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