Well, we’re alive and well and holed up in the sticks of Californiastan. (My folks live in the country, thank goodness.) We shipped The Sister home on schedule on Tuesday, but The Girl Child and I aren’t due to leave until next Monday. I’m kind of thinking since we haven’t gotten on a plane yet, we won’t be getting on one at all. I can wear a surgical mask, but the kiddo can’t. And since my folks are planning on heading Idaho-way fairly soon, we may just stick around and drive.

I’m more than a little distressed by the whole thing – I didn’t want to rush home via plane and expose us to something we didn’t yet know the extent of, but obviously the longer I wait the more it’s likely to spread. I don’t want to be stuck here any longer than we have to be, but I also don’t care to engage in air travel. People are stupid.

Ammo situation sucks here, by the way. The best Wal-Mart could come up with in the way of .22LR was 50 rounds of CCI for $6.50 or something like that. K-Mart had nothin’. One of the local gun shops had half-bricks for $15. My dad finally believes me that reloading supplies can’t be had, either.

Oh, and for the record, the fam already owns land up in north Idaho and is working on long-term relocation. I just hope it happens sooner rather than later.

Anyway, I don’t have anything really substantive to post, just wanted to let everyone know we’re well. Kind of stuck, but well. Grump, grump, grump.

So I’m in the PRC, right?

Guess what else is in the PRC? SWINE FLU!

In fact, there might be a case like… 30 minutes from where I’m at.

I would not be worried about this if it were two years ago, because I’m generally healthy as a horse and probably not a prime candidate for death by influenza.

My THREE MONTH OLD CHILD, on the other hand, probably shouldn’t be exposed to such things.

So, now I’m in a real pickle. I don’t want to be here with the flipping SWINE FLU, but I also don’t particularly want us to get on an AIRPLANE TO LEAVE THE PLACE WITH THE SWINE FLU.

I’m a little agitated, if you can’t tell.

As if I needed one more reason to convince me visiting this place is a generally horrible idea…

Hey, California-based family members: HURRY UP AND MOVE.

Garrrh.

I wasn’t at Boomershoot today.

Wanna know the real tragedy?

I wasn’t at Boomershoot because I’m in California.

I couldn’t warn y’all about this travesty because my grandma reads this blog (hi, MeMe!) and the visit was a surprise. The Sister and The Girl Child are here too, but The Inconvenience stayed behind to hold down the fort. (It’s nigh impossible to drag him to the PRC anyway, which is understandable.)

To be totally fair, TGC isn’t quite big enough for kid-sized hearing pro, and she wants absolutely nothing to do with Milk Conveyance Methods That Are Not Boobs, so it probably wasn’t going to happen this year, anyway.

Next year, we’ll be there with bells on!

Quotes from the public school strip-search case oral arguments:

JUSTICE SCALIA:  Any contraband, like the
15 black marker pencil that — that astounded me.  That was
16 contraband in that school, wasn’t it, a black marker
17 pencil?
18             MR. WRIGHT:  Well, for sniffing.
19             JUSTICE SCALIA:  Oh, is that what they do?
20             MR. WRIGHT:  It’s a permanent marker.
21             JUSTICE SCALIA:  They sniff them?
22             MR. WRIGHT:  Well, that’s the — I mean, I’m
23 a school lawyer.  That’s what kids do, Your Honor,
24 unfortunately, Your Honor.  But -
25             JUSTICE SCALIA:  Really?

…

JUSTICE SOUTER:  But you are — you are
4 saying basically there is — there is no general
5 understanding that people carry ibuprofen in — in their
6 undergarments.

…

JUSTICE BREYER:   So what am I supposed to
2 do?   In my experience when I was 8 or 10 or 12 years
3 old, you know, we did take our clothes off once a day,
4 we changed for gym, okay?    And in my experience, too,
5 people did sometimes stick things in my underwear -
6              (Laughter.)
7              JUSTICE BREYER:   Or not my underwear.
8 Whatever.   Whatever.  I was the one who did it?    I don’t
9 know.   I mean, I don’t think it’s beyond human
10 experience, not beyond human experience.

—————

And a not so fun one:

JUSTICE SOUTER:        You — you say that the -
18 the point of my question, this is what I’d like you to
19 focus on — you’re entirely right, I would accept that
20 argument and I think that argument is entirely right, if
21 the stakes are lower.    If the risk of a mistake is going
22 to be less traumatic.    In the hypo that I gave, the risk
23 of the mistake may well be violent sickness or death.
24 And the thought process in the principal’s mind is, the
25 reasonableness analysis in the principal’s mind is
1 better embarrassment than violent sickness or death.
2 What’s wrong with that reasoning under the Fourth
3 Amendment?

For the SHIRE! CHILDREN!

Strip searching students illegal? Supreme Court not so sure
Justices appear unconvinced that the searches should be declared out of bounds. A 13-year-old honors student in Arizona was strip searched in a hunt for drugs.

By David G. Savage
11:06 AM PDT, April 21, 2009

Reporting from Washington — The Supreme Court gave a skeptical hearing today to lawyers who were urging a rule against strip searching students at school.

Instead, most of the justices voiced concern that students could hide dangerous drugs such as crack cocaine or heroin in their clothes.

The case before the court concerns a 13-year-old Arizona girl who was strip searched in a nurse’s office after a school friend said the girl, Savana Redding, had brought white pills to school. The pills were extra-strength ibuprofen, which is commonly taken for headaches and cramps.

Last year, a U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the strip search of Savana Redding was unreasonable and unconstitutional since the pills were ibuprofen. And the court held that the school officials who ordered the search were liable for damages.

But in their comments and questions, most of the justices signaled they are inclined to overturn that decision.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the school officials should be shielded from being sued since the law governing school searches had not been clear. In the past, the court has said public officials cannot be held liable for damages unless they violate a “clearly established” right.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, though a swing vote on many issues, has voted regularly to give police and school officials greater leeway to search for drugs.

He objected when Adam Wolf, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer for Redding, argued that the strip search was unreasonable because there was no evidence she was hiding anything in her underwear.

“Is the nature of drug irrelevant?” he asked. “What if it was meth to be consumed at noon?”

Wolf insisted that, even in this instance, school officials would not have reasonable grounds for strip searching a 13-year-old honors student. There was no reason to think she had pills in her underwear, he said.

That reply did not appear to persuade Justice Stephen G. Breyer. It is “a logical thing” for adolescents to hide things, he said. A student might stick something “in their underwear,” he added, provoking laughter when he said that this had happened to him at school. “It’s not beyond human experience.”

For a moment, Justice David H. Souter tried to put himself in the mind of the vice principal who ordered the strip search of Savana Redding. The year before, a middle-school student had become violently ill after taking mysterious pills at school. The official may have feared a repeat.

“Better embarrassment [of one student] than the risk of violent sickness and death,” Souter said.

A lawyer for the Safford Unified School District urged the justices to rule that school officials have broad authority to search students. The vice principal in this case had been told some students had pills, and they were to be passed around at lunchtime. Based on that report, “he was entitled to search any place where contraband might reasonably be found,” said Matthew Wright, district’s lawyer.

What about a “body cavity search?” asked Justice Antonin Scalia.

Wright replied that no school official would undertake such a search, but he insisted it would be legal.

Wolf, the ACLU lawyer, said it would “send shudders down the spine” of children across the nation if the high court approves strip searches at school.

A Justice Department lawyer urged the justices to say that strip searches are out of bounds unless officials have strong, clear evidence that a student is hiding something dangerous in his or her underwear.

The tone of the argument gave little hint the justices will set such a limit, however.

A ruling in the case of Safford School District vs. Redding will be issued by late June.

david.savage@latimes.com

At least it sounds like Scalia might have his head on straight… Though it sounds like the left wing of the court is going to bat for liberty on this one about as much as they did in Kelo v. New London. Assholes. (Not that Roberts is doing any better, but I wanted to point that out just in case anybody still believes liberals give a damn about civil liberties.)

You know, when I was just a wee baby libertarian (senior in high school), I had to argue a mock case in government class. It was about the power of school officials to search personal belongings on suspicion of drugs/paraphanelia. I could not fathom then, and cannot fathom now, how it has come to pass that we have granted school officials police powers.

I also find it ironic they can have these type of police powers and yet not be permitted to carry firearms in defense of themselves or their students, which isn’t even a police power.

I don’t even know what to say anymore. I am about ready to quit this whole damn country. How is Costa Rica doing these days? I hear the Canadians messed with some pirates, so maybe I should head north.

Man, I hope Scalia dissents.

I get it now.

I was confused as all get-out why anyone who opposes Obama’s policies has been labeled a racist. To me, the racists are the people who keep hammering on the black president thing… and I can at least vouch for the folks I associate with in saying we’re not upset about his skin color.

Are there a lot of people pissy right now who weren’t pissy under GWB? Yep. Do I think those people are kinda hypocrites, because GWB was spending like a drunken sailor, too? Yep. Do I think they’re all racists? No. Partisans, yes, but racists, no.

Anyway, I was trolling around some left-wing blogs and finally figured out where the racist theme comes from.

Apparently, the real problem is with states’ rights. See, them’s Confederate words. So, since states’ rights were at the heart of the Civil War, to believe in them means you’re actually advocating a return to slavery.

I wish I were making this up, but I’m not.

Governor Perry’s speech on April 15th was, according to the folks I was reading, laced with racist code-words, and had shades of George Wallace. He shouldn’t have invoked Sam Houston, either, because Houston was deposed when Texas entered the Confederacy. And since Perry, based on his belief in states’ rights, is clearly a racist yearning for a return to the Confederacy, he couldn’t possibly appreciate Houston.

Again: Not making this up.

Another thing – does it seem like the Obama administration is a smidge more vitriolic toward conservatives than the Bush administration ever was toward liberals? I’m sure Bush and Cheney sat around in private and made fun of liberals whining about stolen elections, or those goofy Code Pink chicks. But I honestly don’t recall them ever being so unprofessional as to say things like the cigarette tax will affect you more if you need to pick up a couple extra packs for ‘a nicotine fix at your little tea parties’… which is a paraphrase of Press Secretary Gibbs’ words the other day.

Or that deal I posted about ‘one of the stupider things Fox News has covered lately.’ Or, back when he first won, when Obama ended a conversation with some dissenting legislators with something to the effect of ‘I won, you lost.’

This, of course, is on top of suggesting about half of the citizens of the country are terrorists-in-waiting – including returned veterans.

Seems to me like they’re deliberately agitating at this point. Are they trying to push somebody over the edge, so they can retaliate? Obama was supposed to be such a uniter – so what’s with the mockery and divisiveness? They’re acting like little shits on a teeball team, all nanny-nanny-boo-boo at the kids they beat.

I’m curious – did anybody around here actually vote for this guy? Do you feel like he’s living up to his promises? Do you really think he’s a uniter? Did you feel like the Bush administration personally insulted you, like these guys are insulting conservatives?

I voted for Bush in ‘04, and I admitted later it was probably a mistake. I doubt Kerry was any better, but I wish I’d voted third-party or not voted at all. So hey, you’re free to admit you’re wrong, here. You don’t even have to say you wish he wasn’t president, just acknowledge he isn’t what he claimed to be.

I’ll be waiting.

*crickets*

I just wanted to give a shout-out to some friends one state to our right, who have created an online store for their formerly eBay-only precious metals business.

Check ‘em out at http://www.montanararities.com – they’re good folks with good prices, too.

Breastfeeding, that is.

Now, I already knew breastfeeding rocked, from personal experience:
- I don’t have to mix bottles in the middle of the night
- None of us even really wake up in the middle of the night, since we also co-sleep – no new-parent sleep-dep zombies here!
- I’m not worried about SIDS, because breastfeeding and co-sleeping all but eliminate it
- I don’t have to haul formula-feeding supplies along wherever we go
- It’s cheap
- My baby didn’t get the flu everyone else had (including me, though I’m convinced my comparatively short bout was also thanks to my breastfeeding immune system)
- Breastmilk almost instantly cleared up a slight eye infection (blocked tear duct?) she had
- I already weigh almost 10lbs less than when I got pregnant

What I did not know, at least not in such detail:

Research shows breastfeeding decreases the incidence and/or severity of the following illnesses in childhood (and in many cases also into adulthood):
- Ear infections
- Bacterial meningitis
- Respiratory infections and viruses
- Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)
- Asthma
- Allergies (nasal and skin)
- Urinary tract infections
- Gastrointestinal infections
- Diarrhea
- Lymphomas, leukemia and Hodgkin’s disease
- Autoimmune thyroid disease
- Type 1 and type 2 diabetes
- Ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease
- Necrotizing enterocolitis
- Multiple sclerosis
- Obesity
- Bacteremia
- Celiac disease
- Botulism
- Pneumonia
- Lung disease
- High blood pressure
- Anxiety/stress
- Bed-wetting
- Nearsightedness
- Increased intellectual, developmental, and cognitive aptitude

For the nursing mother, breastfeeding can help protect against the following diseases:
- Breast cancer
- Ovarian cancer
- Uterine cancer
- Thyroid cancer
- Type 2 diabetes
- Osteoporosis
- Lupus
- Rheumatoid arthritis
- Obesity

In fact, just having a baby has been shown to reduce my chances of breast cancer by an average of 7%, with a bonus 4.3% for each year of breastfeeding.

Furthermore:

In 2001, the USDA concluded that if breastfeeding rates were increased to 75 percent at birth and 50 percent at six months, it would lead to a national government savings of a minimum of $3.6 billion.

…

The AAP says each formula-fed infant costs the healthcare system between $331 and $475 more than a breastfed baby in its first year of life. The cost of treating respiratory viruses resulting from not breastfeeding is $225 million a year.

The multi-study report estimated that breast cancer rates could be cut by more than half if women increased their lifetime breastfeeding duration. The National Cancer Institute reported the national expenditure on breast cancer treatment in 2004 was $8.1 billion, meaning extended nursing could save upwards of $4 billion a year.

For each year of breastfeeding, a woman decreases her chances of getting type 2 diabetes by 15 percent, reported a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2005. So if we consider the woman from the aforementioned example, in her six years of breastfeeding she’s earned a 90 percent reduction in her risk of developing diabetes.

The National Institute of Health estimates that between 10 and 11 million American women have type 2 diabetes. The estimated cost of their treatment and lost wages is roughly $78 billion a year. This expenditure could be cut drastically by increased extended nursing rates.

For the national Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), supporting a breastfeeding mother costs about 45 percent less than a formula-feeding mother. Every year, $578 million in federal funds buys formula for babies who could be breastfeeding.

A year of purchasing formula can cost a family between $700 and more than $3,000. Many women who go back to work soon after giving birth might think the expense of formula is worth the convenience. The extra medical issues of formula, for mother and child, make the cost more than monetary.

For employers, formula-feeding results in more health claims, more days off for sick children, and decreased productivity. It benefits employers in the long run to provide a time and place for mothers to pump breastmilk. A few minutes off the clock is more than made up for by the lifetime of health enjoyed by nursing babies and mommies.

So, let’s review: Breastfeeding is good for babies, good for moms, good for family finances, AND good for national finances. And, judging from my rapidly-shrinking pant size, it’s MILF-tastic. ;) What’s not to love?

Encourage the expecting moms you know to breastfeed, y’all.

Source for the info in this post: Nursing By The Numbers

The Inconvenience just received notice of his acceptance to UI Law, class of 2012.

I thought this was a funny story, but not funny enough to repost. Until I got to the end, where the Deputy White House Press Secretary has a little hissy about eebil FOX News. So, here you go – “one of the stupider things [PGB] has covered lately”!

White House Corrects Conference Call Number After Directing Reporters to Sex Line
In a press release, the White House accidentally listed a phone sex number for journalists seeking an “on-the-record briefing call with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and National Security Advisor Jim Jones to discuss the NATO summit.”

FOXNews.com
Thursday, April 02, 2009

Journalists seeking to talk a little foreign policy with high-profile Obama administration officials live from the G20 meetings in London this week were solicited for phone sex instead after ringing up the toll-free number given by the White House.

In a press release, the White House accidentally listed a sex line number for journalists seeking an “on-the-record briefing call with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and National Security Advisor Jim Jones to discuss the NATO summit.”

But after dialing, a soft-voiced female recording that was clearly not Clinton asked for a credit card number if you “feel like getting nasty.”

After several efforts to make sure that the phone number was correctly dialed, a call to the White House resulted in a corrected press release. “If you are having trouble dialing into the call, please try this number as an alternative,” and listed the international line included for reporters abroad to dial.

By this time, the conference call was already under way.

Asked for comment about this mishap, Deputy White House Press Secretary Bill Burton responded: “A corrected phone number on a press release is probably one of the stupider things FOX News has covered lately.”