Dwarf’s in Tutus

Here is a Theme park in China which isn’t politically correct and yet….


I say if the people working there are happy then what’s the issue? To me how the people who work there feel is the best indicator of whether or not it’s okay to have a place like this.  If they feel respected and enjoy their work then I don’t see it as a problem.


Many home owners associations and rich areas freak out if you hang your laundry out to dry. Apparently, you may look *gasp!* poor if you do so.

Like it’s horrible to do something that EVERYONE did for thousands of years in the normal process of staying clean and healthy (Including the rich).

Now I don’t give a rat’s ass about what they think, and I do what works for me anyway. (Thank God there’s a few freedoms left in America.)

What bugs me is those same rich SNOBS are the ones who say we should all “save the environment,” but apparently line drying isn’t a “good enough” way to help make our “environmental footprint” smaller.

The hypocrosy is sickening.

They did that here too when the airlines decided to change their flight path over the RICH homes to save fuel.

OH! The upcry!

I love line drying. My clothes smell SO good after I line dry. Especially if there are flowers in bloom.  ummmmmm…..

The only thing that’s tough to deal with it the stiffness of the clothes. (Of course a windy day helps with that. *wink* If I can keep the clothes from falling in the dirt! Lots of clothespins help.)

People need to pull their heads out of their asses and look at reality a little more.

Too many people are living in their schools, offices, houses so much that they miss reality and try to make decisions without knowing how it REALLY effects the world.

If we all had to start from scratch with no clothes, no tools, in a wilderness, how many people would know enough about REALITY to survive let alone thrive.

Using natures resources comes naturally to those who really get it.

Do you like to eat?

What is happening to our food supply?


This law will effect people keeping horses also — even if only for recreation.

 Monsanto could hold the whole world hostage if it controled the food supply, which it is trying to do. The have mutated seeds which will not propogate and are trying to get countries to only use/allow/sell those seeds. Australia told them hell no about 10 years ago, but now are allowing these Franken seeds.

This proposed law would play right into their hands and shut down family farms.

People need to buy and support Heirloom species of seeds and farm animals (did you know there are livestock species going extinct? But no one really talks about those).

Support your local small farmers. Use community supported agriculture (CSA for short). Grow gardens, keep chickens.

Use grey water and collect rain water. Push to keep those free and legal to do. In some states this is already illegal which is just insane!

Keep your food and water free and self -sustaining. It’s insane that this is even an issue.

We are loosing our basic rights to feed and hydrate ourselves?!!!!???? Isn’t there something wrong with that picture?

Tank heater blown apart

So I have this new, beautiful 75 gallon tank that I moved my super growing eel into. The guy is already about a foot long and very thick. And I thought “great! Now he/she will have plenty of space and I’ll raise ghost shrimp in my other tank so (s)he’s not so expensive to feed.

So five days ago I bought a heater that looked really great and said it was shatter proof even! HA No way. The thing just blew up in my tank, and there was glass everywhere.  Plus the electrical burn smell just reeked!

It was Hydor brand. And inside was a rusty spot so the thing had obviously been leaking in water. And when I went to their web site for the USA there wasn’t even a number to call. I sent an email, but who knows if they will actually answer. It said their customer service page for the USA wasn’t set up yet, so….

I’m mad. And if my beautiful eel dies or gets cut (I think I got all the glass, but it’s soooo hard to tell) I’m going to be madder yet!

The FDA Wants YOU! Help Improve Nutrition Labeling December 7th, 2009


Help the FDA Improve NUTRITION FACTS LABELS The FDA is reconsidering the Nutrition Facts Panel.

Almost 20 years after the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990, and with soaring rates of obesity, one could argue that the goals of a healthier, slimmer America have not been achieved.

The Food and Drug Administration, charged with most foods’ nutrition labeling realizes this. So it has decided to experiment with changes, additions, and omissions in order to improve consumer understanding of what they are about to eat.

But before building the experiment, the FDA is soliciting comments from the public, and that includes us – you, me, and whoever cares about nutrition.

Unfortunately, the digital hallways of the federal government are not user friendly and it is not trivial to find the right webpage to comment. This means that in many cases, the only comments come from food manufacturers and trade groups. You can probably guess what their comments will look like.

So here’s some help from Fooducate. Not only did we dig up the single click that takes you straight to the comment page, we’ve also collated Seven Label Improvement Suggestions [see below] that you can suggest to the FDA.

The invitation to comment by the FDA can be downloaded [PDF] or viewed online at


You need to submit your comments by January 19, 2010.

For reference, the docket number is FDA-2009-N-0532 and you can submit your comment at


Seven Suggested Label Improvements, if you would like to use them: If you are contemplating what improvements the FDA should undertake, let us help with a few examples. Feel free to “copy paste” when you file your comment with the FDA.

1. Show REAL serving size. Have you ever noticed the ridiculously small serving sizes on packages – 3 Oreos? 15 potato chips? Or a single serve 20 fl oz bottle of cola written up as containing 2.5 servings? Manufacturers like to minimize the servings to toddler size portions so that the nutrition facts per serving won’t seem too bad (calories, sugar, etc…). This is misleading and needs to change to reflect how people really consume food and drink.

2. How much ADDED sugar? The nutrition label states the amount of total sugar in a serving, but it does not indicate whether the sugar is added to the food, occurs naturally, or both. Caloric-ly, there is no difference between added sugar and sugar found naturally in fruits and vegetables. But the benefit of fruits containing naturally occurring sugars is in the additional vitamins, minerals, fiber, antioxidants and phytochemicals they provide. Added sugars provide no health benefits. They are truly empty calories. People should choose products with as little added sugar as possible. Unfortunately, today consumers can only guess how much sugar has been added to a product.

3. Daily Values for Protein, Sugar. These numbers don’t appear on nutrition labels today and consumers can only guess if 5 grams of protein are a lot or a little. As most people consume plenty of protein daily, this will decrease the marketing hype around high protein bars and snacks. As for sugar, people don’t know what amount is an acceptable daily intake of total sugar, and of added sugar.

4. Zero should be zero. Did you know that if a product contains trans fat, but less than 0.5 grams per serving, it can legally be labeled as 0 gram of trans fat? This is ridiculous. Knowing this, manufacturers can “calibrate” serving sizes to be just under half a gram’s worth of trans-fat, thus earning the right to place the coveted zero number on the nutrition label. But when wolfing down a snack bag (real serving size much larger than labeled – see #1 above), you could be getting even 1.25 grams of trans-fat, all while thinking that the product contains none at all.

5. Caffeine content. Products that contain caffeine should clearly state the amount. People are often surprised to discover caffeine in soft drinks, cakes, and other snack items. Some energy drinks contain ridiculously high amounts. Physicians have asked the FDA to require caffeine labeling on energy drinks.

6. Allow rBGH-free labels. rBGH / rBST is a hormone injected into cows to increase their milk output. The hormone has been associated with various health risks for humans consuming the milk. People should know if their milk comes from cows treated with these hormones.

7. Label Booz. Alcoholic beverages should be labeled as well. At a bare minimum, provide serving size and calories.

*8. (My suggestion…) Require labeling of genetically modified food. This food has not been substantialy tested to ensure safety. And in fact the FDA made tryptophan illegal after deaths caused by a genetically modified batch imported from China. People should be able to choose if they are a guinei pig of these mutant foods or not. –Elena

Donna R. Shanklin REA – Health, Northern Alabama Cullman County Extension Office Cullman County Office Bldg G-1 402 Arnold St NE Cullman, AL 35055

Telephone 256-737-9386

Fax 256-737-9549

Cell 256-200-2997

Alabama Healthy Homes Project Coordinator http://www.healthyhomespartnership.net

Faith Hobby http://www.pahrumpmidwife.com (702) 327-3100

I feel I must explain that I feel as strongly as anyone about truely being wise with our environment and resources.

I’m as big a fan as anyone of solar, wind, and water generated power, etc. Not only for the benefits to the planet, but the independence and self sufficiency that creates! That’s just fun. 🙂

I also believe that being wise with our resources includes accurate research and gov policies that reflect that.  And the whole global warming thing has not been that.  The exposed letters prove it as well as the documentary below.

This is a Finish documentary about Global Warming. It includes research by Finish scientists who’s research was literally flipped upside down to fit the model desired (a fundamentally flawed theory; see below) instead of reflect the accurate and far more thorough results they got. There was actually a “formal” apology about it. I bet you never heard about it though!

Watch the video to see more.

This whole topic reminds me of those researching Venus, only that is much worse. Proponents of different theories use the exact same data to say it supports what they believe is true; even though they are completely opposite. There are few researchers in that arena that are objective about it.

This topic is only so huge because there are people worried about the government policies that will be created, and I think that is a very valid concern.

People are going to be making government policy on something that is unclear?

In time peer review might work things out, but who’s going to reverse the gov policy if it is wrong?

I think that is where people start getting freaked out about this whole thing. They don’t want something put upon them if it isn’t appropriate.

And also John Daly (a climate scientist) said this in 2001:

“Take this from first principles.

A tree only grows on land. That excludes 70% of the earth covered by
water. A tree does no grow on ice. A tree does not grow in a desert. A
tree does not grow on grassland-savannahs. A tree does not grow in
alpine areas. A tree does not grow in the tundra

We are left with perhaps 15% of the planet upon which forests
grow/grew. That does not make any studies from tree rings global, or
even hemispheric.

The width and density of tree rings is dependent upon the following
variables which cannot be reliably separated from each other.

sunlight – if the sun varies, the ring will vary. But not at night of
cloudiness – more clouds, less sun, less ring.
pests/disease – a caterpillar or locust plague will reduce
access to sunlight – competition within a forest can disadvantage or
advantage some trees.
moisture/rainfall – a key variable. Trees do not prosper in a drought
even if there’s a heat wave.
snow packing in spring around the base of the trees retards growth
temperature – finally!

The tree ring is a composite of all these variables, not merely of
temperature. Therefore on the 15% of the planet covered by trees, their
rings do not and cannot accurately record temperature in isolation from
the other environmental variables.

In my article on Greening Earth Society on the Hockey Stick, I point to
other evidence which contradicts Mann’s theory. The Idso’s have produced
more of that evidence, and a new article on Greening Earth has
`unearthed’ even more.

Mann’s theory simply does not stack up. But that was not the key issue.

Anyone can put up a dud theory from time to time. What is at issue is
the uncritical zeal with which the industry siezed on the theory before
its scientific value had been properly tested. In one go, they tossed
aside dozens of studies which confirmed the existence of the MWE and LIA
as global events, and all on the basis of tree rings – a proxy which has
all the deficiencies I have stated above.

The worst thing I can say about any paper such as his is that it is `bad
science’. Legal restraint prevents me going further. But in his case,
only those restraints prevent me going *much* further.


John Daly”


Here is a link to over 450 papers that disprove that Co2 emmissions will be “catastrophic” or that man made global warming even exists.

And a link that shows that the summit was/is a failure anyway! Complete with picture. Obama doesn’t look to happy. hehehe

So what do you think about this?

I’ve been pissed for years about JUNK science that politicians use to push their agendas through.

Now, thanks to some one with computer knowledge we have proof.

Take special note of the link where you can actually read the letters and decide for yourself!


And if you don’t want to read through them all, there are accurate excerpts/summaries available here:


What follows are some comments from people who sounded intelligent enough. 😉  

Comments below:

This is not about a “slew of hacked emails rolling around the Internet,” nor is this a “fuss over the emails.” This is about obfuscation, non-cooperation, emails that hint at a cover-up, emails that clearly demonstrate that an agenda had overcome all scientific rationale and collaboration as they also show that scientists trying to twist and change data and prevent other viewpoints from being published. This is a very sad day for objective science and truly calls into question the theory of global warming and certainly the theory that temperature changes are man-made.
Let’s look at the facts First, There has been concern about the data presented by the IPCC for years–and this is the organization that not only Europe but the United States relies on. As a result of this concern (as well as the admission that much of the original temperature data was “lost” in the l980’s), all the primary scientific research was requested by outsiders. Yet requests were refused, so additional demands were made of the IPCC & CRU under British Freedom of Information Act. The CRU still stonewalled–a criminal offense–and then someone hacked into their site and found these terribly destructive (to the CRU scientists) emails. Secondly, although the mainstream media, including apparently US News has refused to print these emails because they were hacked/stolen (which certainly never prevented the NY Times and others publishing military or state secrets that damage this country), the newspapers in Britain and Europe have. You can see them by visiting the Telegraph (London) website at Telegraph.co.uk and searching their site. They are hugely damaging.
Thirdly, in 2003 Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre exposed the fundamental flaw in the “hockey stick” which was the image that first created the fuel for the global warming campaign; the one Al Gore still uses. This created more concerns about the very credibility of the CRU’s work–and now the CRU (Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia) emails have exposed yet another crack–even more more incriminating–were email messages from climate change scientists asking for scientific data to be deleted so it could not be turned over! You would have thought US News would have found this somewhat interesting, but the writer of this article was obviously distracted or was not alert.
Fourth, still other emails show that “scientists” worked diligently to manipulate the data through “tortious computer programmes” (source: Telegraph) to lower past temperatures and to “adjust” more recent temperatures upwards “in order to convey the impression of accelerated warming.” And the problems go on. There are other emails that show the scientists’ desperation at their difficulty in getting the results to come out the way that they wish them to be. Respected scientists on both sides of the climate change debate are now calling for an investigation.
There must be an investigation–but will it happen?
Another commentor wrote:

Journalistic Integrity
I can’t believe it took US News a WEEK to come up with this drivel. Science, like journalism is now suspect and politically driven. The science of man made global warming is very unsettled, and at least climategate let us peer into the computer modeling and statistical analysis that these “Scientists” were using. As a master’s level economist, we have legitimate peer review and legitimate statistical modeling.
These guys make mistakes in disciplines that they do not understand (statistics, computer programming) and then refuse to have people within that discipline review their work. Tsk, tsk tsk. We certainly shouldn’t be coughing up trillions of dollars for “Work” that should at least be tested in an open an honest forum. These guys couldn’t pass a bachelor’s level statistic or programming 400 level class.