No Dental Plan

My parents divorced when I was in my later teen years back in the 1990’s. They fought back and forth, and through the state, about support and medical and whatnot. I didn’t really pay too much attention. I was working and trying (unsuccessfully) to finish high school. While everyone who was supposed to care were fighting with each other, I went through the most agonizing physical pain one could imagine, for several years.

You see, my wisdom teeth started coming in, but there was no place for them. So slowly, so agonizingly slowly, they began to overcrowd the rest of the teeth in my mouth. There was no doctor or dentist to see me, so I was left to suffer the hand that nature had dealt me, all on my own.

The pressure mounted. Oh, the god-awful pressure. It mounted daily. It distracted me from the rest of my life. My work, my school, my plans for the future. Those wisdom teeth kept creeping in and there was not a damn thing I could do about it.

Go smash yourself in the side of the face with a brick, and you will know what it felt like… before the pain got really bad. On numerous occasions, I went to the emergency room for high doses of pain killers, that did little to help in the long run as my molars literally exploded into pieces in my mouth.

On one night, the pain was so bad that I used a pair of pliers to rip a back tooth out of my mouth. Sadly enough, I didn’t really get it out, just broke off the crown above the gumline.

On another night, the pain became so terrible that I literally went into convulsions, vomited, and passed out.

All of this at a crucial time in my life when I was supposed to be making important life decisions, and setting my path for the rest of my life to come. It was impossible. I could not work reliably, my education went down the tubes, and to this day I suffer the consequences of that pain… that horrific and quite literal physical pain.

On yet another occasion, when another tooth had exploded, I was left with a razor sharp stub that lacerated my tongue whenever I spoke or tried to eat. (I am over 6 foot tall and dropped down to about 120 pounds.)

The emergency room whacked me up with high dose pain killer and referred me to a clinic for poor folk with no insurance. The dentist performed a root canal so that I would not feel the pain from that tooth any longer. But since it was a “free” service, fillings were not included with the root canal.

So when I ate, the canal became filled with food. A lump formed alongside my nose, where the food packed into my upper facial cavity left open by the dentist.

It took about a year, but finally the abscess molded, and became deadly. The pain was unbearable, the infection, life-threatening. So once again, back to the emergency room where they issued me a weeks worth of antibiotics, some heavy-duty aspirin, and sent me on my way the same day.

I swished warm saltwater, trying to open the soft, grown over gum tissue that trapped the menacing sack of puss in my head.

I will tell you, that when it finally let loose, it was the best and one of the most disgusting experiences of my life. The pressure, the pain, was suddenly free. And I was left with a mouthful of infectious bile ten times worse than any vomit you have ever puked.

And there is my short story, of a boy without medical care, and how his life was destroyed by it.


Please be sure to check out this short video on Facebook about dental care for those who cannot afford it, which inspired me to share my story today:

Gov’t Tells Philanthropist Dentist he can’t Charge Lower Prices for Poor People

You Should Be Concerned For The Safety Of Your Kids Too (VIDEO)

Anyone who is not concerned for the safety of their own children after seeing this video, is a bad parent. There was nothing wrong with DeBlasio saying that he shared the same concerns as any responsible parent.

What '#ThanksMichelleObama' Can Teach Us About Obesity

What if I told you that fat people are actually starving to death? That the obesity epidemic is actually a mind-boggling symptom of mass-starvation, rather than gluttony? That doesn't seem to make any sense at all though right? Ridiculous you say? Read on copper-top, if you want to have your mind blown about what is really happening in this country when it comes to our health and what we eat.

The #ThanksMichelleObama campaign by teens on social media is quite revealing as to the state of health and nutrition in this country, but in ways that may not be quite so obvious at first glance.

If you puke, save it,
someone else will have it

The campaign has students posting pictures of all sorts of disgusting concoctions and meager servings not even fit for a snack, much less a meal. School lunches have never been especially popular, standing alongside hospital food, non-premium airline meals, and so forth. But taking a look at some of these pictures, it seems like even county jail inmates are fed better than students. I feel lucky now, for the slop we were fed at school when I was a kid.

Click here for a sampling from BuzzFeed.

Should these hot messes really be blamed on Michelle Obama though? Now granted, it was her initiatives for policy change and regulations on school lunches that cut down your portion of processed meat-paste nuggets from six to three, but we have to take a step back for a moment and take a look at the bigger picture here in what she was hoping to achieve.

The USDA guidelines, implemented over the last few years, include limits on calories, fat, sugar, and sodium for all food and drinks sold during the school day for 100,000 schools across the country.

That doesn't sound like a bad idea at all actually. The obesity epidemic is now costing the world over $2 trillion annually, not to mention other health concerns from poor nutrition and eating habits, or the countless lives that are being lost. So how do we make sure that students (and people in general even) are eating better to cut down their risk of obesity and illness? Cutting out the "bad" stuff sounds like a good start. Of course there is even debate as to what is actually bad for you. Some say there is really nothing wrong with salt, sugar and fats, but we can save that debate for later.

Where's the beef?

If we are cutting out a portion of our diet, it has to be replaced with something else, or we are running the risk of actual starvation. And that certainly is not a healthy alternative. So, new school food rules set by Congress also require more fruits, vegetables, and whole grains in school cafeterias. Then again, fruits are actually very high in sugars that they are trying to cut out for one thing, and these "good" foods wind up being as debatable as the "bad" foods. Fresh fruits, vegetables, and whole grains along with lean meats and healthy proteins are also expensive, but more on that in a moment.

When you look at these trays, it seems pretty clear that these students have been put on what is basically a starvation diet. While a mystery meat nugget on a bun and some applesauce might meet daily guidelines for fat, calorie and salt intake, while providing a balance of meat, grain and fruit, that tray is clearly not a proper meal. Especially for growing kids. That is not going to be enough to sustain you through that mile run in gym class and four more periods of what should be intense brain activity. It's little wonder why kids aren't focused, and don't have the energy to get out of their own way. The lack of energy, of course, will only wind up setting the stage for obesity all over again too.

Despite the First Lady's best intentions, those lunch trays are clearly not a path to better health for America's youth, or a lesson in healthy eating for the rest of us to follow. While that tray may meet "healthy" guidelines set by the FDA, it is missing one very critical component. Nutrition. The actual reason we eat in the first place. Now that really comes to the crux of the whole obesity issue, nutrition, or a lack thereof.

That chicken patty and applesauce tray does not provide real nutrition. Hyper-processed breaded meat paste and flour may fill your stomach for the moment, but it won't sustain you. The apple-flavored corn syrup mush is loaded with calories, but again, has no real vitamins, minerals, or proteins. It just looks healthy because it tells your brain "apple." So despite the fact that you got recommended levels of meat, grain fruit and calories, you still didn't get what you actually needed, nutrition. Now you have two choices. Starvation or obesity. That is basically what the Michelle Obama initiative has brought to light, looking at these trays. You can go hungry, or you can steal that patty bun from the kid sitting next to you violating the FDA "healthy" guidelines. You can starve, or you can over-eat and get fat.

Even with a second sandwich, that is probably not enough real nutrition for a person. So now they have over-eaten and "feel" full, but will still wind up foggy-headed and lethargic from lack of nutrition. Rinse and repeat, and there you have it folks. Fat people who are starving to death. You could eat all the Crisco-covered cardboard and boot leather in the world, but that won't keep you from starving to death. While we blame obesity for the gambit of health problems and diseases, we overlook the fact that being fat is not really a cause at all, but rather an effect of poor nutrition. 

So what should we actually see on that Obama-lunch tray? Well, by cutting out that corn-syrup re-branded as applesauce, that would cut out a lot of calories right off the bat, which could be used by more nutrient dense foods. Home-made applesauce would be a much better choice, or perhaps even some sauteed apple slices with a few raisins and a little bit of unrefined brown sugar. Fewer calories, more nutrition. But we don't really have to put a dessert on a lunch tray anyway, and try to call it "healthy fruit." A small, fresh salad or vegetable might be a better option at lunch time.

How about that main entree? Instead of a hyper-processed breaded meat-paste puck on a hyper-refined white flour bun which offer essentially zero nutrition, an actual chicken sandwich on a whole grain bun would be a far better option. Free-range organic chicken having the most nutrients of course. (And less chance of chemical poisoning than the ammonia-soaked meat from and tortured, electrocuted birds.) A little bit of lettuce and a slice of tomato on there would be a tasty, healthy addition too. Since we have saved calories now by replacing overly refined and processed products, we can either serve a larger portion, or perhaps a second side dish such as a handful of mixed nuts, some yogurt perhaps with a bit of fruit, something actually healthy and nutrient rich while being much more filling as well.

So we see here that it's not really about cutting out fats or sugars, it is about choosing more nutrient-dense foods instead. Our bodies need fats, sugar, and salt just as much as vitamins minerals and protein. Cutting out certain components and simply feeding kids less is not a solution. It is starvation. Instead of taking things away, we need to add more nutrient-dense foods to the lunch menu.

This presents another problem though. School lunch programs run on a strict budget and have to put out whatever they can with the budget they have, and now too within the constraints of these FDA guidelines. So in Michelle Obama's attack on obesity, and within those budget constraints, this is the best that the schools could come up with. A starvation diet, as we can plainly see. Schools simply cannot afford to put out free-range grilled chicken sandwiches with a fresh garden salad and sauteed apples. They can't afford to serve a nice piece of balsamic-glazed salmon with some wild rice and roasted brussels sprouts salad. Or even if the schools could afford it, a lot of students would not be able to afford to pay what they would have to charge. Not in public schools anyway.

Now we see too, why not just young people are increasingly being swallowed up by this obesity epidemic, but the poor as well. What we are seeing here dispels the ignorant myth of poor people being gluttons, who "should stop eating so much if they are so poor." People living in poverty are living on a steady diet of nutritionally void foods like ramen, dollar store packs of hot dogs, and 3-liter bottles of generic soda-pop. This is why they are fat and have heart-disease, not because they are gorging themselves on Lindor truffles foie-gras.

And again, all of this exposes the fact that obesity is really masking a horrible truth about the world today. We are, quite literally, starving to death. Obesity is just a mask for mass starvation, on a core nutritional level. We just don't think of it this way. We don't see it, because of the incongruous nature of what we think about starvation historically, compared with a fat person in front of us on line at the supermarket. We imagine starving people to be war prisoners in death camps, or the bony little beggar children on the streets of India. There is one constant though, the poor and the voiceless are always first in line to starve. We see that here too with the obesity epidemic. The poor are the most likely to fall prey to this insidious and historically unprecedented cycle of nutritional starvation. while also taking the blame at the same time.

-J. Marcellus VanWagner



You can read more on obesity and what we eat at the following links, where some of my older material has been hosted:

Let Them Eat Cake: The Tale of American Nutricide

Fat Tax: The Socio-Economics of Obesity

Fascist Food and Nutrition Nazis

Dept Of Probation To Make Man Homeless Over Dismissed Charge

The following was submitted by a viewer who wishes to remain anonymous, for fear of retribution:

I have been struggling with homelessness for the past several months. I was once a middle-class citizen, who was born and raised here in Dutchess county. My family roots go back to the first Dutch settlers in the 1600's, in fact. Yet I can't even afford a rental on the long road that was once the long driveway of my old "Van" ancestors. The reasons for my homelessness is a storied tale, that doesn't happen all at once, and might be left to another article. But today's submission, is about how I am being made homeless yet again, by an indirect order from a public agency.

A few months ago, I was literally living on the streets for a time. An old friend from high school had the heart to take me in, and rent a space to me in her basement for the small pittance that I get for housing from an emergency benefit from New York State. (What "welfare" gives you is $216 a month. Good luck finding a rental for that much.) Sadly, not a month had gone by, and some family court issue on her end, left me homeless yet again.

A few days passed, and another friend of mine from my old high school days told me that he had an spare room. He basically used it as a slop den for his pets. I was not at all picky, and moved in with the agreement that I would pay him all of my housing benefit amount, plus another hundred dollars. I bought a mop and bucket, and turned the kennel room into a liveable space.

There was a catch though. My friend is on misdemeanor probation. So before I moved in, I asked him to clear this with his probation officer. The PO told him that since I am not a felon, not on probation or parole, and since I have no open cases pending, that he could not "violate" him on the terms of his probation. I moved in the next day.

I have since shifted over my legal address to the new residence, and I claim a housing benefit from social services in order to make partial payment for the room as well as access to the kitchen and bathroom. I make up the difference by spending my cash allotment for things like transportation and laundry, on rent to my roomate. These services are meant to get me back on my feet, and I am doing my best to do that.

Unfortunately, the probation department doesn't see it that way. Since I have moved in, the department of probation has threatened to violate my roommate/landlord, for renting a room to me. I have called his PO several times, but he didn't return any of my calls until today. Essentially he told me that "P*****k knows what he has to do" and would not give me any reason why I should be evicted, citing confidentiality. However, confidentiality did not prevent them from showing images of myself as well as my arrest record on unfounded charges, in order to establish defamatory statements against me by the agent, as well as his supervisor. 

Now just to be clear here. I am not a felon, I am not on probation or parole, I have no open cases pending. Admittedly though, I do have an arrest in the last year, for which the charge was dismissed in a local town court.

The question then becomes, can the department of probation make me homeless once again, because I was arrested on a charge that was dismissed? Can they send a man to jail, at huge taxpayer cost, two months before his probation is finished, for renting a room to a man who was once a first-responder and a state-licensed officer, but happened to have a misunderstanding with the judicial system?

NBC News Crew Detained Filming Near Vacant NY Prison

This video just came across my desk, and though it happened back in July, this is something that any freedom-loving American should be very concerned about.

An NBC WNYT13 reporter and film crew headed up Mount McGregor to do a story at the Ulysses S. Grant Cottage State Historic Site. The day before this visit was the 129th anniversary marking the death of the Civil War hero, and former Chief Executive of the nation, at his Adirondack retreat.

This was clearly a legitimate human-interest news story, by a legitimate and well-respected mainstream news source. So why were they suddenly ordered to stop filming by a uniformed prison official, who rushed down the mountain at them in a private vehicle? The officer told them that they could not film at the ostensibly public historic site, and ordered them off the mountain entirely. When they did finally try to leave, after being blocked by another prison guard, they were detained by the New York State Police and threatened with arrest unless they handed over their film.

Well let's have a look here at what took place.


This brazen assault on liberty, free-speech, freedom of the press, and our core values as Americans stands as a testament to the actual state of oppression we live under today. This is not freedom, this is tyranny which even 20 years ago we would have thought only happened in third-world dictatorships. Who are these officers, these so-called public servants, actually working for here?

Despite the fact that New York state taxpayers were still paying the salaries for nearly 80 prison guards there, the prison has actually been vacant for almost a year. Not a single prisoner at the prison, but all of those officials still there, guarding what? Between the seemingly pointless cadre of guards and their aggression toward innocent civilians, some have gone so far as to speculate that the news crew may have accidentally stumbled across a so-called secret FEMA camp.

Jesse Ventura's Banned FEMA Camps Episode

Two days after the incident, New York State Department of Corrections pulled their officers off of the site, and private security firm Securitas took over. Securitas is a Swedish-based company which swallowed up the notorious Pinkerton agency here in the U.S., and is now the largest private security company in the world. They operate everything from home security systems, to armored cars once owned by Loomis Fargo & Company, another famed outfit which they absorbed.

Whatever is actually going on up at the old prison may be speculative. What is not speculative however, is what we saw happen to that news crew on that day. A grotesque display of police-state oppression and tyranny right here in our own country, on hallowed ground where an American President and champion of liberty died. Is there a war now, against free speech and the people, where agents can detain you for simply going about your day? What crime is it to capture a public building on film? While there should be outrage across the country at what we saw, there is only complacency and deaf ears. Where is the accountability? Where are the measures to ensure that such trampling of our rights never happens again in this so-called land of the free? Sadly enough, something like this is no longer shocking, just business as usual, as liberty goes quietly into the night.

WTC 7 On 9/11: Evidence

The following is reprinted here, with permission of the original author. 


We are going to present a compilation here of material regarding the collapse of World Trade Center Building #7 on September 11, 2001.



Many have argued that the World Trade Center disaster was actually the result of a controlled demolition project planned well in advance by parties unknown. Much of the focus on the disaster that day has been centered on Towers 1 and 2, which were struck by aircraft. It has also been argued by many, that the damage from the aircraft and ensuing fires would not have been sufficient to cause a symmetrical collapse at nearly free-fall speed. There is compelling evidence to support the idea that the planes could not have brought down the towers, but perhaps the most compelling is that WTC7 was never struck by a plane at all, and yet that building too also collapsed in a way that seems to defy any explanation other than a controlled demolition.

But let's start by looking at the official explanation first. Could fire be the reason that Building 7 collapsed, as we have been told by government officials? It seems rather unlikely, considering that it has never happened before, or since. Yet on 9/11, we are told that three steel buildings were brought down primarily by fire. And again, one of those buildings was not even hit by a plane loaded with fuel.

This is a picture of the fires still burning in WTC7 in the late afternoon of September 11.

Here are some examples, of burning skyscrapers from around the world, that did not collapse, despite the fact that they suffered fires that burned longer, and engulfed more square footage of the structure.

In 1975, World Trade Center Tower 1 also burned on several floors, for several hours, with no modernized fire suppression system or fire-proofing material in place, but did not collapse.


Of course, these towering infernos were not struck by aircraft and were not struck by the debris of the Twin Towers as they collapsed. So let's have a look now at what sort of damage a building can suffer and still remain standing.

This is an image of debris which struck and damaged WTC 7.

For comparison now, here is a picture of the Deutsche Bank building which suffered extensive damage on 9/11. A fire in 2007 claimed the lives of two FDNY firefighters. Nearly a decade later, a $100-million deconstruction project was completed and the building was no more.

The following two images show the damage done to WTC Building #3 on 9/11, and the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City after it was bombed in 1995. Despite the devastation, what remained of the buildings still did not collapse, and had to be brought down later.

Relatively small fires, comparatively far less structural damage than others, yet WTC7 still fell, uniformly, into a nice neat pile.

Even when buildings do happen to collapse, perhaps after an earthquake, they do not implode. Here are some images of what happens when critical supports in a building fail.

Even when specialists spend months planning and spend weeks placing huge amounts of explosives all throughout a building, it is still a difficult task to bring down a building in it's own footprint. There are no guarantees, as these videos show. Demolitions gone wrong, click here, here, and here to see them.

Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex first explained the collapse of Building 7 saying he gave the order to "pull it." This is a term often used in demolitions, meaning to pull down the building.


Strangely, given the subsequent information you will read here in a moment which has been kown for years, Secretary of State John Kerry also explained the destruction as a controlled demolition rather than an unexpected collapse. 

There is a very serious problem with that explanation though. Fire departments are not trained or equipped for demolitions operations. Fire trucks do not carry explosives, firefighters do not knock down buildings. Even for the world's leading specialists a demolition of that scale is not something that could be done in a matter of hours in a damaged and burning skyscraper. The only explanation could be that the explosives were set, before 9/11.

Silverstein later tried to revise the meaning of his statement, saying that he meant "pull it" as in to pull the rescue effort, and to pull out the firefighters in the building. The only problem with that, is that there were no firefighters in the building according to FEMA, because there was no water available to carry out interior firefighting operations. This video clip corroborates that. That clip also alludes to previous knowledge of impending collapse.

How did anyone know the building was going to collapse before it actually did? Why wasn't it predicted that other, more badly damaged buildings were going to fall, even though they never did? What were the telltale signs that Building 7 was going to collapse?

CRAIG BARTMER NYPD: "I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn't hear any... I didn't hear any creaking, or... I didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming 'get away, get away, get away from it!'... It was at that moment... I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself... Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the shit's hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they're saying... Nothing to account for what we saw..."

Why did the BBC report that the building had collapsed, 20 minutes before it actually did?


In this video clip, you will hear someone declare that the building ia about to "blow up" as you hear what sounds like explosives going off in the background. Odd choice of words. Blow up. And who told them it was going to blow up?


Perhaps the sounds of bombs going off was a clue, but bombs had been going off all day. Something that was completely overlooked by the media and has never been explained.


But perhaps the most chilling account of bombs in WTC 7 comes from Barry Jennings, Deputy Director of the Emergency Services Department for the New York City Housing Authority. That fateful morning he raced to the Office of Emergency Management located in WTC7, to find it eerily empty, except for New York City's corporate counsel Michael Hess. An explosion trapped the two inside the building. Keep in mind that what he talks about here in the following interview happened before either of the Twin Towers fell, and therefore before the collapses had done any damage to Building 7.


(Videos of Barry Jennings' statements and interviews are routinely scrubbed from the internet. Unfortunately, this has happened again, as one of the most complete videos of his account has been removed, as you can see. For a less complete version, see this video here on YouTube.)

Unfortunately, Barry Jennings will never be able to testify on record about what he saw that day. He died, for unknown reasons, just days before the NIST report on 9/11 was released in 2008. One of the film makers who interviewed Jennings for the film Loose Change hired an investigator to find out more about Jennings' mysterious death. All that he found was Jennings' home empty, and up for sale. He then returned the money to the man who hired him, and told the filmmaker to never contact him again. This only added to the mystery. A commenter at a website claimed to be Jennings' son, and claimed his father had died of leukemia, but the identity of the commenter has never been verified.

Hess publicly corroborated important elements of Jennings' account.


This video examines the collapse of WTC7 and some elements of the NIST report.


If that video was a little too technical for you, don't worry. Most of us are not engineers. There are plenty of real experts out there though, thousands of them, who disagree with the government's findings. This video summarizes the details of the WTC 7 collapse in terms we can all understand.

Police Threaten Domestic Violence Victims

The following is an account of how a domestic disturbance incident was handled by a local police department. This account was corroborated by several witnesses including neighbors who had no direct involvement, when we investigated the story. At the request of the persons involved, we did not make contact with the police agency or the officers involved, and we will not name that agency here other than to say it was a local town police department.  The persons involved have stated that they are in fear for their safety, as well as fearful of retribution by police, should they say what department handled the call. 

A little background first.

Several months ago, my landlord's ex-husband moved out to live elsewhere leaving her stuck for the rent on the remainder of the lease. She rents a house through an agency. So to help make the rent, she decided to put an ad on Craigslist to rent out several rooms. I moved in about a month ago, and there are several roommates here now.

Since I have moved in, her ex keeps showing up at random times, wandering through the house and being a general nuisance. One night at about 2 in the morning, I woke up to this man coming down the stairs into the room that I rent, for no apparent reason except to look around. Very creepy.

When he moved out, he put a bunch of things in the garage, but also left a few items inside the house. An obvious ploy to give him an excuse to come into the house whenever he pleases. He has not paid a dime in rent since moving out, but still acts like he owns the place since his name is still on the lease.

Now to the day's events.

Yesterday this man showed up unannounced, and ripped a refrigerator out of the wall. It does belong to him apparently, but he never seemed to have any concern for it up to yesterday when it became his excuse to come in and cause a disturbance. He proceeded to ruin all of one roommate's food that was in the fridge and freezer, throwing it all on the floor. Broken eggs and the whole bit. None of my food was in there, but he proceeded to make threats against me, telling me to “get the f*** out” and that he was going to have me arrested for trespassing and so forth. I don't know this man at all, and really did not appreciate being dragged into whatever domestic issues he has with my landlord.

He left, and then came back again. The police were called. A local town police department. My landlord gave permission for him to empty his things from the garage, and to take the refrigerator that was now laying in the driveway. Hoping it would be the last she would see of him no doubt. He loaded the fridge into the truck, but left without getting his things from the garage. The police told him not to come back to the house.

This all happened around lunchtime. Now, I had just finished making dinner, and I see her ex pulled up in front of the house again. At this point, I am fearful for my own safety as well as my landlord, seeing this man parked on the street and staring at us through the window. So I called 911. Just as the call connected, the police pull up out front again. So I don't know who actually made the initial call, but I know that police don't show up instantaneously like that. I told the 911 operator that the police had just pulled up and that I no longer needed his help.

Two officers came into the house. As soon as they came in, one officer threatened to arrest me for falsely reporting an incident to 911. She said that there was no domestic disturbance, when clearly there was a problem. She said that she was screaming through traffic with the lights and sirens because she thought there was a “real” problem. But again, I had not made the call at that point, so someone else must have called first. I tried to explain to the officers what had happened earlier in the day, and was told to “shut the f*** up” by the male officer, and told that it was none of my business. Granted, I don't want to have anything to do with whatever is going on between my landlord and her ex, but when I am in fear for my own safety and being threatened directly, it becomes my business. Several threats of arrest were made against both myself and my landlord, and the police were quite free with profanity showing a total lack professionalism. They were barking about wasting their time, causing a disturbance and so forth. Now keep in mind here, we were minding our own business and about to sit down to dinner.

The police then told my landlord that she had to let this man back into the house to get his things, and that they were not even going to stay while he got them. They said they had a court order allowing him to come into the house. My landlord was not served with any such court order. The police REALLY didn't like it when I spoke up to tell my landlord of her rights. Basically telling her that if she has not been served with an order, then any such order is irrelevant. Hearsay is not a court order. The cop screamed that it was on file with his Sergeant back at the station, and that if she did not let her ex back, that she would be arrested for breaking a court order. The police then called the station and asked what the order actually said.

A few minutes later, the court order did show up. I don't know who brought it, or if her ex had a copy or what. But it turns out that it was a family court issued order of protection against my landlord, barring her from interacting with her ex or their children whom she pays child support for. There was no order from any civil court, giving this man access to the house. Again, keep in mind here, that we were about to sit down to dinner when this man showed up. If he really feels the need for an order of protection, then what is he even doing here in the first place?

The police then order her to let the man back into the house once again. The decision is not up to me, but I refused to let him enter my room. There were a few bags of kids clothes being stored in my room, which my landlord had told them to take, months ago. I brought the bags upstairs. I was then yelled at by the police once again and called a liar. The female officer tells my landlord, “See this is why you don't rent to scumbags.” This was my reward for trying to be somewhat accommodating and bringing the items to the door. When I got to the front door, I saw that her ex had left. He didn't empty the garage, he didn't bother to even wait for the bags of clothes. The police threatened to arrest us again, if anything were to happen to those clothes. I was ready to just set them out on the porch and be done with it, but I was told I would be arrested for that.

One officer then screamed through the window that my landlord had threatened her with violence. My landlord had made no such statement. Despite the ordeal, and clearly being deliberately provoked, neither of us resorted to so much as an F-bomb, much less go spouting off with threats or yelling. The police on the other hand, were not at all inclined to keep the situation calm.

I am completely shocked and appalled by all of this, on so many levels. The conduct of these two police officers was absolutely disgraceful. In this day and age, and in this area where domestic violence is such a serious problem, I was shocked to see that not only would the police not help, but actually became the aggressors themselves. I am fearful for my own safety now, and have no one to even call for help should another incident occur.

No one should have to live in fear in their own home.

The Newburgh Sting (Full-Length Documentary)

Also see:

Is the FBI a Terrorist Organization?

The Iraq War (Full-Length BBC Documentary Video)

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

---

The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:
Column 1
Georgia:
   Button Gwinnett
   Lyman Hall
   George Walton
Column 2
North Carolina:
   William Hooper
   Joseph Hewes
   John Penn
South Carolina:
   Edward Rutledge
   Thomas Heyward, Jr.
   Thomas Lynch, Jr.
   Arthur Middleton
Column 3
Massachusetts:
John Hancock
Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton
Column 4
Pennsylvania:
   Robert Morris
   Benjamin Rush
   Benjamin Franklin
   John Morton
   George Clymer
   James Smith
   George Taylor
   James Wilson
   George Ross
Delaware:
   Caesar Rodney
   George Read
   Thomas McKean
Column 5
New York:
   William Floyd
   Philip Livingston
   Francis Lewis
   Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
   Richard Stockton
   John Witherspoon
   Francis Hopkinson
   John Hart
   Abraham Clark
Column 6
New Hampshire:
   Josiah Bartlett
   William Whipple
Massachusetts:
   Samuel Adams
   John Adams
   Robert Treat Paine
   Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
   Stephen Hopkins
   William Ellery
Connecticut:
   Roger Sherman
   Samuel Huntington
   William Williams
   Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
   Matthew Thornton

'Welfare For Life' Is a Shameful Myth

It is often said that there are "too many people on welfare their whole lives."

The fact is, however, that this notion is a total myth perpetrated by those who are ignorant to the realities of poverty in America today.

Often, willfully ignorant at that. The issues of poverty can be complicated enough, but there will never be any solutions so long as there are people who choose to be prejudiced against those who are less fortunate. This myth is one of the most fallacious, derogatory lies, yet it is so often repeated by those who don't know or simply don't care what the fact really are. You see, for those sort, it's really about doing harm to the poor, as a sort of "tough love" vendetta over the fact they citizens must pay taxes. This mantra is repeated time and time again, as if people who are poor are simply lazy, and somehow enjoy a life of untold sorrow and misery.

Well, rant over for the moment. Let's cut to the chase here. Here are the FACTS about welfare, as they have stood since the Clinton Administration reforms of 1996. This information is taken verbatim from the New York State website, and can be found at the following link:

 http://otda.ny.gov/programs/temporary-assistance/

What are the two major Temporary Assistance programs?

Family Assistance (FA)

Family Assistance (FA) provides cash assistance to eligible needy families that include a minor child living with a parent (including families where both parents are in the household) or a caretaker relative. FA operates under federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) guidelines.

Under FA, eligible adults are limited to receiving benefits for a total of 60 months in their lifetime, including months of TANF-funded assistance granted in other states. Once this limit is reached, that adult and all members of his or her FA household are ineligible to receive any more FA benefits. The months need not be consecutive, but rather each individual month in which TANF-funded benefits are received is included in the lifetime count.

Parents and other adult relatives receiving FA, and who are determined to be able to work must comply with federal work requirements to receive FA benefits.

As a further condition of FA eligibility, each person who applies for or is receiving FA, is required to cooperate with state and local department of social services in efforts to locate any absent parent and obtain support payments and other payments or property. Non-cooperation without good cause could result in lower FA benefits.

Safety Net Assistance (SNA)

If you are not eligible for other assistance programs, you may be eligible for SNA. SNA is for:

Single adults
Childless couples
Children living apart from any adult relative
Families of persons found to be abusing drugs or alcohol
Families of persons refusing drug/alcohol screening, assessment or treatment
Persons who have exceeded the 60-month limit on assistance
Aliens who are eligible for temporary assistance, but who are not eligible for federal reimbursement

Recipients of SNA, who are determined to be able to work must also comply with work requirements to receive SNA benefits.

Generally, you can receive cash SNA for a maximum of two years in a lifetime. After that, if you are eligible for SNA, it is provided in non-cash form, such as a two party check or a voucher. In addition, non-cash SNA is provided for:

Families of persons found to be abusing drugs or alcohol
Families of persons refusing drug/alcohol screening, assessment or treatment
Families with an adult who has exceeded the 60 month lifetime time limit

Is there a limit on how long I can get TANF-Funded Temporary Assistance?

There is a 60-month limit on the receipt of Family Assistance benefits funded under the federal TANF program (the former Aid to Families with Dependent Children (ADC) program), some Safety Net Assistance (SNA) or the Child Assistance Program (CAP). Additionally, a payment for regular maintenance needs under the Emergency Assistance to Families with Children (EAF) for the month of December 1996, or any month thereafter, are included in the 60-month count. Participants in CAP are also restricted to the 60-month lifetime limit.

Additionally, cash Temporary Assistance in New York State is limited to a cumulative period of 60 months for any adult. No cash assistance (FA or SNA) benefit is granted to a family that contains an adult who has received a combined total of 60-month benefits under FA or cash SNA.

What is an Emergency?

An emergency is an urgent need or situation that has to be taken care of right away. Some examples of an emergency are:

You are homeless
You have little or no food
Your landlord has told you that you must move or has given you eviction papers
You do not have fuel for heating in the cold weather period
Your utilities are shut-off or are about to be shut-off, or you have a 72-hour disconnect notice
You or someone in your family has been physically harmed , or threatened with violence by a partner, ex-partner or other household member

If you and/or your family are experiencing an emergency situation you may be eligible for emergency assistance. Some examples of emergency assistance include, but are not limited to:

Payment of shelter arrears
Payment of utility arrears
Payment of fuel and/or cost of fuel delivery
Payment of Domestic Violence Shelter costs
Payment of Temporary Housing (Hotel/Motel) costs

More information is available from the official source linked above.

Sign Petition to Ban Gun Ownership!

“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”

― Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

Cool Professionalism By Local Police

I was contacted by a reader who wanted to share a story of one terrible morning, but who wants to remain anonymous. The reason the person contacted me and allowed me to conduct the interview, was that they believe incidents like this should be talked about more openly, for better mental health care in our society. They also wanted to express their appreciation of how the situation was handled by 3 officers of the Town of Hyde Park police department. Too often it is only the bad news gets reported, yet when officers act with decency and keen professionalism, it goes unnoticed by the community at large. These officers might just say that the incident was "another day at the office" so to speak, but it is still important to take the time, from time to time, to show that the police can and do get it right, even when the media isn't looking and would rather seek out worse news.

So now, to the incident at hand. Police got an early morning call of domestic violence. I don't know how it was actually dispatched, but 3 officers were on the scene. Domestic disturbance calls can be the most dangerous situation a police officer can ever walk into. Emotions are never higher, and egos are never bolder, than in a confrontation in a home where someone lives. Hyde Park police have dealt with several fatal domestic situations, and the Hudson Valley has been rocked by this class of violence for the past several years.

Police entered the home to find some contents thrown about. The complainant reported that the subject was intoxicated, emotionally disturbed and possibly armed. With weapons drawn, police made entry to the bedroom where the subject was found asleep with a tactical pocket knife open and in hand. A rookie cop, or a jumpy cop, or even just a frustrated cop who has been doing the job too long may have wasted no time in either shooting the subject, or deploying the taser. These officers did not do that. That is not to say that they were weak, or forgiving in any way. They clearly and directly established their command presence. They didn't talk over eachother, there was no screaming and yelling, despite the wailing in the background by the complainant, fearing that the subject might be harmed by the police. The officers simply made their orders clearly, with commanding tone, and warned of the immediate consequences for failure to comply.

After a pause, the subject released the weapon and the scene was secured. The now handcuffed subject was treated with dignity and a certain level of compassion.

When all was said and done, the person was taken to the police car. Rather than being hauled off to jail though, police let the person get the treatment they needed to address their issues, and made transport to the local Saint Francis Hospital where psychiatric care is available on an emergency basis.

All in all, it was a situation that could have gone very badly, very quickly. But everyone did the right thing.

The subjsect would also like to express thanks to those men of the Hyde Park Police Department, as well as to the staff of Saint Francis who treated the patient with dignity.

My personal interest in the story as a journalist is to highlight just a glimpse of actual routine police work, as well as to draw attention to the mental health concerns that our society faces today.

Don't let perceived stigmas stop you from getting the help you need folks. There are resources out there. Even if you think you don't really need help now, don't let things get to a boiling point. Here is one resource you might look into, even if you are just not especially happy, a little blue, or too, if you have things that have been bothering you for a long time. Go get the help you need.

Mental Health America of Dutchess County, NY

And of course, follow this page to get the latest public information by this small but dedicated group of hometown professionals:

Town of Hyde Park Police

Should EBT Cards Be Banned at Locations Such as Liquor Stores and Casinos?

The following opinion is provided by Station.6.Underground:


Should EBT Card Be Banned at Liquor Stores, Casinos?

NY Governor Cuomo says yes, they should be. Sounds like a no-brainer at first glance, but let's really take a look at what is going on here. Is this really meant to save taxpayers money, or is it just another government scheme to snag more revenue?

The Poughkeepsie Journal reports:

Cuomo: Ban public-aid cards at casinos, liquor stores

ALBANY — Want to hit the blackjack table, a strip club or the local liquor store? You can, but taxpayers won’t be footing the bill under a proposal by Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

The proposal would ban Electronic Benefits Transfer cards, or EBT, from being used at the prohibited venues, with a punishment system both for welfare recipients and the establishments that allow them to be used. It would put the state in compliance with the federal Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, which extended certain federally funded benefits but required the state to clamp down on fraud.

“These reforms will help ensure that public assistance is used as intended: to ensure the least fortunate among us are able to access food, shelter and heat while limiting potential abuse and conforming with upcoming federal standards,” Cuomo spokesman Rich Azzopardi said. The welfare program delivers cash and food-stamp benefits provided to recipients in debit-card-like form. The money, in some cases, can be accessed at ATMs.

The real question is though, how will it actually ensure that public assistance is used as intended? Or for that matter, how do we actually decide how the money is really intended to be spent? It all seems rather arbitrary.

The article continues:

Cuomo’s proposal calls for suspending benefits to recipients who use the card at unauthorized locations, ranging from one month for a first offense to six months for the fourth offense and each one after that. For a recipient with a family, only the guilty party would lose benefits; the other family members still would receive benefits.

Liquor stores, gambling venues and strip clubs would face a small fine for a first violation. From there, the punishment would vary, with casinos and liquor stores potentially losing their licenses after a second offense and strip club owners facing a misdemeanor charge after a third offense.

How exactly would they determine who used the card at an unauthorized location? If the entire family uses the same account, it seems impossible to determine exactly who should lose benefits. Besides, if it was actually a case of fraud, shouldn't they lose their benefits permanently? The proposal doesn't actually try to root out fraud though, it would only serve to restrict and punish the weakest and most vulnerable segment of our society based on arbitrary standards. If a person doesn't actually need the benefits, then they should not get them at all. But for the person who does actually need them, a month, or six months without assistance could be devastating.

The SNAP benefit, also known as food-stamps, can only be used to purchase non-prepared food items. They can't be used to buy household essentials like soap or light bulbs, they can't be used to purchase prepared foods at restaurants, and they certainly can't be used for gambling, liquor or lap-dances. That system is already in place, and has been since long before benefits were even paid electronically.

The EBT system does also provide access to cash benefits accounts as well though, for those who qualify. Normally this would be how a person would access funds for other necessities like those non-food household goods, a cab ride to a job interview or doctor appointment, or whatever one might normally need cash for. To assume that a person is committing fraud simply based on the location of the machine from which they made a withdrawal is downright discriminatory.

What if the beneficiary happens to work at a dance-club, casino, or liquor store and needs to withdraw some cash for a cab ride home from work? Does that mean they are committing fraud? The same goes for a person that simply might access an ATM machine in a business of that nature, simply because the machine is in a convenient location that doesn't require a separate cab fare just to withdraw the cash benefit when needed. It doesn't mean they are spending the money on anything they "shouldn't."

There again too though, we see the arbitrary nature of this proposal. What purchases are actually illegal, and constitute fraud? Under this proposal there will be no penalty for the drunk who stops off at the grocery store ATM and then uses that cash to buy his bottle of Crystal Palace at the liquor store. Meanwhile, the single mother working for minimum wage at the liquor store will wind up starving for a month or more because she used the ATM machine at work to get cash for cab-fare to get home. 

The fact that someone can simply make a cash withdrawal from another "approved" location and then go spend the cash as they please, only highlights the futility of the measure. It might also be noted here, that half of all welfare recipients actually have jobs. So what is to stop them from using their own bank cards at casinos or liquor stores? The result of the governor's proposal will not be any reduction in fraud at all, but instead will wind up costing the taxpayers even more money. How you ask? Because the measure will require even more red tape and social workers to keep tabs on these reports. Someone will have to be sitting there reviewing the records of ATM machines, on the taxpayer's clock. Worse, the new restrictions could lead to all sorts of errors that would block innocent people from getting the benefits they need and deserve. Computer glitches, human error, even intentional badgering of low-income people.

Then we have the question of how exactly they intend to regulate exactly what businesses will or will not be approved for purchases or ATM machine locations. In New York State, we have both liquor stores, and beverage centers that specialize in selling discount beer. The beer stores also usually serve as a small local grocery, as well as a locations for check-cashing, Western Union, money-order purchases, and utility bill payment. Does NY State really intend to bar people from using a benefit card at any store that sells alcohol, or lottery tickets? That would even exclude regular supermarkets. Should a person be penalized with no money for food for a month, simply because they bought a bag of chips and a bottle of water at the smoke-shop next to the firehouse where they volunteer? Should a person be forced to starve for a month, because they paid their electric bill at a beer discount center?

Now we also have to look at the responsibility of the businesses themselves to enforce this. ATM machines are, after all, not manned by an actual worker, but usually serviced by an outside vendor. How would a strip-club owner, or casino operator manage exactly who did or did not use their cash machines? Would you submit to the demands of a store manager demanding to see your bank card and a photo ID before you made a withdrawal from an ATM machine?

The only way to really manage this effectively would be on an electronic level, in a way similar to how food-stamps are credited. If you purchase a basket of items at the supermarket, the SNAP benefit will automatically be applied for approved items, and there will be a balance that must be paid by another method for anything not approved such as toilet paper. So rather than imposing fines and suspensions of essential benefits to the needy, the machines would have to be programmed to either accept or decline a transaction, based on whatever location rules the state decides. Who will pay for that though? Again, the taxpayers will wind up footing the bill for that new infrastructure, in the same way they have with the SNAp food-stamp benefit.

Ah-ha! Now we finally come to the real reason behind all of this. It's not to stop welfare fraud at all, but rather to help the government itself actually defraud the taxpayers, for the ultimate benefit of elitist corporations such as JP Morgan/CHASE bank. This is a racket folks, predicated by the ignorant small-mindedness of people who will go along with anything that makes life more difficult for the poor. Don't fall for propaganda-driven schemes that are really nothing more than corporate welfare.

Ron Deutsch, executive director of New Yorkers for Fiscal Fairness, said the regulations are unfair and demonize low-income residents.

“I think it is a distraction from the real problem, which is New York is facing record hunger right now,” Deutsch said. “I say what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If you want to prohibit people from using public money at establishments like this, then I think we should be prohibiting lawmakers from using their public money at the same establishments.”

Also see:

Drug Testing of Welfare Recipients Is a Bad Idea

Banning Light Bulbs

The US is set to ban standard light bulbs beginning January 1. In theory, the move is meant to save energy for our nation. In reality however, the replacements are far more expensive, dangerous to the environment, and a serious fire hazard.

What are your thoughts on the light-bulb issue?

Ironically enough, the world's oldest working light-bulb happens to be in a firehouse too.

Open Carry vs. Concealed Carry?

Some states that are less restrictive on permits and purchases of guns, ban open-carry. Other states that are more strict on firearm regulation allow it, or make no distinction at all. Still other states require a permit to carry a concealed weapon, while carrying a gun openly exempts the owner of permitting at all.

What regulations should be made, if any, to distinguish between carrying a a gun concealed from public view versus a gun that is displayed openly on a person?