Alma Wheeler Smith and the Scourge of the Unlicensed Massage Tharapist Posted by Tony DeMott

Posted 02/02/10 Last updated 02/02/10

I asked Alma Wheeler Smith why the state is involved in licensing massage therapists and asked if she would introduce legislation to do away with this state intervention into private business and confiscation of private money.

Tony DeMott

Massage Therapists and their associations across the state requested licensure to assure that only trained and certified therapists could hang a shingle and practice their trade thereby protecting their profession from fly-by-night practitioners and their clients from amateurs who could, unwittingly and unintentionally, do harm. Unless I hear a clamor from the therapists requesting a repeal I will not introduce legislation to do so.

Alma

Alma Wheeler Smith
Representative
54th MI House District
Lansing, MI 48909

Here is my Reply:

The claim that you are protecting anyone is a complete fallacy.  Have you rid the world of this scourge yet?  No, not even close.  I've employed the services of many a unlicensed massage therapist, as have countless others.  Like me, those countless others will not care one bit if they are licensed.  We will continue to rely on good recommendations and a good reputation.  Thanks to the states criminalization of the practice, there is a lot less information on these practitioners than would otherwise be available. 

As the economy worsens individuals seek to lower their costs.  This creates more of a demand for lower priced services and individuals seek out unlicensed practitioners because, since they are free of the heavy monetary burden demanded of them by the state, unlicensed practitioners can charge far less.

Since there is far less info on these practicioners who have been driven underground, these types of requirements actually increase the probablility that people will choose the wrong one.  So once again, the sate is protecting no one.  It is however, raking in a lot of money, which leads to the question of motive for supporting this type of law.

The bottom line is that this law protects no one and simply draws resources out of those that do pay for the license (usually out of fear of the state's threat of force for non-compliance) to their own financial detriment.

Tony DeMott

"Today's Best and Worst Cities for Jobs" (article from MSN) -- Motivation for everyone (in more ways than one)!!!! Posted by R R I M M L P BATMAN

Posted 02/02/10

Hello fellow ^Ron Paulite's^/^Ron Paulista's^ out there, how's it going???!!!!

The following is Economics-Domestic Front somewhat "GNP-related", as it relates to Jobs/Employment/Working (or the lack thereof of all of them), and is meant in a F.W.I.W. and F.Y.I.   Use it however you want, and however you feel that it is best.  THANKS & PEACE!!!!:

 http://msn.careerbuilder.com/Article/MSN-2155-Job-Info-and-Trends-Todays-Best-a
nd-Worst-Cities-for-Jobs/?sc_extcmp=JS_2155_today1&SiteId=cbmsnty42155&Articl
eID=2155&cbRecursionCnt=1&cbsid=1830022a5185440b9e44064826d3e1c3-318427461-VL
-4

Also, I haven't forgot about my previous blog-post entry thread!!!!  In other words, I am going to do what I said I was going  to do (it is not a matter of 'if', it is just a matter of 'when'!!!!) regarding the "James Bond will be Back" email message and blog-thread post (below this one)!!!!

        very sincerely,

              &
nbsp;      Emre N. Kazan (a.k.a. ^R_R_I_M_M_L_P_BATMAN^)

Campaign finance reform Posted by kristopher2505

Posted 01/30/10

I must say, I disagree with the idea that labor unions should have the right to donate money to campaigns, and here is why:  Labor unions are crooks.  They've got the situation set up so that if an individual wants a particular job, he/she MUST be a part of their union (or gang).  Once the individual becomes a member of this union, they then must pay union dues in order to retain membership, usually taken right out of the pay check.  The union then spends the union dues, granted on some things intended to benefit the union members, but they do spend money on their golf courses and political contributions.  All this is done whether the employee/union member likes it or not.  If one wishes to oppose union membership... great!  Go find a new job while you're at it.  One could argue that membership and the employment are technically still decisions being made by the individual, ie. that they still have the right to refuse employment if they choose, however, others would argue that since the unions got their positions via the use of coercion (on their own part or with government assistance), what they do from that point forward must be considered illegitimate.  That includes forcing employees into membership, and using their money for recreational, political, or any reason for that matter.  Unions replacing individual contracts with collective contracts notwithstanding, using dues for political contributions is very much an attack on individual free speech.  For, who's to say that  the money taken from the employee's paycheck wouldn't be used to finance someone like Dr. Ron Paul...?  Meanwhile, after using intimidation and coercion to get their position of power, the union DOES get their dues from the employees... and they use that money to donate to someone like Barack Obama.

HB 371: Ohio's Wolf in Sheep's Clothing Posted by

Posted 01/26/10 Last updated 01/27/10

The Ohio House is considering HB 371, which would authorize child welfare workers to take children from their homes without constitutional due process, and for virtually any substantive reason--things like accidental injury, low mental and behavioral abilities, poverty conditions, and negligent failure to keep the kid from doing a slew of things that most kids get into at some point.

The legislation clearly threatens 4th and 14th Amendment freedoms.  One attorney analyzed the bill, saying it also threatens Ohio's Children.  And the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform calls it "Ohio's Wolf in Sheep's Clothing."

The House Civil and Commercial Law Committee heard sponsor testimony last Tuesday (Jan. 19, 2010).  The Chair and Vice-Chair both co-sponsor the bill, so they can be expected to try to move it quickly, before it has much time to incite opposition.   Another hearing can be expected on a soon-following Tuesday.   Thus, the quicker we call our state reps in opposition, the better.  Here's the Committee's contact info:

Mark D. Okey (D - Carrollton - cosponsor) - Chair:
Phone: (614) 466-1464; Email: district61@ohr.state.oh.us

Dennis Murray (D - Sandusky - cosponsor) - Vice Chair:
Phone: (614) 644-6011; Email: district80@ohr.state.oh.us

Mike Foley (D - Cleveland - cosponsor):
Phone: (614) 466-3350; Email: district14@ohr.state.oh.us

Michael Skindell (D - Cleveland - cosponsor):
Phone: (614) 466-5921; Email: district13@ohr.state.oh.us

T. Todd Book (D - McDermott):
Phone: (614) 466-2124; Email: district89@ohr.state.oh.us

Sandra Stabile Harwood (D - Niles):
Phone: (614) 466-3488; Email: district65@ohr.state.oh.us

Tyrone K. Yates (D - Cincinnati):
Phone: (614) 466-1308; Email: district33@ohr.state.oh.us

W. Scott Oelslager (R - Stark County) - Ranking Minority Member:
Phone: (614) 752-2438; Email: district51@ohr.state.oh.us

William P. Coley, II (R - Butler County)
Phone: (614) 466-8550; Email: district55@ohr.state.oh.us

Matt Huffman (R - Allen County):
Phone: (614) 466-9624; Email: district04@ohr.state.oh.us

Robert Mecklenborg (R - western Hamilton County):
Phone: (614) 466-8258; Email: district30@ohr.state.oh.us

Peter Stautberg (R - eastern Hamilton County):
Phone: (614) 644-6886; Email: district34@ohr.state.oh.us

Gerald L. Stebelton (R - Fairfield County):
Phone: (614) 466-8100; Email: district05@ohr.state.oh.us