|
To save on the amount of emails that consume MEGA bytes
of HD space, these pages are created for your convenience.
|
April 2003 <==== May 2003 <==== June 2003 <==== July 2003 <====August 2003
| 01 | Dressed To Kill: The Link Between Breast Cancer and Bras |
| 02 | . |
| 03 | . |
| 04 | . |
| 05 | . |
| 06 | . |
| 07 | Keeping a Lost World Alive: A Last Remnant of Iowa's Tallgrass Prairie |
| 08 | . |
| 09 | . |
| 10 | . |
| 11 | Jury Acquits On Question of Tax-Evasion |
| 12 | The American Foreign Policy - for children
Jury Acquits Pilot Who Questioned Liability for Income Tax |
| 13 | . |
| 14 | . |
| 15 | . |
| 16 | . |
| 17 | . |
| 18 | . |
| 19 | . |
| 20 | Powers of Observation
Excuse me, Excuse me, Excuse me - Struggling Against the Flow |
| 21 | . |
| 22 | . |
| 23 | . |
| 24 | . |
| 25 | an “X” is acceptable, so why not your regular signature? |
| 26 | . |
| 27 | . |
| 28 | Jobs and Success |
| 29 | . |
| 30 | . |
| 31 | . |
Since many reports herein are from other sources, a copyright would
be of little use in those cases.
But, all reports herein, reprints are permitted if proper credit is
given as to source - Rocky
View
with URL of this page or the homepage listed above.
|
|
|
|
It is a job if you would rather be doing something else.
I may not know the secret of success,
but I surely know the secret of failure.
You can not please everyone.
|
|
|
|
SIGN HERE:
Charles Weinstein's signature is quite legible, but thanks to years
of practice he can sign it upside down. And that's been his "official"
signature for years, he says. But when the 45-year-old Glasgow, Del., man
went in to get a new driver's license, the clerk wouldn't let him sign
his usual way. "Stop fooling around and sign it right," he says the clerk
at the Division of Motor Vehicles told him, calling his signature "unacceptable".
When he said that was his legal signature, the clerk called him a "troublemaker"
and threw him out. Worse: the clerk kept his old license -- which also
had his upside-down signature.
"They don't want to open a Pandora's Box and give everyone the right to change their signature," said state Department of Transportation spokesman Michael Williams, adding Weinstein's signature was "not the way 588,000 other signatures are done." But after publicity, the DMV reversed its decision and allowed Weinstein's signature. (Wilmington News Journal)
...Of course, they will still accept an "X" for
a signature -- as long as it's not upside down.
|
|
|
|
Few are the people who were sheeple and have awoken from their stuper regarding politics, government or scriptures. One of their biggest problems is that they discover themselves dangerously close to the precipice and trying to go against the grain or against the flow to make their way to safety or sanctuary.
It is a difficult path when going contrary to the accepted norms of a society gone awry.
This is what is typical of those who follow politicians or pastors, believing they are honorable and leading the flock to safety and/or security.
I have looked for this image for a long while. I knew I had it
somewhere. Finally, I found it.
To download it, you can right click on the image and save it somewhere
on your computer and open it with your favorite imaging program.
|
|
Sherlock Homes and Dr. Watson went on a camping trip. After a good meal and a bottle of wine, they lay down for the night and went to sleep. Some hours later, Holmes awoke and nudged his faithful friend. “Watson, look up and tell me what you see.”
Watson replied, “I see millions and millions of stars.”
“And what does that tell you?” asked Holmes.
Watson pondered for a minute. “Astronomically, it tells me that there are millions of galaxies and potentially billions of planets. Astrologically, I observe hat Saturn is in Leo. Horologically, I deduce that the time is about 1 quarter past 3. Theologically, I can see that God is all powerful and that we are small and insignificant. Meteorologically, I suspect that we will have a beautiful day tomorrow. Why, what does it tell you?”
Holmes was silent for a minute, then spoke, “Someone has stolen our tent.”
From “Ask Marilyn” of August 17, 2003
|
|
|
Dewey, Cheetum & Howe |
[What follows is the NY Times version of
the Kuglin tax win. For other readin of this visit the articles later
on this news page (not email)]
| A federal jury in Memphis has acquitted a FedEx pilot on six counts
of tax evasion after she testified that she wrote letters asking the Internal
Revenue Service what law required her to pay taxes but never received a
response.
The verdict, reached on Friday, brings into question the I.R.S. practice of ignoring such questions, which it regards as frivolous because the first words of the Internal Revenue Code are "a tax is hereby imposed." The pilot, Vernice Kuglin, 58, filed a withholding statement on Dec.
30, 1995, directing that no taxes be withheld from her pay. From 1996 through
2001 she earned $920,000 as a pilot for FedEx, but no taxes were withheld,
she said yesterday. Normal withholding for the period would have been about
$250,000.
|
 |
FedEx would not say yesterday how many other employees had submitted W-4 forms requesting that little or no tax be withheld. Sandra Munoz, a company spokeswoman, also declined to say whether the company had reviewed its payroll to identify employees who were having no taxes withheld. She did say that FedEx was complying with all I.R.S. regulations on withholding.
The acquittal does not relieve Ms. Kuglin of the obligation to pay the taxes. Joe Murphy, the federal prosecutor in the case, indicated in court that the government intended to pursue collection in a civil action. Mr. Murphy said yesterday that he was not allowed to comment on the case outside of court.
The lead defense lawyer, Lowell H. Becraft Jr. of Huntsville, Ala., said he built the defense around the absence of response by the I.R.S. to Ms. Kuglin's letters.
He said the letters showed that his client lacked a criminal intent to evade the tax laws and was instead operating from a sincere belief that her conduct was proper.
Mr. Becraft, who 12 years ago was part of a team that won acquittals for 17 defendants in another Memphis tax trial, said that jurors told him they had voted 7 to 5 for conviction on Thursday. They then told Judge Jon P. McCalla of Federal District Court that they were deadlocked. He ordered further deliberations, and the jury voted to acquit on Friday.
"The whole thing could have been resolved if the government had simply answered her questions," Mr. Becraft said. "It didn't happen. I made an argument to the jury that an American has a right to ask the government for answers. A lot of people in the tax movement do not hide, they are in the face of the I.R.S. and they write letters that set forth their position. And while a lot of them are not articulate or well grounded in legal positions, they have some things they want answered" about their tax liability. But their questions are usually ignored, he said.
Mr. Becraft said during an hour he spent with jurors after the verdict their most focused comments were about the absence of a response from the I.R.S. to Ms. Kuglin's letters.
The I.R.S. was unable to state yesterday what policy it has on responding to letters asking it to specify the law that makes people liable for income taxes. Nancy Mathis, an I.R.S. spokeswoman, noted that the I.R.S. had posted various items on its Web site stating that taxes are mandatory and that it had issued press releases making the same point.
Scores of people who contend that they are not required to pay taxes have said, in interviews over the last nine years, that they had sent letters to the I.R.S. asking what law makes them liable for taxes and had received no response. Promoters of tax evasion schemes often cite the absence of a response as evidence for their claims that taxes are voluntary.
Ms. Kuglin said yesterday, "I believe the 16th Amendment is constitutional and the Internal Revenue Code is constitutional, but I also feel there is a gross misapplication of the individual income tax laws by the I.R.S."
"The questions I have asked are what section of the Internal Revenue Code makes me liable for the individual income tax and what law requires me to fill out the Form 1040" tax return, she said.
Ms. Kuglin said she was also troubled by how the "tax honesty movement" had seized on her acquittal, saying she was upset with a remark attributed to Judge McCalla. Both she and Mr. Becraft described the quotation as untrue and misleading.
The quotation, widely distributed over the weekend by people who deny the legitimacy of the tax laws or of the federal government, came from the Web site of the We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education, the chief organizer of the "tax honesty movement." It quoted the judge as refusing to require Ms. Kuglin to file tax returns, saying, "Sir, I don't work for the I.R.S."
Ms. Kuglin said: "I am concerned that some of the tax honesty people are exploiting this and making it look like the judge was being flip. He didn't say that. The judge was very gracious to Mr. Murphy and very fair in my trial. We had a good, clean case and I would have been pleased because of that if the jury had gone either way, though I am obviously more pleased with the way they decided."
She said the judge simply indicated that it was not within his jurisdiction to take any civil actions requiring payment of the taxes.
Ms. Kuglin said she hoped to resume flying as soon as the government returns her passport, which was seized after her indictment early this year.
In February 2002, a Tax Court judge dismissed Ms. Kuglin's claims of
I.R.S. irregularities in determining she owed taxes for 1994 and 1995,
but declined an I.R.S. request to impose penalties on her for filing frivolous
actions to delay collection.
|
|
Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction, honey.
Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.
Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?
A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.
Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we?
A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find something, probably right before the 2004 election.
Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A: To use them in a war, silly.
Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?
A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.
Q: That doesn't make sense Daddy. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons to fight us back with?
A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.
Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.
A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.
Q: And what was that?
A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.
Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country?
A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.
Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.
Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?
A: Right.
Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.
Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?
A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist.
Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.
Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Like in Iraq?
A: Exactly.
Q: And like in China, too?
A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.
Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists like us.
Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists?
A: Don't be a smart-ass.
Q: I didn't think I was being one.
A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.
Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a legitimate leader anyway.
Q: What's a military coup?
A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.
Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?
A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.
Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.
Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate leader?
A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan.
Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?
A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.
Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?
A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men, fifteen of them Saudi Arabians hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings, killing over 3,000 Americans.
Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.
Q: Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off people's heads and hands?
A: Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people's heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too.
Q: Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?
A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs.
Q: Fighting drugs?
A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies.
Q: How did they do such a good job?
A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off.
Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for growing flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people's heads and hands off for other reasons?
A: Yes. It's OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people's hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off people's hands for stealing bread.
Q: Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?
A: That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply.
Q: Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.
Q: What's the difference?
A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of Patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers.
Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
A: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends.
Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia.
A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.
Q: Who trained them?
A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.
Q: Was he from Afghanistan?
A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man.
Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.
A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.
Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about?
A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.
Q: So the Soviets, I mean the Russians, are now our friends?
A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either.
Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?
A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.
Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what we want them to do?
A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.
Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
A: Well, yeah. For a while.
Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily.
Q: Why did that make him our friend?
A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.
Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?
A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend.
Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?
A: Most of the time, yes.
Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?
A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better.
Q: Why?
A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war is a godless un-American Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?
Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
A: Yes.
Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do.
Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head? A. Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep.
Good night. Good night, Daddy.
|
|
|
Dewey, Cheetum & Howe |
[Here are some of the news reports for a federal case that was scheduled to start on Monday, August 4, 2003, and was ended on Friday August 8, 2003. This case raised the issue of whether we can be compelled to volunteer, at least in matters of taxes. If you are one of those who do not understand, then start by checking the definitions of "compelled" and "volunteer". Then start studying some of the MANY treatises easily available on the web (such is at -- http://Law_and_Rights.home.att.net/Fed_Tax.htm and http://Law_and_Rights.home.att.net/income_wages.html and http://Law_and_Rights.home.att.net/wages_employee_and_employer_26usc3401.html and http://Law_and_Rights.home.att.net/notice_re_w9.html and http://Law_and_Rights.home.att.net/life_without_a_ssn.html and http://Law_and_Rights.home.att.net/SS_Number_files/SS_Number.htm
There are several cases in which the question is raised whether the tax code applied to a person or whether the tax code makes a person liable for taxes.
The Constitutional amendment of "prohibition" on alchohol was finally recsinded because the government found juries increasingly inclined to acquit those charged with a crime under prohibition. We can hope such will happen regarding taxes. BUT, we must be careful not to let a replacement tax get put in place. Tax supporters will cry that we have to replace the hole left by a tax being removed - bunk.]
LAWYER: PILOT BELIEVED SHE WAS TAX EXEMPT
The Commercial Appeal – http://www.gomemphis.com/
By Shirley Downing downing@gomemphis.comAugust
6, 2003
Pilot Vernice Kuglin did not file income tax returns on $920,000 in earnings because she believed the federal tax code did not apply to her, her lawyer told federal court jurors Tuesday.
Kuglin, 58, is charged with six counts of tax evasion, and with filing false W-4 forms for the period 1996 to 2001. Conviction carries up to 30 years in prison and $1.5 million in fines.
Federal prosecutor Joe Murphy said Kuglin "had a lot of income" during that time, but she "claimed to be exempt from paying withholding tax.''
In opening arguments Tuesday before U.S. Dist. Judge Jon McCalla, defense attorney Larry Becraft told jurors they must decide if Kuglin acted with criminal intent.
Kuglin has lived in Memphis since 1985 when she was hired as a pilot for FedEx.
She testified she is now on a personal leave.
Kuglin testified she questioned whether payment of taxes is "voluntary" or "voluntary compliance" as indicated on some federal documents she read aloud in court.
-- Shirley Downing
MEMPHIAN CHARGED WITH TAX EVASION
Published on April 9, 2003.
SOURCE: Bill Dries
A Memphis woman has been charged with failing to file federal income tax returns for six years.
Vernice B. Kuglin, 58, was indicted by a federal grand jury last week on six counts of tax evasion covering 1996-2001.
Kuglin is accused of filing false W-4 forms for five of the six tax years and paying no taxes on $920,000 in income.
If convicted, Kuglin faces a maximum of 30 years in prison and $1.5
million in... 115 words, (for the complete article goto The Commercial
Appeal)
JURY ACQUITS PILOT, WHO QUESTIONED IRS, OF TAX-EVASION COUNTS
Jury acquits pilot, who questioned IRS, of tax-evasion counts
By Shirley Downing downing@gomemphis.comAugust 9, 2003
A federal jury Friday found FedEx pilot Vernice Kuglin not guilty of evading income taxes on $920,000.
The question of tax payment was unresolved at the end of the five-day trial.
"I think it is safe to assume the IRS will attempt civil collection, but she is not guilty of tax evasion," said defense attorney Robert Bernhoft of Milwaukee.
"I feel justified," a grinning Kuglin said after the verdict was returned at midafternoon. She stood outside the federal building, chatting with supporters and jurors.
Federal prosecutor Joe Murphy was not available for comment.
Kuglin, 58, was charged with six counts of tax evasion that could have meant up to 30 years in prison and $1.5 million in fines.
The government accused Kuglin of filing false W4 forms for the period from 1996 to 2001.
Kuglin, a pilot for FedEx since 1985, said she had paid taxes like anyone else for most of her life. But about 10 or 11 years ago, she began to question the federal tax system. She began to read court documents, legal opinions and the federal tax code.
She said she found what she felt were contradictions. She wanted to know where in the federal tax code it said she was liable for taxes.
Kuglin wrote the Internal Revenue Service twice in 1995 with questions but said she didn't get a response.
Murphy, in closing arguments on Thursday, said Kuglin did have an opportunity to discuss her situation with the IRS, to learn what she owed and what documents she was required to file "and she didn't."
Defense attorney Larry Becraft of Huntsville, Ala., said Kuglin decided mandatory payment of income taxes "did not apply to her."
After the verdict Friday, Becraft said the federal tax code is a confusing conglomeration that "at best is a walking due process violation."
He said the average American simply doesn't understand the tax code.
Juror Barbara Snodgras of Memphis said the jury did not convict because "we all felt that the prosecution didn't prove its case."
When asked if she planned to start paying federal income taxes again,
Kuglin replied: "I will pay all the taxes for which I am liable."
|
|
|
|
Look deep enough into the history of almost any Iowa town and you come to the primordial 19th-century tale of breaking the prairie as if it were a herd of wild horses. It took special plows and large teams of draft animals. The first step was skinning the earth, turning over the sod, exposing unimaginably fertile soil. But what really broke the prairie was ending the cycle of wildfires and then draining the land, ditching the sloughs and laying tile to carry away water that was good for wildlife and thick stands of native vegetation but not so good for alien row crops.
In a modern Iowa soybean field in midsummer, it's easy to see that fire isn't much of a threat anymore. What's hard to see is the drainage network that underlies much of the arable land in the state. Farmers are still adding to that network even now.
The Iowa prairie was well and truly broken. The conventional figure is that 80 percent of the state was once prairie and that 99.9 percent of it is now gone, replaced by what used to be mixed farms and are now almost exclusively corn and soybean fields. A couple of weeks ago, on a beautiful windswept day, I turned off the blacktop in Cherokee County, in northwest Iowa, onto a gravel road not far from the tiny town of Larabee. Down that road, two small pieces of land totaling 200 acres — a little more than half the average size of an Iowa farm last year — interrupted the symmetry of soybeans and corn. There was a sign identifying this as the Steele Prairie Preserve, another that said "Do Not Spray" and a wide spot in the road with room for one car. That was it, except for the wind and what that small prairie remnant implied.
Standing at the edge of that swath of unmowed, unsprayed, untilled vegetation was like visiting a small body of water preserved to commemorate what an ocean looked like before it was drained. Two hundred acres barely permits the word "prairie," which, in the American experience, implies a horizonwide stretch of grassland. And yet for all its meagerness, the Steele Prairie Preserve suggests the grandeur to which it had once belonged. It had been kept alive by a family that cut wild prairie hay from it well after their neighbors were planting hybrid corn and alfalfa.
Biological complexity and diversity sound like abstractions, until you see a patch of prairie beside the monotony of a soybean field, a whole county of soybean fields. Though these acres could only hint at the way real prairie would reflect the wind — catching its oceanic sweep — the wind was different here. Instead of a sound like rustling newsprint from corn and soybeans, there was a sibilance that seemed to merge with the birdsong rising from the community of tallgrass plants. It was a richer note than anything you hear in a pasture or a hayfield, if only because no one ever lets a pasture or hayfield grow so tall.
There are tiny stands of native prairie all across the Midwest, in graveyards, along rail lines, in parks and flood plains. There is even a "Prairie Directory of North America," by Charlotte Adelman and Bernard Schwartz, that will guide you to the sites. Most are only a few acres, and it takes work to keep them from being invaded by non-native plants. In states where the prairies were richest, like Iowa, those last stands serve as much to remind people of oxen shouldering the plows forward as to preserve the species that once made up the great sweeps of grasses and forbs. It has always been easier to see the wealth of the black soil that lay under the prairie than the wealth of the prairie itself. Last month, I saw that soil freshly turned by a moldboard plow at a threshing bee in Granite, Iowa, and its blackness was still exhilarating.
There's no getting back to the prairies, of course. The time for preserving
a larger share of them slipped away even as modern agriculture was coming
into its stride. The great figure in preserving Iowa's prairies was Ada
Hayden, and she died in 1950, after canvassing the state for remnants worth
setting aside. And though the prairie restoration movement has gathered
force over the past decade, restoring a prairie is a little like restoring
an ocean. It takes more than the right collection of species and the best
of intentions. It means regenerating the elemental forces of nature, unleashing
a biological synergy that dwarfs what we usually mean when we use that
word. To this day the Steele Prairie Preserve is maintained by fire. As
beautiful as it is in full bloom, I wished I could be there to see it burn.
|
|
|
|
"Bras can cause breast cancer!? You're joking, right?" This first line from the introduction to a new book that has recently appeared on bookstore shelves indicates that even the authors realize that what they are proposing will probably be a hard sell. The husband-and-wife research team claim that there is a demonstrable link between breast cancer and the wearing of bras. They became interested in breast cancer and its causes when Soma detected a lump in her breast in March of 1991. They felt at the time that conventional biopsy and cancer treatment were not viable options for her, as she was two months pregnant at the time. They made a decision to deal with the possibility of breast cancer by intensively studying the disease along with trying to determine its origins so that they could better assess treatment options. In the course of this study they came upon their remarkable discovery.
The authors carefully examine the known risk factors that scientists currently believe contribute to a woman's risk of getting breast cancer. Among them are age, hormonal influences, genetics, exposure to toxins, diet, etc. They then discuss at length the lymphatic system of the human body and how important it is in the maintenance of overall health. They relate how, as part of the immune system, the lymphatics help to cleanse body tissues by draining away cellular waste products and toxins. They indicate how easy it is to interfere with the normal operation of the lymphatic system through the use of constrictive clothing. In the case of bras, the authors write:
If a woman wears a close-fitting garment, such as a bra, it may cause moderate but not severe constriction of the breast tissue. Signs of this could be indentations or red marks on the skin beneath the breasts, or other indications of irritation. There may not be much pain, since the tissue is getting blood and fresh oxygen. However, there would be some swelling of the tissue, although this may not be apparent in soft, fatty tissue such as that in the breast. The bloodstream flow to the moderately constricted tissue would be essentially normal, but the tissue drainage through the lymphatics would be impaired.To test their theory, the authors conducted a survey of more than 4700 women. They questioned the attitudes that these women had towards their breasts and towards bra-wearing in general. They surveyed approximately equal numbers of women with and without actual breast cancer experience. The results of the study were eye-opening, to say the least!Meanwhile, as the breasts are being constricted, the woman is exposed to toxins as part of everyday life in America. These toxins are delivered to all parts of her body, including the constricted area, by the bloodstream. Yet, due to poor drainage, the toxins become pooled in the constricted breast tissue. Other tissues of the body remove the toxins through normal lymphatic drainage, but the breasts, due to reduced drainage, experience longer-term toxin exposure.
Each day, the woman's lifestyle leads her to become reexposed to the toxins. The constricted tissue, still dealing with its last toxin dose, gets repolluted. This process is repeated day after day, concentrating toxins within the breast tissue. Over time, the process leads to degeneration of that tissue. At the same time, normal tissue repair mechanisms are impeded in their operation due to tissue swelling. The poorly drained tissue is bathed in toxins and its own waste, and sees little in the way of nutrients and oxygen from the bloodstream. After years of this, cancer -- the ultimate form of tissue degeneration -- could result.
Going braless is associated with a 21-fold reduction in breast cancer incidence compared with the general standard population....Wearing a bra for less than twelve hours daily is associated with a 10-percent greater incidence of breast cancer than is not wearing a bra. Further, wearing a bra all the time is associated with a 125-fold greater incidence of breast cancer than is wearing no bra at all.
These are startling statistics! On the basis of their research, the authors offer this conclusion: "Women who want to avoid breast cancer should wear a bra for the shortest period of time possible -- certainly for less than twelve hours daily. This is no surprise, given the world statistics on breast cancer....Where there are no bras, there is little breast cancer."
The authors further postulate that the risk to health from an impeded lymphatic system may extend to all areas of the body and to all types of restrictive clothing. They suggest that this "handicap to our immune system" should be termed "Chronic Clothing Constriction, or CCC, to characterize the long-term effect that tight clothing has on tissues, given its inhibition of lymphatic drainage."
Though the authors admit that their theory is unconventional and perh
aps easily dismissed, they state that similar reactions were encountered when scientists first proposed links between tobacco use and cancer, or between the failure of physicians to wash their hands after seeing each patient and the spread of disease in hospitals.
I highly recommend this book to all those interested in the possible link between certain types of clothing and cancer. It's written for the layperson in a style that is easily understood. While it is certainly not necessary for a person to become a nudist to free themselves from the potential cancer risk posed by tight and constrictive clothing, it's a comfort to note still another positive benefit of a natural lifestyle.
Notable Excerpts And Quotations
Interesting and thought provoking excerpts and quotations from various books and magazines."Clothing is something that none of us are born with, yet all of us learn to consider an extension of ourselves. This extension has both substantive psychological and physical implications. Clothing imparts a distinctive appearance to its wearer, indicating gender, social status, occupation, fashion consciousness, and sexuality. However, clothing does more than transform appearance. A snug-fitting garment becomes a type of shell, forcing the soft tissue inside to conform to certain shapes and dimensions.
But a human being is not a snail, which can live inside its shell, adjusting its anatomy to the contours of its covering. When we change our physical features with clothing, we change more than our appearance. We change the way our bodies work, resulting in many health problems.
For example, shoes are notorious for causing a host of health problems. Feet were not designed for enclosure in an airless, snug, stiff case. For one thing, this lack of air circulation and accumulation of perspiration leads to fungal infections, a common problem. Further, the foot is forced into conforming to the shape of the shoe, which it sometimes does not wish to do, leading to corns, distorted feet, and poor circulation. Women who wear shoes with narrow toes and high heals throw their entire bodies off balance, resulting in back problems and hip troubles -- not to mention stunted hamstrings, bunions, hammertoes, and the hazards of a fall.
Underwear is another garment with known health risks. In men, fertility can be affected. The use of briefs has been implicated in male infertility because this type of underwear holds the testicles close to the body, not allowing them to cool properly. Testicles do not like to be overheated. Sperm need to be kept below body temperature to stay fully functional. In women, panties with nylon, rather than cotton, crotches have been associated with yeast infections. Nylon does not absorb perspiration and other secretions and does not circulate air as well as cotton, creating a warm, moist environment in which yeast can thrive.
Going back in time, corsets, popular from the seventeenth century until the early twentieth century, squeezed women to the point of serious internal damage and deformity. The corset did to the female body what tight shoes do to the feet. But the body cavity is filled with soft organs, not just muscles, tendons, and bone, as are feet. Consequently, the pressure on the body caused circulatory problems, breathing difficulty, and lower back distortion, as well as other health problems....
There is clearly a history of clothing -- specifically tight or intimately fitting clothing -- negatively affecting health."
This excerpt is from Dressed To Kill: The Link Between Breast Cancer
and Bras by Sydney Ross Singer and Soma Grismaijer, published in paperback
by Avery Publishing Group © 1995, pages 27-29.
|
Dewey, Cheetum & Howe |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
goto top .....mailto:
therockyview@tellme1st.net