Written by Micheal Moore, published on Micheal Moore.com

Dear President Obama,

Do you really want to be the new “war president”? If you go to West Point tomorrow night (Tuesday, 8pm) and announce that you are increasing, rather than withdrawing, the troops in Afghanistan, you are the new war president. Pure and simple. And with that you will do the worst possible thing you could do — destroy the hopes and dreams so many millions have placed in you. With just one speech tomorrow night you will turn a multitude of young people who were the backbone of your campaign into disillusioned cynics. You will teach them what they’ve always heard is true — that all politicians are alike. I simply can’t believe you’re about to do what they say you are going to do. Please say it isn’t so.

It is not your job to do what the generals tell you to do. We are a civilian-run government. WE tell the Joint Chiefs what to do, not the other way around. That’s the way General Washington insisted it must be. That’s what President Truman told General MacArthur when MacArthur wanted to invade China. “You’re fired!,” said Truman, and that was that. And you should have fired Gen. McChrystal when he went to the press to preempt you, telling the press what YOU had to do. Let me be blunt: We love our kids in the armed services, but we f*#&in’ hate these generals, from Westmoreland in Vietnam to, yes, even Colin Powell for lying to the UN with his made-up drawings of WMD (he has since sought redemption).

To read more click here….

Crossposted from BSL Updates:

The Hot Springs Board of Directors will consider an ordinance Tuesday night (December 1, 2009) that, if adopted, would ban ownership of “pit bulls” within the city limits.

Board meetings begin at 7:00 p.m. and are held at Board Chambers in the Hot Springs Municipal Building

The meeting is TOMORROW night. Please send your POLITE AND RESPECTFUL opposition to breed specific legislation to the city officials listed below. Please also send your suggestions and viable alternatives. Time is of the essense, so please take action TODAY.

Jodi Preis
Bless the Bullys
www.blessthebullys.com

City Clerk Janet Heath
jheath@cityhs.net

City Manager Lance Hudnell
lhudnell@cityhs.net 

City Attorney Brian Albright
balbright@cityhs.net

ORDINANCE NO. O-09-43

AN ORDINANCE BANNING AND REGISTERING CERTAIN BREEDS OF DOGS AND ANIMALS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF HOT SPRINGS, ARKANSAS.

SECTION 2.

(a) Banned pit bull breeds of dogs are banned entirely and may not be owned or kept within the City. Banned breeds of pit bull dogs are any of the following:

(1) American Pit Bull Terrier;

(2) Staffordshire Bull Terrier, unless they meet the requirements of Subsection 3-1-5(b);

(3) American Staffordshire Terrier, unless they meet the requirements of Subsection 3-1-5(b);

(4) American Bull Dog;

(5) Any dog whose sire or dam is a dog of a breed which is defined as a banned breed of dog under this section;

(6) Any dog whose owner registers, defines, admits, or otherwise identifies the dog as being of a banned breed;

(7) Any dog conforming or substantially conforming to the breed of American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, or American Bull Dog as defined by the United Kennel Club, American Dog Breeders Association, or American Kennel Club;

(8) Any dog which is of the breed commonly referred to as “pit bull” and commonly recognizable and identifiable as such.

CITY OF HOT SPRINGS AGENDA ITEM # 19

BOARD ACTION REQUEST O-09-43

DISCUSSION: Providing that certain dog breeds be banned from ownership within the incorporated limits of the City of Hot Springs. Also providing a registration requirement for dogs that are of “Banned Breed” status to comply with the ordinance for “Grandfathering” at the time of the passage of this ordinance. On November 17, 2009 the Animal Services Advisory Committee provided their findings via attached letter. Also find attached my report entitled “Breed Specific Considerations for Municipalities” that reviews three Arkansas Municipalities approach to controlling dangerous dogs and the fiscal impact of providing either type of ordinance approach.

Also attached is an excerpt from City of Hot Springs Ordinance that displays the manner that we currently handle “dangerous dog cases” and finally attached is a letter from the National Park Kennel Club and their recommendations for addressing this issue.

FISCAL IMPACT: A significant increase of enforcement duties will require additional staffing to ensure compliance with the ordinance, as well as supplies and veterinary services for the spay/neuter aspect of this ordinance. $100,000 annually for the first two years for two additional Animal Control Officers and equipment for a Breed Ban, and that same amount of funding in a perpetual manner for a updated Breed Regulation program. Fundamentally, we may not actually be at this juncture had the Animal Services Department been provided officer staffing levels that it has requested for the past several years and been capable of more pro-active neighborhood work and enforcement.

My recommendation in the report falls form my experience of funding for the Department, and the reality that funding has not been adequate even though we have justified that increased revenues the Department has collected that would offset any increased costs in staffing levels.

ALTERNATIVES: Do not adopt ordinance/ Amend Dangerous Dog ordinance

A friggin death trap!

OMG,after 2 years and £250,000 spent on a study by Health and Safety (HSE) they  have concluded that ten pin bowling alleys are  a very friggin dangerous environment for families! Dear god imagine, little snowflakes running down the lanes and getting trapped in machinery or someone walking down the 60 ft lanes to knock over the pins by hand and getting injured. Geez, it’s a friggin death trap when you think about it, a friggin death trap! Among the recommendations put forward, was for operators to fit photoelectric beams on the lanes so the machines will cut off automatically if anyone, by chance, wanders down the slippery as all get up lanes. Once again I must stop here to point out there is no need for concern,  natural selection will sort out the losers.

Psst I did note there was no mention of the obvious dangers, eg spraining a wrist, hurting your back, slipping on the spilled beer, salmonella from the curly fries…you know, the basic dangers!

2nd Psst When was the last time you heard about someone being squashed by the pinsetting machinery for goodness sakes?

Yup… Elbee sent this, and yes, that silver car is parked on a junction and also blocking a dip allowing pushchairs and wheelchairs up…. not that the dip will help people along their way as the black saloon car is parked across the pavement, as is the small silver compact car further down the path…

A jungle of crap parking!

Oh! this is real Shark Attack! It ate his cat first and then his arms, his body, his head but why did it not eat his legs?

I just draw someone I do not like, and the animal I do not like.

I wrote on the Shake, “Sw Eden”.
hehe

Abandoned places
Dangerous to go alone
Haunting memories

Visit the link below to read a lengthy but interesting article on the effects of the breed ban in Australia, featuring two major problems: breed identification and expense to enforce (lawsuits).

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/the-pit-bull-is-the-usual-suspect/story-e6frg8h6-1225804507090

The pit bull is the usual suspect

Breathtaking.
http://digg.com/d31BEAE

Over at Terra Sig on scienceblogs.com there is an article about the current danger facing some people in Canada who may fall for the charlatan work of naturopaths. The Ontario legislature is considering passing a bill which will allow naturopathic quacks to give out prescriptions. It’s utter lunacy.

Naturopaths (I’m not sure if that’s the proper term, but they aren’t proper doctors, so fuck them) are not qualified to do anything substantial. These people run the risk of prescribing contra-indicated medicines, offering ‘treatments’ which actually ignore the real problem, and allowing them prescription rights will give them respect they have not earned. People may actually seek out these mountebanks thinking they are getting real help. They aren’t.

I recently wrote about Christopher Maloney, charlatan-extraordinaire. He wrote into the local paper implying that black elderberry has vaccination properties for H1N1. He completely misrepresented a small study (which wasn’t even directly on H1N1) and he has put people at risk. He’s a dangerous liar who is unqualified to be giving out medical advice in such a manner. The worst thing about him is that he isn’t an exception – he’s an example, an example of the sort of cherry-picking, misrepresenting, lying, dangerous people who populate the yellow pages under “naturopathic ‘medicine’”.

Here I am reposting a laundry list (originally by Steve Thomas) of why naturopaths should not be given the considerations we offer real doctors.

1) With 23,000 doctors in Ontario, and fewer then 1000 naturopaths, the argument that granting naturopaths prescription rights will ease the burden on the healthcare system is a bit silly.

2) The assertion that the body has the potential to heal itself is not a scientific one. When given “natural” support only, the body will die by the age of 45, probably of infectious diseases. Modern advances in medicine make long-life possible, not herbs and roots from a 2,000 year old playbook.

3) Saying “science” doesn’t make it so. The call of “the healing power of nature at work” to be not magic, but good science, is ridiculous on its face….the human body is really good at succumbing to pathogens and injury, and the “natural” world is really good at killing us.

4) Old and tradition do not a science make. Yes, herbal supplements have been around for centuries. So has prostitution. Old doesn’t mean effective. It means old. I want my medicine to be new, awesome, and if possible, administered by a robot from the future.

5) Regulation does not a science make, even if it was 85 years ago.

6) I wonder, what is the naturopathic remedy for a broken bone? For that matter, how effective is naturopathic birth control?

7) Why the natural fetish? If you’re dying from a disease, do you really care if your treatment is “natural” or not? Why take an herbal supplement that a person tells you *might* work, when you could take the most recent advances in medical technology that we know *will* work?

Natural doesn’t mean safe. It doesn’t mean effective. Arsenic, poisonous mushrooms, gravel and bird-crap are also natural and you don’t see me putting them into my body.

9) Lets not forget that many people see a naturopath because they’re dazzled by the word “Naturopathic Doctor, or ND”. Let’s be perfectly clear: Naturopaths are NOT doctors. The Naturopathy Act, 2007 allows them to be called “Naturopaths”, not “doctors.” You need to go to medical school to be called a doctor. Naturopaths just granted themselves that title as a subtle PR stunt.

10) What is the diagnostic method a naturopath uses to test if a body is “in balance”? What laboratory equipment can you use to check for “wellness”?

11) The calls that naturopaths aim to treat the root cause is nonsense, otherwise they wouldn’t be asking to prescribe pain-killers, and anti-inflammatories.

12) If naturopathy is just as effective as medicine, then why don’t these naturopaths just go to med school?

13) The medical community is constantly advocating good health, diet, nutrition and exercise…naturopaths don’t have a monopoly on knowing the merits of preventative health.

14) Naturopathic college of Ontario requires a 4-year Bachelor’s eduction, but does not require for a Bsc or any science pre-requisites. The historical GPA for entry to the CCNM is 3.3 (ranging from 2.8-3.7). Compare that to Med school, which is turning away people with 4.0 averages.

15) The length of time for training is meaningless if the education quality is so lackluster. I can study levitation for 20 years but it doesn’t mean that I could fly.

16) “Every review of our record has recognized the safety of the more natural approach of naturopathic care.” Every review? Really? Black Cohosh, anyone?

17) The authors conveniently left out the deaths attributed to naturopathic prescriptions in Washington and Oregon, showing once again their contempt for honest data-gathering and fondness for cherry-picking whatever information suits their pre-conceived narrative.

18) The CCNM is NOT associated with ANY Canadian university, and it’s dishonest to artificially conflate the two together, even if you’re being indirect about it.

19) “The need for NDs to have prescribing authority was accepted by every other regulated health profession” Not even close to accurate! The bill passed the first two readings because the relevant health care communities had approved of their OWN amendments, and was not reflective of the naturopathy amendments.

20) The CCNM also is also teaching homeopathy and colonic irrigation, neither of which do anything beyond a placebo effect….Back from your cherry-picking trip yet?

21) If passed, the committee to decide which drugs would be prescribed would be made up of naturopaths! Unelected naturopaths deciding what they can prescribe!

22) Since naturopaths *are unqualified* to prescribe medication, granting them these powers will create needless risk of drug contra-indications.

23) This is not about freedom of choice for the patient, and it never has been. This is about granting naturopathy legislative and legal legitimacy because it can’t do so under the rules of science and evidence.

The scientific community is crystal clear on medicine, yet these people would have our very modern system degenerate with some very 19th century modalities.

Oh, and this is actually a rather important post beyond trying to save the health of people. Whereas I had created a category specifically for Andreas Moritz, King Snake Oil Salesman, I think I can expand it to naturopathic ‘medicine’: all naturopathy posts shall go under Pure Bullshit from now on.

Some people have been wondering whether the soccer-pulled chick Kassidy C. Shumway (who had her hair pulled by Elizabeth Lambert, for being a queen bitch), is seen here having her hair pulled:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNmPybFK2_o

Anyway, here is another picture of the bruentte chick Shumway:

related with Shum (Jeremy):

The answer is a resounding now.

They both may be tough hotties but they’re not related lol!

Clinical and risk characteristics of patients admitted to a secure hospital-based Dangerous and Severe Personality Disorder unit, Journal of Forensic Practice , 2009 Sep; 11(3): 19-27

Sheldon K; Krishnan G

The Peaks Academic and Research Unit, Rampton Hospital and Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, UK

Abstract:

This paper describes the clinical and risk characteristics of patients admitted over the first four years of operation of the Dangerous and Severe Personality Disordered (DSPD) NHS pilot at the Peaks Unit, Rampton Secure Hospital. There were 124 referrals, mainly from Category A and B prisons, resulting in 68 DSPD admissions. Clinically, 29% scored 30 or more on the Psychopathy Checklist. The most common personality disorders were antisocial, borderline, paranoid and narcissistic. There is a high risk of violent/sexual recidivism as measured by the Static-99, Violence Risk Scale, and the Historical, Clinical and Risk Management Scale.

Lancashire Care staff can request the full-text of this paper, email: susan.jennings@lancashirecare.nhs.uk

Oxford’s Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics recently held an excellent lecture and discussion on the topic “How Dangerous is Religion?” The lecturer was the Australian philosopher, Tony Coady, who argued that religion is not dangerous. He did a fine job of sorting through the complexity of the claim, including the difficulty of defining religion for such purposes, and the fact that religion can be used for both good and ill (so too with non-religious ideologies). More interesting still was the subsequent discussion. A number of those present offered the following critique of Coady’s argument: while religion itself isn’t necessarily dangerous, fanaticism and extremism are dangerous and certain features of religion make it more susceptible than atheism to those pitfalls. What are the features of religion that create this propensity? Coady’s critics suggested that religion’s dependence on ‘faith’ means it cannot be accountable to rational reflection and critique. While this understanding of faith, as an alternative to reason, is not what Christianity means by the term, I will leave that for another day. Instead I want to respond to their broader claim: Religion is not accountable to reasoned reflection.

The claim is an important one that deserves to be taken seriously. First, however, we should note that even if religious people are more likely to be fanatical than atheists this is not by itself a strike against religion. It depends on what alternatives the absence of religion has to offer. If the alternative to fanaticism is apathy and quietism in the face of injustice, I’m not sure I’d make the trade. Many of the Christian leaders of the American civil rights movement were considered fanatics for their devotion to the cause; Martin Luther King was investigated by the FBI for alleged radical ties. Bishop Tutu was considered an extremist for his opposition to South African apartheid. Of course, Christians fell on both sides of both issues, as did atheists. My point is that fanaticism might be a worthwhile risk in a quest against injustice, over and against alternative risks (such as the risk of apathy). Of course, it might not be worth the risk. Which risks are to be preferred is a complex question, and people of good will could be expected to fall on both sides of the question. It is a parallel case to how pre-modern and early modern political philosophers tended to fear chaos and mob-rule above all else, while the classical liberalism of modernity tends to fear cruelty above all else. We have to pick our poison. But on all this, I would expect Coady’s critics to agree: before we say “Let’s prevent fanaticism by eliminating religion,” we’d want to know what we’re getting in its place.

Second, I turn to what is my primary concern. The critics’ claim is simply too general to be of any use. To say ‘Religion is not accountable to reasoned reflection’ is like saying ‘Sport is violent.’ It is? Rugby can be violent, as can American football. Boxing and mixed martial arts are violent, but lawn bowling and golf are not. So the answer is, and must be, ‘It depends.’ So too with religion. The theology of Thomas Aquinas takes reasoned reflection extremely seriously; in particular, Aquinas holds himself rigorously accountable to his understanding of Aristotelian philosophy, which he combines with what he learns from Augustine (who himself learned from Plato, but also Cicero), as well as the Bible, as interpreted by various others. So the charge wouldn’t apply to Aquinas, at least not without a great deal of further explanation. For similar reasons it doesn’t apply to countless others such as Luther, Calvin, and Barth. We should note in particular those late scholastic and early modern thinkers whose work comfortably spanned across disciplines such as Theology, Literature, and Philosophy, before those disciplines were as segregated in the academy as they now are. Think of Ockham, Erasmus, Milton, Locke, and others. As for how even one of these thinkers relate reason to revelation, or theology to philosophy—that is a subject for countless dissertations. At the lecture, Coady called one critic’s comment ‘Nonsense’ and I think this is what he had in mind. To make a general claim without engaging, or even showing an awareness of, the genuine diversity among religious believers on this question is clearly missing a step.

On the other hand, I have been to fundamentalist churches in the southern United States where some of the members do fall under the critics’ description. They stubbornly resist my most charitable attempts to engage them intellectually. But even these cases can be understood only by reference to the particular historical narrative under which they emerged. This ultimately traces, as various historians have shown, to disagreements within the church about how to respond to the Enlightenment, disagreements which came to a head in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. A certain brand of fundamentalist Christianity saw the excesses of the Enlightenment as a feature of higher education as such, thus those churches became militantly anti-intellectual, and hence you can now find Southern Baptists who think the world is a few thousand years old. But this isn’t a feature of ‘religion’ any more than fistfights in ice hockey are a feature of ‘sport.’ (Perhaps what the critics really have in mind is that such anti-intellectualism reveals how public reason is exercised differently by The Educated as opposed to The Masses, but that is a problematic feature of democracy, not religion.)

When it is suggested that religion exempts itself from rational engagement, I wonder what people think goes on in theology tutorials at Oxford. If any of my students responded to my critiques of their tutorial papers by saying, “Well, it’s just a matter of faith so that’s the end of it,” I would tell them to go away, stop wasting my time, and try again next week. So what does go on? I have an analogy to propose that might help Coady’s critics understand better. Were they to find this a helpful analogy, I think we could then investigate what lies at the heart of their objection to religion’s public role. Because despite the objections listed above, I think the critics’ concern is an important one.

What goes on in the Christian theology with which I am familiar would probably strike Coady’s critics as rather like both philosophy and literature. The discipline is primarily an engagement with texts, and thus requires the sorts of skills demanded of a student of literature or, perhaps in some cases, of a legal theorist adjudicating cases. It is true that theology requires a certain imaginative ‘entering ‘in’ to the texts in question, but this is not unlike the immanent critique expected of a philosophy student reading Mill or a medical student watching Gattaca. The student cannot respond by saying ‘Mill is rubbish’ or ‘I hate the genre of science fiction.’ She must take on the assumptions of the text so as to engage it internally, on its own terms. So too with the texts central to the discipline of theology.

Perhaps what the critics really have in mind as objectionable is that the texts central to theology—the Bible and, for Catholics at least, certain papal teachings—have a certain kind of authoritative status that makes them exempt from rational engagement. Not only is this untrue, it misunderstands the role that interpretation plays in any text—not just in weighing its normative force but also in simply reading it. I think the role the Bible actually plays is more analogous to the way a favourite novel might become ‘authoritative.’ For example, one of my favourites is Harper Lee’s Pulitzer Prize-winning To Kill A Mockingbird, especially for its protagonist Atticus Finch. I wish I could be the sort of father that Atticus is. I wish I were as kind to my children, as wise to my colleagues, as generous to those less fortunate.

In this sense, the novel and its protagonist have a certain kind of authoritative status for me. And this influences my public life, including my voting habits, what I choose to write, and so on. Now in a sense, I am taking this ‘on faith,’ for what I find compelling about Atticus isn’t something for which I can offer a deductive proof. I could not necessarily persuade you to model your parenting after Atticus as well. I simply find it compelling, and it may well be that when I reach the end of my life I will regret having Atticus as my hero. I may say, ‘What a fool I was to pour my life out working, as he did, to repair injustices against racial minorities, to help my children see past disability and difference, to display character and integrity even when acting in secret.’ I might conclude that, but until I’ve lived more of my life, I won’t know for sure. Until then, I’m going on faith: I cast my lot with Atticus.

But this doesn’t mean that the novel’s authoritative status within my moral imagination is exempt from rational thought. Even someone who doesn’t share my love for the book could potentially persuade me (a) intra-novel, that my reading of Atticus’s character is faulty or (b) extra-novel, that I ought not model my life on Atticus because the book is morally corrupting. So too with Christians in public. If someone seeks to ban the sale of pork because it is unclean, we need not simply throw up our hands and say, ‘There’s no reasoning with these people!’ There is a long way we can go provided we are willing to generously enter-in to the perspective of our anti-pork interlocutor, seeking reasons that might persuade her given her own presuppositions. This is what philosophy tutors expect of their students; it is what a literature tutor expects even from a student who hates the set text for that week. It is certainly what I aspire to when engaging fellow theologians or a philosopher: I would read his work, the work of those he is drawing on (whether Aristotle or Kant or Mill or Singer, or whoever), and so on. Eventually, of course, we might reach an impasse, but that’s true of all conversations.

Now in light of all this, is there any merit to the critics’ comments at the recent lecture? I think there is, and it’s well-worth exploring. But it would need to begin from a different point, one far less general. They claimed that the way religion relates reason to revelation can create fanaticism. To evaluate that, we’d need to have a much more particular description of religion in mind. Perhaps we could instead ask, ‘Does recent Roman Catholic theology run the risk of fanaticism because it is hierarchical?’ Or, ‘Does American-style Christian fundamentalism run the risk of fanaticism because it is (a) nationalist, (b) anti-intellectual and (c) Biblicist?’ (Or even, ‘Are Platonists potential fanatics because they have a singular view of the good?’—which was the argument of Richard Rorty, who considered epistemological foundationalism dangerous in the same way someone like Julian Savulescu considers religion dangerous.) Those are all worthwhile questions, but asked in these terms we see how complex they really are.

It is a hopeful sign that in May 2010, Savulescu and Stephen Clarke are planning a Uehiro Centre event on this topic of tolerance and religion in public. And in August 2010, the European Society of the Philosophy of Religion will meet in Oxford for their annual conference, the theme of which will be Religion in the Public Square. Both events will be worthy places to continue this conversation.

–John Perry

In my opinion, out of Michael Jackson’s entire music catalog, “Who Is It” and “Give In To Me” are his two most underrated songs. Interestingly, they both share a bit of common history.

In 1993, when Michael gave that beloved Oprah interview that I always gush about (you can download it here), he was also using the show as a platform to launch his latest single and music video “Give in to Me”. However, during a portion of the interview, Oprah asked Michael if he would mind singing a song a capella. He obliged her and on the fly sang a bit of “Who is it” with an added beat-boxing intro (You can download the mp3 of it here). That performance prompted more water-cooler talk the next day than the music video for “Give in to Me”, so “Who is it” was chosen to be released as the single in the US instead.

——

Because “Give In To Me” wasn’t released as a single in the US, few of my friends have actually heard it. I actually wasn’t allowed to listen to it as a child because my mother was so strict, so it wasn’t until adulthood that I really grew to appreciate it.

I put the song on repeat the other day prepping for this post and after awhile my boyfriend (who’s a musician) was like, “Man, I gotta say, I really like that song!”

We then proceeded to have a discussion about how remarkable it really is that a member of the Jackson 5 could put out an awesome rock song like “Give In To Me”. It really proved that Michael was not only a wonderful performer, but a true musician, as well. Probably 99% of today’s pop stars don’t write any of their own material. They may get a “co-writer” lyric credit every once in awhile, but for the most part, although they most likely encompass some musical or performing talent, they’re just expected to be a product of someone else.

I’ve read several articles and interviews where people who had worked with Michael on the song-creating process stated that he was definitely the one in charge. In fact, most of the time, he’d have all the instrumental arrangements mapped out in his head for his song, and he’d vocally record them into a mini cassette player at home (mostly at night when the inspiration would come to him) and bring it into the studio the next day.

What makes “Give in to Me” such a great song in my opinion is the pop fusion into the rock without being noticeable. What I mean is, the main beat is so catchy and quite unusual to hear in a rock song, but it doesn’t make the song sound any less rock and it doesn’t even make it sound like it should fit into a pop-rock genre.

There are several layers to the song, and main guitar melody is hypnotic. I believe it’s using a chorus pedal for the effect. If you instrumentally pick apart the song, and listen to the keyboards, the ending melody is especially quite beautiful.

The song itself is quite haunting and dark and I especially dig music like that. The video perfectly fits the song and the on stage chemistry between Michael and Slash is hot. I enjoy watching him performing rock songs because he still manages to incorporate some dancing into it which you don’t really see much at a rock show.

A bit on the silly side… I know a lot of fans are united in the opinion that Michael is the sexiest during the “In the Closet” music video, but in my opinion, he is the hottest in this one. Between 4:07-4:39 in the video when he is BEGGING me “Give in to me, Give in to Me” about a million times, I’m always like, “OH?! YES PLZ!”

Here is the music video put together with the “Give in to Me” demo. The song is a bit different than the final version. Give it a listen if you haven’t:

3:01 “Love is a Doughnut!”

The following is a short Youtube featuring some of the making of “Give in to Me”. During the Oprah interview, Michael said they filmed the video in Germany and only had like two hours to shoot the thing.

Continuing this post tomorrow with “Who is it”.

O twitter é uma coisa muito linda. Não preciso nem me mexer pra receber vídeos como este, uma versão 8-bit de Thriller :

Esses Game Boys sangrentos me assustaram mais do que o vídeo original, mas tudo bem.

Letícia

]]> http://hypnobaby.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/hypno-baby-ashleigh-alexandra-louise-smith-is-now-almost-15-weeks-old-and-its-time-to-join-her-fanclub-the-worlds-youngest-psychic-magician-hypnotist/ Thu, 26 Nov 2009 19:41:05 +0000 hypnobaby http://hypnobaby.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/hypno-baby-ashleigh-alexandra-louise-smith-is-now-almost-15-weeks-old-and-its-time-to-join-her-fanclub-the-worlds-youngest-psychic-magician-hypnotist/

Hi There Everyone,

Great News I now have an official Facebook Fan Page!

Simply search for “Ashleigh Alexandra Louise Smith” on Facebook and Join my Fan Page today as that is where
photo’s and Video’s and News is being posted more regulary than at this blog.

So my advice is to join my facebook fan page and keep checking back here on a regular basis as the plan is to release
some exclusive photo’s and videos via this blog every now and again which will not appear on my facebook fan page and
then also put some stuff on Facebook which won’t appear here!

As you can see in the above video I sleep very well even when in noisy room’s, indeed
I reckon I could sleep through an earthquake I take after daddy like that : ) !

To finish for today here’s a quick video clip which daddy made by accident when he
was trying to take a picture of me on his mobile phone..

So Remeber to go to Facebook and search for “Ashleigh Alexandra Louise Smith” in the Manchester Network (England)
and join my Fanpage today!

Keep checking back as I have some important and amazing news coming very soon!

Hugs

Ashleigh

I had a thought earlier today.  Being alone again… there’s nobody to tell me, “Mary, that’s a dumb idea.”  Not that John ever quite said it that way or ever treated me like that– I’m a little more blunt.

But at the same time there’s nobody to tell me “Mary, that’s a dumb idea.”

With John it was more the gentle reminders that I needed to get some sleep.  Or “did you feed the horses yet?” (which by the way, I haven’t yet).   Or “we need to remember to…”  Or the “what do you think about…” Or “don’t forget to…”

Confiding in a soul-mate and sharing a partnership together are some of the things I miss the most.  I miss them everyday, but I miss them most when it comes to matters of Nathaniel.  I don’t want to be the person that decides if it is safe for him to get vaccinated for H1N1 of if it is dangerous for him not to get it.  (He has gotten his first shot and is scheduled for dose number two.)   I want to be one of two parents who decides together how to best raise their child.  You know the way it ideally is… in a perfect world.  But, in a perfect world your beloved spouse doesn’t die of cancer at 35…

Everything is now my decision to make- for wrong of for right.  In a way it’s nice to know that there won’t be any conflict in parental matters- it’s my way or the highway.  (Practicing for the teenage years.)  I can do things that I want to do- if I want to go take Nathaniel somewhere, I just do it.  No, “not now… maybe later”… “I’m tired…”  or “I don’t feel like it,”  or “why don’t you just go (aka I’m not interested and don’t want to join you).”  I’m tired of learning things the hard way.  Hoping I’ll be making more right decisions, but I’m fully aware that I’ll make wrong ones too.

All that being said, I think I’m doing mostly okay on my own.  I ask for opinions when I need them and make my own decisions.  I’m pretty good at researching and collecting data.  I’m an adult and quite capable of making my own decisions.  I just wish John was still here to help me make up my mind.

AMCD also spotted this one… no blue lights on top, so a lot more clean cut….

I really hate this type of parking as well, so I appreciate getting pictures like this.

If a car was to turn in right to this junction… and the child had stepped out onto the road to get around the parked car… well… you can see the result. The turning car wouldn’t see the child until the last minute…

So my roundtable project for Government used to be on human trafficking. Then, since I realized you can’t really pick sides (unless you want to be the insensitive and heartless dick who says that human trafficking should be legal), I edited the topic a little. I’m onto talking about prostitution.

It’s called the “victimless crime”– a business that’s been operating for thousands of years is a punishable offense. Although research has shown that prostitutes are raped 8-10 times annually and that 86% of sex workers have been attacked with a weapon, it’s dismissed as NHI: no humans involved.

But, of course, women who work as prostitutes must have chosen their profession because they like sex, right? They like it kinky or violent or just anywhere, anytime. And they get paid. So it’s a pretty good deal. They must enjoy what they do, despite the abuse, the violence, the subsequent drug dependencies pushed onto them by their pimps, are all consequences sex workers decided were worth it. Oh, and the jail time for being caught and convicted of selling oneself? Just a little extra added bonus.

The sex trade in the United States is thriving. So should we legalize it? Nevada did. In Nevada, sex workers are required to have health checkups and johns must use protection. The brothels are deemed to be “safe.”

Does that make it right? Do all prostitutes choose to peddle their bodies and their lives for the perverted satisfaction of horny men? No, and that’s why there needs to be more done, by the government, to help them escape, and leave that life if they choose to. Prostitution cannot be legalized. If we define human rights violations as sexual harassment, physical assault, rape, captivity, economic coercion, or emotionally damaging verbal abuse, then we cannot in good conscience legalize prostitution anywhere, because that’s what prostitution involves.

America is supposed to be the land of opportunities, so why are we letting women who were forced into the dark and dangerous world of prostitution suffer? Most prostitutes enter the profession at the age of thirteen– and please don’t dare insinuate that a thirteen-year-old girl decided she wanted a load of creep-asses to fuck her on a daily basis. Don’t you dare.

There are also the women who believe they don’t have any alternatives. That there’s no other way to make quick, easy money that they need to support themselves, or their child(ren). They sell themselves a few times, and are quickly swept into a deadly cycle of abuse, rape, and trauma.

Nearly all prostitutes suffer from symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.

I guess prostitution isn’t as fun as it seems, is it? Can you see victims yet?

The following dogs are now considered “restricted breeds” in Tasmania. There are special requirements for owners of these types of dogs:

(a) dogo Argentino;
(b) fila Brasileiro;
(c) Japanese tosa;
(d) American pit bull terrier or pit bull terrier;
(e) Perro de Presa Canario or Presa Canario;
(f) any other breed, kind or description of dog whose importation into Australia is prohibited by or under the Customs Act 1901 of the Commonwealth.

Read the entire Dog Control Amendment Act 2009 here: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/tas/bill/dcab27o2009243/

http://www.media.tas.gov.au/release.php?id=28515

Tougher Controls on Dangerous Dogs

Tasmania now has tougher controls for dangerous dogs with the Dog Control Amendment Act 2009 being passed by State Parliament last week, the Minister for Local Government, Jim Cox, said today.

Mr Cox said the measures included compulsory micro-chipping, a new process around problem barking dogs and tougher management of restricted breed dogs and those declared as dangerous dogs.

Changes to the Act include:

• Stronger control measures on dangerous dogs, including child-proof enclosures of a minimum standard.
• Stronger provisions for councils to seize and detain dogs.
• A new noise abatement notice process to tackle problem barking dogs.
• A new classification of restricted breed dog with stronger control requirements.
• Mandatory de-sexing of restricted breed dogs and dangerous dogs.
• Restrictions on selling and exchanging dangerous and restricted breed dogs.
• Compulsory micro-chipping of all dogs.

“These measures, particularly the new controls on restricted and dangerous breeds, have been brought in to reduce the risk of dog attacks in the community,” Mr Cox said.

“The State Government is serious about the safety of Tasmanians, and placing tougher controls on dangerous dogs is an important step in reducing the risk of potentially life-threatening attacks occurring.”

Mr Cox said the State Government would be implementing the stronger controls, including those on dangerous dogs, the new restricted breed provisions, and the new noise abatement notice process as a matter of priority.

“We will be working closely with councils and interest groups on the detail of the new measures and how we will implement them.

“We want to ensure that affected dog owners fully understand how the new legislation will affect them, and what the new requirements will be before they are put in place.

“We intend to have these measures in place by 1 July 2010, which will give affected dog owners ample time in which to meet the new control requirements.”

The new requirements for all dogs to be micro-chipped will not be implemented until 1 July 2011, to allow for micro-chipping database systems and approvals to be put in place.

“The extended time period on micro-chipping also takes into account the large number of dogs that will need to be micro-chipped.

“However, I would encourage all dog owners not to wait until July 2011 to have their dog micro-chipped. The benefits of micro-chipping your pet, such as being able to more easily identify lost animals, can be of huge benefit straight away.”

Mr Cox said the legislation had been developed through broad consultation and research to find the best model for Tasmania.

“This included a working group comprising representatives of the Local Government Association of Tasmania, the RSPCA, the Australian Veterinary Association, Animal Management Officers Association of Tasmania, the Royal Guide Dogs and other interest groups.”