Sorry, Karen, but history states otherwise. A precedent was set in 1942 by the Supreme Court in the case of Wickard v Filburn. When the US was experiencing the depression in full swing, the gov't subsidized wheat. Farmers had to stay within restrictions on what was grown to avoid flooding the markets. When Filburn grew excess wheat for home consumption, the SCOTUS decided he was in the wrong because that is wheat that he would have had to buy commercially. They essentially ruled that because he didn't buy it, he was hurting the economy. They recognized his one man contribution would not do harm, but if they allowed all farmers to do that it could cripple the economy again. The "Commerce Clause" was never intended for that purpose, but since it was so broad and unspecific it could be interpreted by judges anyway they see fit. The court stated that home grown wheat directly competes with wheat in commerce and used the Commerce Clause to exert power of the home use of that man's family crop. So, when you start putting bills in place like the broad and vague one here, you risk someone telling you that your homegrown veges are a risk because they aren't inspected and monitored or you aren't registered as a "food establishment". Example: Define food establishment. According to the bill it's anyone producing, processing, OR distributing food. In other words, distribution is not necessary to qualify. That means private use, too. That is a lot more specific than you would have people believe and the SCOTUS made a ruling on less specific grounds before. Of course, Monsanto backs this bill and in reality probably wrote it considering it was introduced by the congresswoman married to a Monsanto employee. I mean, come on. How convenient is that? To assume there is no commercial agenda involved which would create a strategic control for Monsanto would be naive.

This is too funny - maybe things are different up here in the middle of nowhere, but even at work, where I am a very well respected part of our team and work in computers (a very "gender-neutral" profession compared to others), all the men I work with *still* open doors, stand back to let me go first out doorways and through hallways, etc. If I act unsure of whether to preceed them or not, they will actually hold a hand out to direct me to go first (which is kind of embarrassing, so I don't hesitate much LOL). When I'm coming into the courthouse, even the lowest class of male will wait holding the door for women, even if they're 10ft off yet and have no clue who you are. Naturally, this is reinforced by any military or law enforcement personnel going into or coming out of the building - if a man doesn't hold the door for a woman, anyone in those professions will immediately catch the door and give her a look like they're apologizing for the last guy as they hold it for the woman. The only time women generally get the door for men here is for delivery men, and guys with thier hands too full to open the door themselves (in which case as a woman you are thanked profusely for the assistance). It's not just here at work though either - department stores and malls are the same way. Some insolent teenaged boy will cut you off, run through the door and let it slam in your face - you can bet if there's an adult male anywhere around, he'll grab the door and sort of non-verbally "apologise" for the rudeness of the kid. So I guess I grew up with the whole "let the guy get the door" thing - it really doesn't bother me too much, really. I have to admit, sometimes I *like* being spoiled by men just because of my gender. :-) I will admit though - I had never encountered a guy opening my car door for me until I started dating my fiance. The poor boy tried to "do the right thing" and open the door for me, and I did about the same thing it sounds like Jessie did - I about hit him with the door because I just wasn't expecting him to be there! The only people who get car doors opened for them out here are the rich. LOL Needless to say, we dispensed with that little courtesy right off the bat. And I told him right away that I don't like to "lead" in restaurants or crowds - he's much taller, and I feel "safer" behind him, and would rather leave those decisions to him anyways. :-)

Well, we wound up exchanging it for a softer model, the Prodigy which cost $200.00 more each (hubby went ahead and changed his too) plus a hundred dollar return fee. It's a dream to sleep on, so it was completely worth it. We've had this replacement for two months now. After a week in the Savant, I could barely get out of the bed I was in so much pain. I have neck and upper back problems, so instead of waiting the 30 days they strongly suggest, we went back to the store. When I walked in, I couldn't even stand up straight. After discussing my needs to the sales lady, I laid on the Prodigy for a full half hour and walked upright out of the store after ordering a replacement. I'd have fallen asleep had the sales lady and my hubby not been talking and her asking how I felt now and then. I wound up cutting down our queen size 3" memory foam topper to fit the twin so I could sleep the week that it took to get the replacement. I love the Prodigy, and highly recommend that you buy from a place where you have the time to lay on it for fifteen minutes to a half hour before decided which one to buy. I have absolutely NO concept of time so I have no clue how long we laid before buying the first time. I timed it the second go round to make sure.

The reason there are so many different opinions on this subject is that 'teasing' is a general term that can mean anything from joking & exaggerating to being mean. Kids believe fantasy... Santa, Easter Bunny, tooth fairy, etc. & we play along with it. That is a form of teasing... and kids usually enjoy the fantasy. Trick or treat! There's a time to dress up and pretend to be something else (kids & adults) and tell scary stories & it's teasing to tell the kid "oh you scared me!", when they didn't. Parents usually play along with the kids fantasy & imagination. That can be a form of teasing when we go along with child fantasy... pretending they are a super hero or scary monster. In my opinion, it would be mean to tell a child they are not scary... they don't have super powers... they aren't REALLY a princess! They know they aren't those things but kids like to pretend & going along with their imagination is teasing. The teasing that can lead to bullying is the kind of teasing that makes a child feel helpless... putting them down, making them feel bad, insulting. Kids that are not participating, but are the butt of joke/tease could suffer problems from it. THOSE kids feel powerless so they look for someone less powerful than them to bully so they can feel more powerful. When I used to complain about walking home from the bus, my parents would say how they had to walk to and from school, ten miles in the snow up hill both ways..... I didn't go to school and beat people up because my parents joked, teased & made light of my dislike of walking home. Mom also told me she was going to mail my dinner plate to starving kids in a 3rd world country when I didn't like my veggies... I imagined boxes big enough to fit the plate & worried how the food would get there without spoiling. I was even a little disappointed when she never actually took my plate & sent it. I can honestly say, I never felt the teasing was "mean". To this day, my dad teases me and I still see/talk to him daily (we share an office). I tease him all the time too. Of course he thinks kids today are too babied & pampered. It took us over a year to hire ONE guy in his 20's that has strong work ethic & isn't doing drugs, tattooed, or getting in trouble with the law.