The USA Government: "We're Not Your Babysitter"

In a vote of 7-2, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a merchant cannot be punished for selling a video game with a Mature rating to a minor.  Such previous laws regarding this matter were considered "nanny laws" and listed as vague and confusing.  Imposed fines, in certain states, could have reached a maximum of $1000 if a merchant were caught selling a prohibited game to a minor.

Well then what's the point of rating the games?  Justice Antonin Scalia alluded to violent fairy tales such as Hanzel and Gretel.  I hardly see the comparison.  To be fair, I must point out that Justice Stephen Breyer was quoted, "It makes no sense to legally block children's access to pornography yet allow them to buy or rent brutally violent video games....What sense does it make to forbid a 13-year-old boy a magazine with an image of a nude woman, while protecting the sale to that 13-year-old boy of an interactive video game in which he actively, but virtually, binds and gags the woman, then tortures and kills her?"

Here, here!  Justice Breyer and Justice Clarence Thomas were the only two to vote against the decision.  And this may be a good place to quote an AP article:  "This decision follows the court's recent movement on First Amendment  cases, with the justices throwing out attempts to ban animal cruelty videos, protests at military funerals, and political speech by businesses."  The key here is that they threw out attempts to ban heinous things.  When is it ever OK to be cruel to another living thing?  What about the right to bury a loved one without being harassed?  What about the freedom to live peacefully?  We're so adept to protect a child's "freedom of speech" but it's seems quite alright to exploit the torture of a living creature. We're not even talking about "virtual" situation here!

Shawn & I have both played games with fair amounts of gory violence and pixelated sexual situations.  However, we are adults, buying items intended for adults.  Children are desensitized to violence.  One small measure was taken to prevent them from buying one form of it and everyone cried that the First Amendment of free speech was being violated.

Years ago, Tipper Gore tackled the music industry and their general distaste for nice language.  Granted, she went a little extreme attacked John Denver, but the end result was a warning label on records that parents could use as a guide.  It was not unlawful for a parent to purchase the music for their own child.  A parent can still legally buy many things not suitable for minors and give those items to their own minor children.  But apparently, this violates the right of free expression.

Local and state governments awarded various software companies $2.1 million in legal fees.  This is your money as well as mine.  This money for education.  This is money for filling pot holes on our streets.  I don't really think it's needed that I say anymore about this ridiculous move.

The First Amendment was created so that the common man would not be stifled.  It was written so that every citizen should have a voice.  It was born out of the idea that a nation's people should be able to speak out against its government when they were wronged.  It has nothing to do with allowing minors to buy certain materials.

The last article I read on the matter was an editorial in a local newspaper.  "While we do not advocate games such as Grand Theft Auto and Postal...." the writer went on to explain what a victory this was and quite frankly, I'm so disgusted I don't even know what else to say.  So I wrote a short note to the editor and clicked "send".

Funny, I don't remember the record companies or the porn magazine publishers crying that they lost money on prohibited sales to minors.  Funny, I don't remember the government paying Big Tobacco $2.1 million for any reason whatsoever.  Is it considered "nannying" to keep a minor from purchasing liquor? Here's a suggestion: Let items that are marketed toward adults be for adults. 

Diet Soda Makes You Fat

I've read this a few times in magazines and always blew it off.  The claim is that the fake sugar tricks your brain or messes with you somehow that you end up eating more.  I've also read the claim that it causes cravings for sweets.

I've always blown it off for a couple reasons.  A) I don't want to give it up, and B) I know people who drink gallons of diet soda and are neither overweight, nor t=do they crave sweets.  Let's use my momin this example.  She keeps bowls of candy out in the kitchen.  She does, after all, have four grandchildren so let's giver her a break.  She can keep those bowls out and not eat any.  I cannot do that!  If I had a bowl out, it be just that:  A bowl.  There would be candy to speak of in it.

My mom is 5'4" and around 120 pounds, I'm guessing.  She's small.  AND to top it all off, she keeps a bag of candy she really loves int he fridge and eats only one bite now and then.  She has, what we call in the scientific community, "Self-Control".  I write that in quotes because many of us have never heard this term.  I think I used to know what it meant.

Upon turning on my computer this morning, there's a big article on diet soda.  In it, I rea dthat researchers in San Antonio have studied this fact for a decade.

....tracked 474 people, all 65 to 74 years old, for nearly a decade, measuring the subjects' height, weight, waist circumference, and diet soft drink intake every 3.6 years. The waists of those who drank diet soft drinks grew 70 percent more than those who avoided the artificially sweetened stuff; people who drank two or more servings a day had waist-circumference increases that were five times larger than non-diet-soda consumers.

I actually do not agree with this because it does not compare the findings to the fact that EVERYONE in America has a growing waist line.  Where's the control group?  The problem with this country is that even if you are poor, you will most likely be overweight.  The lower priced foods are very unhealthy and fatty, often laden with fat, salt and sugar.  Other countries make fun of us for it.

The article also claimed that the taste buds cannot tell the difference between genuine sugar and artificial sweeteners. I don't know about you, but I sure can tell the difference between Sweet & Low, Splenda, and sugar cane.  There is a HUGE difference in taste.  The other claim regarding this was that our brains perceive these sugars differently.  I can tell you about my own personal taste buds, but I don't have an MRI machine in the closet so I can only give my opinion on how our brains react.

The idea is that your brain knows it's not real sugar, that you're trying to play a trick on it so you crave something that will fell like a full reward.  It also suggests that, "the sweet taste could also trigger your body to produce insulin, which blocks your ability to burn fat."

I'm not a medical doctor but I don't understand how fake sugar forces the body to produce more insulin.  I suppose it kind of makes sense, but if it's not actual sugar, why does the blood react?  When I eat Greek Yogurt, it tastes like sour cream, but my body doesn't pack on fat thinking that I've eaten a tub of fatty sour cream.

One study involving 2500 people concluded that people "who drank diet soda daily had a 61 percent increased risk of cardiovascular events compared to those who drank no soda, even when accounting for smoking...."

I would hardly compare diet soda to smoking!  Again, we're leaving out the fact that most of these people are overweight because they are Americans.  I decided I would not even bring up the issue of Aspertame.  During certain times of the year, I try to limit my intake of diet soda because it's costly.  Granted, I buy store brand, generic soda, but tap water and tea are practically free by comparison.

So, does all this change my mind about diet soda?  I am conflicted.  April, a diet soda fan does not crave sweets, ever.  My mom is small.  Whether the fake sweeteners cause aches and pains, sugar cravings, I really do not know and I'm convinced that anyone who thinks he does, doesn't really know either.

To be fair, one doctor was quoted in the article as saying that one or two diet sodas per day probably wouldn't hurt you.  This is how the article is concluded and it severely contradicts itself.

So, to sum up what I believe but do not yet practice.....
Everything in moderation.  Period.

Little Miss Ray 'O Sunshine

It's 8pm here in the "great" state of Texas and my toolbar says it's 97 degrees.
Yep....I said PM.  Ppppeeeeee--eeeeemmmmmmm.  At night. 


At least the desert gets a break at night.  It's not this hot in the desert at night.