I guess in certain sectors. A top government official could probably do one thing and say another, and nobody would know. Or at least, the people who "shouldn't" know, wouldn't know. I know I don't.

For us little people living outside the security fence, our world is pretty heavily monitored. Actually, it's probably always been this way, we're just better equipped to communicate what we see and hear now.

I just found out that Hillary Clinton "screwed up" again in her telling of an unfortunate hospital experience one woman had. She didn't name that many specifics, but some people apparently had enough to go on, because eventually the full details of the case were published in the media. Then the hospital in question felt it necessary to defend itself, and said, "Knock it off, it's a lie!" So Hillary stopped. But it turns out that what she said really is somewhat accurate.

So, ok, she didn't get her info from hidden spy cameras. She got it from talking to a County Deputy Sheriff. And even he didn't have all the facts. The only reason there was so much scrutiny is because the final telling of the story (by Hillary to various groups and crowds) made a decent impression, and the hospital was losing rep points in the public eye.

"You jerk, you bad hospital. You're bad!"

And the hospital says, "Oh, that's just not right. Information! I demand information! Yes…ah ha…found it…Read this! Listen, look here everybody! Hillary was wrong again! We're in the clear!"

Hillary wasn't that wrong. My first impression reading that article was that, "Oh no, she can't be trusted. She's a liar, through and through." But that's not the case at all.

I wonder if the top dogs in the media (or at Yahoo) decided to milk this story for all it's worth, and tried to factor it in with the previous Bosnia debacle? Without seeming like that's what they were doing…

Anyway, the hospital problem happened at our level. Then the Sheriff learned of it. Reported the story to a Presidential candidate, who reported to all of us. And then we boycott hospitals nationwide! "Chin up folks, we can't get sick no more!"

My reason for writing this out is that twice in a row, it seems, a major political figure (the same both times) has been corrected by the media. I guess the media is like a selective bullhorn that certain sectors of the public gain access to from time to time.

I feel like a few years ago a candidate would say something, you'd think, "They must be right," and no one would come up and say anything otherwise.

But now we're all about the truth.

…Or are we? [Dunh dunh dunnnnnnnnnnn......]

I just read on Yahoo that Leilani and Dale Neumann of Wesont, Wisconsin are to blame in the death of their daughter Madeline. Her death was caused by "diabetic ketoacidosis, a condition that left too little insulin in her body."

When the girl was in the early stages of sickness, her parents decided to pray. They believe healing comes from God. The girl's aunt revealed that the option of taking her to a hospital had come up, but the mother had refused.

After the girl died, an investigation began. "Leilani Neumann said she and her husband are not worried about the investigation because 'our lives are in God's hands. We know we did not do anything criminal. We know we did the best for our daughter we knew how to do.'"

The best they could have done was take her to the hospital and pray. They knew how to do that.

Initially, when I'd only seen the headline link to the article, I assumed it was only in the news to further propagate the notion that individual rights need to be limited. Like, "Look what these idiots did. Let's have the state run things, ok?" Then your parents, friends, and spouse wouldn't have any say about taking you off life support or saving you from suicide or administering common sense medical treatment. It would all be up to the state.

But once I read the article, it really seems like there are circumstances where a child's life is put at risk for the wrong reasons.

What if the parents were using religion to justify a completely different belief system? What if they want low-maintenance children? I mean, what if they want to produce offspring that are self-sufficient to the point where the don't get sick and never need medical attention? It seems like leaving it "in God's hands" is a way to allow evolution and natural selection to run their course. When that happens, only the strong survive.

But really, it just seems stupid to ignore the whole idea of, "God helps those who help themselves," especially when we've got a decent grasp of the whole "medicine" thing.