Deaf Writer's Alarm

http://kplr11.com/2014/03/01/the-pulse-of-st-louis-disaster-planning-for-those-with-disabilities/

We got the attention from our friend who give speak about our experiences by planning for the disaster.   In fact, we been there and near to where the disasters are.   We were glad that they had showed those disabilities needs, what we need for hearing, sighting and physical activities about the disaster.  That shows us and everyone about needs.  All things are very simple to share with and more information with us all.  I,myself was certified CERT (Certified Emeregery Response Training)

- DW

More Disaster from Deaf Inc. Here are the links:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdGjCrPhkMU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBWrZJIfOPE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDKc9dwLxQY

http://news.yahoo.com/homosexuality-choice-120800095.html

..Is Homosexuality a Choice?

By Marcia Malory | Scientific American – Fri, Oct 19, 2012.........

Ask this question, and you will probably receive one of two responses: Yes. People choose to be gay. They are making an immoral choice, which government should discourage. Or No. Sexual preference is biologically determined. Government should protect gay people from discrimination because homosexuality is an unalterable aspect of their identity. These two answers have something in common: With both of them, the science conveniently supports the moral decision. "Being gay is bad. How wonderful it is that nobody has to be gay!"

"Homosexual behavior should be allowed to take place. Isn't it fantastic that, by an amazing coincidence, there is no way to stop it?" What if neither answer is right? Perhaps sexual preference can be changed - and people have the right to engage in gay sex and have homosexual relationships if they choose to do so. (The fourth option, that gay people have no choice but to be gay, but should be punished for it anyway, is morally unthinkable.)

What does science tell us about sexual preference? Genes We know, from many twin and adoption studies, that sexual preference has a genetic component. A gay man is more likely than a straight man to have a (biological) gay brother; lesbians are more likely than straight women to have gay sisters. In 1993, a study published in the journal Science showed that families with two homosexual brothers were very likely to have certain genetic markers on a region of the X chromosome known as Xq28.

This led to media headlines about the possibility of the existence of a "gay gene" and discussions about the ethics of aborting a "gay" fetus. There have also been headlines about an "alcoholism gene", which makes people become alcoholics, and a "warrior gene", which makes people unusually aggressive. Genes can't control behavior completely, though. Genes regulate the production of amino acids, which combine to form proteins.

The existence or absence of a protein can have an effect on things like alcohol tolerance or mood. Affecting something is not the same as having complete control over it. Environment, like genetics, plays an important role in how our behavior develops. Alcoholism runs in families not only because there is a genetic component to alcoholism, but also because children learn how to cope with stress by watching how their parents and their older siblings behave in stressful situations. If you come from a culture where alcohol consumption is forbidden, it will be difficult for you to become an alcoholic, no matter how your body metabolizes alcohol. There are factors besides a "warrior gene" that contribute to aggression.

Children learn to behave aggressively when they witness aggression being rewarded. If you grew up in a family or as part of a culture where aggression was not well accepted, you would be less likely to be aggressive. You would learn, from an early age, how to control your aggressive tendencies. Your environment affects your sexual and romantic relationships. Throughout history, marriages have been influenced by family relations and by economic needs. People adhere to cultural constraints of monogamy despite being attracted to people other than their spouses. Your culture affects your views on homosexuality. In some societies, homosexuality is accepted, in others, it is frowned upon but tolerated, in yet others, it is a serious criminal offense, possibly punishable by death. Male homosexual behavior was expected in ancient Athens.

Today, ritual male homosexuality plays an important role in some cultures in New Guinea. Your upbringing can influence what you find desirable and what you find repulsive. Most Americans would be probably be nauseated if they learned that, when they thought they had been eating beef, they were, in fact, eating dog, even though there is nothing inherently unhealthy about dog meat. What you have learned about homosexuality as you were growing up will affect whether you consider engaging in homosexual acts to be desirable or disgusting. Some people might argue that if you are "genetically gay" but the thought of homosexuality nauseates you, then you just haven't accepted the fact that you really are gay. That argument is based on the assumption that sexual preference is purely biological; therefore, it has no place in a discussion about the possible causes of homosexuality. The Brain The structure of the brain might influence sexual preference.

In 1991, a study published in the journal Science seemed to show that the hypothalamus, which controls the release of sex hormones from the pituitary gland, in gay men differs from the hypothalamus in straight men. The third interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus (INAH3) was found to be more than twice as large in heterosexual men as in homosexual men This study was criticized because it used brain tissue obtained at autopsies, and all of the homosexual subjects in the study were believed to have died of AIDS. A later study, which was performed in 2001, showed that HIV status has no significant effect on the INAH3. This study, which also used brain tissue from autopsies, did not reveal any significant difference between the size of the INAH3 in gay men and straight men. It did, however, show that in gay men, neurons in the INAH3 are packed more closely together than in straight men. PET and MRI studies performed in 2008 have shown that the two halves of the brain are more symmetrical in homosexual men and heterosexual women than in heterosexual men and homosexual women.

These studies have also revealed that connections in the amygdalas of gay men resemble those of straight women; in gay women, connections in the amygdala resemble those of straight men. The amygdala has many receptors for sex hormones and is associated with the processing of emotions. Some studies have shown that the corpus callosum - the main connection between the two halves of the brain- has a different structure in gay men than in straight men. However, other studies have found no difference. Gay women and gay men are more likely to be left-handed or ambidextrous than straight women and straight men, according to a number of different studies. Some researchers have suggested that this difference in handedness - preference for one hand over the other can be observed in fetuses - is related to differences in the corpus callosum.

A 1992 study showed that the anterior commissure, a smaller connection between the brain's two hemispheres, is larger in homosexual men than in straight men. However, according to a study that was performed ten years later, the size of the anterior commissure is not affected by sexual orientation. We know from studying rats that exposure to sex hormones in the womb during a critical period in brain development affects future sexual orientation. By manipulating hormone levels during this time, scientists can make rats engage in homosexual behavior later on. So your brain was influencing your sexual preference even before you were born. This can explain why many gay people feel that they have always been gay. Brain development does not stop at birth, though. A large amount of brain development takes place during childhood, when you are learning many new things - including how your family and the adults around you believe you should feel about things and what they believe is acceptable behavior.

The education you receive as a child strongly affects how your brain will develop as you grow. For example, children who are given musical training experience changes to areas of the brain associated with hearing and motor control. With the right experiences, your brain can change even after you have reached adulthood. Both London taxi drivers and professional piano tuners show increases in gray matter in areas of the brain associated with the skills needed for their professions. The size of the increase in gray matter correlates with the numbers of years of experience. In one experiment, elderly subjects showed increases in gray matter in certain parts of their brains after they were taught to juggle. With proper rehabilitation, people who have suffered brain damage from strokes can develop new neural connections and regain some of their old skills. It's important to point out that the regions of the brain that have been shown to change because of training and experience are not the parts of the brain that have been associated with sexual preference.

However, women do experience changes to the structure of the hypothalamus - which is thought to be associated with sexual orientation - throughout the menstrual cycle. So far, attempts to "cure" homosexuality by operating on the brain - homosexuals were once given lobotomies - have never worked. (Attempts to eliminate homosexuality via hormone therapy haven't been effective either. While changes in hormone levels in the womb during a very specific time can have an effect on future sexual preference, hormone levels have no effect on sexual preference afterwards. Gay men and straight men have the same levels of sex hormones; sex hormone levels are the same in gay women and straight women.) Today, however, we know much more about the brain than we did when homosexuality was considered a disease that required treatment, and the amount of knowledge that we have about the brain is increasing. Perhaps one day we will be able to adjust sexual preference via surgery - focusing on the particular regions of the brain that are associated with sexual preference - or via neural implants or training.

If Sexual Preference Can Be Changed Even if gay people can never stop being attracted to members of the same sex, they can learn not to act on their desires. People already learn to stop smoking, to give up certain foods, and not cheat on their husbands or wives. If we define being gay as engaging in homosexual behavior (the concept of "gay" as an identity is a Western cultural concept - people who have sex with both men and women may call themselves gay, straight or bisexual, depending on the rules of their culture or subculture), then people stop being gay as soon as they stop engaging in this behavior. Should they stop? If they could, should they change their brains (or have their brains changed) in order to make themselves straight? I believe that people have the right to engage in any behavior that they choose, as long as their actions do not harm others, and I believe that gay sex and gay relationships do not cause harm to anyone. Therefore, people who are gay by choice have the right to remain that way (Of course, there are abusive and unhealthy gay relationships that should not be tolerated, just as there are unhealthy heterosexual relationships that should not be tolerated.) If sexual preference can be altered, then people who support gay rights can't rely on the argument that gay people should be protected from discrimination because gay people have no choice but to be gay - an argument that seems like an apology for homosexuality, as if homosexuality is a disease for which there is no cure.

There is an element of homophobia in that argument- the implication that gay people would become straight, if only they could. Supporting gay marriage becomes equivalent to supporting the construction of wheelchair ramps. The "gays can't help being that way" approach is reminiscent of the old view of homosexuality as a psychiatric illness. In a blog post for Slate, J. Bryan Lowder comments on Cynthia Nixon's claim that her lesbianism is a choice. Lowder agrees with Nixon that blaming biology "cedes a great deal of control to bigoted people." You don't have to defend a controversial action by arguing that you have no control over your behavior. In fact, when we you do so, you reinforce the belief that your behavior is undesirable. Nobody has to prove that biology forces them to vote for a particular political party, practice a certain religion or follow a particular diet. Just as gay people who are happy as they are should not be forced to change their sexual orientation, gay people who want to be straight should have the right to change if they can - and the correct word is "change" - not "cure". In his blog post, Lowder states, "Many critics will argue that appealing to biology is the only way to protect against the attacks of the religious right." It might make these critics unhappy to hear this, but that's not how science works. Science doesn't change in order to support political opinions. Scientific beliefs change as we gain new information, and sometimes science tells us things that we would rather not hear. Get used to it.

References: Bailey, J.M. & Pillard, R.C. (1991). A genetic study of male sexual orientation. Archives of General Psychiatry, 48(12): 1089-1096. Balthazart, J. (2012). Brain development and sexual orientation. Colloquium Series on the Developing Brain, Morgan & Claypool Publishers. Baroncini, M. et al. (2010). Sex steroid hormones-related structural plasticity in the human hypothalamus, NeuroImage, 50(2): 428-43. Boyke, J., Driemeyer, J., Gaser, C., B?chel, C. & May, A. (2008). Training induced brain structure changes in the elderly. Journal of Neuroscience, 28(28): 7031-7035. Burri, A., Cherkas, L., Spector, T. & Rahman, Q. (2011). Genetic and environmental influences on female sexual orientation, childhood gender typicality and adult gender identity, PLOS ONE 6(7): e21982. Hamer, D.H., Hu, S., Magnuson, V.L., Hu, N. & Pattatucci, A.M. (1993). A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation. Science, 261(5119): 321-327. Hyde, K.L. et al. (2009). The effects of musical training on structural brain development: a longitudinal study. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1169: 182-186. Johannson, B.B. (2011). Current trends in stroke rehabilitation: A review with focus on brain plasticity. Acta Neurologica Scandinavica, 123(3): 147-159. LeVay, S. (1991). A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men. Science, 253(5023): 1034-1037. Maguire, E.A. et al. (2000). Navigational-related structural change in the hippocampi of taxi drivers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 97(8): 4398-4403. Prinz, J. (2012). Beyond human nature: how culture and experience shape our lives New York: Penguin Group USA. Teki, S. et al. (2012). Navigating the auditory scene: an expert role for the hippocampus. Journal of Neuroscience, 32(35): 12251-12257. Whitam, F.L., Diamond, M. & Martin J. (1993). Homosexual orientation in twins: A report on 61 pairs and three triplet sets. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 22(3): 187-206. Photo credits: Vancouver Gay Pride Parade 2008 by ecodallaluna on Wikimedia Commons; DNA by ynse on Wikimedia Commons; Brain fMRI by NASA.

Follow Scientific American on Twitter @SciAm and @SciamBlogs. Visit ScientificAmerican.com for the latest in science, health and technology news.

© 2012 ScientificAmerican.com. All rights reserved.

I say in my own word, It is not a choice for you to be... It is you and yourself aware of your gender.  Who you would be loved.  Who you able accept the person as it is.

- Deaf Writer

...

Many of you already read and upset with school distrist with deaf boy who about 3 or 4 years old.   The school afraid that he has mind for killing in the future....know why?   His name is HUNTER!    His sign language were used finger that spell R and it sign alike GUN in the air.

I felt angry with school because it is very common to deaf kids to use their personal name.  I have my personal sign language name in all my life because I had smile with dimples.   My sign name was Y on my cheek draw J where I had smile with dimples.   Many times, I got wrong sign name by people like "phone" or "jealous"  Sigh.  Now my sign name changed as CUTE on chin as J.  I am sure he would feel that way when he get grow up.

I am sure he would change his sign name later on.   I met deaf people with sign language and they told me their name sign been changed.   I can imagine he would change it too.   There is no RUSH and keep him signing till he know the name means.

Stop bully on his sign name!

- Deaf Writer

http://www.stltoday.com/lifestyles/relationships-and-special-occasions/parenting/aisha-sultan/being-a-female-sports-fan-in-a-man-s-sports/article_2454fa12-e831-11e1-9fe1-001a4bcf6878.html

It is very common to female into man's sports world.  I have seen myself with female and male in the same room watch tv.  I was little nuts about football game and find myself screaming and nipping at refree.   My dad loves to watch football and think he is that player!  He try make the player move like he want him in game.  My mom loves to watch and not understand the rule of games.

I seen female act up like male's gut.   She would not sit still in lazyboy chair and threw the flag toward television.   She is not housewife or cooking for men in the house.  She is very hard core with male's sports world.   I figures that she has brothers in her life and made sense of her behavior.   She can be female and sexy but in sports world, Whoo!

Many times, I went to the games and found all males drooling over cheerleaders in real life, ingores the game.   They missed best play in game sometimes and would cheer if cheerleaders show the signal of their players made the best plays.   I think it is very nuts to watch the cheerleaders and they did not make me look at them.  What they are for?  To cheer for players, right ?    My best watch is game in real life and television.   I know television is limiited from real life.

What about men do not watch in real life and having tailgate outside of station?  Just want to hanging with other men and women?  Only men?  I not see lot of women outside but seen few brave women come out with men.   What do you think?

- Deaf Writer

..Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, federal appeals court rules

.

.By Liz Goodwin

National Affairs Reporter

.PostsEmailRSS .By Liz Goodwin | The Lookout – 2 hrs 50 mins ago.........

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins at a May demonstration in favor of DOMA. (J. Scott Applewhite/A …On Thursday, a federal appeals court in Boston ruled that the government's ban on gay marriage, called the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), violates the Constitution and should be struck down.

If the Supreme Court hears the case and upholds this ruling, it means that the federal government would most likely have to recognize the marriages of gay couples who were wed and reside in the six states that allow same-sex unions.

The First Circuit Court found that the federal government does not have a right to interfere in states' definition of marriage, but stopped short of arguing that gay people have a constitutionally protected right to legal marriage. The First Circuit court is the first federal appeals court to strike down the law, and the case is likely to be taken up by the Supreme Court next year.

[Related: Obama touts support for gay marriage in video]

A section of DOMA, which was passed under President Bill Clinton, says that gay married couples are ineligible for federal benefits afforded to straight married people, such as tax breaks and Social Security survivor checks. DOMA encompasses about 1,000 federal laws tangentially related to marriage and affects 100,000 couples in the country, according to the decision. A group of gay couples in Massachusetts sued the government over the law, and the state of Massachusetts filed its own suit, saying DOMA makes its Medicaid program illegal because the state combines gay married couples' incomes in calculating eligibility. (Gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts.)

The Justice Department under President Barack Obama initially defended DOMA against this lawsuit, but last year announced that it found DOMA unconstitutional and would no longer back it. House Republicans then appointed outside attorneys to argue for the federal law.

[Related: Obama's gay marriage stance could hurt him, poll finds]

The judges admitted that the decision rested on navigating difficult and thorny precedents. "Only the Supreme Court can finally decide this unique case," they wrote.

But in its decision, the First Circuit argued that the federal government has no interest in rejecting states' definition of marriage, and that the singling out of a minority group—gays and lesbians—was troubling.

"Many Americans believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and most Americans live in states where that is the law today," the First Circuit wrote. "One virtue of federalism is that it permits this diversity of governance based on local choice, but this applies as well to the states that have chosen to legalize same-sex marriage. Under current Supreme Court authority, Congress' denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married in Massachusetts has not been adequately supported by any permissible federal interest."

[Related: Bristol Palin chastises Obama for gay marriage position]

If the case makes it to the Supreme Court, all eyes will (as usual) be on Justice Anthony Kennedy, who moved to strike down laws banning anal sex in 2003 and a Colorado law that banned anti-discrimination rules that included gay people. So far, the Supreme Court has never held that sexual orientation can put people in a protected class, as it has with race and a few other things.

"I think this really does set up the issue for the Supreme Court to take this up next year," said Erwin Chemerinsky, a liberal constitutional law professor at UC Irvine.

The decision marks the latest court victory for gay rights proponents after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down California's ban on gay marriage in February. After North Carolina voters inserted a ban on gay marriage and civil unions into their Constitution in May, Obama announced that he personally thinks gay people should allowed to be married. But he stopped short of saying that the federal government should guarantee that right, indicating that states should decide.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/defense-marriage-act-unconstitutional-federal-appeals-court-rules-175257996.html

It is messy and Love is important to everyone!  No matter what which sex genders are.   if We or they have to force to marry one man or one woman, ended up not happy for some reason.   It is very risky for everyone!   it is waste and not use in their relationship.  I am say from my heart and spit it out for that SAKE!   

 I can understand why Obama allows because he been visited and interview with those LGBT.  He understands their Love is alike Straight couple!   Love is much common to everyone on the earth!   Give him a space!

Why allow one man marry seven women? Againist law for that? 

- Deaf Writer

Question

What is the difference between "preaching" and "teaching"? Where do we find the distinctives in the Bible?

Answer

The distinction between preaching and teaching is not one that Scripture draws for us explicitly. It is also fair to say that they way modern denominations use these terms is not always consistent with the way Scripture uses them.

For example, in my own denomination, we recently had a case before the General Assembly that challenged the propriety of a woman speaking to the congregation in a worship service, and using her time to expound and apply Scripture to the lives of the people (see The Final SJC Report on the John Wood Matter). The pastor of that church stated that he believed women can "preach" in the sense that they can offer a witness to the truth of the gospel in many different settings, but not in the sense that they can offer authoritative teaching from the pulpit during a worship service. He argued that both uses of the word "preach" had biblical precedent, and that he was not alone in that opinion.

In fact, Scripture (mostly the New Testament) calls many things "preaching," even when they aren't done in a worship service or by a minister. Usually, the word translated "preach" in our modern New Testaments is the Greek term kerusso, which can refer to many kinds of proclaiming or announcing in many settings. For instance, in Mark 5:20, the man from whom Jesus exorcised a legion of demons is said to have "announced" (Greek: kerusso) to everyone that Jesus had helped him, and the text gives no indication that he did this only in public worship services, let alone that he was ordained before he made his announcements. The Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), used kerusso in a similarly broad way, including to label Aaron's announcement of the idolatrous party that Israel threw after leaving Egypt (Exod 32:5). But by convention, Old Testaments usually use other English words than "preach" to translate these activities.

"Teach," in turn, appears fairly frequently in both Testaments. Both the Greek and Hebrew terms for "teach" have ranges of meaning fairly parallel to that of the English word "teach," emphasizing instruction and explanation rather than a simple proclamation. And in fact, Scripture often uses both "teach" and "preach" together, without really drawing any distinction between them (cf. Acts 5:42; 28:31; 1 Tim 2:7; 5:17; 6:2).

That being said, I'm not sure these definitions are really what you need. Generally, Christians and churches distinguish between "preaching" and "teaching" when they want to define the particular roles that different members of the church may fill. For instance, some churches allow women to "teach" but not to "preach." In the aforementioned example from my own denomination, the church intended the woman in question to "teach" during her time, but thought that she "crossed a line" when she began expounding and applying Scripture. But really, the question at this point was not "How does the Bible define 'preaching' vis-Ã -vis 'teaching'?" but "Did she do something she wasn't supposed to do?" And this, I suspect, is the heart of your question.

I think the best way to answer this question, then, is not to look at the range of meanings words may have in Scripture. After all, anytime any person says anything to a group, there is an "announcement" or "proclamation" of sorts, which we might designate by the Greek term kerusso, and therefore which could legitimately be called "preaching" if we are simply arguing from the definitions of Greek words and their English translations. But I suspect that most English readers would find that use somewhat misleading. We don't normally say that flight attendants "preach" when they tell people to watch the monitor in an airplane.

Rather, the more important matter is the specific roles the Bible assigns to men and women, clergy and laity. If what the Bible means is "a woman cannot read, explain and apply Scripture from the pulpit during a formal worship service," then it really doesn't matter if we call that activity "preaching" or "teaching" or "talking" or anything else. The fact is that the Bible might call it any of these, as well as a number of other things. So, it doesn't help us tremendously to focus closely on the definitions of such broad terms.

In Scripture, we find men and women, ordained and otherwise, offering instruction and making announcements in many different settings, and with the apparent approval of the authors of Scripture. So, in some sense, Scripture allows women to teach and to preach, even when they are instructing men (cf. Judg 4—5; 2 Kings 22 // 2 Chron. 34; Acts 18:24ff.), although this is arguably an exception to the norm.

Theologians, however, at least in the Reformed tradition, have sometimes argued that expounding and applying Scripture in the worship service is the authoritative teaching of the church (1 Thess 2:13), and therefore that it is only to be done by those who hold authority in the church, namely elders. Others have argued that it may be done by unordained men, but not by unordained women (cf. 1 Tim 2:11-14). This is the common practice in my own church, though I am personally not persuaded that unordained men have greater freedom in this regard than women.

There is certainly ample biblical precedent for the ordination of men to the office of elder. And in fact, we have no biblical examples of women holding this specific office in either the Old or the New Testament (although they did hold offices that were more authoritative than elder, such as judge and prophetess). Elders seem to have consisted primarily of the heads of families, who were usually male (cf. Num 27:1ff.). And there is good reason to believe that much of the teaching and preaching in the church should be done by the elders when possible (of course, most churches don't have enough elders to teach every class, sermon and study). Elders are presumably the most qualified, and of the offices in the church today (i.e., deacon and elder), only theirs explicitly includes teaching duties (1 Tim 3:2; 2 Tim 24).

What is less clear in Scripture is the idea that a formal worship service of the church is somehow so different from every other forum that unique rules apply to it. We find very little description of early church services in the New Testament, and almost no description of the weekly meetings in the Old Testament (see Lev 23:3-4). So, it is hard to know why formal worship services should have such hard and fast unique characteristics.

And in all events, it is hard to reconcile statements like "I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet" (1 Tim 2:11-12) with the fact that at least some women in Scripture did hold offices of authority, and legitimately taught men as a function of these offices (e.g., Deborah [Judg. 4—5] and Huldah [2 Kings 22 // 2 Chron 34]). Paul grounded his teaching in a creation ordinance (1 Tim 2:13-14), thereby indicating that it was a perpetual teaching throughout all ages. So, how were Deborah's and Huldah's roles defensible? Apparently, they were exceptions to the rule, though this did not lessen their authority or their value. Scripture does not call attention to them as exceptions, though it is clear from the vastly greater number of men who held these offices that the women were exceptions to the norm. Perhaps the elevation of women in these exceptional cases was necessitated by a failure of the men of Israel to lead properly (cf. Barak's hesitancy in Judg 4), though not everyone agrees on this point. For my thoughts on 1 Timothy 2:11-14, see Women in Authority.

In some ways, I have played the politician here, using your question as a springboard to talk about something else. But my hope was to show that the distinctions in Scripture between preaching and teaching are often vague, and are at times nonexistent, in order to point out that the roles we serve as men and women, ordained and unordained, ought to be determined by more nuanced reflection than a dictionary provides.

Answer by Ra McLaughlin

- Deaf Writer

CLAYTON • A woman who admitted participating in the rape of her infant daughter was

 sentenced Monday to two consecutive life sentences in prison after her attorneys failed to

 convince a judge that she should get probation because of a psychological disorder.

Attorneys for Tessa L. Vanvlerah, 22, had a forensic psychologist testify at the sentencing

hearing in St. Louis County Circuit Court that Vanvlerah has a dependent-personality

disorder.

Dr. Brooke Kraushaar said it caused Vanvlerah to participate in the sexual fantasies of

 Kenneth M. Kyle, a college professor from California about twice her age, even though she

 knew sex acts involving her then-5-month-old daughter were wrong.

Kyle, who met Vanvlerah online, was sentenced in March to 37½ years in federal prison

 after pleading guilty of abusing the child during several visits to St. Louis in 2009. He first

came to authorities' attention through the sharing of child pornography online.

Kraushaar, who was hired by the defense lawyers, Brent Labovitz and Kevin Whiteley,

 described Vanvlerah as "a passive offender" who was so afraid of being rejected by

 others that she also allowed Kyle to choke, burn and urinate on her.

The psychologist said prison time would put Vanvlerah at risk of getting into further trouble

 because of the dominant personalities there.

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Kathi Alizadeh, however, disputed the diagnosis and

pressed for the two life sentences.

She pointed out in cross-examination that Vanvlerah exercised free will in electronic

communications with another man. Vanvlerah carved her nickname for the man, "Lord

 Nikon," into her skin at his request, the prosecutor said, but drew the line at one of his

 suggestions involving bestiality.

Alizadeh said police also learned that Vanvlerah talked with a man from Avon, Mo., who

sent her child pornography and who spoke of coming to St. Louis to have sex with her

infant. It was never acted upon.

In 2008, a woman obtained a court order of protection against Vanvlerah, then 18

, accusing her of seducing and having sex with the woman's 16-year-old autistic son

. According to Alizadeh, it resulted in Vanvlerah's pregnancy.

Alizadeh pointed out that Vanvlerah smiled in pictures showing Kyle with the infant.

Vanvlerah, of the 200 block of Solon Drive in Ballwin, was forced to give up custody of the

 child after being charged in April 2010 with first degree statutory rape and sodomy, as well

 as incest and child pornography. The pornography charge was dropped prior to her guilty

 plea in January.

The child's foster mother, who has since adopted her, said in a victim's impact statement

 that the child initially would scream and cry when someone bathed her or changed her

 diaper. Today, at age 3, the woman said, the child has night terrors and asks her at each

bedtime to make sure nobody else comes into the home.

The woman, in tears, said the girl was, however, getting better day by day now that she "is

 no longer Tessa's plaything and she is no longer Tessa's child."

Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/ballwin-woman-who-allowed-sex-with-infant-daughter-gets-life/article_e2d71a5d-e0aa-54af-8267-28573f7f91e6.html#ixzz1tcxI4ILW

I am write this because I wanted to say "that is sick!"  That woman is more than mental

 illness for being child pornography.   I not know why she offered to men to sex her

daughter?  How does men willing to sex her daughter that age!   Her daughter was only a

 baby!

I am sure her daughter growing up and very protective herself from that kind of sex abuse

.  I know how she feels when she get older.  Hope she was practicing to be stand herself

up when get old.

I am not happy about the kid suffering from terrible with her mom and her autistic dad, plus

 her sex pornography by her mom.  That is very sick!

I also am glad that she is with foster parents and train her well.  I know she has all

nightmates become fade when get old unless not even let men bothers her much.  Hope

she has much learn the experience before into world more and more....

- Deaf Writer

I received a funny e-card today from a friend that had a picture of a person throwing their hands up in the air saying “This year for Lent I’m giving up!” Although I knew she was, at least partially, kidding, I wrote back and said “DON’T DO IT!” and then I was reminded of these familiar words that Paul shared in his letter to the followers in Philippi………….. “I CAN do all things through Christ who strengthens me”.

We all know what it is like when the pressures of life come in like a tsunami and try to consume our minds and hearts with fear and anxiety. The pressure can build up to the point that we want to throw our hands up into the air and shout “I CAN’T DO THIS!!”

Yesterday, people all over the world began the season of Lent with a long-time tradition of giving something up during the 40+ days leading up to Easter Sunday. Some may give up eating chocolate, fast food or their favorite beverage, while others may give up watching television, smoking or playing video games. Whatever the choices individuals made, I think it would be safe to say that by this morning everyone has heard in their minds (at least once) the thought “I can’t do this” and the subtle doubts and anxieties began to penetrate our minds.

Imagine how many times Paul probably reached the place in his life where he wanted to throw his hands up and say “I can’t!” I’m sure there were several, yet as Paul continued to trust God over his circumstances he began to learn a secret to peaceful living.

In verses 6-8 of this same chapter Paul says “Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension, shall guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. Finally whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right………and of anything worthy of praise, let your mind dwell on these things.” For every “I can’t” Paul heard in his mind he began to counter those thoughts with an “I CAN!”

Here is the good news: The same Spirit that brought the resurrection that we are preparing to celebrate is the same Spirit that enabled Paul to transform his mind and it is that same Spirit that will strengthen you and I to continue to grow as people of faith today…….. Yes, you can!!

- Deaf Writer

ELLISVILLE • Girls in vests and sashes with merit badges sit squirming on the floor in the school commons until it's time for the flag ceremony.

The girls, meeting at St. John Lutheran School in Ellisville, aren't Girl Scouts. They are American Heritage Girls, a Christian-based option to the more secular Girl Scouts.

After the flag ceremony, and before they begin the evening's projects, they pray.

"Thank you for bringing us together to do your service today," says Jody Token, troop coordinator, standing before the group. "We do this all in Jesus' name. Amen."

American Heritage Girls began in 1995 with a Cincinnati-area woman and her friends who weren't happy that the Girl Scouts had allowed the word "God" to be substituted with another option, such as "my creator," in the Girl Scout Promise.

The group started with 100 girls in Ohio, and in recent weeks has surpassed 18,000 members in 45 states and six countries. Nine groups with a total of 357 girls meet in the St. Louis area; there were five local groups at this time last year. They are based at private schools and churches in Jefferson, St. Charles and St. Louis counties.

Founder Patti Garibay, who had been a longtime Girl Scout leader for her daughters, wanted a choice.

"We are faith-based, and they are secular, and that's a change," she said. "We're not for everybody, but we're obviously for a lot of people."

Garibay estimates that 90 percent of Heritage members have left the Girl Scouts.

Shanna Stewart, who home-schools her two daughters in Wentzville, found American Heritage Girls after becoming concerned when she learned the Girl Scouts had invited a lesbian to speak at the national level. "They were encouraging girls to embrace whoever they were; it didn't matter what choices they made, as long as they were true to themselves. That was a concern."

Stewart is now the troop coordinator for a group of 47 girls based at Dardenne Presbyterian Church.

"Are we going to talk about God? Are we going to talk about Christ? Absolutely we are. But I love the fact that it's not in our face, but it is there."

SCOUTS EMBRACE ALL

Donna Martin, head of the Girl Scouts of Eastern Missouri, would not talk about American Heritage Girls, saying she does not know much about them. But she said Girl Scouts learn more about themselves when they talk to others with different beliefs.

"As we talk to people about the world of Girl Scouting, we try to make it very clear that we are open to our girls, that there is a place for them, regardless of race or religion or disabilities or anything else," Martin said.

Donna McDowell of St. Charles County organized an American Heritage troop at Harvester Christian Church after realizing she wasn't happy about the Girl Scouts — especially after her home-schooled daughter's troop, based at a public school, had taken the word "God" out of the promise.

She likes the American Heritage Girls emphasis on service and its partnership with the Boy Scouts. The Harvester troop, new this year, has 26 girls in first through eighth grade.

A troop of American Heritage Girls consists of girls ages 5 to 18. It may have as few as 10 girls or as many as 150. They meet as one group for some projects and activities and divide by age for others.

Troops in the St. Louis area typically meet twice a month. They do service projects, such as collecting items for Joplin tornado victims or dog toys for a pet shelter. They work on badges in subjects like auto mechanics and horsemanship, but also on topics like the Bible and their relationship with God.

"It's hard enough finding friends, being home-schooled," said Lindsey Geisz, 10, a St. John troop member from Wildwood. "And you have to break through the barrier of being Christian. You can meet other Christian girls here. That really helps."

Nearly 62,000 Scouts are part of the Girl Scouts of Eastern Missouri, which covers the St. Louis area and 27 counties from Kirksville to Ste. Genevieve.

The Girl Scouts don't ban or endorse prayer or any particular religion and call themselves a secular group founded on American principles such as freedom of religion. They let individual leaders determine what type of faith teaching is relevant to their group, and Scouts can earn religious awards. They also do not take a position on human sexuality or birth control.

In recent months, grass-roots efforts calling for a boycott of Girl Scout cookies have popped up in response to a Colorado troop's decision to allow a 7-year-old boy, who identified himself as a girl, into the troop. Gay-rights groups have called for people to buy cookies to support the decision.

The creed for American Heritage Girls requires members to honor God, keep their minds and bodies "pure," and to respect the beliefs of others. Even though the group is Christian-based, it is open to girls of other faiths. Their leaders and charter groups must adhere to a statement of faith that asks them to reserve sex until after marriage, which it defines as "a lifelong commitment before God between a man and a woman."

It does not allow gays to be leaders or adult members.

ALLIANCE WITH BOY SCOUTS

American Heritage Girls also have aligned themselves with the Boy Scouts of America, which isn't Christian-based but whose promise includes a duty to God. They allow uniform emblems for many different religions, including Islamic, Jewish and Christian faiths. The Boy Scouts of America also does not allow openly gay leaders, atheists or agnostics.

In 2009, American Heritage Girls and the Boy Scouts entered an official agreement to provide mutual support. American Heritage Girls have participated in the annual Scouting for Food Drive, traditionally a Boy Scout event, and go camping at Boy Scout camps. In St. Louis, the American Heritage Girls have camped at Beaumont Scout Reservation, a Boy Scout camp that straddles St. Louis and Jefferson counties. The Boy Scouts do not have a similar agreement with the Girl Scouts on a national level but do combine efforts many times at the local level.

Local Boy Scout spokesman Joe Mueller said the relationship between the local Boy Scouts and American Heritage Girls is one of mutual support, and they are happy to share their facilities.

"Nobody has the corner on the market to say, we invented camping and backpacking," he said. "At the end of the day, we're helping more kids have a meaningful, outdoor program that helps them grow into responsible adults of character."

Token, in addition to being the troop coordinator for St. John, is also the national spokeswoman for the organization.

She said she wants the experiences of her daughters, Jessica, 11, and Meagan, 13, to match her family's values.

"These are kids who just want to have fun, hang out and talk about their faith," she said, scanning the room where girls sat assembling their own cookbooks for a cooking badge. "We're very transparent. We're going to share the love of Christ with everybody."

Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/christian-based-alternative-to-girl-scouts-grows-in-st-louis/article_4a33c906-b33c-5507-8ee2-498992578e53.html#ixzz1mHLWbVzd

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At first all, I am proud being Girl Scout in my youth years and I am 3rd generation from my grandma and mom who were Girl Scout, too.

In my bit with them is not aware about race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.   I was not pleasure with them being NOT fit with Boy Scout.  I always think Girl Scout fits with Boy Scout along.   Now I know they are not and very depression about that.

Why American Heritage Girls not come out in 1900s?  Why not?    Heritage refers to something inherited from the past.     They founded in 1990s,, not in 1900s!    That is why I am not happy to hear about that.   It hurts our honor from our past.

I know about "God" and I, myself christian.   We all respect our America and honor "God".   Look again on your dollar, see what you find??  Tell me what do you see?

Use the common sense....

Sign off!

- Deaf Writer

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/09/adam-greene-police-beating-settlement-nevada-diabetic_n_1265992.html

A diabetic who was suffering from insulin shock when Nevada police officers mistook him for a drunk driver and physically assaulted him will receive a settlement of nearly $300,000.

Adam Greene, 38, settled his lawsuit against the city of Henderson and the state of Nevada on Tuesday night. Under the settlement, Greene will receive $158,000 from the city and $35,000 from the state. His wife will receive an additional $99,000 from the city.

The payout settles a federal civil rights lawsuit that Greene filed against Henderson city police and the Nevada Highway Patrol, accusing them of battery, assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

"We think it's fair. We agreed to it, and we're satisfied," Greene told KTNV about the settlement.

The lawsuit stemmed from a Oct. 29, 2010, traffic stop, portions of which were captured by dashboard cameras mounted in four Nevada Highway Patrol cruisers. Those videos were released Wednesday.

Greene is observed on video swerving in the eastbound lane of the Lake Mead Parkway. When he stops at a traffic light at the Boulder Highway intersection, he is approached by a trooper, who draws his service weapon, kicks the driver's side window and yells, "Don't move! Hey, driver, do not move!"

When the trooper opens the car door, another officer moves in and places a handcuff on one of Greene's wrists. At that point, the state troopers, with assistance from Henderson police officers, pull Greene from his vehicle. The four-door sedan rolls forward until an officer stops it.

Five officers force a dazed and confused Greene to the ground. A sixth officer, from the Henderson police department, then walks over and kicks Greene in the face multiple times, as one of the officers yells, "Stop resisting, motherf***er. Stop resisting, motherf***er!" Another officer repeatedly knees him in the torso.

Once Greene is subdued, an officer finds a vial of insulin on him and announces Greene "could be a diabetic."

Moments later, an officer can be heard talking on the radio to a police dispatcher: "He's a diabetic. He's probably in shock, semiconscious."

Other officers are heard joking about the incident. "[He] was not a small guy," an officer laughs. "I couldn't take him by myself."

Greene was not charged in connection with the traffic stop. At a local hospital, he was treated for low blood sugar and multiple injuries that he said he received during the traffic stop.

"I ended up with two broken ribs. I had some cuts and a black eye on my face," Greene told KTNV. "I was confused, but I wasn't resisting, and I would think this would be incorrect and inappropriate behavior whether I was drunk ... or not drunk."

Greene told the Las Vegas Sun that he was on his way to work when he had the diabetic reaction. He said he is a father of four and has been a diabetic for 26 years.

According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, a Henderson police sergeant involved in the traffic stop was disciplined but remains employed by the department. Nevada's Fox 5 News has identified four of the Henderson police officers involved in the case as Douglas Lynaugh, Francis Shipp, Seth Vanbeveren and Brett Seekatz.

Despite the ordeal he has been through, Greene, whose father was an Arizona state trooper, said his family does not hold a grudge. "We hold no ill will towards the officers involved or the other police officers in the city, and we support them and we're ready to move on," Greene told 8newsnow.com.

Related on HuffPost:

Many times, that makes me MAD because police are so dumb to mistook anyone who is on diabetic that look like driver drunk!  My cousin is diabectic in his childhood for more than 20 years!  I know how that look like.   Polices should be practice on who are diabectic or heart attack, etc...  No matter what they look like drunk or not.   They should have test with those people before becoming beating on one.    I rememeber one guy who is body builder and play football in professional.   He has diabectic and cop think he is drunk and beat him up!  I mean he look bad in black eye, broken rib beating by POLICE.    No excuse!

Sigh!

- Deaf Writer