in which we live today.  Another look at reality:  the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) champions the cause of gay and lesbian students at high schools across the country.  Whenever a gay and lesbian club is banned by a high school, the ACLU steps in to challenge the ban.  This week the headlines are about such a challenge by the organization's LGBT (you figure it out) Advocacy Project, on behalf of a GSA (Gay-Straight Alliance) at Yulee High School in Florida, but the same issue has been taken up across the country.  Does that fit your views of what high school clubs and the ACLU should be all about? 

In the face of all these clubs openly dealing with -- sex -- it seems sort of backwards and ignorant to be bickering over what the kids are taught in some sex ed classroom.  It's as if the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing.  We worry what teachers might say to students in a classroom, when what we should be more concerned with is what students say to each other outside the classroom.  That's where the real education is taking place.  In informal conversations, club meetings, and actual lifestyles.  Our kids are not as ignorant as we might like to believe.

One last look at reality.  The sex ed goes beyond schools and into the world of mass media.  Not just tv shows, websites and other technological sources, but also your basic books aimed at young people.  Last year, when my daughter was in fifth grade, we were browsing through some books at a book store and she asked me, "What does ejaculation mean?"  I grabbed the book she was reading and looked it over.  On every page were graphic descriptions of all types of sexual acts, along with assorted four-letter words.  "This is not a child's book," I told her.  "But everyone is reading it at school," she protested.  "[Jane] even has the entire set, and she is loaning the books out to all the other girls.  I'm on the list to borrow them." 

All I could think was, does this other girl's mother know about this?  Did she buy the books for the girl without paying attention to the content?  Are the teachers noticing what the kids are reading at school, as they pass these books around among themselves?  Or does everyone seem to think these books are innocent because of the brightly colored illustrations on the cover, making them look very appropriate for 10 and 11-year-olds.  You know what they say:  Never judge a book by its cover!

I told my daughter that if she was going to read such books, she needed to do so with my awareness, so I could be the one to answer her questions and not some kid, who might tell her who knows what.  She sat there reading a few more pages, then she walked over and put the book back on its shelf.  "I don't want to grow up so fast," she said.  Wise decision.  

We, as adults and especially as parents, cannot sit back and say this or that about sex education in public schools without taking into account the much bigger picture of where kids are getting their real education on this topic.  Nor can we control all these sources of information all the time.  The better approach would be for parents to educate their own kids with the knowledge and values with which to evaluate all this stuff coming at them.  They WILL get the information and all the various societal influences, good and bad, at some point or other, even if it's after they leave the nest.  And they WILL find out what LGBTQ means.  Better that whenever the exposure happens, they are equipped with knowledge and discernment provided by their parents to help them make sense of it all. 

I'm reminded of a Christian school that intentionally only goes up through middle school and not high school.  The reason:  too many kids who go to Christian high schools wind up going wild upon graduation, because they are free at last.  When they go wild, they have already left home, and are no longer able to share their world so easily and openly with their parents to help them sort things out.  This school believes that all kids should go to a public high school rather than a Christian one, so that the exposure and temptations occur while the child is still living at home, where the parents can still impact how the child absorbs everything and responds to it.  This school believes that youth should have full exposure to the world and learn to make their own educated choices while still living with parents, rather than be sheltered and controlled until they can't stand it any longer, leave home and rebel.  Okay, so this isn't the typical view of the typical conservative Christian or other person with high moral standards (at least stated, whether lived or not).  But it's an interesting perspective.  

It's clear that parents today must do more than teach their children the ABC's and P's & Q's.  We've also got to address the S & M's and LGBTQ's.  Don't expect the schools to do this for you in a way that will please every parent out there.  If you want it done right, according to your own values and beliefs, then you must do this yourself. 

What Color Is Your Sky?

"Is the sky blue?  Do you have to shower after walking around outside for an hour due to the pollution like here, or is the air clean?" 

These are real questions posed to my Chinese exchange student from her coordinator back home.  He wanted to know what her first impressions were of the United States, in contrast with China.  I recall laughing when I read these questions.  They seemed so absurd.  Of course the sky is blue.  Of course you don't need to shower from walking around outside for an hour.  Then I began to wonder what could prompt such ridiculous questions, and I learned more about China's pollution problem, which goes well beyond the smog in Beijing that we all became familiar with during the summer Olympics. 

Just check out the latest headlines:  "China Blames Pollution as Birth Defects Rise."  "Pollution in China:  Is China's Industry Poisoning Its Children?"  "Chinese Pollution Reaches U.S."  "The Last Empire:  China's Pollution Problem Goes Global."  "China's Pollution Nightmare Is Now Everyone's Pollution Nightmare."  "Living in China, Despite the Pollution!"  "As China Rises, Pollution Soars."  "International Companies Exposed for Pollution in China."  "Cost of Pollution in China." "China Shaken by 51,000 Pollution-Triggered 'Public Disturbances'"  "Pollution Poisons China's Progress."  "Too Sensitive to Publish:  750,000 a Year Killed by Pollution in China."

I now understand better why my exchange student ran full speed to take a shower after swimming in a nice, clean neighborhood swimming pool, as if she had just taken a dip in nuclear waste.  No amount of explanation as to how clean the water was could slow her mad dash to the shower.  Perhaps swimming back in China requires such an immediate scrubbing to avoid illness.  After all, while swimming pools here are fine, we do need to watch out for pollution levels in our rivers before going kayaking or even dipping a big toe in the water.  If the contaminant levels are too high, we must avoid all contact with the water -- and that situation bodes for most major rivers in the United States today (an issue that only kayakers seem to be aware of, unfortunately).  Should I ever unwittingly have contact with the water in my local river on a high pollution day, then yes, I'll do the mad dash thing, too!

But really, is that how we want to live our lives?  Checking for the day's pollution levels before going swimming in a river, or looking at the sky to see if it is blue for yes or gray for no before deciding to go for a walk?  Do we want to wake up to Chinese-style headlines?  We should view the situation in China with grave concern, because not only is it due to worsen as the developing nation increases its consumption without adequate pollution controls, but the troubles there are already spreading to the rest of the world, like some toxic disease.

The savings China has taken advantage of by not having environmental protections has helped China become the third largest economy in the world.  But at a great and unacceptable cost to the planet and the people trying to live on it.  It is high time to put pressure on countries like China to clean up their act, plus deal strictly with the international companies that are taking advantage of the situation.  With restrictions on imports that are produced without adequate pollution controls, for example, we could keep business and the economy back home more competitive while at the same time forcing China and any similar "anything goes" countries to step up to the plate and instill the minimum of controls.  It will be for their own good, and the good of the rest of us as well.

Otherwise, our great grandchildren may one day look with fear upon dead rivers and lakes, and may only get to read about blue skies and see the rich blue hue in photos and paintings, wondering what it might have looked like in person. 

IN THE NEWS: Black Congressman Reintroduces Bill to Compensate Descendants of Slaves

HR 40, a failed bill that has been repeatedly introduced in Congress to try to get government payments for nearly ALL blacks in the United States to reimburse them for the suffering of their slave ancestors, was reintroduced by a black lawmaker in Congress on January 6th.  Apparently the "African American" lawmakers see Obama's impending presidency as an opportune moment to try to get this law passed.  Part of the text appears below, stating the main goals:

(7)  Recommend appropriate remedies...the Commission shall address among other issues, the following questions:

(a)  Whether the Government of the United States should offer a formal apology on behalf of the people of the United States for the perpetration of gross human rights violations on African slaves and their descendants.

(b)  Whether African-Americans still suffer from the lingering effects...

(c)  Whether, in consideration of the Commission's findings, any form of compensation to the descendants of African slaves is warranted.

(d)  If the Commission finds that such compensation is warranted, what should be the amount of compensation, what form of compensation should be awarded, and who should be eligible for such compensation.

Bioethics Issues Gain Attention Around the World

Numerous recent headlines have dealt with bioethics issues -- those sensitive areas where science has advanced beyond what the public and the law are prepared for.  You know, things like artificial life, genetic modification, gene therapy, cloning, euthanasia, abortion, reproductive technologies, surrogacy, transplants and so on.

Many of the headlines have to do with the increasing number of interdisciplinary conferences, think tanks and graduate degree programs available on bioethics.  For example, an international conference on bioethics will take place in Europe this month; the University of Tokyo has just established a new biomedical ethics department; and the Vatican has upgraded its Rome Bioethics School.  We will be seeing more and more such headlines in the future, since the only way to make appropriate decisions on bioethics is to be properly informed.   

In fact, while most of these educational opportunities are aimed at adults, we should all be considering how to educate the upcoming generations about these topics, possibly as a required or elective course in school.  Everyone should be able to state their opinion on these issues, and to give a sound reason for their opinion.

For many people, their religion has already provided the answer for them.  Even though the major religions were founded well before bioethics was a word, they all have guiding principles that have been applied to modern situations.  So for the religious, forming an opinion may be as simple as consulting a local church, synagogue, mosque or temple.  For other people, things may not be so black and white.  And hence the need for courses on the subject.  Without proper information, people may find that their opinions go whichever way the wind is blowing.

For example, a friend of mine who was against euthanasia discovered -- after watching his mother suffer for years with painful terminal cancer -- that he was in fact for it, and he stood by his mother's side while she went her way.  Another person I know was completely against abortion, until she was diagnosed with having a Down Syndrome baby that also had a heart defect, indicating the child would require multiple surgeries and have a short life span, and be a huge burden on this young mother.  Suddenly, she felt abortion was the right way to go. 

Can it be that our ethics are so shallow and subject to change, rather than deeply rooted?  What should dictate our decisions -- morals, religion, practicalities...?  Of course, laws dictate our decisions ultimately, and the ability to form appropriate laws is what the urgent need to study bioethics is all about.

New UNESCO Convention Goes Into Force to Protect Sunken Treasures, But Only 20 Countries Have Agreed to Its Terms

A new UNESCO convention that went into effect this month is designed to protect submerged shipwrecks and ruins from looters and illicit trade.  Unfortunately, with only 20 countries signed on to the treaty, it will likely be of little effect in stopping the increasing raids on sunken treasures.

The United States and Canada did not sign the treaty.  Nor did any West European countries aside from Spain and Portugal.  The only East European countries to sign on are a handful of smaller nations like Croatia and Bulgaria.  Russia did not sign.  In Asia, Cambodia is the only nation to agree to the treaty, while China, Japan, South Korea and other larger nations declined.  Australia is also missing from the list of signatories, as are South Africa and Brazil.

It's difficult to determine what is so objectionable about the treaty that all the larger countries in the world -- actually, most countries in the world -- would refuse to sign it.  The stated goals are as follows: an obligation to preserve underwater cultural heritage; underwater preservation as a preferred option; no commercial exploitation of the heritage; and cooperation to preserve this legacy, promote training in underwater archaeology, and raise public awareness of the importance of sunken cultural property.

Okay, I can see why China would object to raising public awareness, since it just buried numerous ancient cities underwater in the construction of its infamous Three Gorges Dam.  I suppose most countries would object to any new "obligation" being thrust upon them.  And I guess the United States, with its focus on commerce, might object to the part about "no commercial exploitation." 

All right...I'm starting to understand why only 20 countries signed this thing.  Still, despite the current reluctance of nations to enthusiastically support efforts to preserve sunken treasures -- of which there are thousands already known of and many more thousands that are believed to be in existence and undiscovered -- I believe that this small start is a step in the right direction, and it will pick up momentum in the future.

Killer Santa Highlights Need to Rethink Divorce Laws

What makes a church-going, law-abiding citizen dress up like Santa Claus on Christmas Eve and shatter a bunch of people's lives with bullets and fire?  Terrible divorce laws and proceedings.

The target was not his former employer, so you cannot blame his unemployment.  The target was his ex-wife and her family.  Oddly enough, they had only been married for about two years prior to the divorce which preceded the killing spree by days.  I don't think it was the failed relationship that sent this man over the edge, especially considering how short it was.  I think it was the process of divorce itself that gave him the final push.

As an attorney, I get updates on sordid details like the number of men this year who got away with killing their soon to be or recent ex.  Unfortunately, the Christmas killer is not the only man who has gone completely berserk during or shortly after a divorce, or even upon the threat of a divorce.  It is a disappointing fact that quite a few men have killed their new or soon-to-be ex spouses, and quite a few of them get away with it.  After all, if the killing is done discreetly, it can be tricky to convict someone who comes across as a pillar of society with church attendance and no prior criminal record or history of violence.  Any slip-up with evidence can have courts tossing out the only thread of hope for a conviction, and the killer going free.  

There is something terribly wrong with our divorce methods, when the threat or experience of it can send "normal" people over the edge like that.  In the United States, divorce laws are state laws rather than national, but among all the variations there can be generalities made as to what often happens in a bitterly contested divorce.  Worst-case scenarios can include the following:  both sides use up their lifetime savings paying attorneys' fees; they get "friends" to testify against the other side; they hire private investigators to follow the other person around or plant hidden cameras, tape recorders and GPS devices;  they go after all of the assets, plus future income, child custody and even the dog.  All this drama can be dragged out for years, and certainly for months at a minimum, giving no relief to those in turmoil.  Resulting financial obligations can have the former breadwinner feeling like there is no hope of ever getting ahead again.  

But let's start back at the beginning of that description.  The ignition for this fiasco is the "bitterly contested" part.  People's own emotions drive them into this mess, and our laws enable them.  But what if we did not allow any bitterly contested divorces?  What if the system did not allow the negative emotions of anger and revenge a place to grow and flourish, but instead began a required process of counseling and healing, and mediation of a settlement?  Could it be possible to keep sane people sane in a divorce proceeding, and save lives by preventing them from going off the deep end?  We seriously need to ponder such a possibility, and plan how to make it happen. 

For all the people who are not physically killed in relation to a divorce process, there are millions who are, nevertheless, emotionally destroyed for life.  We must reinvent the system of divorce so that it helps people rather than hurts them.  Right now our process is so grueling that it takes regular people and turns them into crazed killers.  We need to have a process that can take bitter divorcing couples and turn them into happy, functioning members of society that can survive and thrive after a failed relationship.  Required mediation and counseling would be a start.  Forbidding jury trials would help as well.  We could even come up with ways to make it as economical to get a divorce as it is to get a marriage, sans ceremony.  How much does it cost, after all, to pay someone to officiate a wedding?  Something radical must be done to transform our system of divorce and make it as pain-free and cost-free as possible.       

IN THE NEWS: World Conflicted Over What Rights Should Exist on the 60th Anniversary of Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Pro-abortion groups will celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by calling upon the United Nations to declare abortion as a fundamental right available to all people.  To counter this proposal, pro-lifers will be presenting the petition below.  So what does constitute a fundamental human right at this point in time?  Many countries, such as the United States, have had their own list of rights long before the Universal Declaration, while others, such as Australia, are still grappliing with the idea.  This is a great time to consider what rights, exactly, should be universal?   Abortion versus life is just one small example of the choices that must be made.  Each choice involves drawing a line where one right necessarily infringes on another right, and the proper balance must be sought. 

International Call for the Rights and Dignity of the Human Person and the Family

We, the citizens of UN member states, in this year of the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted and proclaimed by the UN General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948,      Recalling that:     The Universal Declaration is a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all Nations,         Bearing in mind that: Human rights, dignity, freedom, equality, solidarity and justice constitute the spiritual and moral patrimony on which the union of Nations is based,         Stress that:   Proper consideration must be given to     1. The right to life of every human being, from conception to natural death, each child having the right to be conceived, born and educated within the family, based on marriage between a woman and a man, the family being the natural and fundamental group unit of society, 2. The right of every child to be educated by his or her parents, who have a prior and fundamental right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children. Therefore, we call upon:     All governments to interpret the Universal Declaration of Human Rights properly such that:      Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person (Article 3)   Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family (Article 16).     The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State (Article 16).    Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance (Article 25).      Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children (Article 26).

Disorganized Crime Tarnishes Museums Around the World

Imagine if I invited you to view an extravagant display of stolen goods -- all carefully arranged mind you, with just so lighting aimed at each item and little placards with detailed descriptions.  Maybe even a guidebook to go along, and a recording to listen to while touring, and even a souvenir book to buy on the way out.   Imagine the goods were acquired through layers of disorganized crime taking place across several borders, involving everyone from the poorest of the poor to the richest of the rich.  And imagine further that the government officials all looked the other way, either because they were bribed to or didn't care, or there were no effective laws in place to truly prevent or deter such activity.  Hmmmmm....sounds like a top tier museum to me.  Some people estimate that up to 90 percent of antiquities on display in museums around the world are stolen, with many more crimes beyond theft committed in bringing the artifacts to their final resting place.

If museums were brutally honest, the description of an artifact might read something like this:  Pre-Columbian Pottery from Peru, originated in 150 A.D., dug up in the night by armed tombraiders in February 1991 (crime 1), bought by a Peruvian dealer despite laws against such purchases (crime 2), coated with modern-looking exterior and stamped with Made in Peru by local establishment that processes looted goods (crime 3), smuggled out of the country by a diplomat (crime 4), bought in violation of trade laws by a multimillionaire dealer in the United States who removed the fake exterior (crime 5), sold quietly for a hefty sum of cash to a wealthy and well-connected collector (crime 6), donated to this museum in June 1998 with the collector taking a tax write-off inflated for retail market value (crime 7), kept in storage by the museum while the museum's attorneys battled off Peru's attorneys in a lawsuit seeking the artifact back because it was a stolen good in the museum's possession (crime 8), and since November 2003 on display for your viewing pleasure (future crime?).  

The number of laws that may have been broken is astounding.  Once upon a time museums and auction houses were held in the highest regard, with a sort of aura and adoration surrounding them that few institutions have ever enjoyed.  Not so anymore.  Now they are known as bastions of disorganized crime, with theft, smuggling, fraud, tax evasion and more going on behind the scenes to bring us the collections of highly prized artifacts. 

Truth be told, though, there were very few applicable laws with teeth in them as recently as 40 years ago.  In other words, the same sort of thing was going on, only our moral sensibilities had not yet developed to the point of passing or enforcing any laws against such activities.  Yet since the 1970's, more than 100 countries have signed treaties to try to end the illegal trade in antiquities, and country after country has passed stricter laws to address the situation.  While curators used to blatantly spend tens of thousands a year buying stolen antiquities -- even arranging for their disguise and smuggling into the country -- nowadays these once esteemed curators are heading off to jail in disgrace, as are the dealers they buy from.

In addition, countries are demanding that their goods be returned.  They want back their cultural heritage, and they have developed specially trained squads of detectives to help in the process, such as Italy's Art Squad and the FBI's Art Crime Team.  In response to the growing pressure, Switzerland recently agreed to return 4,000 stolen items to Italy.  The United States has worked hard to locate and return stolen antiquities to Iraq.  And the list goes on. 

I even experienced this first-hand.   I took a friend to a museum to show her a mummy -- a really classic looking mummy that is just the way you would expect one to look.  I had seen it several times before, yet as we walked back and forth among the sarcophagi in the Egyptian display room, the mummy was nowhere to be found.  I finally went to a security guard and asked about the mummy, and she said there wasn't one and acted as if there never had been.  Not convinced, I did a search online once home and discovered that the mummy had been returned to Egypt, dutifully, under pressure from the Egyptian government.  Turns out it was a stolen artifact.

Let's get real.  Rather than oohing and aahing over the displays of antiquities in museums, we should be feeling a bit sick to our stomachs over the blatant display of disorganized -- and tolerated, even admired -- crime.  We should educate ourselves on the topic and start to demand that changes be made to this unethical worldwide trade.  There is no excuse not to be informed.  Books and blogs on the topic have proliferated.  There is an urgency felt by people in the know, and they want to get this sense of impending doom out to the rest of society. 

What is it that has them so fearful and determined to make changes?  Well, according to one author, the entire field of archaeology is in jeopardy.  What can we dig up and learn about the past, if every choice ancient site has already been looted and destroyed?  For another thing, how can a country fully explore and take pride in its cultural heritage if all of the artifacts representing that heritage have been smuggled out and are on display halfway around the world?  How would Americans feel if the Liberty Bell suddenly appeared on display in a museum in Egypt, and the museum and country refused to return the item? 

Indeed, it is becoming ever more difficult for museums to continue to flaunt their wares, now that the truth has come out, and the very real skeletons in the closet have been exposed.  They are now soul-searching trying to find a new purpose and new way to operate.  But they aim to please the public, and so it is up to us to guide them in their decisions by our own loudly stated preferences.

Airbags Change Driving Forever, and It's Still Unclear Who Benefits

The latest flotsam and jetsam washing up from the whole airbag fiasco is that we all must learn a NEW WAY TO DRIVE.  That's right.  Forget all those years of driving experience and prior instructions on how it must be done.  Driver's Ed has changed.  Nowadays driving instructors must teach their students to hold the steering wheel only along the bottom, even while turning, in order to avoid having their arms broken in the event the airbag pops out, whacking them with up to 200 mph of force. 

Oh...wait a minute.  All those warning labels say that "children can be killed or seriously injured by the airbag" (the same airbag that is supposedly put in there for safety).  Well, gee, is it children whose arms are being broken while driving?  Guess they haven't got around to warning labels for adult drivers.  The reality is that these airbags hurt a lot more than just "children."  In the past, they specified an age of 12 or under, but recent studies have shown that teenagers up to 14 are injured by airbags to the same extent, so now warning labels just vaguely refer to "children."  Does the extent of injuries really depend on how many years a person has spent on this planet?  Could it be that NO ONE, save a select few tall people of a certain body shape, is safe from front and side airbags, except in the middle of the back seat? 

I suspect that height and weight, rather than age, have a much bigger impact on the damage that airbags do to both drivers and passengers, wherever and however they are positioned in the car.  For example, that person who is 4'10" and 88 pounds -- and there are plenty of them, at least among women and various ethnic groups -- is unlikely to fair much better just because s/he is 70 years old versus 16 versus 11.  Why isn't anyone debating the stats on how size figures into all this versus age?  

It's bad enough that small people physically cannot drive a car from the position of a "safe" distance from the airbag in the steering wheel.  Then they wouldn't be able to reach the pedals or the wheel to drive.  So they sit too close, hoping their heart doesn't stop beating if the airbag pops out and gives it a good pounding one day.  The broken arm becomes much less of a worry in the face of that prospect.  Other people "sit" too close because they are fat, and their bellies reach out too close to the steering wheel.  Or God forbid, pregnant!  Guess the tall, physically fit, non-pregnant lawmakers who have required all these airbags didn't think about that, either.  Or maybe they just have some other kind of incentive or payoff that the rest of us have not yet discovered.  Something, after all, has to be worth all the inconvience, harm, and total defiance of logic and concern.

I have an idea!  Just like the market came up with little mirrors to strategically place in cars to see your baby in the back seat while driving, and came up with all kinds of other accommodations relating to the unintended consequences of these airbags (which only help -- REALLY -- according to actual studies, tall people, and then only in the most severe of accidents), we can come up with some products for all the small people out there who are not "children" and find themselves in the front seat.  That's a lot easier than just removing the air bags or making them optional for people who actually want them.  Instead, we can sell shoe extensions and arm extensions, so they can reach the pedals and steering wheel from a safe distance.  And we can sell cars with only half a steering wheel -- the bottom half, of course, so there is no risk of someone reaching above or across the airbag deployment zone.

Homosexuals Squeeze eHarmony, Infringe on Rights

It was a sad day for free enterprise recently when eHarmony, the online dating Web site, settled with some homosexual plaintiffs, agreeing to offer a dating service for gays and lesbians comparable to its service for heterosexuals.  So now we have progressed way beyond ignoring what people do in their bedrooms (and public bathrooms), to insisting that private companies taylor their products and services a certain way, OR ELSE.  At which point will the homosexual lobby stop?  And what are they really after, anyway?  

Gays and lesbians seem to consider it discrimination for a company to target its products and services to a specific market.  Huh??  It's clear that eHarmony should have fought this case rather than settling, as the settlement sets a really bad precedent.  Let's see...if all dating sites must target all types of sex and marriage arrangements, or be sued, then I guess it won't be long before eHarmony offers a site especially designed for, say, Mormon and Muslim men seeking multiple wives to add to their harem.  Just think -- there would be in the questionnaire such things as, How many wives, exactly, do you have?  How old are they?  When did you marry them?  How many more would you like?

And since the homosexuals like to lump their "trait" into the category of skin color and religion, when it's convenient, they may as well go after all the dating websites aimed at different ethnic groups and religious persuasions.  Nevermind if homosexuality is against the religion.  Those discriminators must change their beliefs!!  And all their ancient scriptures as well.  Can't have anything out there that does not accommodate homosexuals.  And if these Web sites refuse to offer a comparable service for gays within that skin color or religion, well SUE THEM.  Right?

It's a disgrace for homosexuals to be infringing on the rights of others to free commerce in the name of protecting their own trumped up right to have every product and service geared specifically for them.  Another right they have recently infringed on is the right to free speech.  For example, in California, during the few months of legalized homosexual marriage, the marriage licenses were changed from designating "bride" and "groom" to designating "partner" and "partner."  When a regular old-fashioned heterosexual couple crossed out the words "partner" and filled in "bride" and "groom," their license was held invalid.  What?!  Let's re-write our dictionaries to leave out bride and groom.  Marriage as we have always known it, and its accompanying vocabulary, will be a thing of the past if homosexuals have their way.  Instead of Bride magazine, we'll have "Partner" magazine, once that inevitable lawsuit and settlement go through one day.

As much as I want to embrace my gay and lesbian friends and colleagues in their pursuit of feeling equal, I cannot endorse their attempts to infringe on other people's rights in the process.  Sorry.  I think homosexuals will face in the near future a huge backlash if their attempts at so-called equality and non-discrimination continue along these lines.