That’s a quote from one of the stories quoted below (though the quote itself does not appear below).
These are five stories whose headlines caught my attention at CNS News this morning.
Individual Choices at Stake as Laws Take Effect
Gun owners with permits can carry concealed weapons into restaurants that serve alcohol in New Mexico and Virginia. Young and old alike must show proof of age when buying alcohol in Indiana. Georgia and Kentucky are hitting the delete key on texting while driving.
New laws taking effect Thursday reflect states’ ongoing debates over individual freedoms, touching on everything from smoking restrictions to measures seeking to fight crime.
Maybe you don’t live in a state where any of those apply. (I think I do.)
But here’s one for everyone:
Consumers Can Avoid Bank Fees with a Little Effort
A seemingly simple rule on debit card overdraft fees is making banking more complicated for millions of consumers.
Starting July 1, banks must get permission from customers before they can charge a fee for covering a debit card purchase or ATM withdrawal if there aren’t sufficient funds in the account. [...] If consumers elect to forgo overdraft coverage, banks stand to lose a large chunk of their income. [...]
To make up for the lost revenue, many banks are doing away with free checking, and adding monthly or quarterly maintenance fees. Consumers can often avoid these new fees, however, if they take steps like linking multiple accounts or arranging for direct deposit of their paychecks.
But that requires paying attention to correspondence from banks, and a lack of attention had a big role in creating the problem to begin with.
No wonder I’ve been getting that call-to-action screen every time I log in to online banking. I just keep brushing it off. I guess I should look into it more. I need to ask my bank if I can link accounts.
Now to think of a comment to transition you to the next story…. Oh, I know! Parents can avoid nagging children with a little effort. That’s a statement rich in alternate interpretations, but never mind that; here’s the story:
Liberal Group Threatens Lawsuit Against McDonald’s If It Doesn’t Stop Giving Toys to Children
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a liberal consumer advocacy organization, has announced it will sue McDonald’s unless the fast-food franchise stops using toys to market its “Happy Meals” to children.
“This morning, CSPI notified McDonald’s that we will file a lawsuit against the company unless it stops using toys to beguile young children,” said Executive Director Michael F. Jacobson, Ph.D., at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday.
“We contend that tempting kids with toys is unfair and deceptive both to kids who don’t understand the concept of advertising and to their parents who have to put up with their nagging children,” he said.
Whaddayaknow — protect parents from nagging children. 
Maybe this next story alludes to a better answer than keeping trinkets out of food.
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) on Tuesday introduced a bill to end corporal punishment in all public and private schools that receive federal funding or services. But at least two school districts, one in Tennessee and one in Texas, want to reinstate corporal punishment on campuses described by one city councilman as “war zones.”
“Twenty states still permit corporal punishment in public schools and studies indicate that this type of discipline has a negative effect on students,” McCarthy said in a statement released at a Capitol Hill press conference.
“This legislation (the “Ending Corporal Punishment in Schools Act”) amends the General Education Provisions Act so that no funds for programs administered by the Department of Education shall be made available to any educational agency or institution that has a policy or practice which allows school personnel to inflict corporal punishment on a student.”
Well, that much makes sense: You must use our money in ways we approve. If a school takes government funds, the government may have a say in how the school operates. Works for me.
But such a statement should cut both ways. Government agencies and personnel who use taxpayer funds shall use our money in ways we approve. Imagine that!
So…if such a law were in place…would Hillary Clinton be in trouble?
Hillary Clinton Urges State Department Employees to Let Teens Know It’s Okay to Be Homosexual
“We’ve come such a far distance in our own country, but there are still so many who need the outreach, need the mentoring, need the support to stand up and be who they are and then think about people in so many countries where it just seems impossible,” Clinton said.
“So I think that each and everyone of you, not only professionally, particularly from State and USAID and every bureau and every embassy and every part of our government have to do what you can to create that safe space, but also personally, to really look for those who might need a helping hand; particularly young people; particularly teenagers who still today have such a difficult time,” she added.
“And who, still in numbers far beyond what should ever happen, take their own life rather than live that life,” Clinton said at the event, billed as a human rights and U.S. foreign policy speech.
“So I would ask you to please think of ways you can be there for everyone who is making this journey,” Clinton said.
And there you be: five headlines/excerpts to introduce you to July 2010.
Now you know (more of) the rest of the story. Good day?
