This week in the Christian Views Symposium, Lennie asks about the Katie Wernecke situation that I mentioned last week. I think my views on the situation are already pretty darn clear, much to the chagrin of a few of my gentle readers, but Lennie asks more:

Is this a violation of parental rights?

Where do parental rights begin and end when it comes to medical treatment?

Is it a violation of parental rights? Very clearly and obviously. I am absolutely dumbfounded when people comment here that it is not. The parents wanted a different opinion from another doctor – nothing more. Her mom went to jail for it.

This situation says that if you dare to question a doctor about any treatment for your child, you go to jail. I already worry about taking children to doctors – and doctors "reporting" to social services and the like. Now I’m being told that if I dare question a doctor’s medical opinion about a child, I get to go to jail. How can anyone outside a total communist state even begin to suggest that this is OK?

Where do parental rights begin and end? I have a better question – when did the state obtain the right to take my children and treat them against my will, against their will, and at my (and others') expense?

The state has almost no rights regarding medical care when the parents are present and in a sane mind. If they want to refuse blood transfusions, who is the state to demand it? The only cases where the state should step in is where they always have the right to – when someone is in imminent danger of immediate harm or death. And even then, the state should only step in long enough to mediate the harm and then they should get the hell out of the way.

Posted by: Ogre at 02:36 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 316 words, total size 2 kb.

There's a new carnival up! This week you can view the inaugural edition of the Carnival of the Clueless. This carnival highlights

posts that highlight the total stupidity of a public figure or organization – either left or right – that demonstrates that special kind of cluelessness that only someone’s mother could defend…and maybe not even their mothers!

Everyone knows what IÂ’m talking about. Whether itÂ’s the latest from Bill Maher or the Reverend Dobson, it doesnÂ’t matter. I will post ALL ENTRIES REGARDLESS OF WHETHER I AGREE WITH THE SENTIMENTS EXPRESSED OR NOT.

So head on over and read some silliness!

Posted by: Ogre at 10:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 108 words, total size 1 kb.

(click to enlarge)

Today is Flag Day. Pause today at 7pm E.D.T. with the entire country to say the pledge of Allegiance.

Every single time I hear this played or sung, especially at the start of every baseball game, I get goosebumps:

O say can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hail'd at the twilight's last gleaming,
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight
O'er the ramparts we watch'd were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bomb bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there,
O say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore dimly seen through the mists of the deep
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream,
'Tis the star-spangled banner - O long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore,
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a Country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wash'd out their foul footstep's pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

O thus be it ever when freemen shall stand
Between their lov'd home and the war's desolation!
Blest with vict'ry and peace may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the power that hath made and preserv'd us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto - "In God is our trust,"
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Posted by: Ogre at 07:44 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 360 words, total size 2 kb.

I'm big on free markets. Honestly. I want competition. The North Carolina General Assembly just passed a resolution that is alleged to increase competition -- but as usual, that's just a lie.

The House just passed a bill that would remove a 1929 prohibition on STATE-RUN Universities competing with private businesses. So now the tax dollars paid by businesses to the state can be used by the state to put that very same business out of business.

You see, government cannot compete. Government, by it's very definition, is not a free market. Government, when creating goods and services, does not follow the rules of a free market. They do not adjust to supply and demand. They do not even need to make a profit because they exist based on forced taxpayer funds. So this process can completely eliminate all private business in North Carolina, were it to be taken to it's logical conclusion.

Allegedly the authors of the bill tried to mitigate this process by including a panel to "ensure the universities aren't taking away profits from local businesses or selling the goods that they already provide." So all the university has to do is beat another business to the market and they automatically get a government-sponsored monopoly.

I just wonder why the Democrats in the North Carolina Legislature (that's who passed this bill) hate private business so much. Why do they despise progress and freedom and attempt to destroy it every chance they get?

Posted by: Ogre at 05:31 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 249 words, total size 2 kb.

The New Blog Showcase is a place where new blogs get showcased -- hence the name. It's a place where people new to the blogosphere can get a little exposure, sometimes in high-profile places and locations. It's fun to host because you get to read those new blogs first and you get to drive traffic to them. Most of the time, those new bloggers really do appreciate the time the host takes to read and link to them.

The New Carnival Showcase needs hosts. Each week I try and find someone to host the showcase, and each week I seem to always get one person to do it. I'm always a willing backup if no one else volunteers.

However, I'm getting ready to go on a well-deserved vacation. During that time I'm going to be drinking camping a lot, and will have little, if any, access to a computer. I will probably never see a computer the entire time I'm gone except at the alcohol grocery store. So I need to line up some hosts.

To host the new blog carnival showcase, you need only to make a post on Monday providing links (and optional commentary) to the blogs that are submitted each week. See the main post for examples of how others have done it in the past.

I need to line hosts up for the next couple weeks early this week to ensure the carnival keeps going! This is a good thing, so please, if you can, volunteer to help out one or two weeks while I'm gone. Just drop me a line at gre11@gmail.com>ogre11@gmail.com and I'll give you the required information.

Posted by: Ogre at 04:59 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 280 words, total size 2 kb.

Ah Monday afternoon and time for some carnival visiting. If you need some neat places to visit today, check them out!

First up is the Tarheel Tavern. This is a weekly carnival of blogs from North Carolina. Even if you're not in North Carolina, you really should check out this series. Each week the author of the carnival seems to try and outdo the previous week's author. They really are good. This week's edition is up at A Sort of Notebook with the theme of "getting back to nature." Next week it will be hosted at Mister Sugar.

Next up is the Karnival of Kidz. I'm not sure why, but every week when I see it written that way I see "Killer Klowns from Kansas." But hey, if you like kids (or kidz), head on over and have a look.

Lastly, we have the New Blog Showcase Carnival. This week's post is at 21st Century Paladin. The New Blog Showcase Carnival is where you can see and read the newest blogs in the world. Only those blogs that are less than 3 months old can participate.

So, if you need some reading, or even just some inspiration for some writing, head on over to any of those carnivals and read what's new this week!

Posted by: Ogre at 12:31 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 218 words, total size 1 kb.

I accidentally missed last week’s Christian Views Symposium. It was completely unintentional – I was trying to remember to obtain some background material to provide as links to support my position. I never did find that time, so I’m just going to post this and you can choose to believe me or not for now.

The question asked by XBIP last week for the Christian Views Symposium was:

Do you think religious leaders should or should not try to influence government decisions? and why?

Another easy one this week – at least in my opinion.

Yes. Without any doubt whatsoever. Do you realize that if you say that no religious leaders should participate in government, then you deny the very existence of the United States? Most of the leaders of the militias from colonial times were church leaders. Church bells called the patriots to arms – anyone remember the Old North Church tower?

Freedom and religion are not exclusive of one another – unless it is a repressive religion like the Muslim religion. Christianity supports freedom entirely. Christianity is based on the idea that you have free will and you should do the right thing.

With some exceptions, what religious Christian leaders do you know that dispense bad advice regarding society? If you say that no religious principles should influence politics, youÂ’re telling the vast majority of this country that they should not participate in self-government.

I know the ACLU and others, and I imagine some of my good readers, are trying to do all they can to remove all vestiges of religion from government. They, and you, are wrong. If you say that religious opinions do not matter in government, then you are proclaiming that you and your opinions are superior to the majority of Americans. They are not, sorry.

This is not a call for a theocracy – in fact I know of very, very few people who are calling for such a thing, and NONE of them are anywhere any actual elected positions, much less any real power. This is simply saying that you cannot disqualify someone for political office or government decisions because they are Christians.

More religious leaders should come out of their shells and help the majority of Americans in opposing the cleansing of religion from politics.

Posted by: Ogre at 08:48 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 389 words, total size 2 kb.

Yet another NC newspaper is whining about the lack of spending on behalf of the North Carolina Senate, despite them raising taxes on everything including the kitchen sink (and even creating a brand-new sales tax on the labor of the installation of kitchen sinks).

In this case, they are complaining about a $1 million appropriation that will cut funding for directors of state drug courts. I have searched, but actual budgetary figures are notoriously hard to find on the internet. Therefore, I cannot tell if this is an actual reduction of $1 million, or, much more likely, a reduction in an expected increase of $1 million, with a real increase in spending.

The newspaper also complains this $1 million reduction will result in only enough money to "employ 2 state drug court directors." So it sounds like there's no change in the actual "drug courts," but instead there will simply be less overhead to the drug courts. But, of course, it's for the children.

The newspaper even complains that the cuts are affecting drug courts, forcing Forsyth's court to stop taking new application A MONTH AGO. I guess their director was psychic and knew the Senate was going to make the reduction.

Folks, we've lost the "war on drugs." Give it up. Stop wasting money on it. Spend money punishing real crimes, real actions, and not just intentions. If someone doesn't pose an imminent threat and danger, leave them alone, would you?

Posted by: Ogre at 06:01 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 248 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Thankfully, I am no longer paying North Carolina State taxes. I don't make a tremendous amount of money, but I actually owed the state money this year (ridiculous, because I paid them almost half of what I paid in Federal Taxes throughout the year).

Posted by: michael at June 13, 2005 07:27 AM (eqaaP)

2 While I was in the military, I alternated between being a resident of New Hampshire and Florida. And no, it's no coincidence that there's no state taxes in either of those states.

Posted by: Ogre at June 13, 2005 07:31 AM (/k+l4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Divorce is wrong. Everyone should know that. Why is it so common in today's society? It's wrong. Period. God, who created marriage, said it's wrong, what more do you need? Jesus said it was wrong, but went even further -- saying that even lust is wrong.

I don't care what you see in America today. I don't care what you've been told, what your parents did, or what you'd like to see. You should refrain from physical adultery or sex outside of marriage. Period. We are not to commit adultery in our minds by lusting after another person. In addition, we should not cause anyone else to commit adultery.

I remember once seeing in a movie set in the 1500s where there was a clear situation in which a man and woman were not meant for one another, where they didn't like one another, but they had been married. It was shown where the woman and another man were very much in love. They proved to the Queen that they were not meant for one another. They asked the Queen for a divorce. Then queen replied, "What God has joined together, man must not separate."

It really is that simple.

Tips for males:
When you look at a woman, look at her face.
If you find yourself thinking impure thoughts, think of something else.
Do not be discouraged by problems and maritial difficulties.
Build a relationship based on love and respect.
Recognize that no one person can meet all of your needs; only God can and He will.

Tips for females:
Dress in a way that invites people to look at your face, not your body.
Reject the cultural pressures to be defined by how you look.
Consciously make the decision not to flirt or fantasize.
Build a relationship that encourages your husband and helps you to grow.
Recognize that no one person can meet all of your needs; only God can and He will.

Why not do what's right?

Posted by: Ogre at 07:48 PM | Comments (29) | Add Comment
Post contains 336 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I think a good exception is abuse, Ogre. Nobody should have to tolerate abuse.

Posted by: Bou at June 12, 2005 08:41 PM (z7nbM)

2 That's certainly a tough one -- and I think that's one that can be best avoided with prior planning.

Posted by: Ogre at June 12, 2005 08:44 PM (i5VG6)

3 Great post Ogre. I would have to chime in with another excuse and that would be adultery.

Posted by: Two Dogs at June 12, 2005 09:17 PM (gxDJU)

4 Prior planning? As in, "I plan to blow his brains out when he beats me?" Just wonderin'...

Posted by: Bou at June 12, 2005 09:27 PM (z7nbM)

5 And for the record, I would not divorce my husband over adultery and he knows it.

Posted by: Bou at June 12, 2005 09:27 PM (z7nbM)

6 In prior planning, I was referring to PRE-marriage. Adultery is the only legitimate reason for divorce. That's just one reason it should be so stringently avoided in all it's forms. Even those that cause others to commit adultery are as guilty as those who commit it themselves.

Posted by: Ogre at June 12, 2005 09:29 PM (i5VG6)

7 Wait. So beating your wife is not grounds for divorce, but infidelity is?

Posted by: Bou at June 12, 2005 09:57 PM (z7nbM)

8 This reminds me of why I do NOT belong to the Mennonite church. One day, a woman with her 3 children appeared before the church and it's elders. She had obviously been beaten badly. She announced to the church that because the beatings had gotten so bad and she was afraid for her children, she was filing for divorce. The Elders said they understood and were sorry but she was no longer welcome. God did NOT mean for us to live with violence. There is no such thing as pre-planning for that. You do NOT know what is in the other persons heart.

Posted by: Tammi at June 12, 2005 10:13 PM (F4oo1)

9 My first husband beat the crap out of me. He never touched me until I was about to give bith to our first son. He never showed violent tendencies at all in any situation. There are times when prior planning isn't a realistic expectation. I divorced him when my oldest son was 3. My only regret is not doing it 3 years earlier. If God wants to send me to hell for it, so be it - but I wasn't living my life never knowing when he was going to turn on me or my kids.

Posted by: Erin Monahan at June 12, 2005 11:11 PM (0Ea9a)

10 Erin's case isn't unique. Doemstic violence advocates will tell you that about half of abusers (both men and women) show no signs of violence before the abuse starts and many don't have an abusive background. In these cases, a trigger event, like the impending birth of a child, loss of a job, increased alcohol or drug consumption, etc. can set off the abuse, and there's no way to predict it. Sure, I get it. Get to know the person you plan to marry. Understand where they're coming from, and what they want from life. If you know they're bad, don't do it. That's great. Everyone should do that. But that doesn't work for everything. Abuse should never be tolerated.

Posted by: caltechgirl at June 13, 2005 12:46 AM (UNuTU)

11 I'm not saying that one should put up with abuse. But divorce is a sin. No matter why, it is. It's no worse a sin than any other sin, so it's not like you're branded for life (if you believe in Jesus and know that he died for our sins so that we can be forgiven). I'm not The One who will sit in judgement. But I know that anyone who has sinned needs only ask for forgiveness in their heart for that sin, and they will be forgiven. It's as simple as that. I also honestly believe that we are never given more than we can handle. I'm saying that if you are considering divorce, perhaps there's another option. Perhaps you can pray for the person you're considering divorcing and yourself. Perhaps you and they can seek a little healing power and there's an option other than divorce. I'll pray for you if you'd like me to.

Posted by: Ogre at June 13, 2005 06:07 AM (i5VG6)

12 I believe if getting married wasn't so easy, then it would help slow down the divorce rate. I'm divorced yes, but been married to the CSM for going on 13 years now. However, I believe that if it harder to get married more people would think about it. Why not require a "cooling period" or make people go to classes before getting a license?

Posted by: Jo at June 13, 2005 07:47 AM (RV2fQ)

13 Sure, that would help out -- but then you've got Las Vegas...

Posted by: Ogre at June 13, 2005 07:50 AM (/k+l4)

14 Practically off-topic at this point, but for both sexes: never let your spouse walk out the door without a kiss and an "I love you". Because you never know if you'll get the chance again...

Posted by: Harvey at June 13, 2005 09:12 AM (ubhj8)

15 Most certainly good advice, Harvey, if slightly depressing...guess that goes with the one about never going to be angry, eh?

Posted by: Ogre at June 13, 2005 09:57 AM (/k+l4)

16 Just to be hypothetical and argumentative The bible says "what God hath joined together, let no man put asunder" right? Anyone can marry anyone anymore, a marriage is no longer necessarily ordained by God. Sometimes, it's ordained by Elvis, and in my case, I'm completely convinced it was ordained by the god of ignorance and stupidity. Now I'm not trying to say that divorce is or isn't a sin, but I do believe there are marriages out there that are not ordained by God. And just as an aside question, if divorce is a sin, and a woman divorces her husband for abuse - is the abuse also a sin? And furthermore, to repent is to pray and say that one is sorry for the sin they committed - I doubt women getting out of abusive situations for themselves or their children are sorry for doing so. I'm sorry I married him, I'll never be sorry for divorcing him. Does that mean that I'm -by the religious standards you've presented me- doomed to hell?

Posted by: Erin Monahan at June 13, 2005 11:05 AM (0Ea9a)

17 Argumentative? Here? What, do you think this is a blog or something? Oh wait. It is. Right. Sure, there can be marriages that are not ordained by God -- but if it's a man and woman who believe it is at that time, then it is. And certainly, the abuse is a sin. That goes without saying. And I'm no priest, but since you're saying you're sorry for marrying him, I think that would somewhat apply as asking for forgiveness, but I'm not sure. This will probably anger you, but hopefully will not when I say that perhaps it would be best if you were sorry that things could not be worked out between you two and that the abuse would have stopped. Wouldn't that have been better than the divorce? I'm not saying a little change, but imagine if he suddenly went back to the way he was before you married him? The point of this thread was never to say that someone should stay in an abusive relationship. I'm just trying to say that leaving a marriage because "things are tough" is wrong.

Posted by: Ogre at June 13, 2005 11:12 AM (/k+l4)

18 Ogre please take the time to read this website carefully: http://www.hiddenhurt.co.uk/Religion/religion.htm One of the links is RESPONDING TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: GUIDELINES FOR PASTORS. http://www.hiddenhurt.co.uk/Religion/guidelines.htm Some of the guidelines: DO encourage her to think about a safety plan: set aside some money; copies of important papers for her and children; a change of clothes hidden or in care of a friend if she decides to go to a shelter. Plan how to exit the house the next time the abuser is violent. Plan what to do about the children if they are at school; if they are asleep, etc. (This is both practical and helps her stay in touch with the reality of the abuserÂ’s violence. Safety planning is a process that is ongoing.) DONÂ’T encourage her to forgive him and take him back. And there are biblical references as to why this is correct. Please take the time to go through this site.

Posted by: VW Bug at June 13, 2005 01:08 PM (n+JjT)

19 That is why I think counseling before marriage should be manditory. To be married in a Catholic Church you have to go to marriage prep classes. 8 weeks of classes that talked about everything you could think of, yes even sex. They gave us a lot to talk about and they expected that you do the assignments that you were given. We did and learned a lot about each other before we were married. After the classes you took a compatability test and discussed those results with a marriage counselor. Then you met and talked with a married couple from the church. Then the priest took all that information and made a decision as to whether everyone thought you were compatable and should get married. If it was yes then you could get married in the church. If it was no they would discuss it with you, offer to hold off on the marriage and help with more cousling to see if maybe you could work out some issues, if the couple wouldn't go to more counsling the church would not marry them at any time. Plus the Catholic Church does not believe in divorce, so once married in the church you are married forever unless one spouse dies. You can never get married in the Catholic Church again unless an annullment is granted (which doesn't happen very often).

Posted by: Machelle at June 13, 2005 01:17 PM (ZAyoW)

20 Machelle... I know plenty of women who have been in physically abusive relationships that were married in the Catholic church and they went through all that counseling stuff. Read what Caltechgirl said above. There are triggers that can cause domestic abuse.

Posted by: Bou at June 13, 2005 01:26 PM (z7nbM)

21 I didn't really think this would turn into a thread that showed me as supporting domestic violence. I guess I imagined that some would turn it around on me, but that is what it is. Look, I'm not supporting domestic violence. Divorce is wrong. That's not my words. It doesn't really matter if you like it, it's true. Divorce is wrong. I'm not saying you should stay in a situation where you're being abused. But divorce is still wrong. As for the advice that you've pointed to, VW, I do have major problems with that. We are told, over and over again, to forgive people. We are told that we are not to judge them, but that God will judge them. I cannot imagine any Christian pastor honestly saying, "No, don't forgive him." Ever. If my pastor ever said that, he wouldn't be my pastor any more, because that's wrong, too. So yes, go with all the help, counseling, and meetings before you get married to AVOID divorce. I don't support wife-beating, but divorce is STILL wrong.

Posted by: Ogre at June 13, 2005 01:54 PM (/k+l4)

22 But you know Bou, those abusive situations are not what I am talking about. I am talking about people getting married knowing that if things don't work out they can just get a divorce. Way to many people today are just getting married to get married. To have the big fairytale wedding, etc, etc, etc. They don't think about the after, just the here and now. A lot of people don't know the difference between real love and "I think it's love". There is a big difference. Like Ogre is saying, to many people jump before thinking about what's on the other side of the hill. A lot people just don't think it's going to require hard work to keep a marriage going, and when hard work is called for they just run to the court and get divorced. Make it harder to get divorced. Make people go to counsling before a divorce to see if all they need is some help getting through the problems. I know a lot of people who got divorced because one wanted kids and the other didn't. That is something that should be discussed before even getting married. That's just stupid to go into a marriage not knowing the person well enough to not even know they don't want kids.

Posted by: Machelle at June 13, 2005 02:45 PM (ZAyoW)

23 lol Ogre, I didn't mean to be any part of making you look like a wife-beater-sympathizer. Sorry. Would I have rather that everything 'got better' and not gone through the divorce and subsequent 'stuff'? Of course. We have children together that have suffered, as kids of divorced parents do. Do I believe frivolous divorce is wrong? Absolutely, and I'm not even vaguely religious. If a couple has made a committment to one another it should be honored, and I believe frivolous marriage is just as wrong. Do I believe that women will stay in abusive marriage, at her own risk, and the risk of her children, for the sake of pleasing her pastor or her lord? Unfortunately, yes, I do. I guess I feel that God wouldn't want women or children to suffer at the hands of a husband who obviously isn't honoring the scriptural obligations of a husband, honor thy husband as he honors the lord... that's all I'm saying, you know? I don't think the lord would continue to ordain an abusive marriage, no matter the situation at the time of the wedding. And no people, Ogre doesn't think women deserve to be beaten - poor guy!

Posted by: Erin Monahan at June 13, 2005 02:51 PM (0Ea9a)

24 I think we're finally in a little more agreement, especially to the main point of the post: If you are someone who is considering a divorce because "the spark died," or "it's too hard," please reconsider. Thanks for the lively conversation and the many, many emails. I had no idea this topic would get so many people going so much. Really! Now why won't you people get this upset about taxes!?!

Posted by: Ogre at June 13, 2005 03:47 PM (/k+l4)

25 I completely agree with the gist of your post... that divorce is too easy and I NEVER said I didn't. If you look at my first comment, I was saying that I felt that abuse was an exception to the rule. In my world, infidelity isn't even an exception when there are children involved. My only issue has been that you 'seemed' to think it wrong for a woman to get divorced should she be a victim of abuse. And I... Just... Don't. And I don't think it's a sin either and I dont' care what scripture you quote. So... it is just a place you and I will always disagree. If I ever find out a friend of mine is being abused, I will always tell her to get the hell out right then and there and to never look back. I will not counsel her to pray about it or get counseling or try to stick it out to see if it works out in the end. NEVER. But, that is me.

Posted by: Bou at June 13, 2005 04:24 PM (z7nbM)

26 You never know how much people can change. I've been known, far in my past, to help such people as are being referred to here change their views on things. And I can imagine being put into a situation where I could be asked to help with that sort of thing again. And I do know that sometimes people (especially abusers) don't listen to reason. And I know what they do listen to. So yes, we'll disagree. Even in an abusive situation, I think divorce is a last resort. Sure, get away from the situation, take the kids away, physically remove yourself from the abuse, but then see if there's not a way to work things out. Always try.

Posted by: Ogre at June 13, 2005 04:48 PM (i5VG6)

27 I doubt that I could stay in my marriage in the case of adultery or abuse. Other than that, I completely agree with you Ogre. I am still a little green with the marriage thing since my 1st anniversary isn't until August-but, I put 6 years into the relationship before we took that leap. Both of my parents are on their 3rd marriage and I knew that I didn't want that for myself. I guess we more or less follow the tips you put up at the end of the post-but I think it is bigger than that. I have seen the pain my Mom went through (and my Dads too) and I chose to put more effort into choosing my spouse than any of them did. So far, my relationship hasn't taken much effort-just infinite patience and an ability to let stuff go.

Posted by: Ashley at June 13, 2005 11:50 PM (g7rdQ)

28 That's great to hear, Ashley, I truly wish you the best and many, many years of happiness in your marriage!

Posted by: Ogre at June 14, 2005 05:11 AM (i5VG6)

29 Thank you and same to you

Posted by: Ashley at June 14, 2005 02:50 PM (jWyC5)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Once again, for your Sunday reading pleasure, a new neighbor. This week it is

Double Toothpicks

This is a group blog that didn't start out as a group blog, but it is one now. The blog started to answer the burning question, "Are we going to H-E-double toothpicks in a handbasket?" The blog's primary author, Steve, says that

some mission creep has happened, but probably the most descriptive phrase for the blog is our catchphrase: "Worldviews BEHIND The News." What the Mainstream Media often doesn't tell you is the worldviews of the players involved. You'll get that here, and hopefully a lot more.

There's a great about page that tells you what the purpose of the blog is and gives good quotes from the authors to really give you an idea of what you're reading there.

The blog appears to be updated multiple times daily, especially during the weekdays. There's lots of news about news there, like the recent post talking about the press in the Michael Jackson case and Dean and Christianity.

There's plenty more good stuff there. The archives go back to May 2004 -- and the second post of all time is a powerful post showing how society tries to equate politics to morality. You should go read now.

Posted by: Ogre at 11:21 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 218 words, total size 2 kb.

I was at the North Carolina Zoo last weekend and saw some neat stuff (as usual). I don't know why I thought of the Bad Example family when I saw this exhibit, but the mind works in mysterious ways.

Those of you fortunate to have kids may have seen a scene like this in your house before:

And at times, I'm sure that scene was followed by this look:

Posted by: Ogre at 09:22 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 73 words, total size 1 kb.

1 big red monkey ass... *shudder*

Posted by: Harvey at June 11, 2005 01:07 PM (ubhj8)

2 Like I mentioned, I don't know why I think of the Bad Example family at times like those...

Posted by: Ogre at June 11, 2005 01:37 PM (i5VG6)

3 Wow, kool new blog layout. I guess your new motto is: Ogres do it sideways.

Posted by: Billy The Blogging Poet at June 11, 2005 09:32 PM (Hw5ym)

4 Haha that 2nd pic is priceless. (But the 1st one isn't showing?)

Posted by: Erin Monahan at June 11, 2005 10:23 PM (0Ea9a)

5 Weird. The first one should be showing now, if it wasn't before, I changed the reference to absolute.

Posted by: Ogre at June 12, 2005 11:28 AM (i5VG6)

6 That first picture looks like something that happened with Tammi's dog Cody at the blogmeet ;-)

Posted by: Sissy at June 14, 2005 11:05 PM (uXS+O)

7 More and more references to the Bad Example Family...I have no idea why...

Posted by: Ogre at June 15, 2005 05:29 AM (i5VG6)

8 Your ppl are NeRdss!!!!

Posted by: John at October 12, 2005 04:48 PM (AoyQX)

9 fags

Posted by: bob at October 12, 2005 04:49 PM (AoyQX)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

In case you still didn't have enough to write about and didn't have enough posts to try and remember to submit to the carnivals each week, Rightwing Nuthouse is starting a brand-new carnival, the Carnival of the Clueless. According to the announcement:

Each week, I’ll be calling for posts that highlight the total stupidity of a public figure or organization – either left or right – that demonstrates that special kind of cluelessness that only someone’s mother could defend…and maybe not even their mothers!

Everyone knows what IÂ’m talking about. Whether itÂ’s the latest from Bill Maher or the Reverend Dobson, it doesnÂ’t matter. I will post ALL ENTRIES REGARDLESS OF WHETHER I AGREE WITH THE SENTIMENTS EXPRESSED OR NOT.

This week submissions need to be in by 10PM Monday. Send them to elvenstar522-at-AOL-dot-com. And watch out for the carnies!

Posted by: Ogre at 02:20 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 148 words, total size 1 kb.

Katie Wernecke is a 12-year old girl who lives in Texas with her parents, Michele and Edward Wernecke. Thursday she was seized and kidnapped by the State of Texas. She is now in custody of "State Child Protective Services." You might be thinking that she was being abused, beaten, used in child pornography, or something like that. You'd be wrong. She and her parents asked questions of a doctor.

You see, Katie has been diagnosed with Hodgkin's disease, a form of cancer. The cancer is in remission, and the parents and Katie asked the doctor some questions about her treatment. They asked to delay treatment while they made some decisions. The result? Katie's mom was put in jail and Katie was taken away by the state.

This is so wrong I don't know where to begin. If I were Katie's Dad, I'd immediately grab her and leave the state. By what convoluted possible right can these a-holes steal his daughter and imprison his wife? Because they questioned a doctor's treatment? The State even abused the Amber Alert system to kidnap her! Their three sons were also taken away because of this.

Folks, these alleged "State Child Protective Services" are wrong and evil. They are starting to look like the ACLU, doing one good thing for every 100 b.s. things they do. If any member of any "State Child Protective Service" comes to my door, ever, they will be looking down the barrel of a 12-gage. I absolutely will kill to protect my family.

But there's more! Katie is on film protesting the treatment. She doesn't want any of the medical treatment that the "State Child Protective Services" insists on providing her with (with taxpayer money). They're going to force her to accept the treatment because she doesn't know any better. So if you're following this, she knows enough to be able to have an abortion without her parents permission, but she cannot refuse a medical treatment that would affect no one else but herself.

This is so, so wrong. Things like this really make me hate government.

Posted by: Ogre at 02:03 PM | Comments (145) | Add Comment
Post contains 353 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Yeah, next thing you know, Tom DeLay and Co. will be passing laws to keep Terri Schiavo on artificial life support.... Oops. They already did that.

Posted by: Randy Case at June 10, 2005 02:38 PM (LQJdM)

2 You're such a dork.

Posted by: Ogre at June 10, 2005 02:41 PM (/k+l4)

3 Yikes! That is so scary, on so many levels. In The Land of the Free this can happen? I recently saw a truly awful movie, starring Meryl Sheep, in which a boy's mother tried to kidnap him from the hospital, and risked losing custody of him as a result. (Yes, I'm too lazy to google the film title) I've discharged my own daughter against advice from my local hospital. They were fine with it, as long as I signed a disclaimer. I liked your remark about the 12-gage. I would react in much the same way, but in my case, I would have to resort to poking the Social Service people in the eye with a cocktail stick ;-)

Posted by: Sally at June 10, 2005 05:27 PM (l9UoB)

4 That makes me want to vomit.

Posted by: Bou at June 10, 2005 08:11 PM (z7nbM)

5 Just wanted to let you know I linked to this entry.

Posted by: Erin Monahan at June 11, 2005 01:51 AM (0Ea9a)

6 I read about this this morning. The thought that ran through my head is why would you put a child with cancer through such a stressful ordeal? How do they think throwing her in protective services, away from her family, is going to help her when she is sick. I really hope that the stress doesn't cause a remission. This is so asinine that it has to be overturned very soon.

Posted by: Ashley at June 11, 2005 02:50 AM (g7rdQ)

7 This type of abuse of power bullshit really pisses me off. There is no reason for the state to get involved. Medical treatment is not something to be mandated but a choice. Are they going to now start arresting people that sign DNRs? WTF?!?! I've had a couple of run ins with Illinois' Department of Children and Family Services. (None of them having to deal with anything I did) Twice as an officer and once as a friend to the parent. All three times I wanted to bitch slap the investigator. My favorite was when I was the friend to the parent. They demanded I give them my name. I refused based on the fact that, "I wasn't here at the time of alleged incident, I have no parental control over the child and I just don't feel it's any of your business." DCFS better have a warrant if they come to my door.

Posted by: Contagion at June 11, 2005 09:51 AM (977gQ)

8 It does seem bizarre that Texas CPS which has been criticised for its failure to act on reports of child abuse to protect the children should be so keen to intervene in medical cases where there are no grounds for believing that the parents are considering anything other than their child's best interests. But CPS are required to do so, following the logic of the definition of neglect: (the failure to seek, obtain, or follow through with medical care for the child, with the failure resulting in or presenting a substantial risk of death, disfigurement, or bodily injury or with the failure resulting in an observable and material impairment to the growth, development, or functioning of the child) from http://www.dfps.state.tx.us/Child_Protection/About_Child_Protective_Services/parentguide.asp . This forces them to intervene in any case where doctors consider further treatment appropriate, regardless of the wishes of the parents or the child itself, and in fact CPS would be guilty of neglect if they did not. In 2003, Texas reported these statistics: Child Protective Services received 186,160 reports of child abuse and neglect. There were 131,130 investigations of child abuse and neglect by CPS and 50,208 were confirmed victims. Of those, medical neglect accounted for 2,371 cases. Presumably these are applications of the same principle as applies here. (Source: 2005 Texas Child Abuse Prevention Kit) This seems quite a high proportion of the caseload. Is this what the legislators had in mind in drafting the law? I'd ask them to change it.

Posted by: martin at June 11, 2005 12:12 PM (iyhxS)

9 That's it, Martin, the current version of CPS is wrong (good link, too). These alleged child protective services need massive, massive reform, including stopping the cash payments for each child processed (from both the feds and the states). Toss 'em all out, I say.

Posted by: Ogre at June 11, 2005 01:36 PM (i5VG6)

10 the most ridiculous thing about this story is, the parents now that they have been able to confirm the diagnosis that the cancer has returned, want their daughter to be treated. They just wanted to make sure they weren't putting their daughter through unnecessary hardship. It makes me want to head to the hills, start a militia and live on a compound...anyone with me?

Posted by: jody at June 11, 2005 08:34 PM (6k5Dz)

11 The father's logic was perfectly legit. This whole thing makes me sick. I'm hoping they can sue the State. Seriously. And win, big. And I hope they change their laws. And that doctor, the one with the serious God complex? I hope everyone quits going to him and somehow he is disbarred.

Posted by: Bou at June 11, 2005 10:10 PM (z7nbM)

12 Interesting. She isn't allowed to have input on her own medical care, nor is her family. Her body -- no choice. And yet she could go out and have an abortion, making the decision about someone else's life. She'd be considered mature enough and informed enough to do that. And there would be outrage if the government tried to intervene either way. Sadly, Katie is no longer in remission, and will have to receive that treatment -- the position taken by her parents from the very beginning. They just wanted additional medical opinions.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at June 12, 2005 01:13 AM (A0XQ9)

13 I'm with you, Jody, and I've got the arms... And Bou, the only thing I don't like about sueing the state and getting cash is that *I* have to pay that cash. Instead, I wish they could sue the state and have the CPS disbanded.

Posted by: Ogre at June 12, 2005 11:27 AM (i5VG6)

14 Wow! What a scary event. I am linking to this as well. I am also going to use this for my Symposium this week. Great find Ogre.

Posted by: Lennie at June 12, 2005 10:20 PM (fpD8A)

15 Who has the Right to be Right? The parents. And if you take the child's opinion into consideration, they were treating her against her will! I can't imagine you think that's OK. How about I find 2 doctors that think you require injections of cyanide. Guess you agree that you don't know what you're doing and you must get the injections, right? After all, the doctors said so and who are you to claim any rights over your body? And comparing it to abortion shows the absolute hypocrisy! With abortion, the state is saying that one child has the absolute right to make any and all decisions regarding her body and she cannot be stopped by the state or her parents. With this case they are saying only the state can determine what can be done with her body and she has NO say. That's a completely opposite position!

Posted by: Ogre at June 13, 2005 07:17 AM (/k+l4)

16 Hmm...this should allow links...but I'm relatively new to this blog setup and commenting system, so I'm not sure exactly how the links are interpreted in here. I'll see if I can check out the templates and see what's going on with them. The fact that you're even asking the question, "Why would doctors require you to take cyanide" shows you understand this -- my point is that if you even ASKED that question in Texas, at least about a child, you could go to jail. That's the law -- in Texas if you question a physician, you go to jail. Why would I argue that? Because it's wrong, plain and simple. And in this case, Katie and her parents simply wanted more information. They didn't refuse treatment -- they just wanted to know the options and make sure it was the best treatment. After their questions were answered, they were completely amenable to treatment! Once they were convinced that she needed the treatment, they AGREED to it. Her mother did not go to jail for refusing treatment -- she went to jail for questioning the doctor's medical opinion. That's really, really wrong. Doctors are not God. They can actually be wrong now and then. No one has the right to take away someone simply asking questions about suggested treatment.

Posted by: Ogre at June 13, 2005 09:44 AM (/k+l4)

17 None of the reports I've seen indicated that. All the press reports I've seen say that she asked for another opinion and left the hospital. Then some "anonymous" tipster called social services, who then came to her door and arrested her.

Posted by: Ogre at June 13, 2005 10:01 AM (/k+l4)

18 Thanks for testing that -- it shows up as a hyperlink to me apparently just by you typing the http before the address, I think. That's a good news story there. It also points out the fact that they simply wanted another opinion. They didn't believe the treatment was needed or safe. After it was proven that the treatment was needed, they did agree to it! They had asked for an additional x-ray or test to see if the cancer was in remission. When they were shown it was not, they agreed to the radiation treatment. The arrest for interfering was a bogus charge that any parent in the country could be charged with. When the sheriff shows up at your door and demands he be allowed to take your child, 99% of people in the country will tell him to get lost. They could all be charged with interference.

Posted by: Ogre at June 13, 2005 10:47 AM (/k+l4)

19 What's really interesting is they wanted an X-Ray (or something) done to prove the 2nd opinion was right. When they finally got that test done and it was shown that the cancer wasn't in remission, they completely agreed to the radiation. I don't know if it was because they were in abject fear of the "Child protective services" by that time or not. I don't see where anyone in any position has the right to tell someone else what to do when it doesn't affect anyone else. If I have cancer should I be able to choose whether or not to accept treatment for it? If I don't accept treatment, it doesn't affect society in any way, so what interest does the state have in protecting me from myself?

Posted by: Ogre at June 13, 2005 11:34 AM (/k+l4)

20 Sure, there's grey areas, but I don't think this is one of them, really. I think it comes down to danger. If Katie didn't get radiation treatment at that moment, she was not going to die in the next 5 minutes. With an abortion, the state should be intervening to save a life from death. In this case, there was no death or extreme harm hanging over Katie's head -- there was only some potential for harm at some potential time in the future. You've mentioned the doctor was right -- what if he was wrong? We don't understand cancer at ALL. What if the cancer just went away? How about if the state took Katie and she was killed during the procedure, while she was recovering? What if the cancer just disappeared, as they do when they feel like it? I think there's too many questions here without immediate danger of harm or death in this case to warrant the state's intrusion. Katie would not be dead or harmed in any way if the state had not intervened in this case. In fact, if the state had stayed out, they would likely be receiving radiation treatment just as she is now.

Posted by: Ogre at June 13, 2005 12:51 PM (/k+l4)

21 Indeed, a good conversation! I think we almost agree, just on degrees. To you question about, "What about next time?" I say, wait until there is imminent danger. Until that time, let the parents make the decision. I'm headed over to your pharmacists' rights post -- I think I know the story to which you're referring, and I've thought that one through, I think with a consistent position...

Posted by: Ogre at June 13, 2005 02:04 PM (/k+l4)

22 Her parents, by witholding critical treatment, are basically attempting to kill her. That, in most states, qualifies as child abuse. If she were shot in the head and her parents told the paramedics to go away while they figure some stuff out for a few weeks, they would be charged with child endangerment, and rightly so. Because cancer does not bleed visibly does not make it any less deadly. The state of Texas has 2 options: let an innocent child die from a treatable disease or go around the wishes of the child's parents and save her life.

Posted by: mitja at June 14, 2005 05:38 PM (OwBdB)

23 No, mitja, it was NOT a life or death decision. By withholding treatment while another test was done would not result in her death -- the risk was actually greater that she undergo treatment than to wait for treatment! Cancer is completely misunderstood. We have no idea how it works or why. To compare a critical situation of bleeding to death to a cancer which we know almost nothing about is not right. Cancer is, in no circles, a treatable disease.

Posted by: Ogre at June 14, 2005 08:00 PM (i5VG6)

24 While the medical establishment dispenses their poisons that sometimes resemble medieval era techniques, the Supreme court rejects that a sick person be allowed to self-medicate and reduce their suffering with a natural occuring herb.

Posted by: Kithara at June 15, 2005 11:09 AM (Yceq6)

25 And they (the medical establishment) are defended by the uninformed masses.

Posted by: Ogre at June 15, 2005 12:34 PM (/k+l4)

26 First off, from what I understand although they did get other opinions, they were all from Dr.s that were somehow connected with the first Dr. What they wanted to do is get an opinion from someone that had NOTHING to do whith the first Dr. to make sure it was completely unbiased. Plus it wasn't just a matter of a wanting a second opinion, but the ability to make an INFORMED decision. They didn't feel all their questions were being answered. That Dr. should have done everything possible to make sure they completely understood what the options were and what all the effects were. Second of all, as a parent I can't say that I wouldn't do the same thing. Chemo is such a serious treatment. What parent wouldn't want to make absolutely sure their baby truly needed such drastic measures? I say bravo to the parents to seek answers! I think this shows what terrific parents they are because they want to know all the facts before they subject their daughter to a treatment that is so hard on the body.

Posted by: ch at June 15, 2005 12:39 PM (PJEue)

27 You're right on, ch! The parents (AND KATIE) simply wanted more information and the State decided they did not. I only hope they can eventually regain full custody of their children -- and then move out of that county or state to get away from such an abusive government agency.

Posted by: Ogre at June 15, 2005 12:46 PM (/k+l4)

28 First off, the parents wanted more information and this was not an immediate life or death situation. They should have the right! 2nd, cancer is much more understood than most people know. Just look up the studies of Nobel laureate, Otto Warburg, PH.D. 3rd, cancer treatment is a HUGE and profitable industry led by tunnel vision physicians who get their info from the AMA and pharmaceutical industry while being controlled by the FDA. All three are in bed together doing the Michael Jackson dance not wanting to rock their gravy train. They do not want nutritional, cost effective treatments that are proven to help to get in the way of this. If it can't be patented then why pursue. Business before health with them. 4th, Drugs and doctors are considered, based on studies, as the leading cause of death in the US. We as consumers are part of the problem of looking at Drs as the answers to our health problems. Frankly, I think most drs these days are lazy and follow the protocol directed to them. They receive very little nutritional training in school and many of the research is funded by big pharma. Hmmmm, conflict of interest maybe. see: http://www.mercola.com/2003/jan/15/doctors_drugs.htm By the way, mercola.com is the #1 natural health site and for good reason. Radiation and chemo is about killing a million cells to get the hundred bad ones. It has nothing to do with the root cause of the problem. But then it's a pharmaceutically produced product and like most if not all drugs, is symptom based. This country needs to change or we will have our health controlled from tit to tomb by big business. We need a big paradigm shift. I feel for Katie and the Wernecke family.

Posted by: Ted at June 15, 2005 02:46 PM (B3Tps)

29 Wow, powerful stuff there, Ted -- and accurate, too! There is so much money in medicine these days -- just follow the money to see the reasons most of these people do things. Unfortunately, that trail almost always leads to my pocket, too (taxes)!

Posted by: Ogre at June 15, 2005 02:55 PM (/k+l4)

30 I'll tell you ogre, I was a complacent citizen not too long ago until I had my 1st heart attack at 42. Then I started reading up, joined a few newsletters and now starting to make some changes for the better. In my readings, I found that statin drugs, of which I take per my cardiologist, also stop the production of COQ10 which is necessary for your heart muscle health. COQ10 also declines in age naturally. So I asked my cardiologist about this last summer and she said she new nothing about it but would ask another staff member who is a "statin" expert. Well to date I have not received an answer. I found that Merck new this in '91 (I believe) but decided that by recommending COQ10 as a supplement to their statin would make the total cost too high. Lack of COQ10 can lead to congestive heart failure. What gets me is that my cardiologist SHOULD know this and SHOULD get back to me. If they are going to allow themselves to be wooed by the pharmas and prescribe their drugs then dammit they better know what these drugs do. I pay good money so she can afford her new Jag so I expect good and accurate information. It just pisses me off.

Posted by: Ted at June 15, 2005 03:14 PM (B3Tps)

31 It's certainly tough when you don't have access to information -- especially in this, the information age. As you found out, just about any type of information CAN be found out, if you try. So many people don't even try anymore and just accept someone's word because they're the doctor. Now I'm not telling everyone that all doctors are idiots and that you shouldn't believe them, I'm just saying that if you find information that doesn't agree with what your doctor is saying, take the time to check it out. Unless it's about your kids because as this case has shown us, if you question a doctor about your kids, you go to jail. And hey, if my doctor doesn't get back to me on an important question, I'm going to another doctor. I don't have insurance, so I'm completely free to go to any doctor I want. It's amazing the service they give you when they know they don't have to deal with insurance companies, too.

Posted by: Ogre at June 15, 2005 03:22 PM (/k+l4)

32 Have any of you nay-sayers had someone you love be diagnosed with cancer? I have lost not one but two parents to this evil disease. In both cases, if it had been caught earlier and treated with chemo and readiation earlier, I might still be able to talk to my parents. If myself or another loved one was diagnosed with cancer today, my first question would be how soon we could start treatment. My heart breaks for this poor girl. If I could choose between having my father with only part of his jaw, or skipping the risk of surgery and loosing him forever to cancer, you can bet I would take a partial jaw. To risk long term effects for a life is an easy choice in my eyes. I hope the reaccurance of the cancer sends a wake up call to these parents and that they seek the appropriate protocol to lengthen their daughter's life.

Posted by: Txgirly at June 15, 2005 06:59 PM (6VSUw)

33 TXgirly, all they wanted was a test. That's all. The parents and Katie wanted a simple test done to prove that the radiation treatment was needed. Do you really believe the state can determine medical treatment for all it's citizens, even against their will?

Posted by: Ogre at June 15, 2005 07:12 PM (H0ySP)

34 When I heard this story it turned my stomach! What right does anyone have to take a child from their parents for trying to do what they feel is best for him or her? What in the world is going on here???? This is America????? I don't blame those parents one bit for getting second opinions! Have you ever watched someone go through radiation???? I have. It drains you, makes you feel worse than you did before you got it, can cause irreversible damage and in some cases is totally pointless...no I am not a doctor, but I have seen doctors "follow protocol" when clearly there was no reason to continue with the "by the book" treatments for reasons that I believe are monetarily and legally motivated. Cover your butt medicine while making as much money as you can is what I call it. This society has gone completely nuts. What happened to doing what is best for the patient and family? What happened to compassion? This is not a mother and father out to do harm. This is a mother and father trying to find the best course of action to take in caring for THEIR DAUGHTER! And why is the government involved? Because some doctor with a GOD complex called and child services jumped because after all he is a doctor he has to be right. So nice that just because someone went to college for 8 years they have that kind of power. You do not get common sense and decency from a schoolbook. This is so wrong.

Posted by: jaded at June 16, 2005 01:41 PM (s3xsF)

35 I also wanted to mention that in some cases it is clear the child protection services ARE needed but lacking, so lets just go after someone that is an easy target...say someone who is accused by someone with an MD or PHD or BS behind their name. That way the charges will stick. These people agreed to the treatment and still can't get their child back...this is sick!

Posted by: jaded at June 16, 2005 01:49 PM (s3xsF)

36 I think the only way to stop such things really is to dismantle these divisions of child "protective" services. Completely destroy them and their silly controlling divisions and people.

Posted by: Ogre at June 16, 2005 02:22 PM (/k+l4)

37 You are probably right since for the most part they don't help the children who really need it anyway.

Posted by: jaded at June 16, 2005 02:25 PM (s3xsF)

38 The primary function of most "child protective services" and "child social services" agencies are to expand their own fiefdoms. They expand only by taking more children. So their primary focus each day is to obtain more children so they can get more cash to obtain even more children. There are a few people who start working in those systems who honestly want to help children. Those people either change or leave as they find out how the system works. There are cash bonuses for case workers who steal more children! Certain types of children even have special bounties on them (certain races, ages, handicapped status). They do not protect children, nor do they even attempt to.

Posted by: Ogre at June 16, 2005 02:34 PM (/k+l4)

39 I have never heard that. I don't doubt it, with all the crazy things going on anymore, but I never heard that before. That is pretty awful if that is the case.

Posted by: jaded at June 16, 2005 02:58 PM (s3xsF)

40 Certainly it's not publicized, but think about it logically -- the department or division gets funded based on how much work it does. The more children they seize, the more "work" they claim to be doing -- and the more money they need to do it. Sad, but true.

Posted by: Ogre at June 16, 2005 03:14 PM (/k+l4)

41 d, You are a doctor? If you are, you are the reason I am wary to take my child to the doctor. A couple years ago, when I was a minor, one of the leading doctors in the United States told me that I wouldn't be able to have kids unless I took Lupron or Danacrine, both pretty potent medications. I didn't feel right about it, and so I refused. Guess what? I'm having my first child in October, and it only took four months to conceive. Should I have gone against my gut feeling to not take the medication? Wasn't this TOP DOCTOR in the U.S. WRONG? Yes he was wrong. I'll tell you something else. My pediatrician also put me on Paxil. I recently was able to FINALLY drop the medication (it took forever to drop it because of the side effects) and my supposed anxiety was the result of my DIET. Should I have listened to that doctor? I also saw four different doctors who told me that my abdominal pain was four different things. Which one of them should I have listened to? When I was 14, a doctor told me I needed Naproxen to fix my knee trouble. Another doctor gave me Vioxx (which was recently pulled from the market for danger). guess what? My knee trouble went away COMPLETELY when I changed my DIET. Another doctor gave me Zelnorm, and the problem went away when I CHANGED MY DIET. so, d. Did any of those doctors I went to, including the "top" doctor, have the right opinion? And if I had taken that top doctor's advice, and taken a drug that would have DISABLED me, would he have been right? Please, answer me this, and tell me that I should trust my doctor in everything he says. P.S. I have a friend who was cured of third degree burns by his mother's herbal treatments. I also know several people who have overcome cancer by natural means and by CHANGING THEIR DIETS. Maybe everyone can't do this... but doctors are not omniscient. I've learned this by sad experience and waaaay too many medical bills.

Posted by: Sarah at June 16, 2005 06:08 PM (D3sAj)

42 And just think, Sarah, those were all more common ailments that modern medicine "understands." And Katie had cancer!

Posted by: Ogre at June 16, 2005 09:20 PM (H0ySP)

43 If child protective services comes to your door and you have a"12 guage" they'll come back with the police and you will be one dead son of a bitch you loud mouthed redneck!

Posted by: klatu at June 16, 2005 10:37 PM (b4sBN)

44 So be it. I have no problem with that. Live free or die.

Posted by: Ogre at June 16, 2005 10:38 PM (H0ySP)

45 so you say. I'm so tired of big mouths with 'live free or die' bullshit. When they stick the gun up your nose yoo're going to piss yourself and blather like a baby.

Posted by: klatu at June 16, 2005 11:47 PM (b4sBN)

46 Gee, sorry that you hate freedom. Honestly, I do. I, on the other hand, do not. And I am willing to die for it.

Posted by: Ogre at June 17, 2005 05:39 AM (H0ySP)

47 What I am saying is this. I hear this from you people who have never fired a shot in anger or taken life. I know you haven't because once you have you are never so glib with respect to the 'give me liberty or give me death' crap ever again.

Posted by: klatu at June 18, 2005 02:36 PM (b4sBN)

48 I don't know if anyone has been keeping up with the blog put up by Katie's parents (I think it's them) but it appears the first diagnosis that the cancer has come back was completely wrong! They have done several bioposies (one causing her lung to colapse) and can find no trace of cancer! Really makes you wonder how much these dr's can be trusted if they jump to announce that there is a return of the cancer (telling her right before her birthday party nonetheless!) but I haven't hear a word on the news stating that maybe they were wrong and I doubt we ever will from them. Oh and for the person asking if any of us naysayers have had a loved one with cancer, yes I've had several. I've seen what the treatment does to an adults body, and it's frightening to think what it could do to a little girls body.

Posted by: ch at July 07, 2005 05:47 PM (PJEue)

49 Amazing that you claim to know me so well, klatu, when you very clearly and obviously have absolutely no clue. Ch, is it indeed a very horrible situation! And the situation is only made worse by interfering government "officials."

Posted by: Ogre at July 07, 2005 05:57 PM (qV2zb)

50 I have read the few new entries added to the blog Pray for Katie. They are mainly her father telling self-serving falsehoods. (He denies that the family ever rejected radiation among other things.) But, the records publicized in court contradict nearly everything he says. The opinions of two oncologists wee sought. Appointments for radiation were made that the Wernecke's refused to keep. They also refused to fill Katie's prescriptions. What this all comes down to is two things. 1) The father's dubious competence. 2) Membership in an extremist sect, the World Church of Christ. (The same one that fellow who went postal at church and shot several people to death weeks ago belonged to.) Wernecke is under the impression that he knows better than the doctors. He wants to treat Katie will laetrile, which has been proven not to be a viable remedy to cancer. If he gets his way, the child will die. The WCC forbids any medical treatment, including taking pain relievers and having blood transfusions. Wernecke's most recent announcement is a claim that Katie has been cured by prayer and has no further need for treatment. However, the last medical statement was that she is not in remission. It appears that CPS' intervention did indeed save her life.

Posted by: June Gordon at July 12, 2005 07:40 AM (8iIIu)

51 Well, that explains a whole lot more. I didn't realize that these people were religious "wackos." The state simply cannot have anyone use religion for an excuse for anything now, can they? Oh, unless it's for bombing and terrorism, then the religion is A-OK. If what you outline here is true, then I think these people should contact the ACLU and sue the state for religious persecution. Oh how I wish people actually had rights in this country. Too bad so many willingly put the almighty State before common sense and before people.

Posted by: Ogre at July 12, 2005 07:45 AM (/k+l4)

52 It's a big lie that the Wenerckes are religious fanatics.The church of God only objected to annymous blood donors.When the Wenerckes were told non of their family members were a match by Dr.Nejemie Alter(he graduated from the one of the finest medical universities in Mexico),the family allowed annonymous transfusions.Later tests have shown ,the Wenerckes are all the same blood type.The Wenerckes never objected to radiation.They had reason to distrust their doctor.The attacks on the father by C.P.S. shills are nauseating.If only Mr.Wernecke would go away life would be so much better for C.P.S.The latest biopsy shows the cancer in remission.The foster mother won't go to the hospital to hear instructions on how to treat Katie ,and the foster mother shows up late when Katie is being released from the hospital.C.P.S. removed Katie from home so they could neglect her themselves.

Posted by: PERSEID at July 12, 2005 02:55 PM (hgZJZ)

53 No question about it, Perseid, this was done by CPS for their own personal reasons that have nothing to do with safety of Katie AT ALL.

Posted by: Ogre at July 12, 2005 04:22 PM (L0IGK)

54 Perseid, you are just echoing whatever Wernecke says. He lies a lot. Much of what he is saying will turn out not to be true. And, one should not forget for a moment that Katie is not in the home because he tried to hide her, preventing treatment. Parents, not CPS, are most likely to harm or kill their children. This case is a reminder of that.

Posted by: June Gordon at July 12, 2005 08:45 PM (8iIIu)

55 I strongly disagree, June. If you look simply at the numbers, a MUCH higher percentage of children are abused or injured in the "care" of CPS as opposed to in the care of their parents. MUCH higher. I will ALWAYS trust parents and people long before the all-powerful state. ALWAYS.

Posted by: Ogre at July 12, 2005 09:26 PM (L0IGK)

56 June, I parot no one. The stealing of children from parents who dislike their doctors is spectacularly unpopular. Firing a doctor is not equal to abuse. Former foster care children can not say enough bad things about foster homes.Anyone who thinks children from evangelical christian families belong in the homes of strangers,will never belong in this country.Move to China.

Posted by: PERSEID at July 12, 2005 09:56 PM (7BiOD)

57 Thanks for letting us know that you believe the United States is a theocracy, Perseid. That lets us know you are incapable of grasping the issues in this case. Hundreds of children of extremist religious sects die yearly as a result of medical neglect. The parents are unreachable because they believe they are scoring brownie points with God by refusing medical care. The only option officials have is to intervene and treat the children they become aware of. Despite the imperfections of CPS, they do save lives.

Posted by: June Gordon at July 13, 2005 06:11 PM (8iIIu)

58 June, if I can save one child by blowing up an apartment building that contains 2,500 adults, does that make me a good person? That's what I compare DPS to -- they destroy many, many people, families, and lives to save a very small number of children.

Posted by: Ogre at July 13, 2005 06:26 PM (L0IGK)

59 June, medical care was never refused by the Wernekes. One medical doctor was fired.This whole mess smacks of revenge. When you hear the phrase Church of God, dangerous sect pops into your head.So why don't overcome your bigotry.Hop in your car and visit one of these churches. Explain to them how much you love their children.Voice your concern that they are all recieving inadequate medical care.Listen to thier response,but don't ever say foster care is good.Most of the homeless people ,your kind loves to feel pity for,spent time in the foster care system.

Posted by: pereid at July 13, 2005 06:59 PM (bMHKc)

60 June, I could be wrong but I believe the Church of God (what the Wernecke's belong to) and the Curch of Christ are two diferent churches. As for the "lies" the father is telling. How do you know for sure who is truly lying? I have seen first hand in a few cases now how the dr's and the CPS are the ones that do the fabrication. I've heard the most ridiculous lies come from them. One of the cases was with someone that is like a sister to me. In her case the dr's lied, the psychologist didn't just twist her words but put words into her mouth that weren't even close to what she had said, and nobody except for the parents seemed to even think about the best interest of the child. The child was taken away when she was taken to the hospital because she was sick. The dr's never even tried to find out what was wrong with her! One of the complaints the CPS had about her house...it was too clean! They had such a hard time pin pointing anything wrong with them that they had to complain about the house being too clean, what's wrong with that picture?! Another case that happened in my town was a lady who brought her very young daughter into the hospital. She had a fever and the dr's wanted to do a spinal tap. She called her dr and the dr said don't do anything until she gets there. While the dr was on the way, the child's fever went down. At that point the child was taken away from the mother because she had "refused medical treatment." How messed up is that? In Katie's case, if her life was in such danger why has she STILL not received any treatment??? How is it saving her life giving her a treatment she may not need that may give her another kind of cancer later on?

Posted by: ch at July 14, 2005 01:54 PM (PJEue)

61 Again, you are relying on an unreliable source, Edward Wernecke. We don't know that Katie hasn't received treatment. There's been no word from objective sources because of her right to privacy. Information may become available during a court hearing later this month. I suspect that either she is being treated, or, doctors are deciding on the best course of treatment after the refusal to cooperate that may have made her prognosis less promising. Furthermore, Werneke wants to 'treat' his daughter with laetrile, which is not a medicine and is known to cause cyanide poisoning. If you are genuinely concerned about Katie's health, you should be wary of him, not her doctors.

Posted by: June Gordon at July 17, 2005 02:21 AM (8iIIu)

62 June, you should be pleased to know that the Werneckes agreed to treat cancer with harmless radiation.Now C.P.S. can let Katie go home.Now C.P.S. can get back to their real job of keeping children from being beaten like rugs.Katie even with the best medicine may die.If she dies without her real family by her side,I doubt even God will forgive C.P.S. or its shills.

Posted by: Perseid at July 17, 2005 02:44 PM (4lIOb)

63 Katie is undergoing chemo therapy which will sterilize her. It is a well known that the ovaries can be removed and replanted thereby saving the fertility of cancer patients.Katie is upset by this.But why would C.P.S. want any more beautiful christian girls on earth.I saw a picture on the web of Katie surrounded by her social workers. The social workers are fat, ugly women in black (how slimming) dress suits.

Posted by: perseid at July 18, 2005 10:31 AM (F8Jyd)

64 June, You are making the assumptions that the parents are an unreliable source. In my experience, I would trust the parents well over any other source. Who exactly would be objective in this case? The media? I think most adults understand they show whatever slant on a story they want. The dr's? Not a chance. First off they would want to save face if they discovered they created a fuss for nothing. Secondly, their ego's bruise easily and for someone to tell them that they disagree with them is a sin in their eyes. Thirdly, if this is a government run or funded hospital as Mr. Wernecke suggested they would have even more reason to fight the parents. And no the parents are not fully objective either. They have an intruder telling them what's best for their daughter and that they are these evil parents trying to kill her. Your comment does bring up an interesting point, however. You see that is all they wanted was an objective second opinion. Not one from a dr that was associated with the original dr. That is where they got into trouble. I'm not sure where you found that they wanted to use laetrile, I couldn't find it on their blog. From what I've seen they were just wanting to look into other options. They have a long list of alternatives used to treat Katie's kind of cancer that they wanted to look more into. They just wanted to find something that would not cause the irreparable damage the chemo and radiation cause. By the way, you showed concern about one of the treatments causing poisoning. Do you know what chemo is??? It is a poison. It doesn't discern if it's killing something good or bad, it just kills. As for the radiation it can do horrible permanent damage to a young girl and can cause cancer later on. I would be just as concerned as they are with the treatments the dr is trying to force on them. That's their baby! She has already suffered so much, can you really blame them for wanting to minimize future suffering? And for the record, the dr's are not God. They are not the know all and end all of knowledge of cancer. They don't understand it and just usually do the best they can (some not even that when they are blinded by an agenda) with the limited knowledge they have. We are fools if we trust them implicitly.

Posted by: ch at July 19, 2005 01:10 PM (PJEue)

65 If there is one sliver lining in this ,it is that ,judge lewis must run for reelection. People in Texas have a long memory.Few supported this atrocity.

Posted by: perseid at July 20, 2005 07:37 PM (Shyp2)

66 Perseid, you now are making absolutely no sense at all. I dropped in to report the latest news. The hearing scheduled for this month will be delayed until September. The Werneckes requested the delay. They say they've found a third-party doctor who will review Katie's medical records and suggest treatment. No reputable physician will approve laetrile. Maybe they will embarass themselves further by presenting a charlatan, like the Schindlers. I am skeptical about returning the child to the family unless her cancer is certainly in remission. The parents might abscond with her again.

Posted by: June Gordon at July 25, 2005 03:59 AM (+vcVQ)

67 It's a shame there's a delay. This child should be with her parents. I imagine the state will do all they can to discredit the third party doctor, unfortunately.

Posted by: Ogre at July 25, 2005 05:30 AM (L0IGK)

68 Well, O, if the doctor shows up claiming that Terri Schiavo sent him, who can blame them? I'm going to guess that you don't check the "Pray for Katie" blog from time to time as I do. I don't think any reasonable person who reads it can doubt that Edward Wernecke is off his rocker. He makes less sense than the rapist and alleged murderer at "The Fifth Nail."

Posted by: June Gordon at July 26, 2005 02:50 AM (+vcVQ)

69 I think that we have different definitions of "off his rocker." My primary point is that the only time the state should interfere with the family is when there is eminent danger. If the child is about to die, then perhaps the state can intervene. I think in this case, the parents should have claimed a religious exemption. If they claimed they were satanists or Scientologists, the state may have been too scared to steal Katie. I also find it incredibly interesting that Katie herself repeatedly refused treatment, but the state didn't care. How is it that a 13-year old is too young and stupid to determine her own medical care, but at the same time she is competent to determine whether she gets and abortion? It just shows the state is NOT interested in safety, life, families, or anything else -- they are only interested in themselves and money. The state should NOT have taken Katie at any point in time. They were wrong, but they will never, ever admit to doing wrong.

Posted by: Ogre at July 26, 2005 05:54 AM (L0IGK)

70 The Wernecke's had to shut down the comments section of their website, due to the fact that it had been infested with trolls from CPS and their apologists. They were using slash and burn tactics of slander and insult against anyone who stood up for the Werneckes, or questioned the motives and abilities of CPS or the Doctors. Looks one of the trolls may have shown up here.

Posted by: Anon. at July 26, 2005 11:01 AM (24jFd)

71 CPS and it's supporters, cannot see reality. They cannot EVER admit they might EVER have done anything wrong -- so they only way they can win is by shouting over everyone else. CPS WAS WRONG!!!

Posted by: Ogre at July 26, 2005 11:04 AM (/k+l4)

72 Please continue to cover the situation with Katie Wernecke. I, and a lot of other people would like to know why Child Protective Services is pursuing and attempting to crush the Wernecke family with such utter ruthlessness and mindless stupidity. http://prayforkatie.blogspot.com Please see her website for the latest horrendous updates. Please continue to report on this issue, it is incredible beyond belief that the government is allowed to get away with this. No wonder the entire world is looking at the State of Texas in unending disgust and disbelief. This story would make an incredible investigative report and exposé for some newspaper or TV station.

Posted by: Anon. at August 13, 2005 05:39 PM (24jFd)

73 Thanks, I am currently researching more on the current happenings, and trying to piece together more news for the site.

Posted by: Ogre at August 13, 2005 08:06 PM (L0IGK)

74 Katie Wernecke has now appeared to have suffered a complete psychological breakdown and is in catatonic shock due to abuse by CPS and M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. After suffering this breakdown, the comment by her foster parent was "there are consequences for this behavior." Imagine that. "Tough Love" from fascists. http://prayforkatie.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Anon. at September 05, 2005 05:17 PM (24jFd)

75 I'm not only not surprised -- I'd be surprised if this turned out any differently. Socialist states really destroy people -- always have, always will.

Posted by: Ogre at September 05, 2005 05:39 PM (L0IGK)

76 Katie almost died when she was first diagnosed, the tumor was so large she had difficulty breathing. She was started immediately on chemo and slowly but surely the tumor decreased in size. Her Dr. involved her and her parents, especially her Dad in all aspects of her treatment. He would show them each and every CT scan showing how the tumor was decreasing in size as she received each tx. That Dr. spent hours and hours talking to her father explaining and answering all questions. Her parents were noncompliant with her Dr. visits. They wouldn't show up to appointments and always had an excuse to not bring her in for tx. THEY are the reason she is going through what she is going through. That Dr. did not involve CPS. Her parents involved CPS, because they were not caring for her as they should. Her father is not going to tell the truth. Funny how her father is not happy with the Dr.'s at MD Anderson. I pray for Katie's health and mental well being, but don't blame the Dr.'s, they are only trying to do what is right, and that is, give Katie a chance to live. No she is not at death's bed yet, but no one wants to see her there. She has cancer and needs to be treated.

Posted by: kidnurse at September 11, 2005 02:02 AM (ywZa8)

77 kidnurse, you're not thinking straight. "Her parents involved CPS?" No. Her parents did not call the scum at CPS. I blame the doctors who called CPS. They had no right nor reason. This was NOT a life-threatening case!

Posted by: Ogre at September 11, 2005 08:16 AM (L0IGK)

78 If you want to know the truth then please visit our website www.prayforkatie.blogspot.com. Everything I have said is true and factual. Now, newspaper articles, emails, and commentaries that I added I cannot vouch for their accuracy. We tell only the truth; we have no reason to lie. We believe in following all 10 commandments. Now CPS on the other hand does lie and has plenty of reasons to lie including using agents like June Gordon and other alias. How about identifying yourself, June Gordon? Kidnurse is also lying and not factual. No matter what was said, the real issue is does the state, CPS, have the right to come in and take a child away from the parents simply because the parent's didn't agree with the recommended treatment and asked for a second opinion and needed a third opinion. We are normal educated people that want the best treatment for our daughter. We are not religious fanatics. We just don't want the state making medical decisions for our daughter and you wouldn't either. More and more doctors are using CPS to force their treatments on our children often in the name of research and money. This case is important to all parents out there. Parents are in the best position to make that decision for their child. CPS can only come in and take over when the parents refuse all medical treatments that are necessary to save the child's life or are proven unfit. That is not the case here and CPS has never proved either. That's why there is such a slander campaign going on these blogs to discredit me and make me out to be a religious nut, and to say we were refusing all medical treatments and would let our daughter die, which we won't. CPS knows they are wrong and made a mistake. They have begun to force these treatments on Katie as I write, so they can say they saved her life. Michele will not be allowed to stay with her during the treatments. Meanwhile Katie is the one to suffer the mental abuse and brainwashing and emotional trauma of being separated from her family by CPS. They also want to take away all of our parental rights, all our kids away, including Katie, to make sure we get the message to never mess with CPS again. We are just ordinary folks like you. We have a nice clean home; better than 75% of the people in our small community. Not bragging, but there are many poor people in our community living in substandard housing and CPS does not attack them. We care for our kids more than anything else in this world. They are with us all the time. How long will it be before they apply the same logic to adults and you don't have any choice in your medical treatments. First your kids, and then the adults. Do you see how important this case is now and in the future. It is a power play by the state. Folks, it is time to rise up and demand that this evil CPS organization be dismantled. Edward D. Wernecke

Posted by: Edward Wernecke at October 01, 2005 01:54 PM (rmYbo)

79 Sounds like it's time for an update on this issue. Thank you so much for stopping by, Edward!!!

Posted by: Ogre at October 02, 2005 07:42 PM (iJFc9)

80 This is not the only Blog that "June Gordon" has infested. She's currently leaving her droppings here: http://www.coolparty.us/index.php/in/2005/on/09/12/pray-for-katie/ These people are so pathetic it's beyond belief

Posted by: Blogger at October 02, 2005 11:33 PM (4pOmV)

81 I'll be generous and answer the poor fellow's question. No, Ed, you don't have the right to do whatever you want with your children because they are yours. Your behavior has threatened your daughter's life, so she has been removed from your custody. The courts are well within their powers in making such a decision. Every year hundreds of children die because of their parents' ignorance about medical issues. Often, that ignorance is masked in religion. Under our Constitution, the right to practice one's religion is not absolute. One of the limitations is that when practicing one's religion causes harm to other people, the law can intervene to protect the person(s) injured and or prevent injury. Your every effort in the courts has been futile and will continue to fail because this a paradigmatic case of an irrational parent trying to harm a child. If you get your way, Katie will die. The legal system has a duty to prevent that if possible. The dedicated professionals involved are trying their hardest to save your daughter's life. If Katie dies because of the interruptions to her treatment that you instigated, I believe you should be prosecuted to the fullest extent for the law. One good thing about your continuous posting to the Internet is that it leaves a record of your abuse of everyone involved with treating Katie, CPS and even the court system. So far, I would have to say that your mockery of the judge's open heart surgery is the nadir. But, I will not be surprised if you say something even more depraved. You obviously have some major mental health issues. No one who has read your weblog can doubt that you have intentionally tried to obstruct treatment of your daughter. It will be just desserts if your commentary becomes evidence against you.

Posted by: June Gordon at October 07, 2005 09:47 AM (BbT7B)

82 June, you're missing one very critical aspect: immediate danger. Using your reasoning, any time any person is deemed to be "at risk," the state can take them. If the state decides that teaching about God is dangerous, all children who are taught God will be taken by the state. I know that's an extreme example, but it's accurate. If the children were in immediate danger of dying in the next 5 minutes, you'd have a legitimate argument. Because there was NO immediate danger, this action was simply wrong.

Posted by: Ogre at October 07, 2005 10:55 AM (/k+l4)

83 Cancers don't kill their victims immediately. Yet, somehow cancers manage to remain the major naturally occurring reason for death in First World countries. Seems they are pretty effective without immediacy. The reason Katie Wernecke needed to be removed from her parents' household is that her cancer was being allowed to become stronger and harder to treat. Meanwhile, her nutcase father proved himself utterly ignorant of even basic biology, while simultaneously claiming that he, but not medical professionals, is qualified to treat cancer. The outcome -- death of the child, while Edward Wernecke blathered on about God and Vitamin C -- was foreseeable. The doctors, social workers and legal professionals have tried to prevent that tragic outcome. They now have a new weapon in their arsenal. FPS has permission to be present during any meetings between the Werneckes and their daughter. So, there will be records of those meetings that are admissable in court. The Werneckes' manipulation of their daughter to get her not to comply with her treament will be on record. This late development could be the key to ending the Werneckes' parental rights.

Posted by: June Gordon at October 08, 2005 11:03 PM (BbT7B)

84 Yes, if the almighty state has their way, June, they do have a new weapon -- absolute force and control. If the state can take control any time a child MAY or MAY NOT be in danger of dying someday -- simply based on a doctor, who IS PAID BY THE STATE's say-so, then the state can indeed take any child from any person, anywhere. That is wrong. The only hope for Katie and her family now is to get their hands on Katie and either head in hiding in this country, or run to another country without extradition. The state will NEVER let her back with her family -- no matter what happens, because "child services" will never admit defeat.

Posted by: Ogre at October 09, 2005 07:00 PM (iJFc9)

85 Ogre, you might want to contact this reporter Posted at CoolParty.us: Comment: Hi, I am a reporter for the Corpus Christi Caller-Times. I am doing a story about the large amount of blogging on Katie Wernecke taking place on the Web. If you would like to comment please call 361-438-0108 or garciak@caller.com. Thank you. You can see all comments on this post here: http://www.coolparty.us/index.php/in/2005/on/09/12/pray-for-katie/#comments

Posted by: Marius Costescu at October 14, 2005 01:37 PM (S+/4O)

86 Thank you for the tip, Marius!

Posted by: Ogre at October 14, 2005 01:40 PM (/k+l4)

87 Hey June Gordon where have you been. You are getting behind the news right now. Alot has happen in the last week. Your people(CPS)must be keeping you busy. Just remember when God strikes I will not be standing next to you, I will be standing next to God!

Posted by: shelly at October 15, 2005 06:37 PM (UShNq)

88 AMEN, Shelly, AMEN!

Posted by: Ogre at October 15, 2005 06:42 PM (iJFc9)

89 I don't think a man who is in favor of causing the death of a child by negligence needs to worry about meeting God, Ogre. He will know you by your works. I am still following the Wernecke situation along with other family law cases. (BTW: Will you guys be starting a thread defending the Ohio couple who caged most of their eleven adopted children, too? How about Marcus Wesson, who is just starting his appeal process? These men are 'Christian' patriarchs like Wernecke, after all.) I think Judge Lewis showed a lot of class in saying that he would rather not continue as trial judge in the Wernecke case if the Texas Supreme Court is going to take on his duties. As far as the child is concerned, it seems more and more likely she will die since she is still refusing treatment at the behest of her father. I am curious to see whether political considerations will prevent Edward Wernecke being charged with criminal negligence when and if that happens.

Posted by: June Gordon at October 18, 2005 12:40 AM (BbT7B)

90 I won't even address those comments, June, as you know they're stupid and have no bearing on this case. June, if I determine that the only way for you to be healed is to allow leeches to sit on your head, will you dare question me? Well how about if I get a doctor to agree with me? This case has nothing to do with Katie anymore, unfortunately. This case is all about state power. The state has decided they want Katie and there is NO way they will ever change their mind -- and that's wrong. If you think, as the state of Texas now does, that they are god, able to determine who lives and dies, you are sadly mistaken. Katie and her family committed no crime, yet they are being severely punished by the state.

Posted by: Ogre at October 18, 2005 05:36 AM (iJFc9)

91 June Gordon shows an incredibly confrontational attitude with ignorant, preconceived notions here, and on other blogs. Real, historical and emergent science reasonably shows substantial benefits for different kinds of cancer with "orthomolecular medicine" (combined "mega" vitamin-like substances) both as primary treatments and adjuvant therapies. Science, in the customary sense, has shown many substances to be beneficial for cancer; just not for medical-pharmaceutical-industrial complex economics. If the doctors involved were not such obvious toads, they could have explored, and contributed, positive alternatives to satisfy the Wernecke family concerns. They obviously did not even try (hours proselytizing dangerous medications don't count). Texas looks light years behind the northwestern and the northeastern states in modern applied biochemistry and medical freedom. Just like in 1906, "patent medicine" will remain a tremendous public hazard in 2006. History repeatedly shows how entrenched medicine, now and in the past, can be dogmatic, ruthlessly rapacious, obstructive and obtuse. That goes doubly for "Big Pharma." That the state of Texas cannot recognize the incredible conflict of interest that now exists between the “conventional” doctors plus June Gordon's CPS vs the parents and the well-being of Katie implies that the child, as well as the good people of Texas, are in deep trouble. For those who think that "big pharma," "big cancer" chemotherapy protocols are so wonderful, see the classic cancer movie, "Wit" (2001). Frankly, the handling of this case demonstrates that TCPS employees are a clear and present danger to Katie and her family. As far as criminal negligence and Katie's treatment: (1) strong arm interference in a strongly functioning family was likely to create patient non-compliance; (2) given the information limitations of the media, one can't exclude the whole affair was started by a 3rd rate, 3rd world doc trying to avoid a malpractice suit; and (3) the whole affair appears ince5tuously provocative, shades of Waco. June, if you think Ed W's ego, education and group status are a problem, pls check your mirror. June, please do the people of Texas a favor and look at those states with US DoEd accredited naturopathic medical (ND) programs. A graduate of a 5 year naturopathic oncology program is the kind of doctor that should *reasonably* placate the state of Texas' technical concerns and the Werneckes, especially in cases like this instead of starting WW3. Destroying the kid to save her, has a haunting, familiar sound to it... The pharmas have been spending millions of dollars in recent years to research vitamer derivatives and relatives, not just for extra therapeutic effect, but simply because they are patentable - even if they are more toxic. For an example, research “isoprenoids” and cancer. The natural isoprenoids include vitamins K2, coQ10 and some forms of E, tocotrienols, and have some extremely interesting cancer trial results or experimental data on killing cancer cells. And June, I am not looking to argue with your genetically starched statism further – you would need several hard science degrees in chem-/bio- fields from a top 20 university to be meaningful. Btw, I do research for a biotech company and I am not noted for any religious belief.

Posted by: ba nonymous at October 19, 2005 04:53 AM (k6IfA)

92 I think, although June hasn't mentioned it that I've seen, that June has a vested interest in this case. I suspect she is employed, or has a close relative employed, by a Texas government agency, perhaps even "child services." So clearly she is going to argue for them. Excellent points, ba non, about the idea that one doctor's diagnosis is not gospel truth, especially when it comes to cancer. And the only connection you left out is the political connection. If there's donations to politicians from doctor's groups, well, the politicians now have another reason to side with the doctors and against common people.

Posted by: Ogre at October 19, 2005 08:57 AM (/k+l4)

93 News from Corpus...the new Judge today ruled that Katie could travel to Witchita, Kansas for alternative treatment that involves doses of vitamin C. I just pray that this works for Katie - but I'm skeptical. I was treated for Hodgkin's Disease and cured by standard chemotherapy and radiation ten years ago. This disease will kill Katie if they can't get it stopped. If the vitamin C doesn't work - so much valuable time will be lost before the standard treatment is even begun.

Posted by: Susan at October 21, 2005 07:24 PM (NwfQs)

94 Hey Susan how do you know all this information. Were you there in the court room today? I haven't seen this on the news anywhere. Where did you get your information. Please name the source or article.

Posted by: shelly at October 21, 2005 09:10 PM (irxBw)

95 That sure would be nice, Susan. If the judge ruled that way, I sure hope he ruled that her own family can go with her!

Posted by: Ogre at October 22, 2005 10:04 AM (iJFc9)

96 Shelly and Ogre... I live in Corpus...it was on our 5:00 p.m. local news.(I think KIII - channel 3) Yes, her parents are being allowed to take her to Kansas. God bless her and restore her to health!

Posted by: Susan at October 22, 2005 03:42 PM (8jgth)

97 Wow that is indeed good news! I'm going to have to post more on that as I can find it! Thanks for the news!!!

Posted by: Ogre at October 23, 2005 10:08 AM (iJFc9)

98 The promise to allow the Werneckes to take the child for the quack Vitamin C 'treatment' is a carrot, folks. The judge is tryng to use it to get Katie to comply with chemotherapy instead of breaking the rules and tearing out catheters as Edward has advised her to do. Sticks haven't worked, so now the courts are trying a carrot instead. I expect the new gambit to fail. Wernecke seems determined that Katie die from medical neglect. Apparently thinks it will score him brownie points with God or something. She is down to a 20 to 25 percent chance of recovery with treatment now. Without treatment? Susan hit the nail on its head. It may not be long before Katie dies. So, I guess all of you who supported Wernecke can go on and plan a party to celebrate his upcoming 'success.' Plan to wear black.

Posted by: June Gordon at October 25, 2005 02:44 AM (BbT7B)

99 Wow, June, I've never seen someone so obsessed with so much hatred. You cannot stand that someone is being nice to Katie? You think because someone wants to allow Katie a tiny choice that they are "trying to score points with God?" I truly pity you June, that's just awful. In case you didn't know, June, Katie has cancer. She's going to die, no matter what you or the state of Texas do. Do you hate the Make a Wish Foundation, too?

Posted by: Ogre at October 25, 2005 05:37 AM (iJFc9)

100 June When the state took Katie she had 85% to 95% chance of making it and now she has 20% chance of making it. So what has the state been doing? Well lets see they took away her hope, love, support, family, home, school, friends, and now her phone. So the way I see it people like you give no hope. So the way I see it you and state are killing her, not her parents they want whats best for Katie.

Posted by: shelly at October 25, 2005 07:09 AM (7wwKn)

101 Nonsense, Shelly. The state has done all it could to provide Katie Wernecke with the chemotherapy and, if necessary, radiation, needed to cure her cancer. It is Edward Wernecke who has manipulated his daughter to prevent her from being treated. He will be responsible for her death. Ogre, the girl stood a good chance of surviving but for her father's determination to prevent treatment. This is not 'fate.' It is active malice. And, no, Wernecke's stupidity does not excuse his maliciousness. The nature of Texas politics may prevent Wernecke being prosecuted for causing his daughter's demise, but he should be.

Posted by: June Gordon at October 25, 2005 05:06 PM (BbT7B)

102 June, it's called "Cancer!" It's nothing something that just goes away. And I can't even imagine your thought process to call this active malice. Do you seriously, honestly believe that Katie and her parents want her to be dead? Do you think her mother said to herself, "Gee, I think I'd make this decision because I want to kill Katie?" That's what active malice is. And if you want him prosecuted for this, then anyone who believes in freedom should be prosecuted too.

Posted by: Ogre at October 25, 2005 05:11 PM (iJFc9)

103 June, CPS took Katie hostage back in June saying she had to have radiation treatments to save her life. Why, 5 months later, the radiation treatments haven't been done?

Posted by: shelly at October 26, 2005 08:12 AM (eWaMU)

104 Shelly, are you not bright enough to read the news and grasp it? The treatment hasn't occurred because Edward Wernecke sabotaged it. He broke appointments, refused to fill prescriptions, had Katie hidden from authorities, harassed her doctors, ordered her to eat and drink when she was told not to and to tear out catheters and IVs. He bears most of the responsibility if the girl dies, which is likely. But, Ogre, you and other supporters of Wernecke are also partly responsible because you have backed Wernecke in his malicious and addle-brained abuse of his daughter. There was an 85 percent chance that Katie Wernecke would recover when she began treatment. Because of Ed Wernecke's campaign of sabotage, that chance is down to as little as 20 percent. He has been quite effective in dooming his daughter. Parents who have caused their childrens' deaths via medical negligence often believe they are pleasing God by refusing to treat the child. That appears to be part of Wernecke's motivation.

Posted by: June Gordon at October 27, 2005 03:24 PM (FNml6)

105 85% chance? And now it's MY fault? June, you're quickly leaving orbit and are headed far into outer space. I can quite definately assure you as much as I wish I had the power to help Ed Wernecke in his battle against the all-powerful state, writing a few words on a page in a blog had absolutely no effect whatsoever on the case. I like to believe it could have been so, but it just isn't that way. According to news reports, Katie was abducted SO THAT SHE WOULD BE TREATED. I think Shelly's question really is, "If the state took Katie because only they could save her life and treat her, why haven't they?" Ed couldn't sabotage anything once the state took control -- the state is 100% responsible, as they want to be. NO ONE can stop them and anything they do with Katie-- and that's where my problem is with this whole issue.

Posted by: Ogre at October 27, 2005 04:00 PM (/k+l4)

106 Hey June Now you cutting me down, too? Come on you are not so bright. You seem to know alot about this case? How do you know about the appointments and prescriptions? I haven't seen that printed anywhere. Was Ed there when she drank or ate something when she wasn't supposed to? No the foster mom, the nurses, and doctors were in charge of Katie, where were in charge of Katie. Why were they not watching her to make sure she would not drink or eat. Now you are cutting God down too. You would not be on this earth with out God. You better pray that he does not strike you down, your time is coming!

Posted by: shelly at October 27, 2005 11:09 PM (GnlBq)

107 Ogre, your wish is about to come true. The girl is almost certainly going to die. Any rational person observing the situation knows that Edward Wernecke used his ability to influence the child to sabotage her cancer treatment -- the only regimen known to cure her form of cancer. Kidnapping Katie so she could be doused with laetrile and Vitamin C, neither of which are cures for cancer, made no sense then and the same foolishness makes no sense now. People at CPS and some in the court system did their best to provide the child with proper treatment -- chemotherapy followed by radiation if necessary. Wernecke sabotaged that treatment by ordering his daughter not to comply. Instead, his addle-brained 'cures' were to be used. I commend the people who tried to stop this mad man from causing the death of a child. (Shelly, you are too ignorant for me to engage in further conversation with.)

Posted by: June Gordon at November 01, 2005 09:54 AM (0bI3r)

108 June, I'm sorry, you must have been confused when you read back over the comments. It is apparently you that wished Katie dead to further your own political goals. You have a vehement support of anything that the State does, likely with a vested interest, based on your blind support. You do not like freedom. I am sorry to hear that. I value freedom above nearly everything when it comes to government. Government should not suppress freedom, whether it comes in the form of religion or speech. CPS was, and continues to, crush freedom at every turn. That is wrong, no matter how much you like it. The state assumed responsibility for Katie when they kidnapped her. They are 100% responsible, no matter what you or anyone else wants to claim. If they didn't want to assume that responsibility, they shouldn't have kidnapped her.

Posted by: Ogre at November 01, 2005 10:14 AM (/k+l4)

109 It's too bad that parents have to kill their children in order to prove that social Darwinism really is viable theory. Just a few thoughts: More than 700 children are diagnosed with HD each year in the US, 90-95% of all childhood Hogdkin's lymphomas can be cured and Katie's age group comprises more than 40% of all Hodgkin's patients. If you knew the cure rate was that high for your child's cancer (not to mention your child is in the most common age bracket) wouldn't you go ahead with the standard treatment regimen? Sure there are morbidities involved but there are morbidities involved in just about everything medically necessary. Morbities beat mortality most days. Death rates for this disease have fallen more than 60% over the past couple of decades. Doesn't that sound like the doctors and research they are conducting are doing a good job? And in many cancers the delay in treatment by as little as a week can have a MAJOR effect on outcome, especially when we are talking about stage IV disease. Unfortunately Katie will most likely be a perfect example of this.

Posted by: AP at November 01, 2005 02:27 PM (Vi3LM)

110 A study of over 10,000 patients shows clearly that chemo’s supposedly strong track record with Hodgkin’s disease (lymphoma) is actually a lie. Patients who underwent chemo were 14 times more likely to develop leukemia and 6 times more likely to develop cancers of the bones, joints, and soft tissues than those patients who did not undergo chemotherapy (National Cancer Institute Journal 87:10)." John Diamond M.D. Children who are successfully treated for Hodgkin's disease are 18 times more likely later to develop secondary malignant tumors. Girls face a 35 per cent chance of developing breast cancer by the time they are 40----which is 75 times greater than the average. The risk of leukemia increased markedly four years after the ending of successful treatment, and reached a plateau after 14 years, but the risk of developing solid tumors remained high and approached 30 per cent at 30 years (New Eng J Medicine) The MD Anderson Comprehensive Cancer Center was sued in August 1998, for making unsubstantiated claims that it cures "well over 50% of people with cancer." – Professor Emeritus Dr. Samuel Epstein

Posted by: UPI at November 01, 2005 02:31 PM (24jFd)

111 Excellent! You cite a paper from 1992 that uses chemotherapy data from as far back as 1940. That's great! We definitely use chemotherapy regimens and dosing strategies from 1940 still. Could you at least find something from 2000 or at least uses data from post 1980? That would be great. You should check out... Nachman JB, Sposto R, Herzog P, et al.: Randomized comparison of low-dose involved-field radiotherapy and no radiotherapy for children with Hodgkin's disease who achieve a complete response to chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 20 (1 : 3765-71, 2002 And every institution is sued at some point. I don't put much stock into lawsuits anymore. Anyone looking to make a quick buck can find a lawyer to take their case. MD Anderson is a leader in oncology care in my opinion. If you have the full citation for the NEJM article I'd love to have it.

Posted by: AP at November 01, 2005 02:57 PM (Vi3LM)

112 Oh my gosh, I can't let this go. I've done a little more research on the quotes my friend UPI mentioned above. Ok, so in that JNCI paper the conclusion says "Without doubt, the benefits of treatment of Hodgkin's disease outweigh the risk of a subsequent malignancy, but data on the carcinogenic effects of radiation and drugs beyond 10 years after treatment continue to be sparse, and future analyses should be directed at long-term survivors." Even though this paper goes directly against what UPI is saying I still stick with my original decision that the data is FAR too old to be useful anymore. We don't even use a large number of the dosings in those regimens anymore. Here's the citation incase you don't believe me. JF Boivin, GB Hutchison, AG Zauber, L Bernstein, FG Davis, RP Michel, B Zanke, CT Tan, LM Fuller, and P Mauch Incidence of second cancers in patients treated for Hodgkin's disease J Natl Cancer Inst 1995; 87: 732-741 And a mea culpa for getting the year wrong. It's a 1995 paper and not a 1992. I for the life of me can't find anything about the MD Anderson lawsuit in 1998. If you could find anymore info about that I would really appreciate it. Not to mention that Dr. Epstein is a crackhead and a half. Have you read some of his work? The only thing I even semi agree with is that I'm not convinced either that mammograms are so great at breast cancer prevention. And I still haven't been able to locate that NEJM article. I did a brief search.

Posted by: AP at November 01, 2005 04:29 PM (Vi3LM)

113 Katie has been in state custody for 5 months, and has just completed her 4th round of chemotherapy. From the time she was taken prisoner, to the beginning of her therapy was nearly 40 days. The state had total control over her and there was no issue with compliance. She only resisted the high-dose chemo and that lasted for only a few days. (Resistance is futile). M.D. Anderson has admitted she is not responding to therapy, most likely due to the relentless emotional brutality and trauma she has experienced at the hands of CPS. No wonder Utah DoCS refused to seize Parker Jensen. At least they had the foresight to know it would never work. Fortunately, Judge Hunter agrees.

Posted by: anon at November 01, 2005 04:37 PM (jOCN1)

114 And don't forget, AP, over 70% of all published research in the area of medicine is actually wrong when considered over time. The vast majority of published research in this area is theories and postulations based on one specific moment in time. And yes, anon has the most salient point -- CPS took Katie and could quite literally force anything on her they wanted. They could have gone to chemo and raidation on the day they seized her if they wanted to!

Posted by: Ogre at November 01, 2005 07:55 PM (7PCNv)

115 Hey I never said that medical literature couldn't ever be wrong. That's why I chose the paper I did to articulate my position rather than the blather of some random doctor who was purposely misquoting a paper to further their agenda. As a matter of fact here is an exact quote from the Ioannidis paper "Thus, research findings are more likely true in confirmatory designs, such as large phase III randomized controlled trials, or meta-analyses thereof, than in hypothesis-generating experiments." Is the Nachman paper perfect? No, but it is well designed and fits many of the criteria Ioannidis espouses for a study to be more likely true. As far a CPS taking Katie, I can't blame people for trying to do what's best for a child. Her parents were ill-informed. How many doctors were they going to have to talk to before the realized what they were doing probably wasn't in her best interest? Why didn't they do all this research BEFORE she started chemotherapy? Like I said before even short delays in radiation treatment can have a drastic impact on outcome. She most likely could have been cured by the full chemo/radiation treatment. Is that a given, of course not. But at least should would have had more of a fighting chance. Oh well, social Darwinism prevailed again. Can't say I'm too upset by that.

Posted by: Andrea Palone (AP) at November 02, 2005 10:08 AM (Vi3LM)

116 Ummm...what? You said that medical literature can be wrong, but it's not because you picked a certain author? I don't follow that logic. I think my biggest issue is with your statement in the second paragraph: "I can't blame people for trying to do what's best for a child." That statement absolutely terrifies me. Why? Who gets to decide what's best? Whenever it's the government, they're almost always wrong. Why is one person's opinion better than someone else's? Don't you think the parents of the child know best what's good for their children, ill-informed or not? If it is OK to take a child away from their family because they're not "doing what's best," at what point do we stop? I think islam is a religion of terror and death -- it would be best for children that have parents who are muslims to be taken from them -- for their own protection. Some children get spanked at home. Shouldn't we take them away because it's not "best" for the children? Some parents don't earn $100,000 a year. If we take the children away from them and give them all their wants and desires, isn't that "best" for the child? Government has no business determining what is "best" for anyone at all. The only time government should interfere is when there is direct, imminent danger.

Posted by: Ogre at November 02, 2005 10:51 AM (/k+l4)

117 Apparently you don't follow my logic. It has nothing to do with the author Ogre. It has to do with how a study is conducted. The paper I chose met many of the criteria the "70%" paper espoused for a study that is most likely to be true. Did you read either of the papers and the editorial to the "70%" paper or are you just spouting talking points that you've been told? Sometimes I think it is ok to take children away when they are in danger of death. This girl was most likely going to die without treatment. Do you work in a medical field at all? I'm not trying to be flip here but there are more ill-informed parents then you would like to believe and they put their children in unbelievable danger everyday. And unfortunately when they die it doesn't normally become front page news. For whatever reason this story did. So I guess you believe children dying at the hands of their ill-informed parents is ok then? So the next time a 5 year old comes into an emergency room with a dog bite we shouldn't give the child a rabies shot if the parent says no? Even though dogs account for up to 90% of all rabies cases? I'm just curious here. But I imagine most children would rather be alive than dead.

Posted by: AP at November 02, 2005 11:38 AM (Vi3LM)

118 You are correct, I don't follow your logic. It sounds like you're saying that the paper you mention has a 70% chance of being right because the paper said so. The majority of medical papers are either disproved or never duplicated, no matter what they say. They are based on known data at a specific point in time -- so after they're published, they're already out of date. With cancer, almost nothing is actually KNOWN. Everything is a maybe -- EVERYTHING. You're missing my point. If you want the state to determine who gets what, where, and when, I want to know WHO gets to decide what everyone else deserves. That's what you are saying -- SOMEONE gets to decide what's right for everyone else, and no matter how much someone doesn't like it, that's just too bad. You example of the Emergency Room is a straw man because I already said that imminent danger requires action.

Posted by: Ogre at November 02, 2005 01:10 PM (/k+l4)

119 Ok, let me see if I can explain this a little more for you. I chose to use the Nachman paper to back up my statement because it is a sound paper. The Ioannidis paper you talk about that says 70% of all research is proven wrong has criteria listed in it that explains which studies are better (ie more likely to be true) than others. One of those criteria is that randomized trials are better than non-randomized trials. The paper I used for my argument meets many of the criteria Ioannidis lists for better studies. Does that make sense this time? You really should read the Ioannidis paper. He's not being as critical about research as you have been led to believe. And I now don't understand what we are arguing over since you just agreeded that the gov't should step in when children are in imminent danger. Isn't that what this particular thread is about? Or are we going to argue over what "imminent" really means? I think that might truly be the question here.

Posted by: AP at November 02, 2005 02:46 PM (Vi3LM)

120 Ah, now I see your point on the paper. Unfortunately, "more likely" isn't really well enough defined for me. Either way, I'll take any scientific publication with a grain of salt. As for the imminent danger, I think that might be where a difference of opinion is between us. Having cancer does not put one in imminent danger. Will you die if you have cancer? No one has any clue. Maybe, but maybe not. Will treatment help? Maybe, but maybe not. That's not a good enough reason for the government to kidnap someone. If it is, we need government to start screening everyone for cancer (free of charge, of course), and placing everyone with cancer in treatment, even if they don't want it, right?

Posted by: Ogre at November 02, 2005 02:51 PM (/k+l4)

121 I'm not saying you shouldn't take studies with a grain of salt. YOU should read them carefully and make your own decisions based on the data they provide. In many of them you can figure out what the biases are and whether they are large or small enough to make a paper more or less worthy. I happen to have read the paper I cited and thought it was a good study so I used it to back up my opinion. If you don't believe the study I used I'm more than happy to debate it with you. "More likely" actually came from the Ioannidis paper you mentioned. Those are not my words. I personally think an untreated treated cancer is almost universally fatal. My 9 years of working with children with cancer has even shown me that treated cancers kill and children who look to be in remission really aren't. However, like the paper I used above shows, childhood HD patients tend to do better with radiation treatments. Cancers cells multiply they don't go away on their own. Now I will say a cancer patient can go out and be hit by a bus tomorrow and not technically die from their cancer but should they live long enough their cancer will spread. Katie is 13 years old, she should have plenty of years left in her life. She also has stage IV disease, the worst of them all. It's obviously been spreading for quite some time. I think it's also a pretty good bet that her cancer could have been cured. There are many, many studies (another one of Ioannidis' criteria) showing that HD and even her stage HD can be cured. If her parents were going to throw a fit like this why didn't they do it BEFORE she was to have her radiation treatments? I just don't understand their behavior in this. Again, I'm not arguing for kidnapping people, I'm arguing in regard to Katie's case. So at what point would have been a good time for CPS to have intervened? Maybe on her deathbed? Or if you really want an argument there are some people that say we shouldn't treat children with certain genetic cancers at all, they should just be allowed to die. I mean we don't need anymore people in the gene pool with mutant genes. Right? Anyway, just my personal thoughts, I enjoy thoughtful arguments.

Posted by: AP at November 02, 2005 03:59 PM (Vi3LM)

122 I think we're closer to agreement on this one than it might first appear. The only point of disagreement appears to be the exact point of intervention by the state (CPS). As I read it, you're saying as soon as a child is diagnosed with cancer but does not receive treatment, CPS should intervene. I think there has to be imminent danger -- and by the time cancer gets to that stage, there's nothing the state can do. So yes, if a family wants to try their own treatments, even if they might not be a great idea, I err on the side of freedom and let those people have their way. Sure, some children might die that could have lived, but there's no one on this planet that has the power nor ability to save every person from death. Provide the people with information, suggest treatments, but don't force it. Cancer has way, way, way too many unknowns.

Posted by: Ogre at November 02, 2005 05:53 PM (7PCNv)

123 Good intelligent discussion!In spite of all the science and the studies, I believe the father and doctor got sideways of each other early on and neither was willing to compromise on a treatment. Can doctors be arrogant? Sure. Does Mr. Wernecke think he knows better than an oncologist - actually several of them? Evidently. Katie could die from the treatment and will surely die without it. There's so much gray area here and the big tragedy is that the best thing for Katie would have been for the doctors and Mr. Wernecke to find a place in the gray area that everyone could accept. But their egos got in the way. Somebody had to "win" - either the doctors or Mr. Wernecke. Katie will be returned to her parents so Mr. Wernecke "wins". I fear at the expense of Katie. Sadly, if Katie does die, CPS and Mr. Wernecke will now blame each other...and they'll both be right!

Posted by: Susan at November 02, 2005 08:23 PM (GMbrw)

124 Yes, you're very right on that conclusion. One tiny consolation to me (as if that really matters to these people) is that Katie will be with her family. I think that is a good thing. I think Katie will be much happier if she dies with her family rather than while being kept away from them.

Posted by: Ogre at November 03, 2005 07:25 AM (/k+l4)

125 I'm happy she's back with her family too, families are obviously very important for people battling any disease. It just irritates me to no end that her family could be that ill-informed (by her doctors and by their own doing) and it has now significantly reduced her chance to live a happy and healthy life. She really had a very high probability of beating her cancer. Overall though I think Susan is correct. Her father AND her doctors share the blame. I just tend to side with the doctors a little more but that's due to my own biases. Parents always think they have the most beautiful, smartest, athletic, blah blah blah children in the world. And many of them believe their children will beat their cancer even up until their child's last breath. It's absolutely amazing how deluded some of them are. I have to admit though, this is one of the first cases I've seen where the parents say they believe their child is cured. I often see parents who are putting their children through even MORE grueling treatments even though the outlook is very poor. But that's a whole other can of worms. Anyway, I'm all for personal freedoms to do what you want, but in this case it has come to the life or death of an innocent child and these parents from what I have read and seen don't seem to understand the impact of the decision they made to delay her radiation treatments. Like I said before, many of these parents are ill-informed and deluded and to me it looks like her parents are falling into that group too. Now they want to take her for vitamin C IVs? She most likely would be in full remission right now had they let her go through her radiation treatments. Obviously CPS didn't go about this the right way but I personally believe in the end they were doing the right thing. If I've got any of my info about the case wrong feel free to correct me.

Posted by: AP at November 03, 2005 10:23 AM (Vi3LM)

126 Yes, I agree for the most part -- it ended up being a battle, and it should not have been. Instead, if the doctors had more information, they should have simply shared it with Katie's family. If they didn't listen, the doctors could try again and show different and more data. If they ignored it, I think that's their right. I think the problem here arose because the state didn't want to allow Katie and her family the ability to ignore a doctor. And I think that's where it went wrong. The only other option is to have someone decide what's right and force everyone else to accept that. Remember when doctors supported lobotomies?

Posted by: Ogre at November 03, 2005 10:32 AM (/k+l4)

127 Ogre and AP - I really respect how you both put forward your views, like rational human beings....even when you disagree. I am glad Katie is home, too. The absolute worst thing that could have happened was for her to die alone in a hospital room somewhere. (I had Hodgkin's Disease when I was 30 years old and I wanted my mommy!)

Posted by: Susan at November 03, 2005 11:01 AM (uom/o)

128 Ok, see, that's where I don't understand I guess. Why, when her life is on the line is it ok for her parents to ignore multiple doctors who have all come to the same conclusion? Does her parents "right to ignore" trump her life? It would be one thing if the doctors wanted to put her through some crazy treatment but HD chemo/radiation is pretty standard stuff. It has a cure rate of 90-95%. I hear you on the lobotomy issue but engineers, chemists, businesspeople, teachers, firefighters, etc. are wrong sometimes too. But if I'm building a bridge I think I'm going to go with a design an architect has created over a design of my mom's (and she's even a very intelligent woman!).

Posted by: AP at November 03, 2005 12:31 PM (Vi3LM)

129 Thanks Susan! I like thoughtful arguments they force you to read, think by yourself and do your own research. I wish more people would put thought and effort into their views rather than regurgitate other people's talking points and spew slurs. While I don't believe Ogre and I will ever come to an agreement on this issue I'm always interested to see how other people view issues. Ogre has been great. And congrats on being a survivor! It's people like you that make it easier for me to go to work sometimes! Cancer is not all doom and gloom.

Posted by: AP at November 03, 2005 12:50 PM (Vi3LM)

130 Thank you both for your very kind words. I do appreciate that a lot. I am very opinionated on many subjects, so it's hard to change my mind. On this one, I think we're only disagreeing on the degrees of the situation, and that's always going to be a grey area. Whenever it comes to making a choice between allowing government to decide a person's fate and their own family, I will always err on the side of her family -- unless the family is actively working with evil intents to destroy. If the family wanted to do nothing more than sit in a room with her and pray, I think that would be much better than her being taken away from her family by force and keeping her away from them. And yes, even if that means she dies with her family. So, yes, that's where our difference lies. I bet there could be other examples, just a little bit off of this one, where we would agree -- like treating a gunshot wound or treating a common cold.

Posted by: Ogre at November 03, 2005 02:31 PM (/k+l4)

131 Yeah, that's really the issue...how wrong do the parents have to be before the state steps in? Or should the state ever intervene? Hodgkin's is also deceptive because until it's really advanced it doesn't make you feel that bad. The chemo makes you far sicker. So you have a treatment, just start feeling better and then it's time for another chemo and more puking. Katie's not foolin' when she says she feels fine. And her parents are right to be concerned about side effect of the chemo and radiation. I have a pacemaker due to heart damage from the treatment and I was uable to have children - which I know was a concern for Katie. But you can't have children if you're dead, either. Cancer treatment is a long process with a lot of ups and downs. I think CPS thought they could grab Katie, get her treated and fixed in a short time and send her back to her parents. That proved impossible without cooperation from Katie and her parents. Personally, I do think Katie's parents are nuts to go to Kansas for vitamin injections. But I was cured by conventional medicine so I would think that. The treatments are less toxic now than when I was treated. In fact, I was a participant in one of the studies the Werneckes are so against. It was to see how low a dose of chemo and how little radiation they could give you and still cure you of the Hodgkin's. Katie could have benefitted from those of us who went before her! But, I ramble on... In this case, Ogre, the state was really powerless even when they tried to intervene just due to the nature of cancer treatment. And they did make a bad situation worse - even if their motives were good. And AP, thanks for being in a "caring profession". You folks did a lot for me and I'm here today because of people like you.

Posted by: Susan at November 03, 2005 09:59 PM (I+6pS)

132 Another thing that makes this case unique is that there can be no good outcome. Pretty much no matter what happens, Katie's likely to die from cancer. That makes everything much harder, knowing a young girl is going to die -- and it makes many people much more passionate about it.

Posted by: Ogre at November 04, 2005 05:46 AM (7PCNv)

133 The thing that makes it hard for me to understand is that she is most likely going to die for no good reason. She was very curable. I look at it this way, those parents are killing their child whether knowingly or unknowingly. We take kids away from their parents when they are being beaten so why aren't they taken away when they are being kept from getting life saving medical treatment? Is it because they don't know they are killing their child? I find that even MORE scary. Ignorance is NOT an excuse for the death of a child. Don't even get me started on those Vitamin C treatments. Her parents were against radiation but they are ok with vitamin C IVs? Say what you will about medical research being wrong but at least there IS research to read and make your own decisions with. When her parents decided to not allow the radiation treatments what rationalization did they use? Or did they just think she was cured? Do you guys know? Please tell me it wasn't because they didn't want her to be "used as a guinea pig" or something along those lines. Anyway, Susan, I work with 3 patients/families right now that owe you a debt of gratitude for your involvement in your clinical trial. And they know it too! The radiation and chemotherapy doses given today are far lower than they were in the past and the children are doing just as well in the short AND long term. You are a hero!

Posted by: AP at November 04, 2005 10:34 AM (Vi3LM)

134 Does it really matter why the treatment was opposed? Would it be OK if it was for religious reasons?

Posted by: Ogre at November 04, 2005 10:47 AM (/k+l4)

135 No, in the end it doesn't matter to me why they opposed the treatment. They are still killing their daughter. I was just curious to see how hypocritical they might be. She most definitely will be a guinea pig now. Just out of pure curiosity Ogre, do you think parents should be able to opt out of having their children immunized for certain diseases like polio or chicken pox or whatever? I mean that is a usually a state or county mandated thing.

Posted by: AP at November 04, 2005 11:55 AM (Vi3LM)

136 I just asked because I know there's some religions that refuse blood transfusions, no matter how much help it will do. As for the immunizations, that's something else -- if it's a communicable disease that can be easily spread to others and kill OTHER people, then that is one of the few areas that government is allowed to tread, because that's a public health issue. Of course, where to draw THAT line, too, is questionable at times...

Posted by: Ogre at November 04, 2005 12:57 PM (/k+l4)

137 I never understood why those religions don't allow transfusions. Granted I have to admit I haven't really tried to research why they don't either. I just always thought that our role on earth was to pass on our genetic code and if you're dead it's really difficult to procreate. I'll leave that for someone to correct me though if I'm wrong. So what do you think about people smoking in restaurants around you? That's a public health issue, right? Or does this fall into your "imminent" category? ;-)

Posted by: AP at November 04, 2005 01:45 PM (Vi3LM)

138 I don't think smoking is a public health issue as there's no verified studies that show secondhand smoke actually causes any harm other than the potential discomfort. I do really like the video I saw somewhere...there is it: http://www.idleriot.com/media/videos/Funny/1176/Second_Hand_Farting.html That's what I think of second hand smoke.

Posted by: Ogre at November 04, 2005 02:14 PM (/k+l4)

139 So no verified studies means that secondhand smoke could not possibly cause any harm other than potential discomfort. That's funny coming from someone who used the "70% of all medical research is wrong" paper against me. You should read the JNCI's August 1999 Smoking and Control monograph called "Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke". The monograph is #10. You might find it interesting.

Posted by: AP at November 04, 2005 03:31 PM (Vi3LM)

140 Did you look at the video? It's pretty funny.

Posted by: Ogre at November 04, 2005 06:20 PM (7PCNv)

141 Saw the video - it's a good one. The whole Katie thing has been making me nuts so I broke out the old law books. The idea behind the laws we have is that parents are much more likely to act in the best interest of their children than the state is. And that usually is the case. Ask a kid who is a "ward of the state" (i.e. in foster care or a group home) what a lousy parent the state makes. When exceptions to this rule arise such as severely abusive parents, the state in the form of Children's Protective Services can step in and legally take custody of a child. What's frustrating about Katie's case is that Ed Wernecke is going to end up causing her death not through abuse but through ignorance. The guy wasn't smart enough or enough of a provider to his family to have health insurance (with four kids!)but thinks he knows better that some of the best cancer doctors in the world at MD Anderson in Houston. In law school, they used to tell us "hard cases make bad law". The concept that parents, not the state, should raise kids and that the law should reflect this is right...but it's going to cause the death of Katie and it makes me sick.

Posted by: Susan at November 05, 2005 01:57 PM (LWLjH)

142 Excuse me for getting emotional about this. I really do likely cooly reasoned arguments rather than a lot of passion. This is just the kind of case that makes a person want to expand the power of the state - when the big picture tells us that generally isn't a good idea. I know lots of people just wish there was a way to make this come out happy. And I'm afraid there's not. (sigh!)

Posted by: Susan at November 05, 2005 06:06 PM (gwPmh)

143 I understand the emotion -- I think that's what made this case so big. From the very beginning, everyone knew that a good outcome was completely impossible. Yes, laws are based on people behaving rationally, but it certainly appears that people do not -- and in a way that makes all laws less than perfect. But there's really not a better solution that anyone's come up with yet!

Posted by: Ogre at November 06, 2005 09:20 PM (7PCNv)

144 So true, Ogre. Good to share cyberspace with you for awhile.

Posted by: Susan at November 07, 2005 03:28 PM (Caaro)

145 Indeed, thanks very much for stopping by, Susan!

Posted by: Ogre at November 08, 2005 06:45 AM (/k+l4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Allegedly, "GOP Senators eye raising the social security age." According to the news story, "Key Senate Republicans privately reviewed suggestions ... for raising the Social Security retirement age." Well if it was so private, how is it in the national news media?

Details appear sketchy, but Sen Olympia Snow (R/D/?), concerned only with her own reelection next year, claimed she wanted "broad bipartisan support." Or, in English, cover for herself and her campaign for reelection. It is not known whether she wants real bipartisan support or the Democrat version of bipartisan support.

I've been claiming this is the easy fix for years. When social security was designed, it was not, and it was never intended to be, a personal retirement account. It was supposed to be a safety net for the elderly, infirm, and those who were physically unable to help themselves. I completely support raising the retirement age, even though I don't think there's 5 people in the Senate with the guts to do the right thing and fix it.

What should the age be? If you index the age of retirement to the average lifespan difference between now and when social security was implemented, the age that social security benefits should START should be 81. Yes, really, eighty-one. I not only support the benefit age being raised to 81, they should pass a law that continues to increase the age as lifespan grows. 81. Really.

Posted by: Ogre at 10:59 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 245 words, total size 2 kb.

I was reading the latest massive tax increase to pass the North Carolina House of Aristocrats, and there's something in there that's absolutely huge, yet I've seen absolutely ZERO reporting on it. There's a new class of tax in that bill that's never been in existence in North Carolina before. If this one gets through unchallenged, everything in North Carolina is suddenly going to get astronomically expensive.

Inserted in that bill is a brand-spanking new tax on services. This bill applies the sales tax (highest in the country) to SERVICES. It starts out simple, "only" taxing warranty contracts, maintenance agreements, and repair contracts. However, if this is not immediately opposed, it will only expand.

So now when you get a plumber to unclog your toilet, he will have to charge sales tax. If you buy a warranty on your new TV or new car -- sales tax. The North Carolina Democrats ALL support placing a sales tax on LABOR. Apparently taxing the income of labor isn't enough.

This one really is big, subjects citizens of North Carolina. Please take note. Once again, this brand new tax on SERVICES is brought to you exclusively by Democrats. 100% of the Democrats voted for this new tax. Do you still think they represent your views?

Posted by: Ogre at 07:48 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 218 words, total size 1 kb.

The House voted along party lines, 63-54, with all Democrats supporting the tax increase. This tax increase is a half-cent increase in the sales tax for all people of North Carolina. The tax increase also increases the top rate on income tax to one of the highest in the country, raising it to 8.25 percent. Only California, Iowa, New Jersey, Oregon, and Vermont have higher income tax rates.

The tax increase passed also directly raises the sales tax on telephone service, satellite television service, and alcohol. As a side note -- no other state in the country has a higher sales tax rate. It would also start a completely new tax -- a tax on candy. At least you can teach your children young the dangers of taxes when they ask, "Why does the lady want 80 cents for my candy bar when the price tag says 75 cents?"

When you vote in North Carolina again, know that zero Republicans voted for this hundreds of millions of dollars tax increase, and all the Democrats did. Of course in the eyes of the formerly mainstream media (FMSM), that's not partisan.

Posted by: Ogre at 05:28 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 197 words, total size 1 kb.

1 And consider this with a state like NJ. They do not pay tax at all on essential items, like clothing and real food at the grocery store. We do. I tend to hold off on buying summer clothes till I visit my parents in NJ in early July every year. I buy winter stuff when I pop up to NJ for Christmas.

Posted by: William Teach at June 10, 2005 11:59 AM (cuTsc)

2 I know I must have looked like a total idiot last time I was in New Hampshire -- I bought a TV that was listed on the shelf as costing $99. When I got to the checkout counter, they actually asked for $99. I was so confused, I just stood there, not knowing what to do. Now I, too, do that often -- I know I'm making a trip there each summer, so I hold off on large purchases and make many of them while out of state. And you know what? If you don't report those purchases on your NC Income tax form (and pay the taxes on them), you're breaking the law. Seriously.

Posted by: Ogre at June 10, 2005 01:37 PM (/k+l4)

3 I wasn't going to mention that, since Uncle Mike might be watching I was totally ROTFLOL when I read the 2004 tax forms about that. Though the law states that if you did not pay tax for it then you need to cough up to NC DOR, they make it seem as if you are supposed to pay taxes to NC for ALL out of state and internet purchases. Takes careful reading, know a few folks who were freaked out, and I said, re-read it.

Posted by: William Teach at June 10, 2005 07:56 PM (HxpPK)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

They're meeting tonight if you're in the area. They will be at the Golden Corral at exit 36 on I-77. If you're headed southbound, take a right off the exit ramp and a right at the first light -- Golden Corral is on the right. If you're headed northbound, take a left off the exit ramp, go over the interstate, turn right at the second light and it's on the right.

Former NC Senator Fern Shubert is the featured speaker. She was the Minority Whip in the senate and is a CPA. She knows what's going on with state finances, so it should be a very interesting meeting.

If you're anywhere near, the meeting starts at 7:00pm. The Golden Corral there has really good food, and it's a buffet so you can eat until you explode.

I'll only be there if it's raining because tonight is the championship series for our softball team (best 2 of 3 tonight wins the league). But hey, if you're anywhere nearby, especially in Mecklenburg County, you should stop on by. It's a great bunch of people there, and if you want to see what a conservative looks like, you will find them there.

Last meeting I went to there featured 1 current state House Representative, 4 former State House members, 4 members of the local city board, a couple members of the county board and local school board, and the Mooresville mayor. Go visit, if you can, even if you've never been involved in anything before.

Posted by: Ogre at 02:33 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 262 words, total size 1 kb.

There is a bill in the US House of Representatives that needs support. That bill is HR 2579, The Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005. To view the text of the bill, go to thomas.loc.gov and search in the top box for HR2579 -- it will take you directly to the bill text. As of yet there are 20 co-signers and the bill is in the Judiciary Committee, waiting for action. Please contact your Representatives and ask them to support this bill.

The bill, although technical in nature, adds the following:

`(b) The remedies with respect to a claim under this section where the deprivation consists of a violation of a prohibition in the Constitution against the establishment of religion shall be limited to injunctive relief.'.

(b) Attorneys Fees- Section 722(b) of the Revised Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1988(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following: `However, no fees shall be awarded under this subsection with respect to a claim described in subsection (b) of section nineteen hundred and seventy nine.'.

This will have the primary effect of removing your tax dollars from the ACLU's pocket. You see, the ACLU gets most of it's funding from you by suing the government and obtaining large amounts of cash in "damages" and "laywers fees." This law would stop that action.

The law would NOT stop anyone from suing anyone anywhere for anything. It will not have an effect on your civil rights (as if the ACLU really has anything to do with civil rights). The only reason to oppose this law is to ensure the ACLU can obtain taxpayer funding.

Please urge your congresscritter to support it today. You can also sign a petition to stop taxpayer funding of the ACLU over at the Stop the ACLU Blog.

This post is part of the weekly "Stop the ACLU Blogburst" brought to you in part by Stop the ACLU Blog.

Posted by: Ogre at 11:16 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 331 words, total size 2 kb.

This year the North Carolina Senate raised taxes about 100 times on literally every single citizen of the state in so many different ways, I cannot even count them all. They raised taxes on movie theater tickets, newspapers, cell phones, cable TV, income, and anything else they could grab. They also raised taxes on businesses.

The tax increase on businesses will be denied by those in the Senate, as they are living in an alternate reality. They will claim to have "changed the formula" and not raised the tax. The "formula change" will result in over $45 million changing hands from businesses to the state.

Previously, if a company based in North Carolina had a substantial percentage of it's sales to other states, those portions of the sales were not taxed by North Carolina. The formula change will make North Carolina based companies pay taxes on all their sales, no matter where the sale is made.

Before you liberals scream, "Good, businesses need to pay more," a quick lesson in very basic economics -- businesses will not sell you something for less than it costs to make it. Therefore, if the business has to pay $45 million in taxes to the state, the cost of doing businesses just went up by $45 million, so the cost of the items they sell MUST go up by $45 million.

So yes, the North Carolina Senate (Democrat) raised taxes on the people of North Carolina by $45 million in this move -- and encouraged businesses to move out of North Carolina.

Posted by: Ogre at 06:50 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 266 words, total size 2 kb.

This is going to be difficult, but see if you can keep up:

First, Howie "Screamin" Dean announced to the world that the Republican Party is made up of white Christians, and the Democrat party is not.

The next day, after numerous high-profile Democrats said that Dean doesn't represent their views, Dean said that he was a white Christian, which would, by his definition, make him a Republican.

After the high-profile Democrats complained about Dean's statements, Dean replied that the criticism of him is only Republicans trying to divert attention from the country's problems and make him the issue. This means that Dean thinks that Bill Richardson, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, and John Edwards are all Republicans, too.

After that, Democrat New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson said that the National Democrat Party Chairman is not the party's spokesman.

WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Posted by: Ogre at 02:16 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Howard Dean is a secret Republican operative. Conservative For Dean!

Posted by: WitNit at June 08, 2005 04:13 PM (m7Be4)

2 WitNit just might have a point there. I am beginning to WONDER!

Posted by: Gun-Toting Liberal at June 08, 2005 04:38 PM (Er9BL)

3 It's like those logic sentences they made you do in school: If all Rebulicans are white Christians then Dean is a Republican... um, do we have to take him? Too funny.

Posted by: jody at June 08, 2005 05:59 PM (IEpte)

4 What I thought was hilarious when I read that this morning is that even Pelosi backed away from Dean's statement. That is really saying something.

Posted by: Ashley at June 08, 2005 08:30 PM (g7rdQ)

5 I like the site change. Do I see a little 1984 here? God Bless America, God Save The Republic

Posted by: David Schantz at June 08, 2005 08:56 PM (6krEN)

6 I told the 1SG tonight that I think Dean is doing the national melt down to make Hillary look better.

Posted by: Jo at June 08, 2005 10:21 PM (OiTfX)

7 That is it, David! And Jo, you're starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist... Then again, it certainly will take an awful lot to make Hillary look good.

Posted by: Ogre at June 09, 2005 05:50 AM (YgrHs)

8 Woe to those who call good evil and evil good.. (it's in Isaiah somewhere) and woe to those who call Dean a Republican! Urg! The mind boggles!

Posted by: blestwithsons at June 09, 2005 06:44 AM (WtnRz)

9 Dean is such an idiot.

Posted by: michael at June 09, 2005 07:52 AM (eqaaP)

10 Hillary has lobbed in her share of pot-shots too, perhaps not with the abject brazenness of Dean, but still to a similar effect. And this, from one who is cantering ever-rightward in preparation for the 2008 Dog and Pony Show. I think the spotlight needs to shift from Dean to Hillary and her similar rhetorical gifts to Republicans. On this note, Peggy Noonan's "Seeing Red" column this week is a must read. http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110006794

Posted by: The MaryHunter at June 10, 2005 08:46 AM (SRaIZ)

11 I saw that column, it was indeed great!

Posted by: Ogre at June 10, 2005 08:59 AM (/k+l4)

12 OK, you conservatives get all bent out of shape because Dean's called you everything but a "Christian white" guy or gal. Now you're mad he called you that too? OK. I'll never think of any Republican as "Christain" ever again. But let's face it, even your black members are white!

Posted by: Randy Case at June 10, 2005 02:43 PM (LQJdM)

13 "even your black members are white" Now you're getting the hang of it! Black is white, laughter is anger, peace is war. You've got it. Hey, have you been writing for Dean recently?

Posted by: Ogre at June 10, 2005 02:46 PM (/k+l4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment