I may have mentioned it before, but ever since 2006, it's been a dream of mine to run for City Council here in Chicago and be an Alderman. It all started on that fateful day when the Chicago City Council unanimously voted to ban the sale of foie gras after they were shown a shock video by PETA and asked to vote on this law.
The aftermath: Chicago was mocked by other cities, the ban was proved to be useless by restauranteurs, and even the Mayor said it was the "silliest law" until it was finally repealed two years later.
I made up my mind. I would run for Alderman just to make sure that SOMEONE on the Chicago City Council would be the voice of reason whenever PETA rolled around. I expanded my idea by wanting to be a city representative who could see both sides on an issue and be able to play Devil's Advocate - as well as to speak up when any alderman is (in my opinion) completely wrong.
This spread out into even more ideas about being a young member of City Council who could spruce up the webpage for our ward and respond to questions using YouTube and maybe do Ward Podcasts.
And then I found out in 2007 that I missed my chance to run. But I vowed that I would do everything in my power to run in 2011 and get my name on that ballot and - who knows - maybe even win a seat on the City Council of Chicago.
Every now and then since that day in 2007, I've tried to find out how the heck one even runs for public office - let alone run for City Council specifically. I've checked message boards, Googled the question, surfed and rummaged through the Chicago City website - and no definite results.
About a month ago, I started e-mailing. I sent e-mails out to any info e-mail address I could come across, asking the same questions, hoping that someone earning a government paycheck could point me in the right direction so that someday I might earn one as well.
Yesterday, I actually got a response.
Hi:
You will need to direct your email/inquiry to the Chicago Board of Elections. You can visit them on the web and obtain pertinent contact information at the url: http://www.chicagoelections.com
Thank you.
Office of the Chicago City Clerk
So I was getting closer. Somehow my searching hadn't pointed me to this site, probably due to the keywords I was using. So I searched and found nothing to answer my question. But there was yet another e-mail address to query, and query I did.
And that same day, I got a response from someone at the Chicago Elections website.
Dear Voter,
Please note that we will be posting information on the 2011 election cycle on at chicagoelections.com under the "for candidates" section in coming weeks. However, the information that we post and the information below is all subject to change with any new legislation in Springfield or rulings in court cases.
----------
Any potential candidate is advised to consult with the Illinois Compiled Statutes, the Election Code, the Municipal Code as well as an attorney who is well versed in election law and related case law. This is intended to be general information and not a legal opinion, as the Board cannot provide legal advice to candidates or potential candidates for two reasons: (1) the Board determines the legality of candidates' nominating petitions; and (2) state laws are subject to change. With those caveats, the basic qualifications for appearing on the ballot to run for alderman in the City of Chicago are that the candidate: (1) be an elector (registered voter, 18 years or older and a U.S. citizen) who has resided in the ward for at least one year prior to election; (2) be in compliance with all other restrictions/requirements under Illinois law, which include, but are not limited to: having submitted a petition with sufficient valid signatures of qualified electors from that ward; not having been convicted of a felony; ot having any outstanding fines, penalties or debts to the municipality; and having completed other necessary paperwork, such as the petition, statement of candidacy, ethics filings, etc. For more information, prospective campaigns are strongly advised to review all relevant statutes ( http://www.ilga.gov/ ) and strongly advised to consult with an attorney who is versed in the Election Code.
----------------------
State laws may change between now and the filing, and the numbers of signatures needed will be determined, under current law, based on the results in the 2010 election cycle. With those caveats, we have attached the 2007 Election Calendar, which lists documentation rules that were in effect for that 2007 election -- solely for reference purposes. Please note that the Election Board will be updating its web site to include information on the 2011 Municipal Elections in the months after the Primary Election. We hope this information is helpful and thank you for the opportunity to be of assistance.
Communications
Board of Election Commissioners for the City of Chicago
69 West Washington Street, Suites 600/800
Chicago, Illinois 60602
So now I have more of an answer and I can begin preparations. The document had a lot of random information, but there are pieces I can ascertain based on what lies within.
For the 2007 Elections:
September 19, 2006: First day to circulate for signature candidate nominating petitions for the offices of Mayor, Clerk, Treasurer and Alderman.
December 11, 2006: First day to file candidate nomination papers for the offices of Mayor, Clerk, Treasurer and Alderman with the Board of Election Commissioners.
December 18, 2006: Last day to file candidate nomination papers for the offices of Mayor, Clerk, Treasurer and Alderman with the Board of Election Commissioners.
December 26, 2006: Last day to file objections to candidate nomination papers for the offices of Mayor, Clerk, Treasurer and Alderman for the February 27, 2007 Municipal General Election. File in the office of the Board of Election Commissioners.
February 7, 2007: Last day for candidates for the office of Alderman to withdraw as a candidate. File in the office of the Board of Election Commissioners.
February 27, 2007: MUNICIPAL GENERAL ELECTION for the offices of Mayor, Clerk, Treasurer for the City of Chicago and for the office of Alderman in all wards of the City of Chicago. Polling places are open from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
So there you have it. Sometime in June of 2010 they will be posting this document regarding the February 2011 elections. I'll be able to officially start my campaign to collect signatures in September, and if I hit the right number by December, I'm in (unless the encumbent goes all lawyer on me and objects to me being on the ballot). If I make it on and it causes me such grief that I want to get the hell out of there, I've got over a month afterwards to figure it out. (Unlikely!) And then in February it all goes down!
So how many signatures do I need?
See "Table A: Minimum Signature Required on Aldermanic Nominating Petitions - City of Chicago"
Basically by ward, they tally up the total votes from the previous municipal election (in this case, 2007) and they take 2% of that number (and round up) and that's the number of signatures I'll need to get.
So if in February 2003, my ward had a total of 12,518 votes placed, in order to get on the ballot for February 2007 I would need (2% of 12,518 = 250.36) signatures from 251 registered voters.
I do believe the numbers for the February 2007 elections show my ward having cast 9,861 votes - ergo I should only need to get 198 petition signatures!
This is it, folks. I'm excited!
More to come as I wait for the process to finally begin - or if I get some cool comments/questions to answer that would warrant more Prologue to the story before my campaign even becomes official.
So ask me some questions! Show me support! Just leave a comment!
And then Digg this article!
Read more!
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Monday, March 08, 2010
The Consensus on Cons in the Census
The 2010 Census is now in progress, with cities trying to tally up every single person at every single address possible in order to maximize the rewards in the end. After all, the states with the most population get the most representation in Washington D.C. and the cities with the most people get the most funding for public services.
So Mayor Rudy Clay of Gary, Indiana brings up an interesting point (by way of proposed legislation, of course) in that he wants the residents of Gary who are incarcerated outside of the city to count on the census for Gary instead of the location of their enprisonment.
Who should get to claim a prisoner on the census - the prison city or the prisoner's non-prison address city?
According to the news story that brought this to my attention, "Some civil rights advocates and municipal leaders argue that the current way inmates are counted gives prison towns an unfair advantage in census counts."
So let's look at it this way - who should be benefitting with the bonus public funds and votes in the Capitol?
The benefactor city would receive funding for:
•Hospitals
I'm pretty sure that prisons have their own hospitals on-suite. I would admit that there are likely situations that require a convict to go to a REAL hospital, but I think they are too few and far-between to say that every inmate should count towards funds for a hospital of which they are not likely going to be a patient.
•Job training centers
Again, prisons do this on-site. For jobs like license-plate-making (although it's not really training if the industry diesn't exist OUTSIDE prison) or maybe librarian? I'm guessing a lot of lawyer training for all those convicts reading law books and making appeals themselves?
•Schools
I don't really see the population of convicted felons having a single thing to do with schools. Maybe their children. Who are not in prison (hopefully), and therefore still residing for the census in their hometown.
•Senior centers
While I'm sure there are prisoners above the age of 65, I doubt they get free reign to visit the senior centers outside of the prison walls.
•Bridges, tunnels and other-public works projects
Let's avoid using prisoners for any kind of "tunnel budget", okay?
•Emergency services
I'm guessing these services include the police and fire departments, who likely are the ones catching the guys who wind up in prison. Having them already in prison doesn't seem like much of a reason to get extra police officers, except for the offchance of an escape. In which case you'd want some extra police officers. And firefighters, if the escapee is an arsonist. And medical personnel in ambulances if the escapee is a violent criminal.
Census information affects the numbers of seats your state occupies in the U.S. House of Representatives
Well, if the argument is "we have more voters, we need their weight to be adequately represented as such in Washington D.C., then it's almost a moot point. Convicted felons don't get to vote at all in like 12 states. True, some states are more lenient (and 2 let convicted felons vote, even while in prison), but again this seems like a strange line to cross.
Census data is also used to advocate for causes, rescue disaster victims, prevent diseases, research markets, locate pools of skilled workers and more
I'm not really sure how the "in jail" population fits into market research or the job market or disaster/disease networks. I'm inclined to lean more towards the prison for the health reasons and the hometown city for the market reasons.
All in all, it seems that for most of the funding benefits, the city of the prison would be getting the lion's share even though a small minority of the census population would be reaping those benefits. On the other hand, there's not much you can say about those services being used "more" by the prisoners in their hometown, either.
I think my solution is that since the census is done every 10 years, every felon with less than 10 years left on their sentence should be counted at home and more than 10 years left should be counted in prison.
That way, prisoners who are released and most likely to wind up back in their hometown before the next census would be counted towards the funds for their hometown during these next 10 years. Those who will be stuck in jail for the next 10 years, they can be counted for the prison's city that will be housing and providing services for them for certain for those 10 years.
That's my idea, anyway. What do you think? Should prisoners be counted towards Hometown or The Big House? Leave a comment and let me know!
And then Digg this article!
Read more!
So Mayor Rudy Clay of Gary, Indiana brings up an interesting point (by way of proposed legislation, of course) in that he wants the residents of Gary who are incarcerated outside of the city to count on the census for Gary instead of the location of their enprisonment.
Who should get to claim a prisoner on the census - the prison city or the prisoner's non-prison address city?
According to the news story that brought this to my attention, "Some civil rights advocates and municipal leaders argue that the current way inmates are counted gives prison towns an unfair advantage in census counts."
So let's look at it this way - who should be benefitting with the bonus public funds and votes in the Capitol?
The benefactor city would receive funding for:
•Hospitals
I'm pretty sure that prisons have their own hospitals on-suite. I would admit that there are likely situations that require a convict to go to a REAL hospital, but I think they are too few and far-between to say that every inmate should count towards funds for a hospital of which they are not likely going to be a patient.
•Job training centers
Again, prisons do this on-site. For jobs like license-plate-making (although it's not really training if the industry diesn't exist OUTSIDE prison) or maybe librarian? I'm guessing a lot of lawyer training for all those convicts reading law books and making appeals themselves?
•Schools
I don't really see the population of convicted felons having a single thing to do with schools. Maybe their children. Who are not in prison (hopefully), and therefore still residing for the census in their hometown.
•Senior centers
While I'm sure there are prisoners above the age of 65, I doubt they get free reign to visit the senior centers outside of the prison walls.
•Bridges, tunnels and other-public works projects
Let's avoid using prisoners for any kind of "tunnel budget", okay?
•Emergency services
I'm guessing these services include the police and fire departments, who likely are the ones catching the guys who wind up in prison. Having them already in prison doesn't seem like much of a reason to get extra police officers, except for the offchance of an escape. In which case you'd want some extra police officers. And firefighters, if the escapee is an arsonist. And medical personnel in ambulances if the escapee is a violent criminal.
Census information affects the numbers of seats your state occupies in the U.S. House of Representatives
Well, if the argument is "we have more voters, we need their weight to be adequately represented as such in Washington D.C., then it's almost a moot point. Convicted felons don't get to vote at all in like 12 states. True, some states are more lenient (and 2 let convicted felons vote, even while in prison), but again this seems like a strange line to cross.
Census data is also used to advocate for causes, rescue disaster victims, prevent diseases, research markets, locate pools of skilled workers and more
I'm not really sure how the "in jail" population fits into market research or the job market or disaster/disease networks. I'm inclined to lean more towards the prison for the health reasons and the hometown city for the market reasons.
All in all, it seems that for most of the funding benefits, the city of the prison would be getting the lion's share even though a small minority of the census population would be reaping those benefits. On the other hand, there's not much you can say about those services being used "more" by the prisoners in their hometown, either.
I think my solution is that since the census is done every 10 years, every felon with less than 10 years left on their sentence should be counted at home and more than 10 years left should be counted in prison.
That way, prisoners who are released and most likely to wind up back in their hometown before the next census would be counted towards the funds for their hometown during these next 10 years. Those who will be stuck in jail for the next 10 years, they can be counted for the prison's city that will be housing and providing services for them for certain for those 10 years.
That's my idea, anyway. What do you think? Should prisoners be counted towards Hometown or The Big House? Leave a comment and let me know!
And then Digg this article!
Read more!
Thursday, March 04, 2010
The FDA and Misleading Labels
I eventually plan on writing a long series of FDA-related posts, but for now I will settle with this news article about how the FDA has sent official warnings to 17 different food companies about misleading claims on the labels of their products, including threats to take further action (including product seizure) if they don't correct the labels.
While it's a nice idea to try and "protect the public" from misleading labels, in most cases the public should be able to defend themselves and the corrections can be just as misleading thanks to the FDA's twisted logic.
Of course, this is the governmental organization that thinks the serving size of Fig Newtons is "2 cookies", ice cream is eaten by the "1/2 cup" and a normal person will eat HALF of a ramen packet for a meal and save the other half for later.
I'm partially torn on the issue. On the one hand, people are generally idiots and usually (1) don't care about the nutrition info and just want to buy tasty food, (2) are easily swayed by the label when choosing a product and don't bother with real nutritional info or (3) bother to check the nutritional info but "abuse" the servings and overeat.
Those in Group 2 are the people who the FDA is trying to "protect" with this crackdown on misleading labels by citing their guidelines and the company's failure to adhere to them by improperly using certain words on the label.
Now while I both loathe the coddling of those who deserve what their idiocy brings them as well as the government forcing their rules on the free market and making it less free - I do agree that false advertising is just plain wrong and I applaud the FDA for cracking down on falseties in the advertising on the labels of these food products.
On that other hand, though - the FDA has some pretty frickin' insane rules. Insane that they made the rule in the first place, insane that the rules have so many stipulations, and insane that the stipulations in and of themselves sometimes make the rule pointless.
Just to give you an idea, one of the companies that was targeted for mislabeling was Ken's Foods, Inc. for their salad dressing line called "Ken's Healthy Options™". The crime? The content claim of "healthy". Here's what the FDA requires in order for a company to put the word "healthy" on their product label:
To bear the nutrient content claim "healthy," a food such as a salad dressing: (1) must be "low fat" as defined in 21 CFR 101.62(b)(2) (total fat content of 3 g or less per Reference Amount Customarily Consumed (RACC) and per 50 g of food); (2) must be "low saturated fat" is defined in 21 CFR 101.62(c)(2) (saturated fat content of 1 g or less per RACC and no more than 15 percent of calories from saturated fat); (3) must not exceed the disclosure level for cholesterol set forth in 21 CFR 101.13(h) (60 mg cholesterol per 50 g of food); (4) must contain no more than 480 mg sodium per 50 g of food (21 CFR 101.65(d)(2)(ii)(B)); and (5) must contain at least 10 % of the Daily Value per RACC of one or more of the following nutrients: vitamin A, vitamin C, calcium, iron, protein, and fiber (21 CFR 101.65(d)(2)(i)).
Ken's "healthy" salad dressing options apparently exceed the 3 g of fat per 50 g of food maximum in the "low fat" definition and do not not contain 10% of the Daily Value of at least one of thosee nutrients. And that's the definition of "healthy"!
Another letter recipient was Spectrum Organic Products, Inc. for their product called "Organic All Vegetable Shortening". Sadly, the violation was not regarding the "organic" label (which is a hilarious can of worms to open) but the fact that the label says it is "cholesterol free".
The term "cholesterol free" may be used on the label or in the labeling of a food with a Reference Amount Customarily Consumed (RACC) of two (2) tablespoons or less that contains more than 13 g of total fat per 50 g only if the following criteria, set forth in 21 CFR 101.62(d)(1)(ii), are met: (1) the food contains less than 2 mg of cholesterol per RACC and per labeled serving; (2) the food contains no ingredient that is generally understood by consumers to contain cholesterol; (3) the food contains 2 g or less of saturated fatty acids per RACC; and (4) the label or labeling discloses the level of total fat in a serving (as declared on the label) of the food.
The shortening exceeds the maximum 13g of fat per 50g of product and also exceeds the maximum 2g of saturated fatty acids per RACC. But did you notice that a product is cool with the FDA to say they are "cholesterol free" even if it contains 1.9mg of cholesterol per RACC? That's the FDA for you!
In the "totally deserves it" category for the FDA calling out a company's falsehoods - POM Wonderful got a very long letter basically chastizing them for claims made on their website (included on the label).
"The therapeutic claims on your website establish that the product is a drug because it is intended for use in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease. The marketing of this product with these claims violates [the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act]."
Even worse is the fact that in additional to blurring the line between food and drug, the product fails to meet EITHER label, as the letter itemizes how POM Wonderful is misbranded as a food (claiming a high level of a nutrient that doesn't even have a Recommended Daily Intake) AND misbranded as a drug (saying they treat diseases means they are a drug but they don't provide adequate directions for use).
I could go on. These are just 3 of the 17 company letters that were sent out, including one to Gorton's, Inc. for their Gorton's Fish Fillets and to Dreyer's Ice Cream Inc. for some products of theirs for advertising "0 grams trans fat" but not also notifying the consumer to "See nutrition information for fat and saturated fat content". Which apparently is part of the FDA's rule about saying your product contains no trans fat...?
So back to my original point - I'm not sure whether to applaud or boo at the FDA for these letters. Sure, according to the Federal Law, their products were in violation due to improper labels. But what does any of it mean? The Pompeian, Inc. company got hit because of the usage of the word "light" on their bottles of "Pompeian Imported Extra Light Olive Oil" - but Frank Patton, the company's president, said the label should have said "Extra Light Tasting Olive Oil" and that it was a printing error, which he intends to correct when the next labels are printed.
So the FDA only cares about a product using the term "light" as long as it's not followed by the word "tasting"? How does that protect consumer Debbie Dumbass who sees the word "light" and couldn't give a damn what the rest of the label says? Am I allowed to market a line of ice creams that say "Fat-Free Tasting Ice Cream" and rake in the money from people who see the words "fat free" and couldn't be bothered to do the legwork and investigate the nutritional info to see that I use extra lard for that "perfect fat free taste"?
What the hell does "Extra Light" taste like, anyway? It's OLIVE OIL! Are there seriously taste testers guzzling shots of olive oil and checking off the "tastes like 'extra light'" box instead of the "tastes like 'light'" or "tastes like my arteries are clogging" boxes?
(Note to self: "Uncle Aaron's Artery-Cloggin' Tasting Olive Oil" will likely not sell well in today's marketplace.)
In the end, I think I'm still on the fence. I like to think that the free market should decide what is or isn't appropriate marketing for products and that the government should butt out. But I'm also sick and tired of Debbie Dumbass suing large corporations because a nightly cup of their "Extra Light" olive oil still made her fat despite claims of being "Extra Light". In these cases, I'm glad that the FDA can nip these in the bud by having companies adhere to these nonsense laws.
So if I had to choose, I'd be forced to tip my hat to the FDA. Their laws may be nonsensical and outdated, but at least they're helping to curb the frivolous dumbass lawsuit population.
What do you think? Do you approve or disapprove of the FDA and these letters? Leave a comment and let me know!
And then Digg this article!
Read more!
While it's a nice idea to try and "protect the public" from misleading labels, in most cases the public should be able to defend themselves and the corrections can be just as misleading thanks to the FDA's twisted logic.
Of course, this is the governmental organization that thinks the serving size of Fig Newtons is "2 cookies", ice cream is eaten by the "1/2 cup" and a normal person will eat HALF of a ramen packet for a meal and save the other half for later.
I'm partially torn on the issue. On the one hand, people are generally idiots and usually (1) don't care about the nutrition info and just want to buy tasty food, (2) are easily swayed by the label when choosing a product and don't bother with real nutritional info or (3) bother to check the nutritional info but "abuse" the servings and overeat.
Those in Group 2 are the people who the FDA is trying to "protect" with this crackdown on misleading labels by citing their guidelines and the company's failure to adhere to them by improperly using certain words on the label.
Now while I both loathe the coddling of those who deserve what their idiocy brings them as well as the government forcing their rules on the free market and making it less free - I do agree that false advertising is just plain wrong and I applaud the FDA for cracking down on falseties in the advertising on the labels of these food products.
On that other hand, though - the FDA has some pretty frickin' insane rules. Insane that they made the rule in the first place, insane that the rules have so many stipulations, and insane that the stipulations in and of themselves sometimes make the rule pointless.
Just to give you an idea, one of the companies that was targeted for mislabeling was Ken's Foods, Inc. for their salad dressing line called "Ken's Healthy Options™". The crime? The content claim of "healthy". Here's what the FDA requires in order for a company to put the word "healthy" on their product label:
To bear the nutrient content claim "healthy," a food such as a salad dressing: (1) must be "low fat" as defined in 21 CFR 101.62(b)(2) (total fat content of 3 g or less per Reference Amount Customarily Consumed (RACC) and per 50 g of food); (2) must be "low saturated fat" is defined in 21 CFR 101.62(c)(2) (saturated fat content of 1 g or less per RACC and no more than 15 percent of calories from saturated fat); (3) must not exceed the disclosure level for cholesterol set forth in 21 CFR 101.13(h) (60 mg cholesterol per 50 g of food); (4) must contain no more than 480 mg sodium per 50 g of food (21 CFR 101.65(d)(2)(ii)(B)); and (5) must contain at least 10 % of the Daily Value per RACC of one or more of the following nutrients: vitamin A, vitamin C, calcium, iron, protein, and fiber (21 CFR 101.65(d)(2)(i)).
Ken's "healthy" salad dressing options apparently exceed the 3 g of fat per 50 g of food maximum in the "low fat" definition and do not not contain 10% of the Daily Value of at least one of thosee nutrients. And that's the definition of "healthy"!
Another letter recipient was Spectrum Organic Products, Inc. for their product called "Organic All Vegetable Shortening". Sadly, the violation was not regarding the "organic" label (which is a hilarious can of worms to open) but the fact that the label says it is "cholesterol free".
The term "cholesterol free" may be used on the label or in the labeling of a food with a Reference Amount Customarily Consumed (RACC) of two (2) tablespoons or less that contains more than 13 g of total fat per 50 g only if the following criteria, set forth in 21 CFR 101.62(d)(1)(ii), are met: (1) the food contains less than 2 mg of cholesterol per RACC and per labeled serving; (2) the food contains no ingredient that is generally understood by consumers to contain cholesterol; (3) the food contains 2 g or less of saturated fatty acids per RACC; and (4) the label or labeling discloses the level of total fat in a serving (as declared on the label) of the food.
The shortening exceeds the maximum 13g of fat per 50g of product and also exceeds the maximum 2g of saturated fatty acids per RACC. But did you notice that a product is cool with the FDA to say they are "cholesterol free" even if it contains 1.9mg of cholesterol per RACC? That's the FDA for you!
In the "totally deserves it" category for the FDA calling out a company's falsehoods - POM Wonderful got a very long letter basically chastizing them for claims made on their website (included on the label).
"The therapeutic claims on your website establish that the product is a drug because it is intended for use in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease. The marketing of this product with these claims violates [the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act]."
Even worse is the fact that in additional to blurring the line between food and drug, the product fails to meet EITHER label, as the letter itemizes how POM Wonderful is misbranded as a food (claiming a high level of a nutrient that doesn't even have a Recommended Daily Intake) AND misbranded as a drug (saying they treat diseases means they are a drug but they don't provide adequate directions for use).
I could go on. These are just 3 of the 17 company letters that were sent out, including one to Gorton's, Inc. for their Gorton's Fish Fillets and to Dreyer's Ice Cream Inc. for some products of theirs for advertising "0 grams trans fat" but not also notifying the consumer to "See nutrition information for fat and saturated fat content". Which apparently is part of the FDA's rule about saying your product contains no trans fat...?
So back to my original point - I'm not sure whether to applaud or boo at the FDA for these letters. Sure, according to the Federal Law, their products were in violation due to improper labels. But what does any of it mean? The Pompeian, Inc. company got hit because of the usage of the word "light" on their bottles of "Pompeian Imported Extra Light Olive Oil" - but Frank Patton, the company's president, said the label should have said "Extra Light Tasting Olive Oil" and that it was a printing error, which he intends to correct when the next labels are printed.
So the FDA only cares about a product using the term "light" as long as it's not followed by the word "tasting"? How does that protect consumer Debbie Dumbass who sees the word "light" and couldn't give a damn what the rest of the label says? Am I allowed to market a line of ice creams that say "Fat-Free Tasting Ice Cream" and rake in the money from people who see the words "fat free" and couldn't be bothered to do the legwork and investigate the nutritional info to see that I use extra lard for that "perfect fat free taste"?
What the hell does "Extra Light" taste like, anyway? It's OLIVE OIL! Are there seriously taste testers guzzling shots of olive oil and checking off the "tastes like 'extra light'" box instead of the "tastes like 'light'" or "tastes like my arteries are clogging" boxes?
(Note to self: "Uncle Aaron's Artery-Cloggin' Tasting Olive Oil" will likely not sell well in today's marketplace.)
In the end, I think I'm still on the fence. I like to think that the free market should decide what is or isn't appropriate marketing for products and that the government should butt out. But I'm also sick and tired of Debbie Dumbass suing large corporations because a nightly cup of their "Extra Light" olive oil still made her fat despite claims of being "Extra Light". In these cases, I'm glad that the FDA can nip these in the bud by having companies adhere to these nonsense laws.
So if I had to choose, I'd be forced to tip my hat to the FDA. Their laws may be nonsensical and outdated, but at least they're helping to curb the frivolous dumbass lawsuit population.
What do you think? Do you approve or disapprove of the FDA and these letters? Leave a comment and let me know!
And then Digg this article!
Read more!
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Fact of the Day - February 4, 2010
Worst. Handgun. Ever.
And pay no attention to the candy corn bullets.
But it is true that the federal government gets 10% of all the money from handgun (pistol and revolver) sales and 11% of all the money from all other guns and ammunition sales.
The Tax and Trade Bureau Website
Maybe one day the originals will be worth something. That's why I'm making sure to date and sign them all now.
Well, maybe you'll see another fact tomorrow! Feel free to post things you'd like to see facts about. Like weird laws in your city/state, or maybe an animal you'd like to know more about. Or just let me keep picking things at random - whatever!
Friday, July 04, 2008
4th of July Letter to my Neighborhood
Dear Neighborhood,
I realize that this is the beginning of a 3-day-weekend celebrating the Fourth of July and our nation's glorious independance from a tyrannical oppressive country who is now actually being referred to by many borderline-journalists as the "Nanny State". I realize that this is the metaphorical equivelant of leaving Mommy's nest and celebrating by throwing a huge party that serves no purpose other than "let's break all the rules that have brought us down, regardless of the fact that some of those rules may have been put in place to keep us alive and/or healthy." I realize that this weekend is also another reason to grill hamburgers and/or drink beer for the simple reason of "it's nice enough to grill hamburgers and/or I enjoy drinking beer." I realize all of those things and despite my acknowledgement, something still needs to be said:
For fuck's sake - stop it with your half-assed fireworks.
For those of you who are not familiar with the concept of "fireworks", let me start off by saying that there are basically two kinds of fireworks in the world: real fireworks and fake fireworks.
Technically, the government sees more than two kinds, but all of their classifications still manage to separate these two groups of explosives from each other. Oftentimes I look to Wikipedia for help in these matters, and it certainly has not let me down today.
The U.S. government now uses the United Nations explosives shipping classification system. This new system is based on hazard in shipping only, vs. the old USA system of both shipping and use hazards. The BATF and most states performed a direct substitution of Shipping Class 1.3 for Class B, and Shipping Class 1.4 for Class C. This allows some hazardous items that would have previously been classified as Class B and regulated to be classified as Shipping Class 1.4 due to some packaging method that confines any explosion to the package. Being Shipping Class 1.4, they can now be sold to the general public and are unregulated by the BATF.
So what are these two categories (other than my previous description of real and fake)?
Class 1.3G (Fire, Minor Blast:Pyrotechnics) UN0335 Fireworks (Most Display Fireworks) Current federal law states that (without appropriate ATF license/permit) the possession or sale of any display/professional fireworks is a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison. Although some large firecraker items may be called "M-80's", "M-1000's", "Cherry bombs" or "Silver Salutes" by the manufacturer, they must contain less than 50-milligrams of flash or other explosive powder in order to be legally sold to consumers in the United States.
* any ground salute device with over 50 milligrams of explosive composition
* torpedoes (except for railroad signaling use)
* multi-tube devices containing over 500 grams of pyrotechnic composition and without 1/2" space between each tube
* any multiple tube fountains with over 500 grams of pyrotechnic composition and without 1/2" space between each tube
* any reloadable aerial shells over 1.75" diameter
* display shells
* any single-shot or reloadable aerial shell/mine/comet/tube with over 60 grams of pyrotechnic composition
* any Roman candle or rocket with over 20 grams of pyrotechnic composition
* any aerial salute with over 130 milligrams of explosive composition
Class 1.4G (Minor Explosion Hazard Confined To Package:Pyrotechnics) UN0336 Fireworks (Consumer or Common Fireworks) Most popular consumer fireworks sold in the US.
* reloadable aerial shells 1.75" or less sold in a box with not more than 12 shells and one launching tube
* single-shot aerial tubes
* bottle rockets
* skyrockets and missiles
* ground spinners, pinwheels and helicopters
* flares & fountains
* Roman candles
* smoke and novelty items
* multi-shot aerial devices, or "cakes"
* firecracker packs
* sparklers
* Catherine wheel
* black snakes and strobes
Do you see the difference? DO YOU??
Your goddamned little bottle rockets and novelty crap do not deserve to be spoken of in the same breath as REAL fireworks than actually DO STUFF. When I hear the obnoxious sounds of *peeeeeewwwwww* *pop*, I do not go rushing outside so that I don't miss the grand finale of your performance. Because you haven't lit a REAL FIREWORK. Which means you're performing noise pollution and also seemingly dropping the IQ and property value of a 50-yard radius by about 5%.
Actually, there's one category of "fake fireworks" that I will allow as a substitute "real firework" as a token of good faith - SPARKLERS.
While some of you may misconstrue that as my admittance to being a "nansy-pansy" or other disrespectful made-up word, it is not. I am simply recognizing the sparkler as the best commercially-available substitute for a real firework for one main reason:
It looks pretty.
It you took your family to the park to watch a real fireworks show, the real reason you'd be watching it is because it's something to WATCH. The Japanese word for firework - hanabi - translates to "fire flower" because fireworks are as pretty as a flower and also made of fire. While occasionally there is an audible aspect to the fireworks show, like the sizzling crackle of a time-rain firework, it's not what makes the firework great. If you were deaf, you could still enjoy the fireworks show for what it is.
If you were deaf and in my neighborhood, all you would see is a bunch of people rushing around something and then there's some smoke. Occasionally you'd see a roman candle and a little ball of fire or two. Maybe someone went the extra mile and got a pinwheel that sparks around - if you were within 5 meters to see it during the 10 seconds it was spinning. But you'd still be able to enjoy a sparkler - a miniature barely-harmful version of the massive real fireworks.
Oh, and one more thing I'd like to say to you, my neighborhood:
IT'S NOT EVEN 3PM!!!
You know why nobody has fireworks shows in the daytime? BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SEE THEM!!! So why in the name of all that is good and holy and chocolate-covered would you waste your purchases at this ungodly hour (unless you are a sun-worshipper, in which case it could be considered a godly hour) when nobody can see your barely-visible fake firework??
It's not even late enough in the afternoon for those of us who enjoy beer to have a buzz moderate enough to find your antics enjoyable!
So please, do the world (and especially the neighborhood) a favor and go the fuck inside and watch something on TV instead of annoying your neighbors and whatever that quip was that I made about lowering IQs and property values. The least you can do is wait until the sun gets the hell out of here (sorry, sun-worshippers) and then there might be a modicum of enjoyment in whatever it is you're pitifully making explode.
Plus, there's the added benefit that maybe it'll be dark enough for you to misjudge something and hurt yourself in the process. Darwin and future generations would applaud it.
Now let me get back to my burgers and beer.
Yours Truly,
Your pissed-off neighbor
P.S.: This is my open invitation of comments in agreeance, as well as an open forum for those of you who think firecrackers are the cat's pajamas to defend your inalienable right to make an ass of yourself by waking up your neighbors who finally had one day to sleep in.
(Thanks, Wikipedia!) Read more!
I realize that this is the beginning of a 3-day-weekend celebrating the Fourth of July and our nation's glorious independance from a tyrannical oppressive country who is now actually being referred to by many borderline-journalists as the "Nanny State". I realize that this is the metaphorical equivelant of leaving Mommy's nest and celebrating by throwing a huge party that serves no purpose other than "let's break all the rules that have brought us down, regardless of the fact that some of those rules may have been put in place to keep us alive and/or healthy." I realize that this weekend is also another reason to grill hamburgers and/or drink beer for the simple reason of "it's nice enough to grill hamburgers and/or I enjoy drinking beer." I realize all of those things and despite my acknowledgement, something still needs to be said:
For fuck's sake - stop it with your half-assed fireworks.
For those of you who are not familiar with the concept of "fireworks", let me start off by saying that there are basically two kinds of fireworks in the world: real fireworks and fake fireworks.
Technically, the government sees more than two kinds, but all of their classifications still manage to separate these two groups of explosives from each other. Oftentimes I look to Wikipedia for help in these matters, and it certainly has not let me down today.
The U.S. government now uses the United Nations explosives shipping classification system. This new system is based on hazard in shipping only, vs. the old USA system of both shipping and use hazards. The BATF and most states performed a direct substitution of Shipping Class 1.3 for Class B, and Shipping Class 1.4 for Class C. This allows some hazardous items that would have previously been classified as Class B and regulated to be classified as Shipping Class 1.4 due to some packaging method that confines any explosion to the package. Being Shipping Class 1.4, they can now be sold to the general public and are unregulated by the BATF.
So what are these two categories (other than my previous description of real and fake)?
Class 1.3G (Fire, Minor Blast:Pyrotechnics) UN0335 Fireworks (Most Display Fireworks) Current federal law states that (without appropriate ATF license/permit) the possession or sale of any display/professional fireworks is a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison. Although some large firecraker items may be called "M-80's", "M-1000's", "Cherry bombs" or "Silver Salutes" by the manufacturer, they must contain less than 50-milligrams of flash or other explosive powder in order to be legally sold to consumers in the United States.
* any ground salute device with over 50 milligrams of explosive composition
* torpedoes (except for railroad signaling use)
* multi-tube devices containing over 500 grams of pyrotechnic composition and without 1/2" space between each tube
* any multiple tube fountains with over 500 grams of pyrotechnic composition and without 1/2" space between each tube
* any reloadable aerial shells over 1.75" diameter
* display shells
* any single-shot or reloadable aerial shell/mine/comet/tube with over 60 grams of pyrotechnic composition
* any Roman candle or rocket with over 20 grams of pyrotechnic composition
* any aerial salute with over 130 milligrams of explosive composition
Class 1.4G (Minor Explosion Hazard Confined To Package:Pyrotechnics) UN0336 Fireworks (Consumer or Common Fireworks) Most popular consumer fireworks sold in the US.
* reloadable aerial shells 1.75" or less sold in a box with not more than 12 shells and one launching tube
* single-shot aerial tubes
* bottle rockets
* skyrockets and missiles
* ground spinners, pinwheels and helicopters
* flares & fountains
* Roman candles
* smoke and novelty items
* multi-shot aerial devices, or "cakes"
* firecracker packs
* sparklers
* Catherine wheel
* black snakes and strobes
Do you see the difference? DO YOU??
Your goddamned little bottle rockets and novelty crap do not deserve to be spoken of in the same breath as REAL fireworks than actually DO STUFF. When I hear the obnoxious sounds of *peeeeeewwwwww* *pop*, I do not go rushing outside so that I don't miss the grand finale of your performance. Because you haven't lit a REAL FIREWORK. Which means you're performing noise pollution and also seemingly dropping the IQ and property value of a 50-yard radius by about 5%.
Actually, there's one category of "fake fireworks" that I will allow as a substitute "real firework" as a token of good faith - SPARKLERS.
While some of you may misconstrue that as my admittance to being a "nansy-pansy" or other disrespectful made-up word, it is not. I am simply recognizing the sparkler as the best commercially-available substitute for a real firework for one main reason:
It looks pretty.
It you took your family to the park to watch a real fireworks show, the real reason you'd be watching it is because it's something to WATCH. The Japanese word for firework - hanabi - translates to "fire flower" because fireworks are as pretty as a flower and also made of fire. While occasionally there is an audible aspect to the fireworks show, like the sizzling crackle of a time-rain firework, it's not what makes the firework great. If you were deaf, you could still enjoy the fireworks show for what it is.
If you were deaf and in my neighborhood, all you would see is a bunch of people rushing around something and then there's some smoke. Occasionally you'd see a roman candle and a little ball of fire or two. Maybe someone went the extra mile and got a pinwheel that sparks around - if you were within 5 meters to see it during the 10 seconds it was spinning. But you'd still be able to enjoy a sparkler - a miniature barely-harmful version of the massive real fireworks.
Oh, and one more thing I'd like to say to you, my neighborhood:
IT'S NOT EVEN 3PM!!!
You know why nobody has fireworks shows in the daytime? BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SEE THEM!!! So why in the name of all that is good and holy and chocolate-covered would you waste your purchases at this ungodly hour (unless you are a sun-worshipper, in which case it could be considered a godly hour) when nobody can see your barely-visible fake firework??
It's not even late enough in the afternoon for those of us who enjoy beer to have a buzz moderate enough to find your antics enjoyable!
So please, do the world (and especially the neighborhood) a favor and go the fuck inside and watch something on TV instead of annoying your neighbors and whatever that quip was that I made about lowering IQs and property values. The least you can do is wait until the sun gets the hell out of here (sorry, sun-worshippers) and then there might be a modicum of enjoyment in whatever it is you're pitifully making explode.
Plus, there's the added benefit that maybe it'll be dark enough for you to misjudge something and hurt yourself in the process. Darwin and future generations would applaud it.
Now let me get back to my burgers and beer.
Yours Truly,
Your pissed-off neighbor
P.S.: This is my open invitation of comments in agreeance, as well as an open forum for those of you who think firecrackers are the cat's pajamas to defend your inalienable right to make an ass of yourself by waking up your neighbors who finally had one day to sleep in.
(Thanks, Wikipedia!) Read more!
Monday, June 09, 2008
School Allergies
When it comes to allergies, it seems that very few people are unaffected. We all at the very least know SOMEONE with an allergy if we ourselves fall into the rare category of "no known allergies" (since it's impossible to be 100% sure). More often than not, these victims of allergies are children - with the list of allergens growing larger and larger as more and more children are having reactions.
But where do we draw the line? Who is supposed to have the freedoms?
I speak, of course, regarding the widespread "allergy bans" going on in schools today. With the number of children needing to carry epinephrine just in case of a reaction during the school day, at what point does the matter become one for the schools themselves or even the government to make a ruling to force the schools to take action?
Frankly, I'm asking you.
This isn't one of my usual musings followed by my opinion that certainly leads in one direction and mocks anyone going the other direction. At best, I can attempt to mock both directions, since I don't know which side of the fence I'm leaning.
On the one hand, there are now millions of children who are deathly allergic to common items. In fact, eight foods account for 90% of all allergic reactions — peanuts, tree nuts, milk, eggs, fish, shellfish, soy and wheat. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition says food allergies lead to 150 deaths, 30,000 emergency room visits and 2,000 hospitalizations each year.
One can find it easy to argue in favor of "children who could die" - we as a society apparently feel the worst when a child dies, prefering to take the optimistic route of the endless potential for good that has been shattered by ending that life too soon rather than a pessimistic approach of "that baby could have grown up to be a mass-murderer, so nice work there, tree nuts." We don't like the imagery of sending a child into a potential death zone, full of products that could have been made in a factory that may contain peanut dust, hoping each day that it isn't her last.
But at what point do we bother to stand up for the kids who enjoy products made in peanut-dust-offender factories?
On that other hand, researchers are suggesting that the cause of the dramatic increase in childhood allergies is that parents are simply overprotecting their precious snowflakes, leading their immune system to become the equivelant of an ignorant hillbilly bigot (I'm not saying that all hillbillies are bigots or ignorant, or that all bigots are hillbillies, but that these immune systems are all three), too dumb to discern friendly peanut bits from infectious bacteria and takes a sawed-off shotgun to the whole danged lot of 'em and requires a lot of medication to get them to calm the hell down.
That in mind, when does the bad parenting spread from the above lack of building their child's immune system to demanding that other children and parents bend to their whims to protect their precious snowflake from the evil peanut dust? When does a school have the right to yield to their ear-splitting wails and deprive the other precious snowflakes their right to eat a PB&J? We already mess with the school lunch system enough, but now we have to tack on regulations about what outside food is brought in via a child's homemade lunch? The Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Management Act may do just that - regulating all food contents allowed to be present inside the school.
Frankly, just upon writing what I thought would be an unbiased look at both sides of the argument, it seems I've stumbled upon the side I lean towards.
I don't think the government should interfere. I don't think the schools should have to regulate this. I think precious snowflakes belong in "precious snowflake schools" that have volunteered to mandate these things, rather than being forced to.
First of all, we should be paying a little more attention to students bringing GUNS, KNIVES, WEAPONS, DRUGS and other illegal things to school first and foremost. I mean the REAL dangerous stuff. I knew a kid in my high school class who got suspended for having a HAMMER in his LOCKER. Kid you not. I also know a kid in my high school class who got expelled for having alcohol in his prom limo (and being drunk), one who got suspended for smoking pot within 30 yards of the school, and two who were expelled for making a fake bomb threat (though in their defense, it got us out of attending that stupid rally, even if it did get moved to later date). These are the things our school officials should be caring about rather than the potential threat of a Reese's peanut butter cup.
I guess this is where I descend into my usual hate-filled tirades, or at least making statements that offend people.
I'm hoping that the writer of this article was intending to rally sympathy for this child when the following was written:
Danielle is terrified to attend school on the days following big candy holidays like Halloween and Easter because students bring peanut butter cups and other goodies with them.
Her nut allergy is so severe that she can go into shock if a child across a table or a school bus aisle eats peanut butter candy. She takes four allergy medications every morning and carries two pens of self-injectable epinephrine, a form of adrenaline, everywhere she goes in case she starts to have a reaction.
"Having peanuts in my face is like having a loaded gun held to your head," said Danielle, who estimates that during the past school year she suffered 20 reactions that landed her in the emergency room or a clinic for breathing treatments.
Call me an asshole if you will (go ahead, it wouldn't be the first time and it won't be the last), but this just sounds to me like someone who wasn't meant to live with the rest of us. Like Mother Nature (or Darwin) is trying to finish the job that these overprotective parents neglected to start. The kid who swallows too many marbles doesn't get to grow up and breed. The kid who can't look at a peanut without exploding probably shouldn't, either. I don't want to jump straight to "put this child out of her misery" or "let's kill all these allergy kids" - but when you're faced with that kind of story, doesn't that pop into your mind for like AT LEAST A SECOND?
I'm willing to jump straight to "give them their own schools", though. Rather than detract from everyone ELSE'S learning with the constant jabbing of epi-pens and time delays over reminders against tree nuts or searching lunches for deadly peanut dust - assign one school (or have one volunteer) to be peanut-free. Bam, move those kids there. You can't argue that it's financially-mean to these parents to have to send their kid to a farther-away school or something, because I'm sure that the cost of 20 E.R. visits during one school year is way more costly.
The real conclusion is that this whole situation is one more reason why I don't want to have kids right now. And why I probably don't like YOUR kids. And why I'm glad my parents let me eat things that fell on the floor or were JUST past their expiration dates.
What do you think? Should schools get to decide? Should the government? Should they just be sent to their own allergy-free schools? Should they just be put out of their misery because almost dying 20 times hasn't gotten the message across yet?
(The article that sparked this rant) Read more!
But where do we draw the line? Who is supposed to have the freedoms?
I speak, of course, regarding the widespread "allergy bans" going on in schools today. With the number of children needing to carry epinephrine just in case of a reaction during the school day, at what point does the matter become one for the schools themselves or even the government to make a ruling to force the schools to take action?
Frankly, I'm asking you.
This isn't one of my usual musings followed by my opinion that certainly leads in one direction and mocks anyone going the other direction. At best, I can attempt to mock both directions, since I don't know which side of the fence I'm leaning.
On the one hand, there are now millions of children who are deathly allergic to common items. In fact, eight foods account for 90% of all allergic reactions — peanuts, tree nuts, milk, eggs, fish, shellfish, soy and wheat. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition says food allergies lead to 150 deaths, 30,000 emergency room visits and 2,000 hospitalizations each year.
One can find it easy to argue in favor of "children who could die" - we as a society apparently feel the worst when a child dies, prefering to take the optimistic route of the endless potential for good that has been shattered by ending that life too soon rather than a pessimistic approach of "that baby could have grown up to be a mass-murderer, so nice work there, tree nuts." We don't like the imagery of sending a child into a potential death zone, full of products that could have been made in a factory that may contain peanut dust, hoping each day that it isn't her last.
But at what point do we bother to stand up for the kids who enjoy products made in peanut-dust-offender factories?
On that other hand, researchers are suggesting that the cause of the dramatic increase in childhood allergies is that parents are simply overprotecting their precious snowflakes, leading their immune system to become the equivelant of an ignorant hillbilly bigot (I'm not saying that all hillbillies are bigots or ignorant, or that all bigots are hillbillies, but that these immune systems are all three), too dumb to discern friendly peanut bits from infectious bacteria and takes a sawed-off shotgun to the whole danged lot of 'em and requires a lot of medication to get them to calm the hell down.
That in mind, when does the bad parenting spread from the above lack of building their child's immune system to demanding that other children and parents bend to their whims to protect their precious snowflake from the evil peanut dust? When does a school have the right to yield to their ear-splitting wails and deprive the other precious snowflakes their right to eat a PB&J? We already mess with the school lunch system enough, but now we have to tack on regulations about what outside food is brought in via a child's homemade lunch? The Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Management Act may do just that - regulating all food contents allowed to be present inside the school.
Frankly, just upon writing what I thought would be an unbiased look at both sides of the argument, it seems I've stumbled upon the side I lean towards.
I don't think the government should interfere. I don't think the schools should have to regulate this. I think precious snowflakes belong in "precious snowflake schools" that have volunteered to mandate these things, rather than being forced to.
First of all, we should be paying a little more attention to students bringing GUNS, KNIVES, WEAPONS, DRUGS and other illegal things to school first and foremost. I mean the REAL dangerous stuff. I knew a kid in my high school class who got suspended for having a HAMMER in his LOCKER. Kid you not. I also know a kid in my high school class who got expelled for having alcohol in his prom limo (and being drunk), one who got suspended for smoking pot within 30 yards of the school, and two who were expelled for making a fake bomb threat (though in their defense, it got us out of attending that stupid rally, even if it did get moved to later date). These are the things our school officials should be caring about rather than the potential threat of a Reese's peanut butter cup.
I guess this is where I descend into my usual hate-filled tirades, or at least making statements that offend people.
I'm hoping that the writer of this article was intending to rally sympathy for this child when the following was written:
Danielle is terrified to attend school on the days following big candy holidays like Halloween and Easter because students bring peanut butter cups and other goodies with them.
Her nut allergy is so severe that she can go into shock if a child across a table or a school bus aisle eats peanut butter candy. She takes four allergy medications every morning and carries two pens of self-injectable epinephrine, a form of adrenaline, everywhere she goes in case she starts to have a reaction.
"Having peanuts in my face is like having a loaded gun held to your head," said Danielle, who estimates that during the past school year she suffered 20 reactions that landed her in the emergency room or a clinic for breathing treatments.
Call me an asshole if you will (go ahead, it wouldn't be the first time and it won't be the last), but this just sounds to me like someone who wasn't meant to live with the rest of us. Like Mother Nature (or Darwin) is trying to finish the job that these overprotective parents neglected to start. The kid who swallows too many marbles doesn't get to grow up and breed. The kid who can't look at a peanut without exploding probably shouldn't, either. I don't want to jump straight to "put this child out of her misery" or "let's kill all these allergy kids" - but when you're faced with that kind of story, doesn't that pop into your mind for like AT LEAST A SECOND?
I'm willing to jump straight to "give them their own schools", though. Rather than detract from everyone ELSE'S learning with the constant jabbing of epi-pens and time delays over reminders against tree nuts or searching lunches for deadly peanut dust - assign one school (or have one volunteer) to be peanut-free. Bam, move those kids there. You can't argue that it's financially-mean to these parents to have to send their kid to a farther-away school or something, because I'm sure that the cost of 20 E.R. visits during one school year is way more costly.
The real conclusion is that this whole situation is one more reason why I don't want to have kids right now. And why I probably don't like YOUR kids. And why I'm glad my parents let me eat things that fell on the floor or were JUST past their expiration dates.
What do you think? Should schools get to decide? Should the government? Should they just be sent to their own allergy-free schools? Should they just be put out of their misery because almost dying 20 times hasn't gotten the message across yet?
(The article that sparked this rant) Read more!
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Illegal Immigrants and the House of Representatives
I am shocked and appalled of the truth of the situation, and I want to fully applaud and rally support for Rep. Candice Miller (R-MI) and the resolution she had introduced back in Jan. 07 and still sits in Committee since Feb. 07. Here's where it all begins, and my mouth starts hitting the floor:
Our Constitution currently says that representatives in the House of Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the number of persons in each state.
Now on the surface, that doesn't seem like an issue at all. Especially when you consider that it wasn't all that long ago that a black person only counted as three-fifths of a person when counting population with the census. How far we've travelled since then. The issue arises when you consider the fact that we have tens of millions of illegal immigrants cluttering up our country. Here is an interesting tidbit that I picked up from Rep. Miller's letter to the editor she sent to the Washington Post:
"Montana has one representative for a population of about 895,000 citizens. The 34th District of California has one representative but fewer than 420,000 citizens."
California, breeding ground for the infestation of illegal immigrants (what with its sanctuary cities of lawlessness), has so many non-citizens cluttering up the census that they are getting a bloated representation in our government. While the 34th District of California isn't the most populated by illegal immigrants, it's known for being the most Hispanic/Latino populated district. The only figure I found for the population of the district (population, not citizens) was "over 600,000" - and I don't know how old that number is. Which means that their Representative should have less than 70% of the power currently held. Less than 70% of that district's population are CITIZENS of the United States - so why should they be allowed to have an oversized say in what happens in the government?
H.J. Res. 6, sponsored by Candice Miller, would amend that part of the Constitution to apportion the representatives according to the number of citizens of the United States, rather than just the number of persons in each state.
When you think about it, it makes nothing but sense and you might even get as furious as I was over how screwed up the system currently is and that NOBODY seems to notice. Why should illegal immigrants affect the governmental representation that makes laws for CITIZENS of the United States? Why would we let criminals buff up the power of their districts to attempt to give them amnesty for their crimes?
It's ideas like these that make me ponder other things. Like the Electoral College when electing a president - wouldn't this change have to be made in order to properly divy electoral votes when having an election? That if we were counting the number of citizens instead of the population, California wouldn't be AS large of a number and neither would Texas? Maybe then we could get fairer representation for all the states and the citizens living in them. I'd rather have states like Montana and North Dakota and even West Virginia (smallest immigration percentage, according to the 2006 census) getting a little more pull and taking away some pull from California and Texas and other illegal-immigrant-heavy states. Candidates shouldn't have to pander extra hard in states for those oversized electoral votes. They should be able to focus on states with more actual citizens - the ones they'd be in charge of at the end of it all.
I don't care how much you point your finger at the fact that our founding fathers were "illegal immigrants from Europe" when they made the Constitution - that's why they had to eventually set up immigration laws and citizenship, to regulate things and keep the populous in balance.
It's time that we replace more "persons" with "citizens" in our Constitution and other legislation.
Sorry, Lincoln, but I'd rather have a "government of the citizens, by the citizens, for the citizens" that shall not perish from this earth.
Oh, and as always...
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS ILLEGAL.
(Rep. Candice Miller's letter to the editor)
(More info on H.J. Rep. 6)
(News article from the Chicago branch of the insanity)
Read more!
Our Constitution currently says that representatives in the House of Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the number of persons in each state.
Now on the surface, that doesn't seem like an issue at all. Especially when you consider that it wasn't all that long ago that a black person only counted as three-fifths of a person when counting population with the census. How far we've travelled since then. The issue arises when you consider the fact that we have tens of millions of illegal immigrants cluttering up our country. Here is an interesting tidbit that I picked up from Rep. Miller's letter to the editor she sent to the Washington Post:
"Montana has one representative for a population of about 895,000 citizens. The 34th District of California has one representative but fewer than 420,000 citizens."
California, breeding ground for the infestation of illegal immigrants (what with its sanctuary cities of lawlessness), has so many non-citizens cluttering up the census that they are getting a bloated representation in our government. While the 34th District of California isn't the most populated by illegal immigrants, it's known for being the most Hispanic/Latino populated district. The only figure I found for the population of the district (population, not citizens) was "over 600,000" - and I don't know how old that number is. Which means that their Representative should have less than 70% of the power currently held. Less than 70% of that district's population are CITIZENS of the United States - so why should they be allowed to have an oversized say in what happens in the government?
H.J. Res. 6, sponsored by Candice Miller, would amend that part of the Constitution to apportion the representatives according to the number of citizens of the United States, rather than just the number of persons in each state.
When you think about it, it makes nothing but sense and you might even get as furious as I was over how screwed up the system currently is and that NOBODY seems to notice. Why should illegal immigrants affect the governmental representation that makes laws for CITIZENS of the United States? Why would we let criminals buff up the power of their districts to attempt to give them amnesty for their crimes?
It's ideas like these that make me ponder other things. Like the Electoral College when electing a president - wouldn't this change have to be made in order to properly divy electoral votes when having an election? That if we were counting the number of citizens instead of the population, California wouldn't be AS large of a number and neither would Texas? Maybe then we could get fairer representation for all the states and the citizens living in them. I'd rather have states like Montana and North Dakota and even West Virginia (smallest immigration percentage, according to the 2006 census) getting a little more pull and taking away some pull from California and Texas and other illegal-immigrant-heavy states. Candidates shouldn't have to pander extra hard in states for those oversized electoral votes. They should be able to focus on states with more actual citizens - the ones they'd be in charge of at the end of it all.
I don't care how much you point your finger at the fact that our founding fathers were "illegal immigrants from Europe" when they made the Constitution - that's why they had to eventually set up immigration laws and citizenship, to regulate things and keep the populous in balance.
It's time that we replace more "persons" with "citizens" in our Constitution and other legislation.
Sorry, Lincoln, but I'd rather have a "government of the citizens, by the citizens, for the citizens" that shall not perish from this earth.
Oh, and as always...
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS ILLEGAL.
(Rep. Candice Miller's letter to the editor)
(More info on H.J. Rep. 6)
(News article from the Chicago branch of the insanity)
Read more!
Monday, June 25, 2007
Radar Ban? - Why Alderman Burke Should Resign Immediately
It's a sunny afternoon, and you're cruising down the avenue. The top's down, you're soaking in the sunlight, and you don't care how fast your convertible is zooming down the street. You're too enraptured by whatever CD you've got in your sound system to notice a small sign as you're passing by. Suddenly, your Cobra Electronics device you just installed starts flashing and verbally warns you of a speed/redlight camera at the upcoming intersection. You look at the spedometer, and tone it down to a legal speed. You come to a full and complete stop at the red light. It turns green, and you accelerate once more as you drive on to your significant other's pad for some lovin'. All's well that ends well - no ticket for you, and no life-threatening crashes or injuries all around. What could be wrong with this picture?
Alderman Burke wants that device banned.
Because he'd rather have you endangering your safety and the safety of others than risk missing out on an opportunity to ticket you $90.
There's no doubt about it - Burke claims that the cameras used to ticket redlight-runners and speed-demons are just a way for the city to profit. "That is why all these cameras are being installed. ... The reality is that people blow through these intersections and they are going to be caught and they are going to be fined. It has become a big revenue source, absolutely," said Burke. In fact, he went on to say that these tickets are "budgeted in our annual appropriation ordinance" - that the government is DEPENDING on people to disobey the law.
"I don't think the [city's] goal is to allow the motorist to subvert the system that we are spending so much money on," Burke said. I don't know how much it takes to install the cameras or the costs to keep them monitoring and cranking out the tickets, but last year the cameras profited the city $19.8 million in total. At $90 a ticket, that's 220,000 tickets for the year, which is an average of 603 each day (or 25 per hour). Every hour, those cameras are netting $2,250 for the city - and they're complaining about how much they're SPENDING on the cameras?
As for "subverting the system" - is Burke suggesting that a system being utilized to alert drivers of an upcoming camera and possible ticket is the crime? That people being warned of getting caught for reckless driving is what's bringing down the cashflow system of the red-light cameras??
Hey Alderman Douchebag! Every single ticketing camera has a SIGN to WARN drivers!
The only difference between the current system and the Cobra Electronics device is that one is a small sign that many fail to notice before it's too late (if at all), and one is a few more bells and whistles going off to further alert the driver to slow down and play it safe or the camera will be issuing a ticket. Both do the exact same thing - warn the driver to slow down and obey the rules, because a camera is watching and will automatically ticket you. The only difference is the degree.
And if banning a product because it does a BETTER job than the GOVERNMENT of keeping drivers SAFE makes any sense to you - apparently you could be a douchebag alderman for the Chicago City Council like Burke.
VOTE AARON SAMUELS FOR ALDERMAN IN 2011! A VOTE FOR SANITY! Read more!
Alderman Burke wants that device banned.
Because he'd rather have you endangering your safety and the safety of others than risk missing out on an opportunity to ticket you $90.
There's no doubt about it - Burke claims that the cameras used to ticket redlight-runners and speed-demons are just a way for the city to profit. "That is why all these cameras are being installed. ... The reality is that people blow through these intersections and they are going to be caught and they are going to be fined. It has become a big revenue source, absolutely," said Burke. In fact, he went on to say that these tickets are "budgeted in our annual appropriation ordinance" - that the government is DEPENDING on people to disobey the law.
"I don't think the [city's] goal is to allow the motorist to subvert the system that we are spending so much money on," Burke said. I don't know how much it takes to install the cameras or the costs to keep them monitoring and cranking out the tickets, but last year the cameras profited the city $19.8 million in total. At $90 a ticket, that's 220,000 tickets for the year, which is an average of 603 each day (or 25 per hour). Every hour, those cameras are netting $2,250 for the city - and they're complaining about how much they're SPENDING on the cameras?
As for "subverting the system" - is Burke suggesting that a system being utilized to alert drivers of an upcoming camera and possible ticket is the crime? That people being warned of getting caught for reckless driving is what's bringing down the cashflow system of the red-light cameras??
Hey Alderman Douchebag! Every single ticketing camera has a SIGN to WARN drivers!
The only difference between the current system and the Cobra Electronics device is that one is a small sign that many fail to notice before it's too late (if at all), and one is a few more bells and whistles going off to further alert the driver to slow down and play it safe or the camera will be issuing a ticket. Both do the exact same thing - warn the driver to slow down and obey the rules, because a camera is watching and will automatically ticket you. The only difference is the degree.
And if banning a product because it does a BETTER job than the GOVERNMENT of keeping drivers SAFE makes any sense to you - apparently you could be a douchebag alderman for the Chicago City Council like Burke.
VOTE AARON SAMUELS FOR ALDERMAN IN 2011! A VOTE FOR SANITY! Read more!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
