Many Stores Now Staying Open on Thanksgiving. What are “Holidays” to you?

By: Don Caldwell


How important are “Holidays”?


Numerous companies are expanding their shopping hours closer and closer into “Holiday” territory. No longer is it just “Black Friday”, but now even runs into Thanksgiving itself….

Excerpts italicized:

For Anthony Hardwick, Thanksgiving has special meaning. Last year, he proposed to his girlfriend, Denise, in front of her whole family during the holiday.


This year though, he will be working. A part-time employee at Target in Omaha, Neb., Hardwick said his manager requested he start his shift at 11 p.m. In order to make it through the night, he'll need to sleep on Thanksgiving Day.


This year marks Target'searliest opening ever. Target, Best Buy, Macy's and Kohl's are all opening at midnight on Thanksgiving eve. Wal-Mart recently announced plans to open its doors to the public at 10 p.m. then Toys R Us followed suit, announcing it would open most stores as early as 9 p.m. the day before Black Friday.


"We have heard from our guests that they want to shop following their Thanksgiving celebrations rather than only having the option of getting up in the middle of the night," Target said in a statement. "Target will offer holiday pay to all hourly team members who work on Thanksgiving Day."


Thanksgiving Day openings have been a boon to retailers during the economic downturn. The number of people who shop on Thanksgiving -- both online and in stores -- rose to 22.3 million in 2010, about double the amount just five years earlier, according to the National Retail Federation.
Last year, the number of people who began their Black Friday shopping at midnight was triple the amount in 2009.


It is easy to blame the companies for their continual push to make profit, but we (consumers) are the ones who have drastically increased the amount of time and money spent on shopping on Thanksgiving.


We can give many reasons as to why some choose to shop on one of our most important holidays (good deals, the crowds, time away from the family..lol), but what does this say about the value of this “family” holiday to each of us? Can we cherish of “family” time and yet give shopping of most precious resource….our time?


What would it take for this to stop?


And once retailers firmly practice the habit of being open on thanksgiving, what will happen to that holiday?


Will Christmas be next???


What is a “Holiday”…to you?

(ORIGINAL LINK) Black Friday backlash: Early openings a mixed blessing - Yahoo! Finance

If You Fly With Little Children, Prepare For Mistreatment By The Airlines / Passengers.

By: Don Caldwell


Are children more of a blessing or a curse?


lol…and who would not want to sit next to the baby in the pic above?


Excerpts italicized:


Babies on airplanes. It's enough to make parents—and all the passengers around them—cry.


Parents are complaining of airline seating policies that create "baby ghettos" in the back of planes. Even worse, families are increasingly split up, leaving small children in middle seats in the company of strangers unless passengers arrange seat swaps on board.


Michael Lyon booked seats together for his family for a trip from Washington, D.C., to Bangkok on United Airlines in July and checked his reservation frequently to make sure the seat assignments didn't change. But when he checked in, all three had been split up, and his 6-year-old son was moved to the back of the wide-body plane by himself for the 13-hour trip.


Several factors are at play. First, many seats on flights are reserved for elite-level frequent fliers or full-fare business travelers. Routinely full flights have less seat-assignment flexibility. Also, airlines are increasingly selling choice seat assignments for extra fees, an expensive option for families. And bulkhead rows at the front of coach cabins that used to be ideal for traveling with infants, offering more privacy for diaper changes and more space for restless toddlers, now have to be reserved for passengers with disabilities. As a result, families often end up separated or at the back of the plane.


"I feel like it's discrimination against families. For us, it is not an option to not be by my 2-year-old," she said.


Adding to the complexity: Several airlines, including American and United, don't let travelers add children flying free on a parent's lap to reservations online. Instead, they must call the airline or get an airport agent to add a lap child to their reservation. Southwest Airlines requires taking a lap child to a ticket counter with a birth certificate on the day of travel to verify the child is younger than 2 years old.


"Sometimes other passengers are willing to help you out. But others look at you like you are the devil for bringing a child on an airplane," said Alecia Hoobing, who works for a technology company from her home in Boise, Idaho. The evil eyes are more acute when families upgrade to first class, she and Ms. Hull agree. Malaysia Airlines decided this year to ban babies from first-class cabins of its Boeing 747 jets and next year in its new Airbus A380 super-jumbos because of passenger complaints of crying children in the expensive seats.


Ms. Hoobing thinks the hardest part of travel with kids is boarding. Airlines typically no longer let families with small children board first on flights. Instead, they often come after first class and top-tier frequent fliers. Kids and parents—lugging car seats, diaper bags, videogames and toys—clog the aisles and delay general boarding. Though airlines provide leniency, such as exempting diaper bags for carry-on bag limits and waiving checked-baggage fees for car seats and strollers, they have tightened restrictions.


“Families often end up separated or at the back of the plane”.


Since when have families become the people for “the back of the plane”???


A couple of weeks ago I was shopping at a local Wal-Mart and at the checkout counter in the electronics section the cashier started conversing with me. Friendly chit-chat ensued as her kind demeanor encouraged my talkative nature.


During the conversation a couple of kids walked by playing and teasing each other. The woman then commented as to how glad she was that they were not her children and that she did not have to deal with that. Diplomatically, I stated something to the effect that “at least they were not screaming and yelling…which would be a lot worse”. I thought that in some small way I was trying to convince her that they were not being all that bad, but I was also sad that I didn’t say something as I had felt.


I was saddened by all of this. How could someone be so bothered by a couple of little kids just being little kids? How has society grown less tolerant of children with each generation?


I have previously written about this kind of kind of issue back in July: Restaurant to Bans Kids under 6. A Good Thing or Bad? (TheWell)


So many can easily say how children our most precious thing. Commonly used by commercials and politicians. Most would probably agree, but our actions regarding children (as compared to our words) have seemed to become less tolerant.


Why do children seem to bother us so?


And if we truly treasured children as much as we think we do, then why do we continue to have fewer and fewer children with each passing year?


….as a bonus….would sitting next to this bother you??




(ORIGINAL LINK) Flying With Little Children? Go to the Back of the Plane - Yahoo! Finance

C Sections Are The Most Common Type of Elective Surgery. Why Are We Putting Our Babies At Risk?

By: Don Caldwell


Is pregnancy that bad?


Excerpts italicized:


Pregnancy is a miraculous thing, but most moms would agree that the last month of it isn't a lot of fun.


You're uncomfortable, to say the least. You can't sleep, thanks to the tiny bundle of wonder practicing his or her best kicks at night. And then there's the heartburn, swelling, around-the-clock trips to the bathroom, and more.


Is it any wonder that so many women wish they could avoid as much of that last month as possible? Given that elective inductions and Cesarean sections have been on the rise for years, it seems as though many new moms are doing just that.
"I have seen women induced or have a scheduled C-section because they have family scheduled to be in town, because they want the baby to be born on an anniversary or someone else's birthday, because they want the baby born prior to Jan. 1 for tax purposes, or because they are simply sick and tired of being pregnant," Dr. Elaine St. John, associate professor of pediatrics in the Division of Neonatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, told ABC News in 2009.


Cesarean sections account for 32 percent of all births in the United States, and is the most common operation performed in U.S. hospitals. According to the National Institutes of Health, a "normal" pregnancy can last from 38 to 42 weeks, but recent studies confirm that babies born before 39 weeks gestation haves an increased risk for a host of medical problems, including breathing issues, hypoglycemia, infection, developmental delays, feeding complications, and jaundice

First of all, I am a man….not a woman…so anything I say needs to be taken in that context. (I would also like to avoid the obvious “you are not a woman” comments ...lol). I cannot comment, with any authority, as to what pregnancy is like. But I would imagine it to be a uniquely beautiful time between mother and child. One that should be appreciated….


The Article highlights how many hospitals are trying to buck the trend of C-Sections for various reasons, but I think the bigger story is how C-Sections have become so common place.


Why has a potentially dangerous surgery become so common in light of the potential dangers to both mother and child (granted labor and delivery are not without its own dangers.)? Has this need for convenience taken precedence over the wellbeing of the child itself? If so, what does that say about that relationship?


If love could be defined as caring about another more than your own self, then could this really be based on true love of a child? Or are we as a society moving towards “shades of love” while gradually putting ourselves first and foremost?


What does a baby mean to you?

(ORIGINAL LINK) More Hospitals Banning Elective C Sections | Parenting - Yahoo! Shine

Huge Payments To Doctors Raise Questions. Should Companies Pay Doctors to Pick Their Treatments for you?

By: Don Caldwell


How much is your life worth?


Excerpts italicized:


Orthopedic surgeons have received hundreds of millions of dollars from joint implant manufacturers in recent years, according to a recent report.


In 2007, five device makers said they had paid surgeons more than $198 million, with 43 payments exceeding $1 million.


While the number of payments appears to have dropped since 2007, the average dollar amount has gone up, based on data from the three manufacturers that disclosed physician payments made in the last several years.


Those financial ties represent anything from consulting fees to royalties to research support. Some argue they are necessary to drive medical innovations, but others fear they could end up harming patients as well.


Doctors getting industry money could be quicker to use implants from the companies paying them, for instance, or downplay the side effects of those products in their research.


The new results come as the U.S. Senate investigates whether surgeons paid by Medtronic, a medical device maker not included in the current study, failed to report sterility and other complications stemming from the company's bone-growth implant Infuse.

We all can reason our way through almost anything given the proper desire / motivation, but can we also recognize how our perceptions can be biased due to personal gain?


The financial incentives surrounding the decisions our healthcare providers make at best cloud their decision making abilities. Giving our doctors the benefit of the doubt and assuming that most are unaffected by this, we must recognize that a sizable minority have their decisions influenced by these financial incentives.


It can be difficult to take a side in this issue, but I imagine no one would want to be on the receiving end of decision clouded by this….


Should Your Treatment Be Dictated By How much money you will make your Doctor?

(ORIGINAL LINK) Million-Dollar Payments To Surgeons Raise Questions | Fox News

Proposed Law Lets Some Buy Citizenship. Should Citizenship Only Be For The Rich?

By: Don Caldwell


How much should US citizenship cost?


Excerpts italicized:


The reeling housing market has come to this: To shore it up, two Senators are preparing to introduce a bipartisan bill Thursday that would give residence visas to foreigners who spend at least $500,000 to buy houses in the U.S.


The provision is part of a larger package of immigration measures, co-authored by Sens. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) and Mike Lee (R., Utah), designed to spur more foreign investment in the U.S.


Foreigners have accounted for a growing share of home purchases in South Florida, Southern California, Arizona and other hard-hit markets. Chinese and Canadian buyers, among others, are taking advantage not only of big declines in U.S. home prices and reduced competition from Americans but also of favorable foreign exchange rates.


To fuel this demand, the proposed measure would offer visas to any foreigner making cash investment of at least $500,000 on residential real-estate
The measure would complement existing visa programs that allow foreigners to enter the U.S. if they invest in new businesses that create jobs

This bill (with support from both parties) highlights (perhaps) how cheap we have turned the process of citizenship into.


Should citizenship be made available with those who have more money ahead of those who do not? An ordinary foreigner must go thought a long and perhaps expensive lottery process of trying to become a citizen of the United States. What does it say about a government who hands out visas to the highest bidder? Is it any worse if an immigration official helps someone get citizenship if they get an “under the table” bribe? Is such a practice less immoral if it becomes the policy of a nation?


Granted, the intent of this program is to spur the American economy, but isn’t it always? Are there not similarities between this and “grease payments” (aka bribes)?


Would it be okay for the United States to accept bribes?


Can we really call this the land of opportunity or the land of the connected?

(ORIGINAL LINK) Bill Would Give U.S. Visas to Foreign Home Buyers - WSJ.com

Red Light Cameras Favored According To Surveys. Big Brother…Do You Like Them?

By: Don Caldwell


How much freedom are you willing to give up for the sake of safety?


Over the past few years you may have noticed all of those traffic cameras that have gone up in towns and cities across America. Local governments have been making a great deal of money off of these cameras, with some bringing in up to 2 million dollars for a single camera per year.


Some would argue the effect this has on safety, while others would argue how this has become an excuse for local governments to find additional ticketing revenue.


Excerpts italicized:


In order increase safety and reduce crashes at intersections, a number of cities have been using red light cameras to catch drivers who violate the law and run through them. This controversial practice has been called an invasion of privacy by some, but now a new survey found that there is high support from drivers for these efforts and fatalities in those cities have dropped.


The survey by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) found that two-thirds of drivers in 14 major cities who have red-light cameras support their use. This study is a follow up to the recent finding that these cameras have reduced fatal red-light-running crashes by 24 percent in the same cities.


Critics of the red-light cameras are quite vocal saying they are an invasion of privacy and that the cameras are meant to make more money for the cities, not increase safety.


More than a quarter of respondents said the cameras can make mistakes and some noted that they make the roads less safe. Voters in eight cities have rejected the cameras in the past three years.


Last year, IIHS noted that speeding and running red lights were the most important traffic safety issues that needed to be addressed to help reduce the deaths on America’s roads.

Benjamin Franklin once said “trade freedom for safety”


You can have either a society focusing on freedom or one that focuses on safety but not both. As we give greater power and responsibility to our governments to control the various aspects of our lives (health care, education, social security, etc.) we lose freedom in the process. Obviously complete freedom is a state of anarchy, but a people should keep in mind that by the time you realize you don’t have much freedom, it is probably a little too late to do much about it.  As it is always twice as hard to get something back once you’ve lost it than to have kept it in the first place.


Then you should question whether you would prefer to live in a free society or a socialist society. They both may be democratic, but only one has freedom.


Which do you choose?


P.S. One last thing of note. In New Jersey, the state recently did away with the annual “safety” aspect of bi-yearly car inspections. Where now the only aspect of one’s vehicle checked are of emissions. You could be driving a car with missing airbags, three wheels, and a missing seatbelt, but all that the state really cares about is if you are putting out too much carbon dioxide.


I am not saying that either is not important, but wouldn’t a greater emphasis be placed on driver safety…or is it the bottom line?

(ORIGINAL LINK) Support for big brother: Survey finds use of red light cameras favored

Home Births Drastically Rising. Why Are So Many Avoiding The Hospital?

By: Don Caldwell


Why are so many mothers avoiding Hospitals?


Excerpts italicized:


A rather significant trend is gripping the United States in the way we go about giving birth to our children. More frequently are expectant mothers choosing to avoid the Hospital in favor at giving birth at home. Many different reasons bring about such a decision (high cost, lack of personalized care, etc.), but (like with anything) this is perhaps both a good thing and a bad thing.


One mother chose home birth because it was cheaper than going to a hospital. Another gave birth at home because she has multiple sclerosis and feared unnecessary medical intervention. And some choose home births after cesarean sections with their first babies.


Whatever their motivation, all are among a striking trend: Home births increased 20 percent from 2004 to 2008, accounting for 28,357 of 4.2 million U.S. births, according to a study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released in May.


White women led the drive, with 1 in 98 having babies at home in 2008, compared to 1 in 357 black women and 1 in 500 Hispanic women.
Sherry Hopkins, a Las Vegas midwife, said the women whose home births she's attended include a pediatrician, an emergency room doctor and nurses. "We're definitely seeing well-educated and well-informed people who want to give birth at home," she said.


The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which certifies OB-GYNs, warns that home births can be unsafe, especially if the mother has high-risk conditions, if a birth attendant is inadequately trained and if there's no nearby hospital in case of emergency. Some doctors also question whether a "feminist machoism" is at play in wanting to give birth at home.


But home birthers say they want to be free of drugs, fetal monitors, IVs and pressure to hurry their labor at the behest of doctors and hospitals.


Some home birthers cite concerns over cesarean sections. The U.S. rate of C-sections in hospitals hovers around 32 percent, soaring up to 60 percent in some areas. In some cases, there's a "too posh to push" mentality of scheduled inductions for convenience sake


Gina Crosley-Corcoran, a Chicago blogger and pre-law student, had a C-section with her first baby and chronicled nightmarish pressure from nurses and doctors to abandon a vaginal birth with her second. She followed up with a third child born at home in April.


"I do think there's a backlash against what's happening in hospitals," she said. "Women are finding that the hospital experience wasn't a good one."
By some accounts, in 1900, 95 percent of U.S. births took place at home. That slipped to half by 1938 and less than 1 percent by 1955.


A study in the British Medical Journal based on nearly 5,500 home births involving certified professional midwives in the United States and Canada. The study, considered one of the largest for home births, showed 88 percent had positive outcomes, while 12 percent of the women were transferred to hospitals, including 9 percent for preventive reasons and 3 percent for emergencies.
The study showed an infant mortality rate of 2 out of every 1,000 births, about the same as in hospitals at the time

This issue brings attention to several different problems facing us today.


The high (and rising) cost of health care, has led many to seek cheaper (and possibly more dangerous) alternatives to the exorbitant costs associated with most health care and hospital deliveries.


The lack of proper care in a hospital, as mothers are spending less and less time in hospitals after delivery as health care providers attest to the lack of need to stay more than a day or two. (One has to wonder whether or not this is motivated more by a financial reason as compared to the well-being of the mother.)


Are unnecessary C-Sections being pushed by hospitals for conveniences’ sake?
It is also interesting how many professional health care providers are joining this trend. I, like many, would prefer to do what the doctor does not just what he (or she) says.


Why are so many more white women doing this as compared to other minorities? Are white women given lesser quality care? Is care for a white woman more expensive? One could argue that white women tend to be more affluent and therefore have higher quality (or more likely to have) health insurance. Then why are they 3.5 times more likely than African-American women and 5 times more likely than Hispanic women to do so?


Why is the mortality rate (about 2 in every 1000 births) with home-births about the same as in hospitals? Shouldn’t the level of care be higher?


But, as noted in the article (and as any history teacher can attest), people have been having babies for thousands of years without the need of a hospital without the need for C-Sections. The article even points that out (5 percent in 1900). Do we really need (outside of complications of course) to continue to go to Hospitals?


Or has God / evolution done a good job of designing the process as it is?

­(ORIGINAL LINK) Home birth on the rise by a dramatic 20 percent - Yahoo! News

Restaurant to Bans Kids Under 6. A Good Thing Or Bad?

By: Don Caldwell


Are parents doing a worse job then they used to, or are we living in a less child-friendly society? What about both?


Excerpts italicized:


During an interview with the owner, patrons apparently favored this action 11 to 1, noting that most of the complaints came from other parents themselves looking to enjoy a quiet dinner….


The owner also notes that children have begun to become more disruptive due to lack of parenting.


A restaurant in western Pennsylvania says it's no longer allowing children under age 6.


McDain's Restaurant and Golf Center in Monroeville says the new policy will take effect July 16.


Restaurant owner Mike Vuick said there's "nothing wrong with babies, but the fact is you can't control their volume." He said all that screaming and crying disturbs many of his customers.


Some restaurant customers said they support Vuick's right to set rules that he thinks are best for his business. But others said they're offended by the policy.
Vuick said that children might be the center of their parents' universe, as it should be. But he says they're not the center of everyone else's universe too.

Do restaurants have the right to create the atmosphere they want? The people seem to have agreed with the actions of this particular restaurant, but what does that really say?


It generally seems as though kids are becoming less” well behaved” as parenting skills take a nosedive, but is this also a reflection on a society that is less family oriented?


In the western world, people are having fewer and fewer kids (per capita) which every passing year, and those same children are spending more and more time being raised by secondary care-givers ( i.e. day-care). One could argue that the lack of parenting (both in times spent with children, and with parenting style) has led to children becoming more “disruptive”.


If our children are (what most would consider…consciously) the most important things in the world, then why can we not give them the most important thing we have to give…our time?
 
(ORIGINAL LINK) Noise Prompts Pennsylvania Restaurant to Ban Kids Under 6 - FoxNews.com
(VIDEO LINK) Video Interview With PA Restaurant Owner - FoxNews.com

Russian Ship Sinks, Ships Pass By, Ignore Calls To Help, 9 Dead, 90 Missing.

By: Don Caldwell

If someone was in danger of dying, would you stop and help?

Excerpts italicized:

An overloaded Russian passenger ship sank in a local river, killing many with many more missing. The worst part was that 2 ships just passed them by as the passengers and crew waved and (presumably) radioed for help.

Rescuers scoured the wide waters of a Volga River reservoir on Monday, searching with dimming hopes for survivors after an aged, overloaded cruise ship sank amid wind and rain. Nine people were confirmed dead, but more than 90 remained missing.

Exactly how many people were aboard the two-deck Bulgaria when it set off for a cruise on Sunday remains unclear but it was certain to be carrying more than its licensed maximum? Officials say anywhere from 185 to 196 people were aboard the ship that should have carried no more than 120.
Many children were aboard the boat, and Russian news reports cite survivors as saying about 50 children had gathered in the ship's entertainment hall shortly before it sank Sunday afternoon.

One survivor told the national news channel Vesti 24 that other ships refused to come to their aid.
"Two ships did not stop, although we waved our hands," said the man in his 40s, who stood on the shore amid weeping passengers, some of them wrapped in towels and blankets. He held another man, who was weeping desperately.

Did you think that something like this could not happen? Do you think something like this can happen here?

How many lives could have been saved if those two passing ships stopped to help?

So many of us would think that something like this could never happen, but it does every day. I mean, every time I see a movie or a TV show, they always stop and help. But how often do people really stop and help, how much do we really care about another person when we don’t have an audience watching us.

Maybe you thought they already called for assistance, or maybe you were running late. I would imagine the 2 passing ships just though the “sinking” ship just broke down and was stranded, and didn’t want to be bothered with the responsibility.

When was the last time you pulled over to stop and check on a car stranded on the side of the road?

What is the difference?

(ORIGNAL LINK) 9 Dead, More Than 90 Missing in Russian Ferry Sinking - FoxNews.com

“Win a Baby” Contest Creates Controversy

By: Don Caldwell

How much is a Baby’s life worth?

Excerpts italicized:

A Fertilization clinic in the United Kingdom is offering free fertilization services to a few lucky winners (“Win a Baby”), and this has many people crying about how this belittles the value of children by making them something akin to a commodity…

A new lottery in the U.K. offering contestants the chance to “win a baby” through expensive in-vitro fertilization treatments is causing a stir.

The sweepstakes, run by the fertility charity To Hatch and set to launch this month, is drawing criticism by some ethical and medical groups who say it is “demeaning,” Reuters reports.

Some ethical and medical groups in Britain are outraged at this lottery. Britain's fertility regulator, the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority, said that this lottery was "wrong and entirely inappropriate," adding in a statement: "It trivializes what is for many people a central part of their lives," Reuters reported.

The founder and chair of the charity, Camille Strachan, told Reuters she wanted to create the "ultimate wish list" for those who are unable to conceive children.

If, as the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority states, children are “for many people a central part of their lives.”, then how can society condone so many of the things that threaten our children?

From fertilization clinics to abortion clinics, the “baby” industry is very much a profitable business. Various groups in the United Kingdom are upset that babies are being treated as a commodity, but are they any more or less a commodity than in the abortion industry? Many people instictivley know that we are all supposed to agree that a baby is “the most precious thing in the world” and all of that, but can you believe in that and still treat them as a commodity?

Can you believe babies to be so precious yet still support abortion? You can either see them as infinitely precious or as something significantly less (not saying that they are still not important to people).

You can’t have it both ways…at the very least it shows how society truly values human life (more than nothing…less than “precious”).

Don’t get me started on all of the toxic products that children are exposed to (children’s’ toys from China for example)

(ORIGINAL LINK) Lottery to Win a Baby Sparks Controversy in Britain - FoxNews.com

Scientists Create Meat From Human Poop. Are There Better Things To Research?

By: Don Caldwell

What the heck were they thinking?

Excerpts italicized:

Japanese scientists have developed a way to take human feces and turn it into meat…

Anyone up for some poop burgers?

Japanese scientist Mitsuyuki Ikeda from the Okayama Laboratory certainly doesn't believe in human waste.

He thinks that's perfectly good protein you're sending out to sea, and he's found a way to extract it, mix it with steak sauce and create a fecal feast fit for a king.
It's colored red so you don't know it's poo.

"Initial tests have people saying it even tastes like beef," Digital Trends reports.
Prof Ikeda and his colleagues say it's the perfect solution for reducing waste and emissions from flatulent cows.

Do we have to be afraid of things like this showing up in the food supply? Probably not, but it makes you want the packaging to include where the meat came from…

What is the worst thing you would eat?? 

Were tax dollars spent on this???…lol

(original link) Japanese Scientists Create Meat From Poop - FoxNews.com

Chinese Boy Trades Kidney For An iPad 2, Would You Do The Same?

By: Don Caldwell


How much is your body worth to you?


Excerpts italicized:


A teenager in Huaishan, Anhui Province has sold one of his kidneys to buy an iPad2 tablet computer, as reported by SZTV on June 1.


The 17-year-old man surnamed Zheng, a freshman in high school, got connected with a kidney-selling agent through the internet, who pledged to pay him 20,000 yuan ($3,084.45 ) for one of his kidneys.


On April 28 of this year, Zheng went to Chenzhou, Hunan Province to have his kidney removed under the supervision of three so-called middlemen, and received 22,000 yuan ($3,392.97). Then he returned home with a laptop and an iPhone.


Zheng's mother discovered her son's new electronic products and forced him to reveal how he came to afford them. Then she took Zheng to Chenzhou and reported the matter to local police. The three agents' telephones have not been answered since that time.


Chenzhou 198 Hospital, where Zheng had his surgery, has no qualifications for kidney transplantation, according to SZTV reporters.


The hospital has denied any connection with the kidney removal operation, and has said that its urology department is contracted to a businessman in Fujian.

How important is your body? Your health?


It seems easy for most of us to say that we would never trade something as valuable as a kidney for an
iPad, but are we capable of making a similar decision?


What if instead of an iPad, a new car was offered (or how about a really nice car, or a house…..or 10 million dollars.)? 


What is the difference between selling an organ for a possession and selling your health for vanity? How many people choose to use tanning beds (when is KNOWN by the medical community to increase your risk for cancer several times over)? 


What about people who choose to smoke or alcoholics? Obesity?


In all of these things we choose to use our bodies for pleasures of the moment even as it slowly destroys our bodies.


This at the very least brings attention to aspects of our culture that celebrate possessions above so much (look how excited / vain people get about their smartphones…)


This young man may be losing a kidney…but what do you lose by chasing possessions or money yourself???


Could that be just as meaningful of a loss?

(ORIGINAL LINK) Teenager sells kidney for iPad 2 - Global Times (China)

Biblical Theme Park Under Construction With Government Assistance. What The Heck?

By: Don Caldwell


I never thought I’d see this happen…


Excerpts Italicized:

A Bible-belt state hoping to land a biblical theme park that includes a full-size replica of Noah's Ark approved tax incentives Thursday to help pay for it.


The Kentucky Tourism Development Finance Authority voted unanimously to grant more than $40 million in tax rebates for the $172 million project that's otherwise being financed by a group of unidentified private investors


The latest project would will include a replica of the Tower of Babel, a first century village, theaters, lecture halls, retail shops, restaurants, a petting zoo and live animal shows featuring giraffes and elephants.

The mission of the project, Zovath said, is to lend credence to the biblical account of a catastrophic flood and to dispel doubts that Noah could have fit two of every kind of animal in an ark.



However, the notion of providing such incentives for a project with a religious theme drew immediate opposition on grounds of church-state separation and raised the specter of protracted legal battles over the issue.


Americans United for Separation of Church and State executive director Barry W. Lynn criticized Kentucky's decision, saying the state "should not be promoting the spread of fundamentalist Christianity or any other religious viewpoint.


"Let these folks build their fundamentalist Disneyland without government help," he said.
The Creation Museum has shown that tourists will flock to biblical attractions. More than 1 million visitors have visited the creation museum since it opened more than 3 years ago.


Lynn complained Thursday that public officials in Kentucky are subsidizing fundamentalist religion at a time when they should be promoting modern science for Kentucky children.


"This misguided project deserves to sink," he said.

The Government subsidizing something associated with religion. Now that is something I bet a lot of groups were fighting.


Can a place like this succeed in our modern society?


Besides the surprise regarding this one has to think about how this could benefit people. Most of us easily will accept the party line of how great museums, theme parks, and art galleries are, but do we ever think about why? In what ways would this type of attraction be good for people?


Would you get more out of a place like this or a place that is more secular…like our traditional attractions…?

(ORIGINAL LINK) Biblical Theme Park Coming to Kentucky With Government Assistance - FoxNews.com

Man Finds $40,000 In New Home, Returns It. Could You Do The Same?

By: Don Caldwell


Could you really do the same?


Excerpts italicized:

A man who found more than $40,000 cash in the Utah home he recently bought has returned the money to its rightful owner, The Salt Lake City Tribune reported Thursday.


Josh Ferrin discovered the money stuffed in eight ammo boxes in the attic while he was exploring a workshop room in the Bountiful home on Tuesday.


At the time he thought of his car troubles, repairs and renovations for the house and his desire to adopt a child -- but he returned it to the owner.


"I couldn't let myself consider the money mine," he said.


"This little guy [the previous homeowner] didn't put it there for me. He put it there for a rainy day," he said.


Ferrin took the eight boxes to his parents' home, where he counted the money with his wife Tara and two children, Oliver and Lincoln.


The previous owner of the home was Arnold Bangerter, a father of six who died in November. Bangerter, who worked for the state's fisheries, purchased the home in the mid-1960s because of the giant tree in the backyard.

A heart-warming story to be sure, but one has to ask…how many could really do the same?


It is one thing to have found money when it is “extra” then if you found it when you are also in desperate need of it. What does this say about a man who held it in his hand knowing how badly he needed it and yet still went out of his way to give it back?


How many people could really do the same?


How many could do the same considering that when he found it, no one else knew about it. The original owner of the money was dead. No one would have known if he had kept the money.


People are at their best when there is an audience, but what are we really like when no one is watching?


Could you really do the same?

(ORIGINAL LINK) Man Finds More Than $40,000 Cash in Utah Home, Returns it to Owners - FoxNews.com

Study Says 80 Percent of Baby Products Are Toxic. What Can We Do?

By: Don Caldwell


What can we do to protect our families?


Excerpts italicized:


A recent study details how most of the products we buy for our babies are also killing them…

Your baby’s car seat, changing pad and portable crib are part of the 80 percent of baby products that contain toxic or untested chemical flame retardants, according to a new study published in Environmental Science & Technology Wednesday.


The data revealed that one-third of baby products, including nursing pillows contain the chemical called chlorinated tris, which was removed from children’s pajamas in the 1970s after raising concerns about cancer.


Another flame retardant, known as TCEP, was detected in 10 of the tested nursing pillows. TCEP is listed as a carcinogen in California.


Currently, companies are not required to label whether products contain flame retardants.


There are flame retardants in 90 percent of American bodies, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.


“But toddler’s bodies have levels of flame retardants three times higher than adults, which the study says can be explained partly because children are on the floor a great deal, around household dust where chemicals accumulate, and they often have their fingers in their mouth,” Sonya Lunder, a scientist with the Environmental Working Group told USA Today.

We buy baby products (which are probably over-priced to begin with) thinking that we are getting the best for our babies, but what can we do when almost everything we buy will fill them with cancer causing chemicals that could eventually kill them?


Many would get frustrated and dismiss this as “one more thing that can kill you”, but what we should perhaps be asking ourselves is: was everything a hundred years ago also as cancerous?


The products we buy today are manufactured from artificial, chemically-laden materials. From plastics to flame retardant chemicals, we are exposing our bodies to elements that were not an issue not too long ago. Given that the various governing safety bodies have done little to protect us through testing and regulation, we must take measure to protect our own families.


What can be done?


The answers are not clear. Should we thoroughly wash the products? Can we find products without chemicals? Can you make some of these things yourself? Are there alternatives (maybe old-fashioned) to these products?


Is it safer to let kids play outside as compared to indoors (given the increasingly toxic environment of a typical home)?


How could manufacturers get away with this?

(ORIGINAL LINK) Study: 80 Percent of Baby Products Are Toxic - FoxNews.com

President Clinton Wants To Create Internet Agency to Make Sure The “Truth” Is Reported.

By: Don Caldwell


Big brother may be watching you…


Should the government have the right to regulate what you report as news?


Former president Bill Clinton recently expressed interest in creating an Internet agency to target falsehoods in news reporting.


Excerpts italicized:

If Bill Clinton had his way, there would be an Internet agency created by the U.S. government or United Nations to debunk malicious rumors that originate and spread online.


"I think it would be a legitimate thing to do," Clinton told CNBC in an interview that aired Friday. He was interviewed alongside Mati Kochavi, a cyber-security entrepreneur.


But Clinton added that if such an agency were ever created, it would have to be "totally transparent" about where its funding came from and would have to be independent.

Although most would probably agree that truth in media is important, who should have the power to decide what is true or not?


His comments expressed the importance of the independence of such an agency, and that it should leave opinion out of its decisions (focusing only on whether or not the information is “fact”).


Such policies and agencies exist / have existed before (Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, People’s Republic of China, etc.), but as history tells us, such power will be abused.


The First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the freedom of the press for these very reasons. Do we want the government to have a say in what someone can report?


I know I don’t want the “Thought Police” (ala “1984”) knocking at my door…

(ORIGINAL LINK) Bill Clinton Muses About Creating Internet Agency to Combat Falsehoods - FoxNews.com

CDC Releases Survival Guide for the Zombie Apocalypse.

By: Don Caldwell

Are you ready?

Excerpts italicized:

The U.S. Government’s Center for Disease Control (CDC) has released a how-to guide to survive the “Zombie Apocalypse.

There are all kinds of emergencies out there that we can prepare for. Take a zombie apocalypse for example. That’s right; I said z-o-m-b-i-e a-p-o-c-a-l-y-p-s-e. You may laugh now, but when it happens you’ll be happy you read this, and hey, maybe you’ll even learn a thing or two about how to prepare for a real emergency.

Is this an ingenious way to get people to think about being prepared for disaster or something more reflective of a society that needs something to be entertaining in order to pay attention?

Or does the government know something about what could REALLY happen and how to prepare for It.???? I sense years of cover-up…

This all does beg us to question whether or not many of us take steps to prepare for disasters in general.

I’d better spruce up on some of the tips laid out in “Zombieland” to prepare.

And never forget the most important rule of all…..”The Double Tap”…





(ORIGINAL LINK) CDC EPR | Social Media | Preparedness 101: Zombie Apocalypse - Blog

Lady Gaga Attacks Christianity: Update. The Music Video Is Out

By: Don Caldwell


Continued from my previous post.
Lady Gaga Attacks Christianity With New Song About Judas - TheWell

What has to be in a music video to keep it from being aired?

Excerpts italicized:

“Lady” Gaga released her new music video about Judas not too long ago. Many Christians around the world are upset. Although that makes you wonder what Christians are NOT upset by this. How strong can your faith be if you are not offended by this???

The video is true to Gaga form, in highly sexualized scenes, including Gaga writhing around in a bathtub with Judas and Jesus while she washes their feet.

After the single was released during Holy Week, Catholic League spokesman Bill Donohue slammed Gaga for the song.

“This is a stunt... Lady Gaga tries to continue to shock Catholics and Christians in general: she dresses as a nun... she swallows the rosary. She has now morphed into a caricature of herself,” Donohue said.
But apparently the Catholic League didn’t find the video as offensive as expected.

“In her 'Judas' video, Lady Gaga plays fast and loose with Catholic iconography, and generates several untoward statements, but she typically dances on the line without going over it,” they said in a statement. “The faux-baptismal scene is a curious inclusion, as is her apparent fondness for the Jesus character. But if anyone thinks the Catholic League is going to go ballistic over Lady Gaga’s latest contribution, they haven’t a clue about what really constitutes anti-Catholicism.”

The Video:

In the article, it goes on to talk about how the creators did not want to offend anyone, how they believed in the gospel and that they didn’t “want lightning to strike”.

What imagery is society not willing to tolerate?

“Lady” Gaga’s video does illustrate one very important thing. How our society both tolerates and in many cases embraces this kind of thing (attack on Christianity / traditional beliefs or values). One also has to think about the things that society would never tolerate on television (sexual abuse for example). It all goes to show you what society values most from day to day.

Actions speak louder than words, and what you say you believe is important and what you actually value is reflective of that….whether you realize it or not…

(ORIGINAL LINK) Lady Gaga's 'Judas' video is 'a mess,' Catholics say - Foxnews.com

(RELATED) Lady Gaga Attacks Christianity With New Song About Judas - TheWell

School District Looks To Ban Chocolate Milk. Can The System Do A Better Job Than You?

By: Don Caldwell


At what point do things just go too far? When they threaten to take away Chocolate milk...


Excerpts italicized:


With increased media attention on America’s growing childhood obesity epidemic, school districts are under pressure to make student lunches healthier—and some are doing so by banning flavored milks.
It all started when Florida considered a statewide ban in schools last fall, and other districts have replaced milks with high-fructose corn syrup with sugar—often viewed as a more natural sweetener.


The latest development comes from John Deasy, superintendent of Los Angeles Unified, the nation's second-largest school district, who announced that over the summer he will be pushing to remove chocolate and strawberry milks from school lunches.


Deborah Bellholt, a South Los Angeles mother, said none of her six children ranging from pre-school to high school age will drink plain milk. "By allowing kids flavored milk, they still get the calcium they need," she said. "If not, they'd bypass it."


But Mimi Bonetti, a suburban Los Angeles mother with two elementary school-age children who drink plain milk, said she gets angry that chocolate milk is portrayed as nutritious. Children can get calcium and other nutrients from other foods, she said.


"If you offer them the choice of chocolate or plain, of course they're going to choose chocolate," Bonetti said. "When you're telling kids that drinking chocolate milk is a healthy choice, it's sending the wrong message."


Ask kids, and most vote for chocolate. Suburban Los Angeles seventh-grader Nacole Johnson said plain milk tastes yucky. If there were no chocolate milk, "I wouldn't drink it," she said.

We all want our children to be healthy and eat right, but one has to ask, where does the responsibility of the parent end and the responsibility of society begin?


If parents allow society to dictate what is best for their children, then who is really doing the parenting?
I doubt that anyone seriously thinks that chocolate milk is healthy, but do we really need to launch efforts to get rid of it? Childhood obesity is a large and worsening problem in the United States, and many are looking for answers to combat this growing trend.


The power that we give to society to raise our children is power that would be very difficult to get back. Are we really so bad at our jobs (in parenting) that we should collectively admit partial defeat and bring in the collective opinion of the masses? We can all agree that there is a lot of parenting out there, but are the masses in the right position to dictate? … Most of us can agree that different parenting styles are good and reflect the cultures, choices, and attitudes of both the parents and children involved, but what happens when the power you give to public bodies (which tends to look at things from one perspective with one solution)?


Can this make a difference?


Anyone who is a parent can attest to how difficult it can be to get kids to eat their food (especially healthy food), but can efforts like this make a difference? One has to wonder whether or not a child will even eat all of his food during lunch time, and I for one would rather know that my children are eating all of their food (semi-healthy... hopefully) then only the couple of dishes that tate good and throw away the rest. At home we can at least monitor what they eat and coerce them into eating the good stuff, but can the staff at a public school successfully do the same? On paper one can think that we are helping our children eat right, but practically it may be a very different matter… with a lot of wasted food.


The biggest impact on our children’s’ diets comes from home, and what they eat at home. Most of our attention should be placed here, and if it can’t ….maybe you need to change one of your own habits to help with theirs…


Besides who doesn’t like chocolate milk?

(ORIGINAL LINK) Nation's Second-Largest School District May Ban Chocolate Milk - FoxNews.com

Lady Gaga Attacks Christianity With New Song About Judas

By: Don Caldwell


Hof far is too far?


Excerpts Italicized:


Pop provocateur Lady Gaga has managed to outrage and insult many Catholics by leaking her new song, “Judas” just two days before the start of Holy Week.


"It's always edgy and always (about) our religion," Bill Donohue, spokesperson for the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, said about frequent pop culture attacks on the Church. "(And) all during Holy Week."


In “Judas,” Lady Gaga sings about her love for Judas, the infamous apostle who betrayed Jesus.
"Jesus in my virtue and Judas is the demon I cling to...I'm just a holy fool, oh baby he's so cruel, but I'm still in love with Judas baby," sings Lady Gaga.


The 25-year old pop star, who was raised Catholic, seems to be taking cues from Madonna and Sinead O’Conner—both lapsed Catholics who courted controversy (and publicity) by using religious imagery in their performances and videos.


O’Conner infuriated the entire Eastern Seaboard when she tore up a picture of Pope John Paul II and called him “evil” on “Saturday Night Live” in 1992.


In 1989, Madonna was condemned by the Vatican for her “Like a Prayer” video, which included scenes of burning crosses, a stigmata, and sharing a passionate kiss with a saint.


Have we grown so accustomed to accepting the extremes in society with each generation that few (if any) of us will do anything about this (other than rolling ones’ eyes) ? If this were offending another faith, would society be so ready to accept this? Has Christianity become so complacent that it would be ready to tolerate anything? If so, can one say that Christianity still has strong values? How many “Christians” will still purchase music from this “artist” thinking that they will just ignore this song and that they are just fitting in with the times? What if this were an artist that was singing about rape or child abuse, would you be more outraged? Would you still listen to her music? What does this say about the importance you really place in your faith as compared to other things?


How far is too far... for you?

Updated Link: (Story Continued)Lady Gaga Attacks Christianity: Update. The Music Video Is Out



(ORIGINAL LINK) Lady Gaga outrages Catholics during Holy Week with new single ‘Judas’ « Entertainment

4 in 10 Americans Believe Natural Disasters A Sign from God. Why Does God Allow Suffering?

By: Don Caldwell


Do you believe recent natural disasters re a sign from God?


Excerpts Italicized:


A recent poll conducted shows that about 4 in 10 Americans believe that natural disasters are a sign from God.


When Tokyo Gov. Shintaro Ishihara called the massive earthquake and tsunami in Japan tembatsu -- or "divine judgment" -- he expressed a kind of theological cause and effect shared by nearly 40 percent of Americans.


Ishihara later apologized for his remarks. But a recent poll from the Public Religion Research Institute and Religion News Survey shows some support for his original sentiment: 16 percent of Americans agree that natural disasters are a sign from God, while 22 percent mostly agree.
A slight majority -- 51 percent -- disagreed natural disasters are a sign from the Almighty. Yet a slightly larger majority, 56 percent, said they believe God is in control of everything that happens in the world.


In a way, the poll examined the age-old philosophical dilemma: "If God is good, why is there so much disaster, tragedy and pain in the world?"

If you do believe that these disasters are a sign from God, then what do you believe God is so displeased with that such punishment would come? Do you think your actions are also to blame for this? If God were standing right next to you, do you think that he would be proud of your actions? One can obviously answer “yes” to how important family is in our daily lives, or that a husband should be conscious to showing your wife how much you love her (or to one’s children).


Have you done anything today that would make God proud?


 Have you done anything today that shows him that you love him?

People ask “if God is good, why is there so much disaster, tragedy and pain in the world?”. Perhaps pain and suffering are one of the greatest of the gifts God has given us. You cannot recognize the light without the dark. We can never appreciate anything without the absence of it. If we were born into heaven, would we appreciate anything? Would we be like spoiled selfish people, content in getting everything we ever wanted? We spend a short lifetime in this life experiencing joys and hardships everyday,. Would the suffering we experience in this life help us to appreciate a billion years of joy in heaven?

Is that a small price to pay?

In the end, is it worth it?

(ORIGNAL LINK) Poll: Nearly 4 in 10 Americans Say Natural Disasters Sign from God - FoxNews.com