As mentioned in this op-ed at the Richmond Times-Dispatch, the state wants yoga instructors to become "properly" certified. Why, because of the potential harm un-certified, un-qualified yoga instructors may cause to those attending the classes.

But shouldn't those who decide to take a yoga class be educating themselves? Shouldn't they understand what they are doing prior to taking a class?

And most importantly, as the writer points out,

"Face-to-face teaching is a form of free speech, as much a textbook or videotape is. Government needs a compelling state interest in order to regulate speech -- and the bar that determines what qualifies as "compelling" is set very high. The commonwealth's rationale for interfering with yoga-teacher instruction doesn't clear it."

Do we really want regulators deciding this? Why not the consumer (the yoga class attendee)?

Instead of, for a moment, thinking about what may be, think about what in fact is, if this were to stand: more costs to instructors, some of which could in fact postpone their genuine "certification" process entirely; does this not hurt the consumer?

In my view, the spirit of the pro-regulators is, in essence, a spirit of ease: that is, it's the road that has less to do with individual accountability, responsibility, and choice, and more to do with blame, victimization, and a pseudo form of martyrdom.

Rachel Stayner is now Rachel Gerber. My best friend Rach is married. It was a beautiful wedding, up in Atascadero, California.

Jessica fell in love with a fluffy chicken.

I wore a rented tuxedo.

My mother brought a date.

Isaac and I talked movies.

I continued to learn to drive stick shift.

And today is our two-year anniversary. :)

I am thankful for my family.

For Jessica, and the wonderful family I'll soon call my own.

I am thankful for my job.

And for my friends.

As reported in The Orange County Register, The California Energy Commission wants to ban "energy-guzzling" televisions.

This is silly.

What this does is create an artificial need within the market. Shouldn't the consumer dictate as to where the market goes? And it seems to be going that direction, anyhow. Energy efficiency is smart. Of course. But it's not quite there yet. People like their big screen televisions. They like them because they are so damn big and so damn clear simultaneously. Energy efficiency isn't- at least at the current- a top priority.

For starters, it's grossly inefficient for a bureaucratic to make these decisions before the consumers do.

Secondly, isn't it a personal decision, a personal choice to purchase a television? As Robert P. Murphy states in this Op-Ed, it's like if "bureaucrats suddenly banned eating out at fancy restaurants." If a consumer wants to purchase a lobster meal once a week, that's their prerogative. The same goes for televisions. Until that time when television manufacturers decide it is wise to create more energy-conscious options, based upon the demand created by the consumer, this law is simply establishing a "need" that is wholly artificial.

I've had the flu this week. It was going around the office and I managed to pick it up. So far this week, I've stayed at home. I still find a way to finish my work, though.

And yet, I feel bad. I know this is an irrational thought. I am sick and I am getting my work done. But I still feel like I should be in the office. Jessica assured me this was ridiculous. She's right, of course. But I continue to have this irrational thought.

Why is this so?

No joke. Check out this article.

In Japan, if you're fat, you're breaking the law. If that's not an intrusion into one's life, I really can't decipher what is.

So utterly ridiculous.

This weekend Jessica and I went to a wedding shower. The theme of the shower was supposedly "retro," and so the girls were to wear aprons and the boys were to wear neck ties. Jessica wore both.

We looked swell in our ties.

Later that night, we went to see a friend's band play. Our ties remained.

We wear ties together. In fact, we'd do anything together.

Yesterday I went to see the film Skin at the Regency Theaters in Santa Ana.The story is about a young black girl who is born to two white parents in 1960s South Africa. Sophie Okonedo plays Sandra Laing, the young girl in question. Sam Neill and Alice Krige play the parts of her father and mother, respectively.

It's a true story about Sandra's fight with her parents who want her to be classified as 'white,' and her fight with the government who considers her to be another individual in segregated South Africa. The story's closing culminates in the year 1994 when apartheid came to an end.

It is an affecting film. Serious. Powerful. But I found the direction and editing to be mediocre at best. There were too many cuts between scenes, and they happened too quickly. The acting was not bad, but because of the direction and the editing, it seemed there was no time for the actors to shine.

Aside from the more technical details, I enjoyed the message of the film. That being, color, race, and any such irrelevant characteristic don't matter in terms of your value and merit as an individual. We need not look at people as Asian, or African American, or Caucasian. We are all individuals first.

I personally feel that programs like Affirmative Action are inherently racist. Think about it. Instead of bringing in students for their mental, intellectual and educational prowess ( as it should be), it says we need to look at the color of their skin, need to look at their racial background and consider that as a means for application. It's just ridiculous. No business, or school, or any other institution should ever look at anything but what that individual can bring to the business, school, or institution. They should not be concerned with the irrelevant color of their skin, but the talent they can bring- as in what can make them good employees, students, or the like.

You can see the trailer for Skin here:

I was reading the Ludwig Von Mises Economics Blog and discovered this gem.

It's only 12 minutes or so, and certainly worth a viewing. The subject is an employee (perhaps owner?) of a soda pop store in Los Angeles. It's very clear he's passionate about what he does; and it's refreshing to see.

First of all, I think their use of the word 'epidemic' is grossly exaggerated. Second, for something to be of concern, that something needs to be of concern to the individual who is making those decisions. In other words, it's only a health concern if the unhealthy individual deems it so.

I came home to pick up Scooby at doggy day care (aka the Dobsons). They were watching Dr. Puke, I mean Phil. He was on telling parents to take control over their child's eating habits. I mean look at her, she's 9 years old and 100 pounds dripping sweat. Does this disgust me? Certainly. Does it really matter? Not too much.

People, at the end of the day, are going to choose to do what brings them the most joy. People will eat junk because they want to. They will drink crap because they want to. It's not up for us to decide for them, to appoint some bureaucrat to decide for them, or some such nonsense. It's up to them. If they, or I, want to be generally overweight, that's my decision; that's my choice. No one should have a say. Not until that decision, in some way, infringes upon another.

However, I do believe that it's pretty darn awful for parents to raise their kids with that. Don't tell me they aren't aware of it, either. Hell, call me broad-minded but I do think it's general knowledge that by eating fat and sugar all day long will invariably give you health problems. And if you don't know for some reason, you've been under a gigantic rock for 40 years, then perhaps take a gander through the internet at your local public library. Simply type "healthy eating." You'll be amazed!

So that is how I see it. One can choose, on their own volition, to be overweight, obese, mildly fat, skinny, et al. It doesn't matter. If they value that, then by all means, have at it.