For those of you just joining, I highly recommend a visit to Part 1 of this article just to catch up: Fast-Food Moratorium in South L.A. (Part 1)
In this piece, I want to break down the law's language in traditional George Carlin format, pointing out that this law pretty much would ban ALL new restaurants and not just fast-food restaurants - except for a few choice words and I'll explain how any fast-food franchise can easily duck under the law because of them.
Just as a reminder, here what the law considers to be fast-food restaurants:
"any establishment which dispenses food for consumption on or off the premises, and which has the following characteristics: a limited menu, items prepared in advance or prepared or heated quickly, no table orders and food served in disposable wrapping or containers."
Well, let's start at the beginning...
"which dispenses food for consumption on or off the premises": Those are the only two places you CAN consume food! AT the place and NOT AT the place! I mean ANY food location nowadays, no matter how fancy and sit-down or greasy and take-it-and-leave, gives you the option to place an order for take-out. They understand you might not have the time to eat it THERE. Or you may just prefer to eat it NOT THERE, like at HOME. Also, you might as well just say "which dispenses food" - since food is generally dispensed for consumption. That's the general idea of food - that you consume it. I suppose this means a business that dispenses food for you to WEAR would be allowed to move in? So far, this ban applies to ALL FOOD BUSINESSES (except the food-as-clothing industry).
"and which has the following characteristics: a limited menu": ALL MENUS ARE LIMITED! You're not allowed to walk into a Burger King or a P.F. Chang's or a Fogo De Chao and order up a yak salad with ostrich chutney garnish. All menus are finite, limited by the abilities of the chef, the availability of ingredients, and the personal desire of the restaurant. They don't want to include endangered animals for you to eat - that's their prerogative. The McDonald's fry cook isn't skilled enough to POACH your eggs that go on your McMuffin - tough luck, pal. It's illegal to obtain and cook human flesh for consumption - don't expect to see the phone book as an addendum to your table's menu. So far, this ban still applies to ALL FOOD BUSINESSES (except for hypothetical hypno-restaurants that can put patrons in hypnotic trances and convince them they've eaten anything on an unlimited menu while serving them Kraft Mac & Cheese).
"items prepared in advance": Well of course they're prepared in advance - when did you plan on preparing it? In the guy's stomach? All restaurants have to prepare food before they serve it to you. If you wanted to add the stipulation "prepared in advance of ordering", there's still prep work. Any good restaurant has to save time by pre-assembling items, or even marinating meats in anticipation that someone will order it that night, or using bread that has already been baked or pre-mixed dough even. I'm incredibly skeptical that there exists a single restaurant that can make every item on its menu FROM SCRATCH and not until the order is placed and it can still be served fast enough that the customer doesn't leave, possibly mumbling, "if I wanted incredibly slow food made from scratch, I'd be at home with my wife instead of at a fancy restaurant with my mistress..." Fact of the matter is, this ban still applies to ALL FOOD BUSINESSES (unless all they do is raw, uncooked, unprocessed food, and at that point you might as well be foraging in the woods for sustenance and saving yourself $20 per person).
"prepared or heated quickly": I don't think there's much to say about this. If you're not preparing or heating your food at a decent pace, you shouldn't qualify as a business. It's called "the danger zone" and it's a temperature range at which bacteria can grow and multiply and infect your food. The longer food goes from storage to preparation to your mouth, the more likely you are to get sick and sue for food poisoning. ALL FOOD BUSINESSES know that and do those things in a timely fashion. Also, "quickly" is too subjective of a term - any cooking that takes shorter time to cook than "leaving it in the sun, possibly on a metal pan" can be deemed to have been cooked "quickly" by the Amish. This ban still applies to ALL FOOD BUSINESSES (except Brother Jebediah's Sun-Cooked Meat Emporium)
Now, we finally come to "no table orders and food served in disposable wrapping or containers", which technically seem to separate the actual restaurants from the "fast-food joints" that the law is trying to stop from opening new locations. But don't worry, McDonald's and Burger Kings, they're both easy to step around.
"no table orders": Okay, so you have to be able to take orders at a table in order to qualify as a true "restaurant"? Note that the law doesn't even say anyone has to be SITTING at a table. The table area is just the place where all orders have to be taken in order to qualify. Rather, at least ONE order has to be taken from a table to simply NOT fall into the category of "no table orders". So how do you side-step this one?
Put a table over the counters. It doesn't matter if there's one long table placed over the entire counter, or a cheap IKEA table draped right on top of each counter segment with the cash register placed on top and your McJob cashier/waitstaff standing at the "table". You can even place a small table in front of the drive-thru speaker and one in front of the pay window and pick-up window. "Thank you, please drive to the next TABLE." Voila - you're taking table orders and you can move right in with a new location!
"food served in disposable wrapping or containers": Okay, I have to start off with the obvious jab that everything used to serve food is disposable (in the definition that everything is "able to be disposed of"). A restaurant can give you your burger on a plate, but a plate is just as disposable as a paper lining you'd find wrapped around a McDonald's cheeseburger. For the sake of argument, I will admit that one definition of "disposable" means "INTENDED to be disposed of". I guess McDonald's could just print pictures on all wrappers and containers and call them "collectible" and you can complete the set - that would insinuate that they should NOT be disposed of, but rather collected for some reason. You'd think that the real clencher here is that McDonald's food is wrapped or put into containers (while a restaurant will not wrap food it's serving to you), which means it's just fast-food that this clause affects. To be fair, any legit restaurant will let you place a to-go order and all of that food will be in disposable wrapping or containers! It doesn't say that food is ONLY served in disposable wrapping/containers, right? Which means that any restaurant willing to place a to-go order or let you take food home in a doggy-bag is going to be banned. Once more, this clause of the ban would apply to ALL FOOD BUSINESSES (except those snooty enough to deny you eating their food anywhere other than their restaurant).
So really, all it comes down to is whether or not you'll ever take a food order from a table. All other pieces of this "law" boil down to no food businesses at all being allowed to set up shop in South L.A. (other than those wacky/insane exceptions). Any fast-food place would be able to open up shop as long as they stick a table somewhere and let someone order from it, as I've suggested above. Frankly, the law suggests that you must hit ALL of those marks to qualify not being able to open a new location - which means that once you miss the mark on ANY (like taking orders from a table), you've got free reign in South L.A.!
Take that, Los Angeles City Council! Your law is useless and a waste of taxpayer money for all the debate and insanity that must have transpired before you foolishly signed this moratorium into effect.
Don't you agree? Have I missed anything? Can you understand how each piece of this law is vague and moronic? Was my homage to George Carlin acceptable?
Please Digg this article and join me in mocking the L.A. City Council!
Read more!
Thursday, August 07, 2008
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
Don't Talk to the Police!
I found this website while cruising Fark yesterday morning and started watching the first video. I was just so intrigued by it! I mean I've never been in a courtroom or arrested (came close once) or really talked to any lawyers for extended periods of time about this subject, but to watch these videos - it was a true eye-opener.
After watching these videos, you will never want to talk to the police. At all. Ever.
The first video is the law professor, James Duane, of the Regent University School of Law. He basically outlines all of the main reasons why you should never talk to a police officer about anything, in any capacity, when you are a suspect in a crime or accused of a crime or arrested for some crime. He also does this WITHOUT malice towards the police. It's not the police officer's fault, because it's YOUR fault for being an idiot and talking to them.
I think the most enlightening piece of this video is when Prof. Duane explains that anything you say to the police can be used AGAINST you in a court of law; it CANNOT be used FOR you. If you say something to the police that helps your case as a defendant, and your lawyer asks the police officer to corroborate it, it is inadmissable because it's hearsay.
There are a lot more compelling reasons, and I have to warn you that it is a 27-minute video. And it's just Part 1.
That's right - just the first part. Because the guy wants to be "fair" - he invited a POLICE OFFICER to take half of his hour's time to either agree or disagree and present whatever he wants to say on the subject of never talking to the police. So Officer George Bruch of the Virginia Beach Police Department gets 21 minutes to have his say. And he says that Duane is basically right. He just gets up there and admits the many ways that people are stupid and admit things to the police because they were stupid enough to talk to them in the first place.
He also gets to clarify certain nuances of his job and admits to several tricks he gets to use in order to get the confession he needs. The one that stood out most in my mind was something I already knew, but was illustrated brilliantly as Bruch was detailing how he fools people. He has a tiny little tape recorder in the interrogation room. He lulls people into false security by asking them if he can use the tape recorder to record the interview because he has poor handwriting or can't write fast or something. (Asking is a courtesy, since he can do whatever he wants and they have no right to say no to him taping the interview, and gives them false power.) Then if he's not getting what he wants, he reaches over, stops the tape recorder, and says, "Let's talk - off the record."
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "OFF THE RECORD". The interrogation room is always miked and always recorded and anything you tell a police officer at ANY TIME can be used against you. He also lists convincing people to write "apology letters" - which are of course handwritten confessions - and the fact that only one person on a phone conversation needs to know it's being recorded for it to be legal. Just him, the police officer.
The most enlightening piece of his segment for me was probably when he stated that he reads people their Miranda Warning - it's NOT a RIGHT - as well as the constant reminder that the police can LIE to you as much as they want during an interview.
To finish, the ACLU has a downloadable PDF 'bust card' with information on your rights when dealing with a police officer.
A brief rundown:
- If you are ever detained, the police can ask you for your name and in some states you CAN be arrested for not providing it. You CAN plead the right to remain silent if you think your name alone will incriminate you, which may be a defense in case you do get arrested in the end.
- If you're stopped in your car, you must show driver's licence and registration. Other than that (and your name), you don't have to answer a thing.
- You don't have to consent to any search of yourself, your car or your house. The limit is a "pat-down" of your clothing if they suspect a concealed weapon, and you can make it clear that you to not consent to any further search.
- You do not have to give consent for an officer to search your car if they have probable cause, but you should make it clear that you do not consent to a search. You cannot be arrested for simply refusing to consent to a search.
- You do not have to give consent for an officer to enter your house if they hear someone screaming for help or if they are chasing someone. If you are arrested in a building, you do not have to give consent for the police to search "close by", which is limited to the room you were in. Other than this, you do not have to let the police in unless they have a warrant signed by a judge - and always ask to see it if they claim they have such a warrant.
- If you refuse to consent to a blood/urine/breath test while being suspected of a DWI, your license can be suspended.
- You have the right to ask if you are being arrested. If you are, you have the right to know why you are being arrested. If you are arrested, the only information you have to give to the police is your name and address. Beyond that, you have the right to remain silent and ask for a lawyer.
I'm pretty sure all of that information is correct. Meanwhile, be aware that it's not just anything you SAY that can be held against you. Don't be difficult, don't be rude, and for the love of all that is good and holy - don't interfere or resist or be violent in any way.
You have the right to remain silent, but you also have the right to be stupid. It's your choice.
Please Digg this article and spread the word about the Fifth Amendment!
Read more!
After watching these videos, you will never want to talk to the police. At all. Ever.
The first video is the law professor, James Duane, of the Regent University School of Law. He basically outlines all of the main reasons why you should never talk to a police officer about anything, in any capacity, when you are a suspect in a crime or accused of a crime or arrested for some crime. He also does this WITHOUT malice towards the police. It's not the police officer's fault, because it's YOUR fault for being an idiot and talking to them.
I think the most enlightening piece of this video is when Prof. Duane explains that anything you say to the police can be used AGAINST you in a court of law; it CANNOT be used FOR you. If you say something to the police that helps your case as a defendant, and your lawyer asks the police officer to corroborate it, it is inadmissable because it's hearsay.
There are a lot more compelling reasons, and I have to warn you that it is a 27-minute video. And it's just Part 1.
That's right - just the first part. Because the guy wants to be "fair" - he invited a POLICE OFFICER to take half of his hour's time to either agree or disagree and present whatever he wants to say on the subject of never talking to the police. So Officer George Bruch of the Virginia Beach Police Department gets 21 minutes to have his say. And he says that Duane is basically right. He just gets up there and admits the many ways that people are stupid and admit things to the police because they were stupid enough to talk to them in the first place.
He also gets to clarify certain nuances of his job and admits to several tricks he gets to use in order to get the confession he needs. The one that stood out most in my mind was something I already knew, but was illustrated brilliantly as Bruch was detailing how he fools people. He has a tiny little tape recorder in the interrogation room. He lulls people into false security by asking them if he can use the tape recorder to record the interview because he has poor handwriting or can't write fast or something. (Asking is a courtesy, since he can do whatever he wants and they have no right to say no to him taping the interview, and gives them false power.) Then if he's not getting what he wants, he reaches over, stops the tape recorder, and says, "Let's talk - off the record."
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "OFF THE RECORD". The interrogation room is always miked and always recorded and anything you tell a police officer at ANY TIME can be used against you. He also lists convincing people to write "apology letters" - which are of course handwritten confessions - and the fact that only one person on a phone conversation needs to know it's being recorded for it to be legal. Just him, the police officer.
The most enlightening piece of his segment for me was probably when he stated that he reads people their Miranda Warning - it's NOT a RIGHT - as well as the constant reminder that the police can LIE to you as much as they want during an interview.
To finish, the ACLU has a downloadable PDF 'bust card' with information on your rights when dealing with a police officer.
A brief rundown:
- If you are ever detained, the police can ask you for your name and in some states you CAN be arrested for not providing it. You CAN plead the right to remain silent if you think your name alone will incriminate you, which may be a defense in case you do get arrested in the end.
- If you're stopped in your car, you must show driver's licence and registration. Other than that (and your name), you don't have to answer a thing.
- You don't have to consent to any search of yourself, your car or your house. The limit is a "pat-down" of your clothing if they suspect a concealed weapon, and you can make it clear that you to not consent to any further search.
- You do not have to give consent for an officer to search your car if they have probable cause, but you should make it clear that you do not consent to a search. You cannot be arrested for simply refusing to consent to a search.
- You do not have to give consent for an officer to enter your house if they hear someone screaming for help or if they are chasing someone. If you are arrested in a building, you do not have to give consent for the police to search "close by", which is limited to the room you were in. Other than this, you do not have to let the police in unless they have a warrant signed by a judge - and always ask to see it if they claim they have such a warrant.
- If you refuse to consent to a blood/urine/breath test while being suspected of a DWI, your license can be suspended.
- You have the right to ask if you are being arrested. If you are, you have the right to know why you are being arrested. If you are arrested, the only information you have to give to the police is your name and address. Beyond that, you have the right to remain silent and ask for a lawyer.
I'm pretty sure all of that information is correct. Meanwhile, be aware that it's not just anything you SAY that can be held against you. Don't be difficult, don't be rude, and for the love of all that is good and holy - don't interfere or resist or be violent in any way.
You have the right to remain silent, but you also have the right to be stupid. It's your choice.
Please Digg this article and spread the word about the Fifth Amendment!
Read more!
Friday, August 01, 2008
Fast-Food Moratorium in South L.A. (Part 1)
If you were to ask me to provide an honest answer regarding the question of our youth (and our populous in general) getting obese - I'd completely agree. The data doesn't lie, and neither do my eyeballs. People are getting fatter - and more people are getting fat. I would never, though, say it was an "epidemic", since that's supposed to be a word meaning a rapidly-spreading disease. Despite some crappy article I read once about how if you have several obese friends then you're more likely to become obese, weight problems are not a disease (social or otherwise). You can't "catch obesity" - not even from toilet seats.
But it's our right to be fat.
It's our freedom of choice to choose sedentary lifestyles or picking up a bucket of KFC instead of lifting weights or even ordering too much healthy food which in turn isn't healthy. You can't blame the gyms for being too expensive (though they are expensive indeed). You can't blame the video game industry for getting you addicted to sitting and button-mashing (thanks to DDR and WiiFit "games"). You can't blame the food places for letting you order too much (I mourn the loss of the "Supersize"). You can't blame the fast food industry for "being there" (unless you're a moron).
So the Los Angeles City Council must therefore be a bunch of morons.
They voted unanimously to approve a law banning new fast-food restaurants from opening in South Los Angeles for at least a year.
Why in the name of all that is good and holy and deep-fried would they do such an idiotic thing?
Because 30% of the kids in South L.A. are obese, compared to the L.A. average of 25% of obesity in children.
That's it. A 5% difference - one extra kid out of twenty happens to be obese in South Los Angeles, so let's ban all new fast-food locations from opening. That sixth kid to tip the scales in every 20-child South L.A. classroom best get ready for an ass-kicking from the other five obese kids for crushing their dream of a new place to gorge on greasy delights! Oh, and by the way, THIS DOES NOTHING! At best, you're forcing people to waddle a little further to get their fix rather than letting a closer location get built. At worst, you're raping the sanctity of the free market. This little charade doesn't change the goddamned MARKET OPPORTUNITY!
Do you know why fast-food locations are doing well in that area and more want to open up? Because that's what the market demands. We just had a Dunkin Donuts / Baskin Robbins open in our building a month ago - even though one exists less than one block southeast from our building. And a few weeks ago, yet another one opened a block northeast of our building. Do you know WHY they're opening up three Dunkin Donuts locations within a block of each other?
BECAUSE THEY CAN. BECAUSE THEY STILL MAKE MONEY. BECAUSE PEOPLE WANT MORE LOCATIONS TO GET CHEAP DONUTS AND COFFEE.
I would never expect our city to decide "the downtown area is overcaffeinated and obese and caffeine is a drug and donuts are fattening, so let's ban new donut/coffee locations so that other businesses can move in." Okay, Chicago is the Nanny City, so I might expect it - but it's still a ridiculous idea. If the people wanted a new sit-down food location with healthy choices, then one of those businesses would move in and would prosper. FORCING one of those to open up INSTEAD of what the market wants will result in poor sales and the inevitable closing and moving out of that business. In my neighborhood, we mostly have greasy spoons and take-out Chinese and Mexican places. And some Italian-esque fancy/expensive bistro tried opening up. And nobody came. So they've closed. Twice. Maybe if another burger joint moved in there, business would be booming for them. It's called the FREE MARKET.
Councilwoman Jan Perry, who has pushed for a moratorium for six years, said the initiative would give the city time to craft measures to lure sit-down restaurants serving healthier food to a part of the city that desperately wants more of them.
"I believe this is a victory for the people of South and southeast Los Angeles, for them to have greater food options," she said.
You moron! If that part of the city "desperately" wanted more sit-down healthy restaurants, then one would be opening in one of the available spaces. You can't just BAN certain types of businesses from renting that space just because you're "holding out" for one you like. If a business moves in and you don't like it and don't want it, you don't go. And if enough people do that, it goes out of business and closes and some other business can try it out. And if NOT enough people refuse to go - that means that people DO want that service/product and YOU'RE the idiot for thinking that YOUR opinion represents your entire area's opinion.
That's how it's supposed to work - and you shouldn't be allowed to pass an idiotic law to tell people what they supposedly want but obviously don't.
The law defines fast-food restaurants as "any establishment which dispenses food for consumption on or off the premises, and which has the following characteristics: a limited menu, items prepared in advance or prepared or heated quickly, no table orders and food served in disposable wrapping or containers."
My full rant on this law's language will be found in Part 2... In traditional George Carlin format...
Please Digg this article and join the debate regarding this bill!
Read more!
But it's our right to be fat.
It's our freedom of choice to choose sedentary lifestyles or picking up a bucket of KFC instead of lifting weights or even ordering too much healthy food which in turn isn't healthy. You can't blame the gyms for being too expensive (though they are expensive indeed). You can't blame the video game industry for getting you addicted to sitting and button-mashing (thanks to DDR and WiiFit "games"). You can't blame the food places for letting you order too much (I mourn the loss of the "Supersize"). You can't blame the fast food industry for "being there" (unless you're a moron).
So the Los Angeles City Council must therefore be a bunch of morons.
They voted unanimously to approve a law banning new fast-food restaurants from opening in South Los Angeles for at least a year.
Why in the name of all that is good and holy and deep-fried would they do such an idiotic thing?
Because 30% of the kids in South L.A. are obese, compared to the L.A. average of 25% of obesity in children.
That's it. A 5% difference - one extra kid out of twenty happens to be obese in South Los Angeles, so let's ban all new fast-food locations from opening. That sixth kid to tip the scales in every 20-child South L.A. classroom best get ready for an ass-kicking from the other five obese kids for crushing their dream of a new place to gorge on greasy delights! Oh, and by the way, THIS DOES NOTHING! At best, you're forcing people to waddle a little further to get their fix rather than letting a closer location get built. At worst, you're raping the sanctity of the free market. This little charade doesn't change the goddamned MARKET OPPORTUNITY!
Do you know why fast-food locations are doing well in that area and more want to open up? Because that's what the market demands. We just had a Dunkin Donuts / Baskin Robbins open in our building a month ago - even though one exists less than one block southeast from our building. And a few weeks ago, yet another one opened a block northeast of our building. Do you know WHY they're opening up three Dunkin Donuts locations within a block of each other?
BECAUSE THEY CAN. BECAUSE THEY STILL MAKE MONEY. BECAUSE PEOPLE WANT MORE LOCATIONS TO GET CHEAP DONUTS AND COFFEE.
I would never expect our city to decide "the downtown area is overcaffeinated and obese and caffeine is a drug and donuts are fattening, so let's ban new donut/coffee locations so that other businesses can move in." Okay, Chicago is the Nanny City, so I might expect it - but it's still a ridiculous idea. If the people wanted a new sit-down food location with healthy choices, then one of those businesses would move in and would prosper. FORCING one of those to open up INSTEAD of what the market wants will result in poor sales and the inevitable closing and moving out of that business. In my neighborhood, we mostly have greasy spoons and take-out Chinese and Mexican places. And some Italian-esque fancy/expensive bistro tried opening up. And nobody came. So they've closed. Twice. Maybe if another burger joint moved in there, business would be booming for them. It's called the FREE MARKET.
Councilwoman Jan Perry, who has pushed for a moratorium for six years, said the initiative would give the city time to craft measures to lure sit-down restaurants serving healthier food to a part of the city that desperately wants more of them.
"I believe this is a victory for the people of South and southeast Los Angeles, for them to have greater food options," she said.
You moron! If that part of the city "desperately" wanted more sit-down healthy restaurants, then one would be opening in one of the available spaces. You can't just BAN certain types of businesses from renting that space just because you're "holding out" for one you like. If a business moves in and you don't like it and don't want it, you don't go. And if enough people do that, it goes out of business and closes and some other business can try it out. And if NOT enough people refuse to go - that means that people DO want that service/product and YOU'RE the idiot for thinking that YOUR opinion represents your entire area's opinion.
That's how it's supposed to work - and you shouldn't be allowed to pass an idiotic law to tell people what they supposedly want but obviously don't.
The law defines fast-food restaurants as "any establishment which dispenses food for consumption on or off the premises, and which has the following characteristics: a limited menu, items prepared in advance or prepared or heated quickly, no table orders and food served in disposable wrapping or containers."
My full rant on this law's language will be found in Part 2... In traditional George Carlin format...
Please Digg this article and join the debate regarding this bill!
Read more!
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Illegal Texting in Illinois?
For those of you who keep your thumbs to your "crackberries" while walking around the city of Chicago, Illinois lawmakers may be preparing to slap you on the wrist with a misdemeanor and $25 fine, if their new law gets passed. That's right, texting and walking will possibly be considered illegal.
Illinois state officials, including Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White, have spoken out in support of a new bill that would ban using a wireless device while crossing streets.
Now before you flip out, this about this law need to be explained.
When I initially read the article, I had the same ranting flip-out session about "how dare they try and ban WALKING and TEXTING at the same time" and so forth. To tell the truth, I was all ready to type a huge tirade about how Illinois needs to let Darwin take the reigns for a while and get rid of those humans who haven't evolved to the point of either being able to text message and perform the simple act of walking at the same time - or being able to recognize that they aren't capable of this maneuver and deciding to not attempt it. We'll get back to the whole "passive eugenics" notion later.
For now, we all need to take a step back and analyze the TRUE LANGUAGE of this stupid bill before we can all agree it's stupid and should never become law.
Since the article's author has decided to shirk any journalistic responsibilities, I will say that the language does not say that "Illinois residents would get slapped with a misdemeanor and a $25 fine if caught using a cell phone or other wireless device while traversing streets".
Here's the ACTUAL bill, in its entirety:
HB4520 LRB095 16261 LCT 42281 b
1 AN ACT concerning transportation.
2 Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,
3 represented in the General Assembly:
4 Section 5. The Illinois Vehicle Code is amended by adding
5 Section 11-1011.5 as follows:
6 (625 ILCS 5/11-1011.5 new)
7 Sec. 11-1011.5. Pedestrian use of wireless telephone.
8 (a) A pedestrian shall not use a wireless telephone while
9 crossing a roadway.
10 (b) As used in this Section, "wireless telephone" means a
11 device that is capable of transmitting or receiving telephonic
12 communications without a wire connecting the device to the
13 telephone network.
14 (c) A violation of this Section is a petty offense for
15 which a fine not to exceed $25 may be imposed.
Now what this DOES mean is that THIS language can allow for a couple of scary things. For example, they could ticket you not only for texting while crossing the street, but for BEING ON YOUR PHONE while crossing the street. I'm also pretty sure that this language could actually entitle the police to issue you a ticket for listening to an MP3 on your iPhone while crossing the street, since you would be considered to be "using a device that is capable of transmitting or receiving telephonic communications without a wire connecting the device to the telephone network while crossing a roadway".
I'm sure they WOULDN'T, but the fact that they COULD is unsettling enough, isn't it? And wouldn't this open the door for ANY device that requires minute focus to be banned from use while crossing the street? And when will they decide that just as much harm can befall you from lack of attention while walking on the sidewalk as can befall you while crossing the street?
Frankly, Illinois (Chicago specifically) is becoming the new Nanny State and keeps attempting to trade our LIBERTIES away in order to protect us from ourselves. There was an actual study done to look at how the 35 most-populous cities in the United States balance individual freedom with government paternalism - Chicago came in DEAD LAST. "And it wasn't even close," says the author.
"We ranked the cities on how much freedom they afford their residents to indulge in alcohol, tobacco, drugs, sex, gambling and food. And, for good measure, we also looked at the cities' gun laws, use of traffic and surveillance cameras, and tossed in an "other" category to catch weird laws such as New York's ban on unlicensed dancing, or Chicago's tax on bottled water.
Chicago reigns supreme when it comes to treating its citizens like children (Las Vegas topped our rankings as America's freest city). Chicagoans pay the second-highest cigarette tax in the country, and the sixth-highest tax on alcohol. Chicago has more traffic-light cameras than any city in America (despite studies questioning their effectiveness), restricts cell phone use while driving, and it's quickly moving toward a creepy public surveillance system similar to London's.
Chicago isn't alone, of course. Many of America's big cities are moving toward a suffocating sort of paternalism. Chicago is just the worst."
America needs to wake up and stop coddling our citizens and let them make their own mistakes. There's a difference between putting up a new stop sign because of lethal traffic accidents and stopping pedestrians from using their legally-owned devices while crossing from one side of the street to the other. I don't care that officials will undoubtedly say "well it's the law and we're going to enforce it, but we're not going to be patrolling specifically for this" - the same way they shrug off all of Chicago's moronic laws that shouldn't exist. When the foie gras ban was in effect, they told us similar things - that they wouldn't be hunting for it but would respond to tattle-tales complaining about it happening in restaurants.
We need to put a stop to pointless laws the protect us from ourselves and focus a bit more on laws that protect us from OTHER PEOPLE.
We shouldn't be ticketed for driving without a seatbelt, or riding a bicycle/motorcycle without a helmet. We definitely shouldn't be ticketed for doing something potentially distracting while doing something that requires an iota of focus. It makes no sense that we could get a ticket and a fine for using the hands-free function of a cellphone while walking a street, but not for doing the same thing while barbecuing or changing a tire or doing our taxes. All three of those things could destroy you if you screw up slightly by losing focus - but it's OUR CHOICE. We have the right to potentially screw up our own lives. We just don't have the right to potentially screw up the lives of others. I have no arguments about arresting for drunken driving. I have a few qualms about ticketing for cellphone-using while driving. I have more qualms about arresting for public drunkenness.
All in all, it's a matter of who has the potential to be hurt the most and who's most likely to get hurt, and if it's the person DOING the action, then it shouldn't be illegal.
People should be learning to keep their wits about them and making the right decisions on their own. Meanwhile, we as a society should start praying that our feeble human brains can start evolving at least a FRACTION as fast as our technology is evolving. It's the gap in-between that keeps causing these problems, which in turn keep causing these horrible attempts at solutions.
Do you agree? Are you in favor of taking away people's rights to risk getting hit by cars? Do you agree that we're losing too many of our rights? Shouldn't the stupid be allowed to die off in hilarious ways and make room for the smart? Leave a comment!
Please Digg this article and join the debate regarding this bill!
Read more!
Illinois state officials, including Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White, have spoken out in support of a new bill that would ban using a wireless device while crossing streets.
Now before you flip out, this about this law need to be explained.
When I initially read the article, I had the same ranting flip-out session about "how dare they try and ban WALKING and TEXTING at the same time" and so forth. To tell the truth, I was all ready to type a huge tirade about how Illinois needs to let Darwin take the reigns for a while and get rid of those humans who haven't evolved to the point of either being able to text message and perform the simple act of walking at the same time - or being able to recognize that they aren't capable of this maneuver and deciding to not attempt it. We'll get back to the whole "passive eugenics" notion later.
For now, we all need to take a step back and analyze the TRUE LANGUAGE of this stupid bill before we can all agree it's stupid and should never become law.
Since the article's author has decided to shirk any journalistic responsibilities, I will say that the language does not say that "Illinois residents would get slapped with a misdemeanor and a $25 fine if caught using a cell phone or other wireless device while traversing streets".
Here's the ACTUAL bill, in its entirety:
HB4520 LRB095 16261 LCT 42281 b
1 AN ACT concerning transportation.
2 Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,
3 represented in the General Assembly:
4 Section 5. The Illinois Vehicle Code is amended by adding
5 Section 11-1011.5 as follows:
6 (625 ILCS 5/11-1011.5 new)
7 Sec. 11-1011.5. Pedestrian use of wireless telephone.
8 (a) A pedestrian shall not use a wireless telephone while
9 crossing a roadway.
10 (b) As used in this Section, "wireless telephone" means a
11 device that is capable of transmitting or receiving telephonic
12 communications without a wire connecting the device to the
13 telephone network.
14 (c) A violation of this Section is a petty offense for
15 which a fine not to exceed $25 may be imposed.
Now what this DOES mean is that THIS language can allow for a couple of scary things. For example, they could ticket you not only for texting while crossing the street, but for BEING ON YOUR PHONE while crossing the street. I'm also pretty sure that this language could actually entitle the police to issue you a ticket for listening to an MP3 on your iPhone while crossing the street, since you would be considered to be "using a device that is capable of transmitting or receiving telephonic communications without a wire connecting the device to the telephone network while crossing a roadway".
I'm sure they WOULDN'T, but the fact that they COULD is unsettling enough, isn't it? And wouldn't this open the door for ANY device that requires minute focus to be banned from use while crossing the street? And when will they decide that just as much harm can befall you from lack of attention while walking on the sidewalk as can befall you while crossing the street?
Frankly, Illinois (Chicago specifically) is becoming the new Nanny State and keeps attempting to trade our LIBERTIES away in order to protect us from ourselves. There was an actual study done to look at how the 35 most-populous cities in the United States balance individual freedom with government paternalism - Chicago came in DEAD LAST. "And it wasn't even close," says the author.
"We ranked the cities on how much freedom they afford their residents to indulge in alcohol, tobacco, drugs, sex, gambling and food. And, for good measure, we also looked at the cities' gun laws, use of traffic and surveillance cameras, and tossed in an "other" category to catch weird laws such as New York's ban on unlicensed dancing, or Chicago's tax on bottled water.
Chicago reigns supreme when it comes to treating its citizens like children (Las Vegas topped our rankings as America's freest city). Chicagoans pay the second-highest cigarette tax in the country, and the sixth-highest tax on alcohol. Chicago has more traffic-light cameras than any city in America (despite studies questioning their effectiveness), restricts cell phone use while driving, and it's quickly moving toward a creepy public surveillance system similar to London's.
Chicago isn't alone, of course. Many of America's big cities are moving toward a suffocating sort of paternalism. Chicago is just the worst."
America needs to wake up and stop coddling our citizens and let them make their own mistakes. There's a difference between putting up a new stop sign because of lethal traffic accidents and stopping pedestrians from using their legally-owned devices while crossing from one side of the street to the other. I don't care that officials will undoubtedly say "well it's the law and we're going to enforce it, but we're not going to be patrolling specifically for this" - the same way they shrug off all of Chicago's moronic laws that shouldn't exist. When the foie gras ban was in effect, they told us similar things - that they wouldn't be hunting for it but would respond to tattle-tales complaining about it happening in restaurants.
We need to put a stop to pointless laws the protect us from ourselves and focus a bit more on laws that protect us from OTHER PEOPLE.
We shouldn't be ticketed for driving without a seatbelt, or riding a bicycle/motorcycle without a helmet. We definitely shouldn't be ticketed for doing something potentially distracting while doing something that requires an iota of focus. It makes no sense that we could get a ticket and a fine for using the hands-free function of a cellphone while walking a street, but not for doing the same thing while barbecuing or changing a tire or doing our taxes. All three of those things could destroy you if you screw up slightly by losing focus - but it's OUR CHOICE. We have the right to potentially screw up our own lives. We just don't have the right to potentially screw up the lives of others. I have no arguments about arresting for drunken driving. I have a few qualms about ticketing for cellphone-using while driving. I have more qualms about arresting for public drunkenness.
All in all, it's a matter of who has the potential to be hurt the most and who's most likely to get hurt, and if it's the person DOING the action, then it shouldn't be illegal.
People should be learning to keep their wits about them and making the right decisions on their own. Meanwhile, we as a society should start praying that our feeble human brains can start evolving at least a FRACTION as fast as our technology is evolving. It's the gap in-between that keeps causing these problems, which in turn keep causing these horrible attempts at solutions.
Do you agree? Are you in favor of taking away people's rights to risk getting hit by cars? Do you agree that we're losing too many of our rights? Shouldn't the stupid be allowed to die off in hilarious ways and make room for the smart? Leave a comment!
Please Digg this article and join the debate regarding this bill!
Read more!
Free Starbucks Smoothies
Just wanted to throw out this public service announcement to you all:
If you have either a gym membership card or a Starbucks card, you can get a free Vivanno smoothie (Orange Mango Banana or Banana Chocolate). Of course, you have to time it right.
Between 2pm and 4pm, on Tuesdays July 29th, August 5th and August 12th
Frankly, I've got a plethora of Starbucks locations at my disposal, so I'm almost tempted to see how many I can hit in one lunch hour. I've got the one in the Sears Tower, the one in the building right next door, the one a block east, and those are just off the top of my head. I don't even GO to Starbucks and I know of three locations within one block of me.
If I do manage this maneuver and do acquire both smoothies today, I'll post my reviews of the beverages.
Until then, whip out those cards and get your FREE on!
Please Digg this article and spread the word that these things are free!
Read more!
If you have either a gym membership card or a Starbucks card, you can get a free Vivanno smoothie (Orange Mango Banana or Banana Chocolate). Of course, you have to time it right.
Between 2pm and 4pm, on Tuesdays July 29th, August 5th and August 12th
Frankly, I've got a plethora of Starbucks locations at my disposal, so I'm almost tempted to see how many I can hit in one lunch hour. I've got the one in the Sears Tower, the one in the building right next door, the one a block east, and those are just off the top of my head. I don't even GO to Starbucks and I know of three locations within one block of me.
If I do manage this maneuver and do acquire both smoothies today, I'll post my reviews of the beverages.
Until then, whip out those cards and get your FREE on!
Please Digg this article and spread the word that these things are free!
Read more!
Monday, July 28, 2008
Idiotic Product: Eye Jewelry
Okay, this is the first Idiotic Product I've reviewed that is almost too horrible to even LOOK AT. I consider myself to have a high level of intestinal fortitude for gross things, and rarely get "the willies" even while watching someone chew glass or lie on a bed of nails or anything like that. But this is just a product that has made me cringe from the first second I had to look at it.
It's Eye Jewelry.
Once you're done vomiting with rage or disgust from the picture on that website, we'll continue.
Okay, for those of you who were smart enough to NOT click on that link, it's got a couple of pictures describing this new fashion of contact lenses. Imagine a pretty little dangly earring, perched on someone's earlobe and containing a couple of shiny stones. And you might think "that's a lovely earring and it matches her evening gown so well" - because that's a normal occurrence and an accepted fashion statement. But now let's assume that the pretty dangling earrings are not connected to this woman's earlobe - they're connected to her CONTACT LENSES.
Yes, it's that bad.
I can think of very few borderline-sane reasons why a person would subject themselves to this ocular torture (torture for your own eyes and the eyes of anyone who has to see you wearing these monstrocities):
1. You have something horrible elsewhere on your face. Aside from the cheek region, I can agree that jewelry dangling from your goddamned eyes would be distracting enough to draw attention from anything like a giant mole on your chin to a disfiguring scar on your ear to a freakin' horn growing out of your forehead. One look at shiny stones dangling from your eyeballs will make sure we don't notice your grotesque facial feature because we'll frankly never want to glance at your face again.
2. There is seriously no other facial real estate from which things can dangle. You've perforated your ears worse than spiral notebook paper, your nose looks like you've never heard of the word "tissue" in your entire life, and your lips make it look like you're incessantly drooling gobs of jewels and metal. The only place left from which something shiny can dangle is your eyes. At this point, your face is either so numb from every other piercing and bejeweling that you'll never even notice. Your face is officially as tattered and torn as (one can assume) your self-worth/self-esteem or maybe you've damaged your own ego to the point where it constantly screams "LOOK AT ME! I SPARKLE!"
3. You never plan to hold a child, ever. Anyone who's ever held a child under the age of 18 months and also had ANY item or accessory on their face will know that children GRAB ANYTHING THEY CAN. I don't care if it's your glasses, your earrings or your hat, if it's within reach of their pudgy little arms, they will grab it without consideration and without mercy. Hell, it doesn't even have to be something removable - as those who have beards, mustaches or just low-hanging hair will attest. So I highly doubt that a baby will consider the fashion consequences of grabbing hold of your shiny contact-lens-dangle and ripping the hell out of it and possibly your cornea at the same time.
4. You have no nerve endings in your eye. You know, I'm a glasses person and would never consider contacts. I've heard the nightmare tales from my contact-lens-wearing friends and how a single errant eyelash will wreak havoc on their sight and sanity until it is located and extracted. One can only imagine the sheer terror and anguish that would result from a normal person having a string constantly dangling from their contact lens, with a WEIGHT. I also can't fathom the trippiness of having this attached sparkling cluster of jewels impede my vision every time I bent over and it hovers into view due to gravity, possibly infringing on my eyelashes' right to move freely once the angle of the string is not "straight down" but rather "straight out, causing a tugging sensation every time you blink."
Okay, it's seriously getting difficult to continue writing this when I'm cringing and rubbing my eyes every few minutes to remind myself that this will NEVER HAPPEN TO ME because I do not fall into any of those above categories, nor would I ever consider this fashion trend in the first place.
All in all, it's an idiotic product. Beyond that, it's an ocular atrocity.
Do you agree? Were you able to even look at it without shivering? Or would you buy into the trend because you fall into one of the above categories? Can you think of any other reasons why someone would do something so stupid? If you do, plase share!
Please Digg this article and spread the word that these things are creepy and dangerous!
Read more!
It's Eye Jewelry.
Once you're done vomiting with rage or disgust from the picture on that website, we'll continue.
Okay, for those of you who were smart enough to NOT click on that link, it's got a couple of pictures describing this new fashion of contact lenses. Imagine a pretty little dangly earring, perched on someone's earlobe and containing a couple of shiny stones. And you might think "that's a lovely earring and it matches her evening gown so well" - because that's a normal occurrence and an accepted fashion statement. But now let's assume that the pretty dangling earrings are not connected to this woman's earlobe - they're connected to her CONTACT LENSES.
Yes, it's that bad.
I can think of very few borderline-sane reasons why a person would subject themselves to this ocular torture (torture for your own eyes and the eyes of anyone who has to see you wearing these monstrocities):
1. You have something horrible elsewhere on your face. Aside from the cheek region, I can agree that jewelry dangling from your goddamned eyes would be distracting enough to draw attention from anything like a giant mole on your chin to a disfiguring scar on your ear to a freakin' horn growing out of your forehead. One look at shiny stones dangling from your eyeballs will make sure we don't notice your grotesque facial feature because we'll frankly never want to glance at your face again.
2. There is seriously no other facial real estate from which things can dangle. You've perforated your ears worse than spiral notebook paper, your nose looks like you've never heard of the word "tissue" in your entire life, and your lips make it look like you're incessantly drooling gobs of jewels and metal. The only place left from which something shiny can dangle is your eyes. At this point, your face is either so numb from every other piercing and bejeweling that you'll never even notice. Your face is officially as tattered and torn as (one can assume) your self-worth/self-esteem or maybe you've damaged your own ego to the point where it constantly screams "LOOK AT ME! I SPARKLE!"
3. You never plan to hold a child, ever. Anyone who's ever held a child under the age of 18 months and also had ANY item or accessory on their face will know that children GRAB ANYTHING THEY CAN. I don't care if it's your glasses, your earrings or your hat, if it's within reach of their pudgy little arms, they will grab it without consideration and without mercy. Hell, it doesn't even have to be something removable - as those who have beards, mustaches or just low-hanging hair will attest. So I highly doubt that a baby will consider the fashion consequences of grabbing hold of your shiny contact-lens-dangle and ripping the hell out of it and possibly your cornea at the same time.
4. You have no nerve endings in your eye. You know, I'm a glasses person and would never consider contacts. I've heard the nightmare tales from my contact-lens-wearing friends and how a single errant eyelash will wreak havoc on their sight and sanity until it is located and extracted. One can only imagine the sheer terror and anguish that would result from a normal person having a string constantly dangling from their contact lens, with a WEIGHT. I also can't fathom the trippiness of having this attached sparkling cluster of jewels impede my vision every time I bent over and it hovers into view due to gravity, possibly infringing on my eyelashes' right to move freely once the angle of the string is not "straight down" but rather "straight out, causing a tugging sensation every time you blink."
Okay, it's seriously getting difficult to continue writing this when I'm cringing and rubbing my eyes every few minutes to remind myself that this will NEVER HAPPEN TO ME because I do not fall into any of those above categories, nor would I ever consider this fashion trend in the first place.
All in all, it's an idiotic product. Beyond that, it's an ocular atrocity.
Do you agree? Were you able to even look at it without shivering? Or would you buy into the trend because you fall into one of the above categories? Can you think of any other reasons why someone would do something so stupid? If you do, plase share!
Please Digg this article and spread the word that these things are creepy and dangerous!
Read more!
Idiotic Product: Car Piercings
(Originally posted on October 2, 2006)
You've seen them on the street - "punks" and "rebels" and their faces that make you wish there were an important metal detector nearby to buzz incessantly at their facial accessories. The lobes, the cartilage, the eyebrow, the lip, the nostril, the bridge, the septum, the labret - and these are just SOME of the piercings available for the FACE. Let's not even get into the piercings unseen, okay? So for the "punk" who's simply run out of ROOM on the face, or for the "rebel" without the constitution for bloody hole-punching on their own body, there's a new fad hitting the streets. The actual STREETS...
Piercings for your CAR.
At this point, it seems like that should just be the end of this article.
Piercings. For your car. 'Nuff said. End of discussion.
Cue the "IDIOTIC PRODUCT" catchphrase. Roll credits.
But instead, let's try and evaluate this a little further and try and speculate WHY someone would possibly DO this to their car. Also, should these things be considered detriments to your car and other cars just by existing?
If you take a look at the pictures, you'll see that these "piercings" are large rings affixed primarily to the front bumper area of the car (the "face" of it, if you will) - they stick out, but not dangerously far or anything. They stand out, but not so well that they'd help you locate it at the Disneyland parking lot. So what purpose can they serve, other than being "extreme"? I mean, most things we do to our cars we do to either improve our lives, make things easier, or possibly to simply draw attention to the car. I'm reminded of ugly fins, tails, and flame appliques.
So is this what we've come to? That our personal cries for help by punching needles in our skin and filling the new void with metallic hoops and bars just isn't enough? We must expand these pleas for attention to every driver on the road with a large metal hoop affixed to your front bumper with an interesting logo? It's a little scary - if you think about it...
"I'm in my car so you probably can't see MY piercings, but I want you to know that I'm totally into piercings, so I PIERCED MY CAR so you can SEE!"
So now that we've rationalized WHY you'd affix one of these car piercings - let's discuss the repercussions of the deed. Does punching a hole or welding a ring onto the bumper area qualify as an act that affects insurance? If you get into an accident and they see this extra piece of car shrapnel that you voluntarily tacked on managed to do some EXTRA damage, say to a radiator, would insurance still pay for it? Does the bluebook value of a car go down significantly after you've added a West Coast Chopper ring to its face? And on top of this entire loss of value and risk of higher payments - you have to pay for this car piercing.
I've seen prices that average at about $100.
And on that note, I feel that car piercings are officially an IDIOTIC PRODUCT.
What's next? "Car cutting", where you key your own car to relieve the pressures of driving and handle road rage? Read more!
You've seen them on the street - "punks" and "rebels" and their faces that make you wish there were an important metal detector nearby to buzz incessantly at their facial accessories. The lobes, the cartilage, the eyebrow, the lip, the nostril, the bridge, the septum, the labret - and these are just SOME of the piercings available for the FACE. Let's not even get into the piercings unseen, okay? So for the "punk" who's simply run out of ROOM on the face, or for the "rebel" without the constitution for bloody hole-punching on their own body, there's a new fad hitting the streets. The actual STREETS...
Piercings for your CAR.
At this point, it seems like that should just be the end of this article.
Piercings. For your car. 'Nuff said. End of discussion.
Cue the "IDIOTIC PRODUCT" catchphrase. Roll credits.
But instead, let's try and evaluate this a little further and try and speculate WHY someone would possibly DO this to their car. Also, should these things be considered detriments to your car and other cars just by existing?
If you take a look at the pictures, you'll see that these "piercings" are large rings affixed primarily to the front bumper area of the car (the "face" of it, if you will) - they stick out, but not dangerously far or anything. They stand out, but not so well that they'd help you locate it at the Disneyland parking lot. So what purpose can they serve, other than being "extreme"? I mean, most things we do to our cars we do to either improve our lives, make things easier, or possibly to simply draw attention to the car. I'm reminded of ugly fins, tails, and flame appliques.
So is this what we've come to? That our personal cries for help by punching needles in our skin and filling the new void with metallic hoops and bars just isn't enough? We must expand these pleas for attention to every driver on the road with a large metal hoop affixed to your front bumper with an interesting logo? It's a little scary - if you think about it...
"I'm in my car so you probably can't see MY piercings, but I want you to know that I'm totally into piercings, so I PIERCED MY CAR so you can SEE!"
So now that we've rationalized WHY you'd affix one of these car piercings - let's discuss the repercussions of the deed. Does punching a hole or welding a ring onto the bumper area qualify as an act that affects insurance? If you get into an accident and they see this extra piece of car shrapnel that you voluntarily tacked on managed to do some EXTRA damage, say to a radiator, would insurance still pay for it? Does the bluebook value of a car go down significantly after you've added a West Coast Chopper ring to its face? And on top of this entire loss of value and risk of higher payments - you have to pay for this car piercing.
I've seen prices that average at about $100.
And on that note, I feel that car piercings are officially an IDIOTIC PRODUCT.
What's next? "Car cutting", where you key your own car to relieve the pressures of driving and handle road rage? Read more!
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Plastic Bag Bans
This has got to be one of the most horrid trends contributing to the combined laziness and incompetent nature of our current legal system: a ban on plastic bags. That's right, ever since Hippie Central (AKA San Francisco) decided in 2007 to place a ban on the use of plastic bags by supermarkets and chain pharmacies, other locations have been balancing their brains between the notion that it might be an environmentally-friendly idea and the warnings of sane people that it's a moronic idea and following suit would be sheer lunacy.
This week, the Los Angeles City Council teetered over the precipice of lunacy and has voted to ban all plastic bags in the city's supermarkets and stores by 2010.
I'll start this off by actually agreeing that some of the bleeding-heart liberals almost have a valid point when they talk about the evils of the plastic bags. They normally take between 100 and 1,000 years to biodegrade. (More on that later.) And yes, they tend to get caught in trees because of their lightweight nature and they wind up in streams and such and marine animals can eat them and die. While it's easy to say that "the kid who swallows too many marbles shouldn't grow up to have kids of his own" - I'll agree that it's a stretch to apply that logic to the turtles. I don't know how easy it is for a turtle to tell the difference between a fish and a freakin' plastic bag, but let's just pretend that somehow they look the same and it's not very nice to be killing off those poor confused sea creatures. And perhaps we use too many of them - we produce an estimated 500 billion of them a year, worldwide.
Okay, back to calling San Francisco and Los Angeles a bunch of idiots for imposing such ridiculous laws.
First of all, plastic bags were what we'd like to call a scientific and technological breakthrough. The ability to mass-produce a strong yet lightweight product that allows consumers to carry their items while also letting producers/manufacturers package their items was a proud day, in my opinion. Paper bags are often ineffective and unreliable, not to mention bulky and THEY CUT DOWN TREES. That was like one of the best reasons to make an alternative to paper bags in the first place! Doesn't anyone recall that little tree-hugging mantra? I mean there's no reason in arguing over the plastic bags that don't decompose fast enough to create mulch so new trees can grow and prosper is the alternative is just destroying the trees in the first place, right? The only alternative alternative is reusable material bags, which are costly, even bulkier, and require too much forethought to be effective. The likelihood of someone saying "it's time to make a grocery run - I'd better collect up my reusable bags so that I may use them once more at the grocery store" is minimal when compared to "oh dang I need milk right now and I'm passing by a store with milk so let me go and get milk and oh darn I don't have my reusable bag with me so just gimme something for free to carry it in so I'm not paying for another reusable bag that I'll never remember to use."
Secondly, we need to stop creating laws to claim things as obsolete. Remember when cassette tapes were popular and it was the most advanced way to listen to your favorite songs before this new-fangled "compact disc" came into existence? Well once we created the CD, it's not like we decided to ban the use/production of cassette tapes because we have better things now and cassettes are flooding the landfills and don't biodegrade and we need to pass laws to hold the recording industry responsible for this garbage and ban their production of cassettes! If you want to really call the plastic bag obsolete, you need to create something BETTER to REPLACE it. Once we came out with the CD and they were priced competitively and made available in mass amounts - we stopped using cassettes (for the most part). Just like the creation of cheap and effective plastic bags made the paper ones practically obsolete (there were very few paper-bag-choosers during the heyday of plastic baggery), if you want the plastic bag to be gone - a better choice has to come out. It has to fill the SAME NICHE (lightweight, strong, disposable, cheap) though. Reusable bags aren't meant to be cheap or disposable, so it's not a replacement. It's merely an alternative.
Thirdly, this is a freakin' non-issue! Remember how we mentioned that plastic bags normally take between 100 and 1,000 years to biodegrade? Well the point is that they DO BIODEGRADE. There must exist living organisms that can biodegrade plastic bags into compost. Ergo, there must be a way to identify those living organisms and culture them and use them to speed up the process by increasing the amount of those organisms and figuring out optimum conditions necessary to speed the process up exponentially. Oh wait, some 16-year-old kid in Canada already figured that out!
Do you understand how messed up this is now? That instead of pumping a minimal amount of money into a research grant to allow REAL scientists to build upon what some Canadian kid managed to accomplish, thereby creating efficient ways to completely biodegrade TONS of plastic bag material in LITTLE TIME - California cities are working to abolish plastic bags? That doesn't solve the PROBLEM, morons! The PROBLEM is millions of tons of plastic bags that we'd like to biodegrade, not the flow of the plastic bags!
That's as ridiculous as people becoming vegetarians because cows producing methane are causing global warming. The problem is the COWS and the METHANE, not people EATING the cows! If you convince everyone to stop eating cows, then the cows get ignored and continue to screw up the planet with global warming flatulence and WE ALL DIE.
Eat a Steak - Save the World! Remember?
In conclusion, it's just plain and simple stupidity to ban something that's completely legal to purchase or sell. It was insane when Chicago banned foie gras and luckily that's over now. If the following scenario is true, then something has gone horribly wrong and needs to be fixed:
In 2010, you can walk into a Los Angeles supermarket and purchase a container of plastic bags, but you can't have that container of plastic bags put into a plastic bag because that would be against the law.
This is horribly wrong and it needs to be fixed.
What are your thoughts? Do you agree that scientists and entrepreneurs should be investing in the process that we know exists to speed up the biodegrading process of plastic bags? Or would you rather ban a legal product in an effort to ignore the real problem and boast that "at least WE'RE not making the problem worse" rather than work to solve the problem?
(Again, the article about the Canadian teenager who's apparently smarter than the Los Angeles City Council)
(The article about San Francisco being the first in the idiot-city parade)
(The article about Los Angeles joining the idiot-city parade)
Please Digg this article and spread the word that we need science and not insane laws!
Read more!
This week, the Los Angeles City Council teetered over the precipice of lunacy and has voted to ban all plastic bags in the city's supermarkets and stores by 2010.
I'll start this off by actually agreeing that some of the bleeding-heart liberals almost have a valid point when they talk about the evils of the plastic bags. They normally take between 100 and 1,000 years to biodegrade. (More on that later.) And yes, they tend to get caught in trees because of their lightweight nature and they wind up in streams and such and marine animals can eat them and die. While it's easy to say that "the kid who swallows too many marbles shouldn't grow up to have kids of his own" - I'll agree that it's a stretch to apply that logic to the turtles. I don't know how easy it is for a turtle to tell the difference between a fish and a freakin' plastic bag, but let's just pretend that somehow they look the same and it's not very nice to be killing off those poor confused sea creatures. And perhaps we use too many of them - we produce an estimated 500 billion of them a year, worldwide.
Okay, back to calling San Francisco and Los Angeles a bunch of idiots for imposing such ridiculous laws.
First of all, plastic bags were what we'd like to call a scientific and technological breakthrough. The ability to mass-produce a strong yet lightweight product that allows consumers to carry their items while also letting producers/manufacturers package their items was a proud day, in my opinion. Paper bags are often ineffective and unreliable, not to mention bulky and THEY CUT DOWN TREES. That was like one of the best reasons to make an alternative to paper bags in the first place! Doesn't anyone recall that little tree-hugging mantra? I mean there's no reason in arguing over the plastic bags that don't decompose fast enough to create mulch so new trees can grow and prosper is the alternative is just destroying the trees in the first place, right? The only alternative alternative is reusable material bags, which are costly, even bulkier, and require too much forethought to be effective. The likelihood of someone saying "it's time to make a grocery run - I'd better collect up my reusable bags so that I may use them once more at the grocery store" is minimal when compared to "oh dang I need milk right now and I'm passing by a store with milk so let me go and get milk and oh darn I don't have my reusable bag with me so just gimme something for free to carry it in so I'm not paying for another reusable bag that I'll never remember to use."
Secondly, we need to stop creating laws to claim things as obsolete. Remember when cassette tapes were popular and it was the most advanced way to listen to your favorite songs before this new-fangled "compact disc" came into existence? Well once we created the CD, it's not like we decided to ban the use/production of cassette tapes because we have better things now and cassettes are flooding the landfills and don't biodegrade and we need to pass laws to hold the recording industry responsible for this garbage and ban their production of cassettes! If you want to really call the plastic bag obsolete, you need to create something BETTER to REPLACE it. Once we came out with the CD and they were priced competitively and made available in mass amounts - we stopped using cassettes (for the most part). Just like the creation of cheap and effective plastic bags made the paper ones practically obsolete (there were very few paper-bag-choosers during the heyday of plastic baggery), if you want the plastic bag to be gone - a better choice has to come out. It has to fill the SAME NICHE (lightweight, strong, disposable, cheap) though. Reusable bags aren't meant to be cheap or disposable, so it's not a replacement. It's merely an alternative.
Thirdly, this is a freakin' non-issue! Remember how we mentioned that plastic bags normally take between 100 and 1,000 years to biodegrade? Well the point is that they DO BIODEGRADE. There must exist living organisms that can biodegrade plastic bags into compost. Ergo, there must be a way to identify those living organisms and culture them and use them to speed up the process by increasing the amount of those organisms and figuring out optimum conditions necessary to speed the process up exponentially. Oh wait, some 16-year-old kid in Canada already figured that out!
Do you understand how messed up this is now? That instead of pumping a minimal amount of money into a research grant to allow REAL scientists to build upon what some Canadian kid managed to accomplish, thereby creating efficient ways to completely biodegrade TONS of plastic bag material in LITTLE TIME - California cities are working to abolish plastic bags? That doesn't solve the PROBLEM, morons! The PROBLEM is millions of tons of plastic bags that we'd like to biodegrade, not the flow of the plastic bags!
That's as ridiculous as people becoming vegetarians because cows producing methane are causing global warming. The problem is the COWS and the METHANE, not people EATING the cows! If you convince everyone to stop eating cows, then the cows get ignored and continue to screw up the planet with global warming flatulence and WE ALL DIE.
Eat a Steak - Save the World! Remember?
In conclusion, it's just plain and simple stupidity to ban something that's completely legal to purchase or sell. It was insane when Chicago banned foie gras and luckily that's over now. If the following scenario is true, then something has gone horribly wrong and needs to be fixed:
In 2010, you can walk into a Los Angeles supermarket and purchase a container of plastic bags, but you can't have that container of plastic bags put into a plastic bag because that would be against the law.
This is horribly wrong and it needs to be fixed.
What are your thoughts? Do you agree that scientists and entrepreneurs should be investing in the process that we know exists to speed up the biodegrading process of plastic bags? Or would you rather ban a legal product in an effort to ignore the real problem and boast that "at least WE'RE not making the problem worse" rather than work to solve the problem?
(Again, the article about the Canadian teenager who's apparently smarter than the Los Angeles City Council)
(The article about San Francisco being the first in the idiot-city parade)
(The article about Los Angeles joining the idiot-city parade)
Please Digg this article and spread the word that we need science and not insane laws!
Read more!
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!
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Prepregnancy
(This is in homage to George Carlin. This article was originally posted on November 29, 2006 and is being moved to this weblog.)
George Carlin had it right:
"That's another complaint of mine, too much use of this prefix pre.... It's all over the language now. pre this, pre that..... place the turkey in a preheated oven.... it's ridiculous... there are only two states an oven can possibly exist in, heated or unheated.... preheated is a meaningless fucking term... that's like pre-recorded, this program was pre-recorded, well of course it was pre-recorded, when else you gonna record it, afterwards? That’s the whole purpose of recording, to do it beforehand! Otherwise it doesn't really work does it? Pre-existing, pre-planning, pre-screening, you know what I tell these people? PRE-SUCK MY GENITAL SITUATION!"
The newest annoyance in the "Land of Pre-"? PREPREGNANCY.
While surfing through articles, I happened onto this one regarding the notion of prepregnancy and ways that women can take care of their prepregnant selves.
Just like the heated status of an oven, pregnancy is one of those boolean, dichotomous black-and-white situations: You can either be "pregnant" or "not pregnant". You don't get to be prepregnant and develop a whole new concept to scare the crap out of women.
The article itself tried to bring us some valid points, but then wound up going overboard and screwing everything up, like doing a backflip and making a midair bowel movement, completely covering itself in feces. For example, it tried to make a valid point by mentioning that by the time most women find out that they ARE pregnant - they've already done things that affect the fetus and the damage is already done. That's a completely fair point and worry, that by the time the pregnancy is discovered, it may already be too late.
And then it prepares for the backflip of going overboard by creating this new term, "prepregnancy", which apparently stands for every moment in a woman's life between menarche and menopause while the woman is not ACTUALLY pregnant. So now that we've got a loaded and vague term as the backflip, the article lets the feces fly as it gives some guidelines to follow to ensure a healthy prepregnancy, which supposedly means all throughout life while ovulating and not yet pregnant:
- "prepregnancy checkups that include screening for diabetes, H.I.V. and obesity; managing chronic medical conditions; reviewing medications that may harm a fetus; and making sure vaccinations are up to date"
- "they should abstain from smoking, alcohol and drugs"
So, their advice to the "prepregnant" is to not smoke, drink or do drugs - and to try to avoid diabetes, H.I.V. and obesity?
Yes, and it gets worse.
"It’s not like we have an injection we can give someone" to prepare her for pregnancy, said Dr. Hani Atrash, associate director for program development at the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities at the disease centers. "Some of the interventions, like weight management, need time to happen. You cannot quit smoking in one day."
You mean there's no instant fix for smoking or an instant way to lose weight? HOW CAN THIS BE? By the way, I think Dr. Hani Atrash should change her title to "associate director for common-sense development at the National Center of the Blatantly Obvious".
In an attempt to wipe off the feces that the article decided to spray all over itself, it tries to bring up another valid point that indeed half of all pregnancies in the United States are unplanned. Teengers especially, but many others are sexually active and do not PLAN to get pregnant. Mostly because they don't WANT to be pregnant. Which means that when a not-100% protection method winds up proving its not-100% quality - the pregnancy is considered to be "unplanned".
The article then stretches out to get ready for another backflip, and takes to the air as it suggests that EVERY young person create a "reproductive life plan". Well, apparently "don't get her pregnant" and "don't get pregnant" aren't acceptable plans now. So what kind of plan did the article have in mind? Well, it goes on and says: "rising obesity rates and the tendency to postpone motherhood mean far more women are overweight when they become pregnant and thus are more likely to have high blood pressure, diabetes or prediabetes, which complicate pregnancy."
Their plan suggestion involves "not being overweight".
So now, women not only have the regular superficial worries about being overweight to worry about, but let's tack on an extra helping of worry with "but what happens if I get pregnant" to go with it. As if the worries of pregnancy, childbirth and parents weren't enough regarding the whole thing - now there's a bonus for being overweight all by itself.
Oh, and for those women who bother to take prepregnancy seriously from a medical standpoint, the article goes on to state: "While doctors have been recommending preconception care for many years, it has never really caught on. Only one in six health care providers said they had provided preconception care to patients, one study found, and most health plans do not cover it. Medicaid, the government health plan for the poor, often only covers women after they are pregnant."
WOMAN: "Hello, Mr. HMO Agent, I'd like to have more medical care and tests and doctor visits plase."
HMO AGENT: "Why are you requesting these additional services?"
WOMAN: "Well, I'm prepregnant. I could be pregnant sometime and I need to make sure to stay healthy while prepregnant."
HMO AGENT: "Wait, so you're not pregnant?"
WOMAN: "No, I'm prepregnant, but pregnancy could happen someday and I need extra medical attention before that happens."
*insert maniacal laughter and rejection from HMO AGENT*
Wow, who didn't see that one coming? Where's that doctor from the National Center of the Blatantly Obvious? Oh, apparently she's on a panel of experts, judging by my last feces-conjuring quote I plan on using from the article. It's regarding the role of men in the whole prepregnancy "reproductive life plan":
"(Men should be wary of exposures to toxins that cause birth defects and should avoid sexually transmitted diseases, experts say.)"
Wait, I'm NOT supposed to expose myself to toxins? I'm supposed to AVOID sexually-transmitted diseases?? WHY DIDN'T THE EXPERTS TELL ME SOONER???
"Waiter! I'd like to cancel my order of Lead Paint Chip and Syphillis Chow Mein! The experts say I shouldn't be eating that!"
Reading this article kind of made my day, giving me some laughs at the idiocy and about the sheer stupidity of humanity as a whole. I also shed many tears while reading this article - some out of afforementioned laughter, but just as many out of weeping for both the English language with another unplanned bastard "pre-" baby as well as the poor excuse for scare-tactics that seems to be targeting sexually-active dumbasses who possibly somehow don't know any better.
It's a sad day when such blatant common-sense can actually pass as a "new study" and "newsworthy findings". Humans must really suck if THESE are the kinds of warnings we need flying around in an attempt to EDUCATE people who somehow DON'T know this stuff already.
What do you think? Read more!
George Carlin had it right:
"That's another complaint of mine, too much use of this prefix pre.... It's all over the language now. pre this, pre that..... place the turkey in a preheated oven.... it's ridiculous... there are only two states an oven can possibly exist in, heated or unheated.... preheated is a meaningless fucking term... that's like pre-recorded, this program was pre-recorded, well of course it was pre-recorded, when else you gonna record it, afterwards? That’s the whole purpose of recording, to do it beforehand! Otherwise it doesn't really work does it? Pre-existing, pre-planning, pre-screening, you know what I tell these people? PRE-SUCK MY GENITAL SITUATION!"
The newest annoyance in the "Land of Pre-"? PREPREGNANCY.
While surfing through articles, I happened onto this one regarding the notion of prepregnancy and ways that women can take care of their prepregnant selves.
Just like the heated status of an oven, pregnancy is one of those boolean, dichotomous black-and-white situations: You can either be "pregnant" or "not pregnant". You don't get to be prepregnant and develop a whole new concept to scare the crap out of women.
The article itself tried to bring us some valid points, but then wound up going overboard and screwing everything up, like doing a backflip and making a midair bowel movement, completely covering itself in feces. For example, it tried to make a valid point by mentioning that by the time most women find out that they ARE pregnant - they've already done things that affect the fetus and the damage is already done. That's a completely fair point and worry, that by the time the pregnancy is discovered, it may already be too late.
And then it prepares for the backflip of going overboard by creating this new term, "prepregnancy", which apparently stands for every moment in a woman's life between menarche and menopause while the woman is not ACTUALLY pregnant. So now that we've got a loaded and vague term as the backflip, the article lets the feces fly as it gives some guidelines to follow to ensure a healthy prepregnancy, which supposedly means all throughout life while ovulating and not yet pregnant:
- "prepregnancy checkups that include screening for diabetes, H.I.V. and obesity; managing chronic medical conditions; reviewing medications that may harm a fetus; and making sure vaccinations are up to date"
- "they should abstain from smoking, alcohol and drugs"
So, their advice to the "prepregnant" is to not smoke, drink or do drugs - and to try to avoid diabetes, H.I.V. and obesity?
Yes, and it gets worse.
"It’s not like we have an injection we can give someone" to prepare her for pregnancy, said Dr. Hani Atrash, associate director for program development at the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities at the disease centers. "Some of the interventions, like weight management, need time to happen. You cannot quit smoking in one day."
You mean there's no instant fix for smoking or an instant way to lose weight? HOW CAN THIS BE? By the way, I think Dr. Hani Atrash should change her title to "associate director for common-sense development at the National Center of the Blatantly Obvious".
In an attempt to wipe off the feces that the article decided to spray all over itself, it tries to bring up another valid point that indeed half of all pregnancies in the United States are unplanned. Teengers especially, but many others are sexually active and do not PLAN to get pregnant. Mostly because they don't WANT to be pregnant. Which means that when a not-100% protection method winds up proving its not-100% quality - the pregnancy is considered to be "unplanned".
The article then stretches out to get ready for another backflip, and takes to the air as it suggests that EVERY young person create a "reproductive life plan". Well, apparently "don't get her pregnant" and "don't get pregnant" aren't acceptable plans now. So what kind of plan did the article have in mind? Well, it goes on and says: "rising obesity rates and the tendency to postpone motherhood mean far more women are overweight when they become pregnant and thus are more likely to have high blood pressure, diabetes or prediabetes, which complicate pregnancy."
Their plan suggestion involves "not being overweight".
So now, women not only have the regular superficial worries about being overweight to worry about, but let's tack on an extra helping of worry with "but what happens if I get pregnant" to go with it. As if the worries of pregnancy, childbirth and parents weren't enough regarding the whole thing - now there's a bonus for being overweight all by itself.
Oh, and for those women who bother to take prepregnancy seriously from a medical standpoint, the article goes on to state: "While doctors have been recommending preconception care for many years, it has never really caught on. Only one in six health care providers said they had provided preconception care to patients, one study found, and most health plans do not cover it. Medicaid, the government health plan for the poor, often only covers women after they are pregnant."
WOMAN: "Hello, Mr. HMO Agent, I'd like to have more medical care and tests and doctor visits plase."
HMO AGENT: "Why are you requesting these additional services?"
WOMAN: "Well, I'm prepregnant. I could be pregnant sometime and I need to make sure to stay healthy while prepregnant."
HMO AGENT: "Wait, so you're not pregnant?"
WOMAN: "No, I'm prepregnant, but pregnancy could happen someday and I need extra medical attention before that happens."
*insert maniacal laughter and rejection from HMO AGENT*
Wow, who didn't see that one coming? Where's that doctor from the National Center of the Blatantly Obvious? Oh, apparently she's on a panel of experts, judging by my last feces-conjuring quote I plan on using from the article. It's regarding the role of men in the whole prepregnancy "reproductive life plan":
"(Men should be wary of exposures to toxins that cause birth defects and should avoid sexually transmitted diseases, experts say.)"
Wait, I'm NOT supposed to expose myself to toxins? I'm supposed to AVOID sexually-transmitted diseases?? WHY DIDN'T THE EXPERTS TELL ME SOONER???
"Waiter! I'd like to cancel my order of Lead Paint Chip and Syphillis Chow Mein! The experts say I shouldn't be eating that!"
Reading this article kind of made my day, giving me some laughs at the idiocy and about the sheer stupidity of humanity as a whole. I also shed many tears while reading this article - some out of afforementioned laughter, but just as many out of weeping for both the English language with another unplanned bastard "pre-" baby as well as the poor excuse for scare-tactics that seems to be targeting sexually-active dumbasses who possibly somehow don't know any better.
It's a sad day when such blatant common-sense can actually pass as a "new study" and "newsworthy findings". Humans must really suck if THESE are the kinds of warnings we need flying around in an attempt to EDUCATE people who somehow DON'T know this stuff already.
What do you think? Read more!
Monday, June 30, 2008
PETA vs The Lobster Zone
Strangely enough, this has nothing to do with my previous article about PETA and Lobsters. A new "monster" has appeared before PETA and has once again yielded outrage from the organization. What demonic insult to animalkind is PETA rallying against this time?
Imagine putting money in a carnival claw game, except instead of a chance to win a fuzzy stuffed animal, it was a chance to win a delicious live lobster that would be cooked up for you if you won.
Congratulations, you're now thinking of "The Lobster Zone" - a game that actually exists in many fisheries and sports bars and restaurants and the machines are actually manufactured by a domestic company.
PETA is obviously not pleased. And yet, I think they should at least consider it better than the alternative.
"JD's Lobster Zone machine turns torture and death into a game, pure and simple," says PETA vice president Tracy Reiman. "Incarcerating lobsters in filthy tanks inside a boisterous club, making an abusive game out of their capture, and finally boiling them to death is every bit as reprehensible as tormenting cats, dogs, or any other animal."
PETA didn't even know that this one sports bar's machine was actually one of many machines that have been produced by The Lobster Zone and are available in more than 300 locations nationwide.
First off, I'd like to point out that dogs and cats aren't currently being bred/caught for eating here in the USA, despite my arguments that they might as well be. You can't compare lobsters with cats and dogs because we aren't eating cats and dogs. Also, cats and dogs have brains capable of feeling pain, and science can't even prove or disprove the same thing about lobsters.
Secondly, I have absolutely no clue why PETA is against this. Okay, I have SOME clue (mostly their gratuitous usage of the word "torture"). But when you think about it, isn't this game literally giving the lobsters a second chance?? I mean, they already had one shot at not being boiled alive - and they screwed it up by walking right into a lobster trap. At this point, we'd normally say "game over" and they get put into a tank, and patrons of the restaurant could point at one and say "feed me THAT one" and out it goes into the boiling water and served with a garlic butter sauce.
Now, we've given lobsters a second chance. A patron can point a claw at the lobster and say "feed me THAT one", but unless they're lucky or skilled, the lobster can get away! True, there's no REAL escape since they're trapped in a tank, but isn't giving them a chance to NOT be killed and eaten a step in the right direction? If this expanded, and every time you wanted a hamburger from McDonald's, you had to slip some coin in a machine and try and grab your cow with a backhoe-type claw contraption, wouldn't that mean less cow death?
I don't understand why PETA is so adamantly against this machine - their own logic should at least count this as progress in their favor.
The machine itself was developed with the help of a marine biologist and have been around for more than a decade. A competitor lobster-game-machine company (because The Lobster Zone doesn't hold a monopoly) even boasts that its machines can net $10,000 a year to a company. Of course, the machines themselves cost $15,950 - and I'm guessing it doesn't come with lobsters - but that's still an eventual profit.
The Lobster Zone's owner, Ernie Pappas, said that his games don't generate many complaints. "If a restaurant does 8,000 (customers) a week, we might get one person every other week who complains."
PETA's website, LobsterLib 'surprisingly' argues that since there's no humane way to kill lobsters (even though it's not scientifically agreed upon that they even feel pain) - they shouldn't be eaten. Oh, and also we should all be vegetarians as well. Too bad nobody told that to the lobsters; a lobster's favorite food is lobster.
The best part of this story is that despite PETA's letter and campaigning, the sports bar's owner still has his game up and running and we will probably keep it.
"I just hate like hell for somebody to tell me how to run my business," he said.
Denver restaurant consultant and vegetarian John Imbergamo said he doubts any controversy that PETA generates will turn people away from J.D.'s Bait Shop.
"It's not exactly a place that's sprout- and tofu-friendly," he said.
If anything, the kind of people who would be curious about this game might hear the publicity and go there, Imbergamo said.
Do you hear that, PETA? Humans are not yours to push around, and when you start spewing your propaganda and telling business owners what they should do, you make more enemies than friends and they will push even harder just to spite you.
You could have at least tried to claim a small victory in that lobsters could defend themselves from being boiled alive and eaten by escaping the crane - but instead you chose to stumble over your own two feet. Not only do you look like idiots (bigger ones than you were before this incident), you're rooted the owner further into disobeying your orders and probably given him and his bar and the game itself more publicity.
And after all, there's no such thing as bad publicity.
Frankly, there's an even better argument against PETA's chastizing of these games. True, if a bar patron played and won, they could eat the lobster. But I'm willing to bet that if a PETA member played and won, they'd let the PETA member take the lobster with them and the lobster could be saved! PETA - they just gave you a chance to save the lobsters, on TOP of a chance for the lobsters to save themselves! Go grab your quarters and get to rescuin'!
(The Denver Post article)
(PETA's tirade and letter to the bar owner)
Read more!
Imagine putting money in a carnival claw game, except instead of a chance to win a fuzzy stuffed animal, it was a chance to win a delicious live lobster that would be cooked up for you if you won.
Congratulations, you're now thinking of "The Lobster Zone" - a game that actually exists in many fisheries and sports bars and restaurants and the machines are actually manufactured by a domestic company.
PETA is obviously not pleased. And yet, I think they should at least consider it better than the alternative.
"JD's Lobster Zone machine turns torture and death into a game, pure and simple," says PETA vice president Tracy Reiman. "Incarcerating lobsters in filthy tanks inside a boisterous club, making an abusive game out of their capture, and finally boiling them to death is every bit as reprehensible as tormenting cats, dogs, or any other animal."
PETA didn't even know that this one sports bar's machine was actually one of many machines that have been produced by The Lobster Zone and are available in more than 300 locations nationwide.
First off, I'd like to point out that dogs and cats aren't currently being bred/caught for eating here in the USA, despite my arguments that they might as well be. You can't compare lobsters with cats and dogs because we aren't eating cats and dogs. Also, cats and dogs have brains capable of feeling pain, and science can't even prove or disprove the same thing about lobsters.
Secondly, I have absolutely no clue why PETA is against this. Okay, I have SOME clue (mostly their gratuitous usage of the word "torture"). But when you think about it, isn't this game literally giving the lobsters a second chance?? I mean, they already had one shot at not being boiled alive - and they screwed it up by walking right into a lobster trap. At this point, we'd normally say "game over" and they get put into a tank, and patrons of the restaurant could point at one and say "feed me THAT one" and out it goes into the boiling water and served with a garlic butter sauce.
Now, we've given lobsters a second chance. A patron can point a claw at the lobster and say "feed me THAT one", but unless they're lucky or skilled, the lobster can get away! True, there's no REAL escape since they're trapped in a tank, but isn't giving them a chance to NOT be killed and eaten a step in the right direction? If this expanded, and every time you wanted a hamburger from McDonald's, you had to slip some coin in a machine and try and grab your cow with a backhoe-type claw contraption, wouldn't that mean less cow death?
I don't understand why PETA is so adamantly against this machine - their own logic should at least count this as progress in their favor.
The machine itself was developed with the help of a marine biologist and have been around for more than a decade. A competitor lobster-game-machine company (because The Lobster Zone doesn't hold a monopoly) even boasts that its machines can net $10,000 a year to a company. Of course, the machines themselves cost $15,950 - and I'm guessing it doesn't come with lobsters - but that's still an eventual profit.
The Lobster Zone's owner, Ernie Pappas, said that his games don't generate many complaints. "If a restaurant does 8,000 (customers) a week, we might get one person every other week who complains."
PETA's website, LobsterLib 'surprisingly' argues that since there's no humane way to kill lobsters (even though it's not scientifically agreed upon that they even feel pain) - they shouldn't be eaten. Oh, and also we should all be vegetarians as well. Too bad nobody told that to the lobsters; a lobster's favorite food is lobster.
The best part of this story is that despite PETA's letter and campaigning, the sports bar's owner still has his game up and running and we will probably keep it.
"I just hate like hell for somebody to tell me how to run my business," he said.
Denver restaurant consultant and vegetarian John Imbergamo said he doubts any controversy that PETA generates will turn people away from J.D.'s Bait Shop.
"It's not exactly a place that's sprout- and tofu-friendly," he said.
If anything, the kind of people who would be curious about this game might hear the publicity and go there, Imbergamo said.
Do you hear that, PETA? Humans are not yours to push around, and when you start spewing your propaganda and telling business owners what they should do, you make more enemies than friends and they will push even harder just to spite you.
You could have at least tried to claim a small victory in that lobsters could defend themselves from being boiled alive and eaten by escaping the crane - but instead you chose to stumble over your own two feet. Not only do you look like idiots (bigger ones than you were before this incident), you're rooted the owner further into disobeying your orders and probably given him and his bar and the game itself more publicity.
And after all, there's no such thing as bad publicity.
Frankly, there's an even better argument against PETA's chastizing of these games. True, if a bar patron played and won, they could eat the lobster. But I'm willing to bet that if a PETA member played and won, they'd let the PETA member take the lobster with them and the lobster could be saved! PETA - they just gave you a chance to save the lobsters, on TOP of a chance for the lobsters to save themselves! Go grab your quarters and get to rescuin'!
(The Denver Post article)
(PETA's tirade and letter to the bar owner)
Read more!
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Horrible Games
Summer is (sadly) finally here, resulting in widespread usage of smaller sleeves, shorter pants, and a general increase in skin-flesh being brought to the general public's attention. As a result, I've actually wound up listening to my iPod less than usual in order to maintain the voice-in-my-head narration at full uninterrupted volume.
What is the narration apparently going on inside my head?
Horrible games.
For example, at times, the voice in my head is the narration of a type of game show called "The Pregnancy Game". Combining the first paragraph of this sentence with the fact that I am male - that should already worry you about the horrible-ness factor of this game.
Basically, it's making a guess about every bulging female stomach (and living in Chicago, there's more than enough to keep this game going at all times) and guessing which category the bulges fit into:
- Doesn't look pregnant and probably isn't (this is the easiest, due to the jiggliness of smaller guts that scream "cellulose" and not "fetus")
- Looks pregnant but probably isn't (difficult category, requires a lot of judgement of stomach size related to other body parts and focusing on nuances and gestures to suggest that this mound of jutting flesh is not a temporary setback for the woman)
- Looks pregnant and probably is (slightly easier than the last one, gestures give it away and extreme body-part size differences are key elements to this category)
- Doesn't look pregnant but probably is (virtually impossible to identify, unless I had x-ray vision - in which case this category would become "doesn't look pregnant but certainly was and sorry about what my x-ray vision did")
The rules to the game are very simple. Upon sight of a potential victim, you have 5 seconds to make a guess of which category she falls in. Then you have to keep track of her for at least 30 more seconds. If at any time, you notice things that make you second-guess your category choice for even a second, no points for the round. If your guess seems true, score one point.
You lose all your points if you get confronted by any victim (or any male who is with her).
My personal high score is like 15 during one lunch break.
Try to beat it - if you dare.
Just try not to get arrested . . . or beaten up. Read more!
What is the narration apparently going on inside my head?
Horrible games.
For example, at times, the voice in my head is the narration of a type of game show called "The Pregnancy Game". Combining the first paragraph of this sentence with the fact that I am male - that should already worry you about the horrible-ness factor of this game.
Basically, it's making a guess about every bulging female stomach (and living in Chicago, there's more than enough to keep this game going at all times) and guessing which category the bulges fit into:
- Doesn't look pregnant and probably isn't (this is the easiest, due to the jiggliness of smaller guts that scream "cellulose" and not "fetus")
- Looks pregnant but probably isn't (difficult category, requires a lot of judgement of stomach size related to other body parts and focusing on nuances and gestures to suggest that this mound of jutting flesh is not a temporary setback for the woman)
- Looks pregnant and probably is (slightly easier than the last one, gestures give it away and extreme body-part size differences are key elements to this category)
- Doesn't look pregnant but probably is (virtually impossible to identify, unless I had x-ray vision - in which case this category would become "doesn't look pregnant but certainly was and sorry about what my x-ray vision did")
The rules to the game are very simple. Upon sight of a potential victim, you have 5 seconds to make a guess of which category she falls in. Then you have to keep track of her for at least 30 more seconds. If at any time, you notice things that make you second-guess your category choice for even a second, no points for the round. If your guess seems true, score one point.
You lose all your points if you get confronted by any victim (or any male who is with her).
My personal high score is like 15 during one lunch break.
Try to beat it - if you dare.
Just try not to get arrested . . . or beaten up. Read more!
Monday, June 23, 2008
George Carlin Has Died
There are no words to describe this grief, even though he's constantly suggested at least seven of them...
http://www.etonline.com/news/2008/06/62841/index.html
ET breaks the news that comedian George Carlin has died from heart failure. The man who made famous the "seven words you can never say on television" passed away at 5:55 p.m. Sunday at Saint John's Hospital in Santa Monica, his longtime publicist said. He was 71.
Carlin, who has had several heart attacks and a history of cardiac issues, went into the hospital this afternoon after complaining of heart problems.
Carlin has more than 20 comedy albums, 14 HBO specials, numerous TV and movie roles, and three best-selling books to his credit. Last year, he celebrated his 50th year in show business, and he had just finished his last HBO special in March, "It's Bad for Ya."
"Our Father who art in heaven, and to the republic for which it stands. Thy kingdom come, one nation indivisible as it is in heaven. Give us this day as we forgive those who so proudly we hail. Crown thy good into temptation, but deliver us from the twilight. Amen."
"Frisbeetarianism is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck."
We'll miss you, George. Read more!
http://www.etonline.com/news/2008/06/62841/index.html
ET breaks the news that comedian George Carlin has died from heart failure. The man who made famous the "seven words you can never say on television" passed away at 5:55 p.m. Sunday at Saint John's Hospital in Santa Monica, his longtime publicist said. He was 71.
Carlin, who has had several heart attacks and a history of cardiac issues, went into the hospital this afternoon after complaining of heart problems.
Carlin has more than 20 comedy albums, 14 HBO specials, numerous TV and movie roles, and three best-selling books to his credit. Last year, he celebrated his 50th year in show business, and he had just finished his last HBO special in March, "It's Bad for Ya."
"Our Father who art in heaven, and to the republic for which it stands. Thy kingdom come, one nation indivisible as it is in heaven. Give us this day as we forgive those who so proudly we hail. Crown thy good into temptation, but deliver us from the twilight. Amen."
"Frisbeetarianism is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck."
We'll miss you, George. Read more!
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
My Favorite Online Sweepstakes
Of course, I need a separate post just to detail some of the better sweepstakes out there.
Namely, the sweepstakes that let you earn extra entries by mentioning their sweepstakes in your blog. They usually have the contest on THEIR blog, so it's like a nice kind of social networking?
Anyway, the first to make the list is Table for Five and their sweepstakes: Win a box of Personalized Stationery from Paperlicious.
(This sweepstakes ends June 19th, 2008.)
Keep this page bookmarked, as I intend to promote several more sweepstakes, the blogs they are on, my chances of winning increasing, and maybe get a few more readers in the process! Read more!
Namely, the sweepstakes that let you earn extra entries by mentioning their sweepstakes in your blog. They usually have the contest on THEIR blog, so it's like a nice kind of social networking?
Anyway, the first to make the list is Table for Five and their sweepstakes: Win a box of Personalized Stationery from Paperlicious.
(This sweepstakes ends June 19th, 2008.)
Keep this page bookmarked, as I intend to promote several more sweepstakes, the blogs they are on, my chances of winning increasing, and maybe get a few more readers in the process! Read more!
Butts and the Homeless
Apparently today's RedEye decided to spend an entire page of print regarding the problem of too many cigarette butts littering the beaches and streets of Chicago. Because with gas prices and a war and failing public transportation - it's the perfect time to rub more salt into the wounds of smokers who have been chastized out of every building and shunned a distance of 15 feet from building entrances.
They apparently followed around some environmental organization member and watched her pick up cigarette butts on the North Avenue Beach and she collected "137 butts in a few minutes."
The city is now going to start issuing $500 fines this summer to "anyone caught puffing or tossing a cigarette scrap within 15 feet of a beach."
So on one page, there's an article about this woman picking up butts and complaining about smokers - next to that is a blurb about how deadly and toxic and non-biodegradable the components of cigarette filters are - and under it all is a statistic-laden indictment of how few butts make it to trash cans and how dirty the city really is. There's also the burning question calling for feedback:
"Are cigarette butts blighting the beach, or should non-smokers lighten up?"
Well, here's my reply I plan on sending:
If the city drives all the smokers from indoors (where there are lots of garbage cans) to the outdoors (where garbage cans are scarce), the inevitable fact is that the outdoors becomes littered with cigarette butts. Smokers may be to blame for their garbage, but more to blame are the people who drove them away from the bounty of indoor trash bins.
As for the solution, local businesses should be able to enroll in a city program where they can issue plastic bags to the homeless and pay them $5 for collecting a full bag with cigarette butts. The homeless do honest work and get paid (rather than harrassing passers-by for money), the city gets cleaner and maybe the businesses get some reward for participating in the program. Win-win-win.
--Aaron Samuels, 24, Bridgeport
Do you think it's a crazy idea? I know, it's different from my usual method of dealing with the homeless (read: ignoring them), but anything that gets them off my case can't be a bad thing.
Update: They sent back an e-mail saying:
Thanks again Aaron.
Best,
RedEye staff
Which I think is their way of saying "we appreciate the response, but we won't be printing it." Oh well, at least that's what I have a blog for! Read more!
They apparently followed around some environmental organization member and watched her pick up cigarette butts on the North Avenue Beach and she collected "137 butts in a few minutes."
The city is now going to start issuing $500 fines this summer to "anyone caught puffing or tossing a cigarette scrap within 15 feet of a beach."
So on one page, there's an article about this woman picking up butts and complaining about smokers - next to that is a blurb about how deadly and toxic and non-biodegradable the components of cigarette filters are - and under it all is a statistic-laden indictment of how few butts make it to trash cans and how dirty the city really is. There's also the burning question calling for feedback:
"Are cigarette butts blighting the beach, or should non-smokers lighten up?"
Well, here's my reply I plan on sending:
If the city drives all the smokers from indoors (where there are lots of garbage cans) to the outdoors (where garbage cans are scarce), the inevitable fact is that the outdoors becomes littered with cigarette butts. Smokers may be to blame for their garbage, but more to blame are the people who drove them away from the bounty of indoor trash bins.
As for the solution, local businesses should be able to enroll in a city program where they can issue plastic bags to the homeless and pay them $5 for collecting a full bag with cigarette butts. The homeless do honest work and get paid (rather than harrassing passers-by for money), the city gets cleaner and maybe the businesses get some reward for participating in the program. Win-win-win.
--Aaron Samuels, 24, Bridgeport
Do you think it's a crazy idea? I know, it's different from my usual method of dealing with the homeless (read: ignoring them), but anything that gets them off my case can't be a bad thing.
Update: They sent back an e-mail saying:
Thanks again Aaron.
Best,
RedEye staff
Which I think is their way of saying "we appreciate the response, but we won't be printing it." Oh well, at least that's what I have a blog for! Read more!
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Idiotic Product: Centerpiece Gourmet
So I'm starting up the ‘Idiotic Product’ catchphrase on this new blog. I’m also starting the use of the ‘Buyer Beware’ tag so I can group together all of my collective "don't buy this product because if you do you're either an idiot or have evolved so far ahead of mankind that you can actually find a GOOD reason to purchase it and please let me know if this is the case" articles.
Anyway, my choice for today is the Centerpiece Gourmet, a product that turns foods into flowery centerpieces that can be eaten.
Quite the Idiotic Product!
Okay, before we start this - I'll admit that the concept seems like a good one. Straight out of an episode of Martha Stewart, it's a presentation of food that's appealing to the eyes as well. However, Martha has the brainpower to know that you can get the same result from just properly making food and presenting it on a platter where people will want to eat from it - not done with the methods used to make these edible monstrocities that will never look anything like they do on the box.
Because the pictures on the box aren't made with real food!
Just like the picture menu at a fast-food joint, that's not real food they're presenting to you. There's an entire industry out there responsible for making those photographical edibles that wind up on a menu. That's why the lettuce looks so green and crisp, the tomatoes ripe and juicy, and the meat so thick and bun so fresh and springy. They're NOT FOOD, and they also weren't handled by the 17-year-old fry cook or Javier at the grill, haphazardly getting your mediocre food to you at a better-than-mediocre pace. Following that path of logic, even if the food on the box were real, you're not Martha Stewart. You're (more than likely) the culinary equivalent of those fast-food employees, especially if you were dumb enough to buy the Centerpiece Gourmet. If you weren’t, you wouldn’t need a kit in order to make these things, right?
Now let's investigate how you make these "edible masterpieces".
According to the advertisement, the kit basically comes with things a competent chef might already have in the kitchen, like several knives, and a few rarer items that require a few skill levels in cooking, like a melon baller. Oh, and a wicker basket. Also, you get a bunch of special cookie-cutters. Not "special" in the sense that they do anything more than a normal cookie cutter, namely “cut things”, but in the sense that they're flower-shaped and you might not have those around, unless you've tried making these centerpieces yourself without the kit and you got so frustrated you shelled out the $25 and just got the kit as well.
Oh, and you get 100 wooden skewers.
So the theory behind it is that you take foods, use the cookie cutters to make flowery things and leaves and whatnot, then run them on skewers and arrange them in the wicker basket until it looks pretty and your guests can enjoy AND eat!
Well, let's start with the fact that while you may have bought this under the guide of "anyone can make these fantabulous things", you've got to have enough skill with a knife to slice fruits, vegetables and meats (whatever foods you're Centerpiece Gourmet-ing) thin enough to make the cookie-cutter shapes appear like they do on the box. I'm a beginner chef, so I am admittedly not too awesome with the thin-slicing, especially of hard meats and veggies. Knife accidents are very commonplace in the kitchen. So let's say that you're skilled enough to slice into that apple and cookie-cut a nice flower chunk from it, and arrange it on the skewer. Unless that kit’s instructions have bothered to mention to let the slice soak in lemon juice or lime juice - you've got a lovely browning flower that's growing more icky-looking by the minute. Cutting most fruit triggers an enzyme that, when exposed to air, turns the flesh that icky brown color, and an acid bath shuts down that enzymatic process.
Yes, it will get browner by the MINUTE. Unless you're at ninja-level with this system, the centerpieces they've got on the advertisement look like they took at LEAST an hour to accomplish, especially if you want it to look presentable. (Unless you’re combining the Japanese art of flower-arranging with edible centerpiece creation, you’ll likely need more than one solitary food-flower.) That's an hour that your food is not only out of the refrigerator, but being cut and perforated, skewered, and left to lazy about in open air. And with juicier fruits like watermelon and cantaloupe (which it looks like they used, if they had been real food), that's precious juice dripping out, not only out of the fruit and making them drier, but dripping onto the OTHER foods... Two of the worst pitfalls in the cooking business are “the danger zone” (temperatures where bacteria love to breed) and “cross-contamination” (foods getting into other foods).
Okay, so let's imagine that you're at ninja level and managed to prepare food that's NOT been left out in the open for more than an hour and have NOT been dripping or contaminating the other skewered foods. You've miraculously taken an assortment of fruits, veggies, meats and cheeses and actually managed to complete the unlikely masterpiece from the kit as depicted in pictures on the box/advertisements.
They're just going to eat it!
That's right. After all that work – there’s only two ways this goes down. They EAT the food and your masterpiece is ruined - or they DON'T eat the food because it "looks too good to eat" or "can't even tell it's not flowers" (because their noses have been lopped off and can't smell open-air cheese/meat) and all that food goes to WASTE.
And now that I've pretty much warned you of most of the flaws in the product itself, let me enlighten you on the advertisement's blatant disrespect for your intelligence.
You know how on some infomercials, they'll give you a bonus "extra tube" or "other extra device" or even an “entire extra set/system” and claim its value that you're getting FREE? Well on THIS product, they do claim you're getting something extra for free. The item you're getting extra is a "Professional Leaf Design Tool". That's right, if it weren't for their generous extra gift, your Centerpiece Gourmet with its skewers and cookie cutters would NOT have come with the LEAF-SHAPED cookie cutter! Have fun making flowery centerpieces of food without a leaf shape! Thank goodness we're giving you this bonus cookie cutter for FREE when you order our product! And be thankful we're giving it to you for free, because a leaf-shaped cookie cutter is apparently AN OVER $50 VALUE! It's just like the ones the PROFESSIONALS use!
In conclusion, don't be an idiot who bought this IDIOTIC PRODUCT.
Stick to cubes of food with toothpicks and a real centerpiece that nobody will eat. Your guests will thank you.
(Or be an idiot and buy this IDIOTIC PRODUCT for $24.99)
This post is also available at ThisIsBy.Us Read more!
Anyway, my choice for today is the Centerpiece Gourmet, a product that turns foods into flowery centerpieces that can be eaten.
Quite the Idiotic Product!
Okay, before we start this - I'll admit that the concept seems like a good one. Straight out of an episode of Martha Stewart, it's a presentation of food that's appealing to the eyes as well. However, Martha has the brainpower to know that you can get the same result from just properly making food and presenting it on a platter where people will want to eat from it - not done with the methods used to make these edible monstrocities that will never look anything like they do on the box.
Because the pictures on the box aren't made with real food!
Just like the picture menu at a fast-food joint, that's not real food they're presenting to you. There's an entire industry out there responsible for making those photographical edibles that wind up on a menu. That's why the lettuce looks so green and crisp, the tomatoes ripe and juicy, and the meat so thick and bun so fresh and springy. They're NOT FOOD, and they also weren't handled by the 17-year-old fry cook or Javier at the grill, haphazardly getting your mediocre food to you at a better-than-mediocre pace. Following that path of logic, even if the food on the box were real, you're not Martha Stewart. You're (more than likely) the culinary equivalent of those fast-food employees, especially if you were dumb enough to buy the Centerpiece Gourmet. If you weren’t, you wouldn’t need a kit in order to make these things, right?
Now let's investigate how you make these "edible masterpieces".
According to the advertisement, the kit basically comes with things a competent chef might already have in the kitchen, like several knives, and a few rarer items that require a few skill levels in cooking, like a melon baller. Oh, and a wicker basket. Also, you get a bunch of special cookie-cutters. Not "special" in the sense that they do anything more than a normal cookie cutter, namely “cut things”, but in the sense that they're flower-shaped and you might not have those around, unless you've tried making these centerpieces yourself without the kit and you got so frustrated you shelled out the $25 and just got the kit as well.
Oh, and you get 100 wooden skewers.
So the theory behind it is that you take foods, use the cookie cutters to make flowery things and leaves and whatnot, then run them on skewers and arrange them in the wicker basket until it looks pretty and your guests can enjoy AND eat!
Well, let's start with the fact that while you may have bought this under the guide of "anyone can make these fantabulous things", you've got to have enough skill with a knife to slice fruits, vegetables and meats (whatever foods you're Centerpiece Gourmet-ing) thin enough to make the cookie-cutter shapes appear like they do on the box. I'm a beginner chef, so I am admittedly not too awesome with the thin-slicing, especially of hard meats and veggies. Knife accidents are very commonplace in the kitchen. So let's say that you're skilled enough to slice into that apple and cookie-cut a nice flower chunk from it, and arrange it on the skewer. Unless that kit’s instructions have bothered to mention to let the slice soak in lemon juice or lime juice - you've got a lovely browning flower that's growing more icky-looking by the minute. Cutting most fruit triggers an enzyme that, when exposed to air, turns the flesh that icky brown color, and an acid bath shuts down that enzymatic process.
Yes, it will get browner by the MINUTE. Unless you're at ninja-level with this system, the centerpieces they've got on the advertisement look like they took at LEAST an hour to accomplish, especially if you want it to look presentable. (Unless you’re combining the Japanese art of flower-arranging with edible centerpiece creation, you’ll likely need more than one solitary food-flower.) That's an hour that your food is not only out of the refrigerator, but being cut and perforated, skewered, and left to lazy about in open air. And with juicier fruits like watermelon and cantaloupe (which it looks like they used, if they had been real food), that's precious juice dripping out, not only out of the fruit and making them drier, but dripping onto the OTHER foods... Two of the worst pitfalls in the cooking business are “the danger zone” (temperatures where bacteria love to breed) and “cross-contamination” (foods getting into other foods).
Okay, so let's imagine that you're at ninja level and managed to prepare food that's NOT been left out in the open for more than an hour and have NOT been dripping or contaminating the other skewered foods. You've miraculously taken an assortment of fruits, veggies, meats and cheeses and actually managed to complete the unlikely masterpiece from the kit as depicted in pictures on the box/advertisements.
They're just going to eat it!
That's right. After all that work – there’s only two ways this goes down. They EAT the food and your masterpiece is ruined - or they DON'T eat the food because it "looks too good to eat" or "can't even tell it's not flowers" (because their noses have been lopped off and can't smell open-air cheese/meat) and all that food goes to WASTE.
And now that I've pretty much warned you of most of the flaws in the product itself, let me enlighten you on the advertisement's blatant disrespect for your intelligence.
You know how on some infomercials, they'll give you a bonus "extra tube" or "other extra device" or even an “entire extra set/system” and claim its value that you're getting FREE? Well on THIS product, they do claim you're getting something extra for free. The item you're getting extra is a "Professional Leaf Design Tool". That's right, if it weren't for their generous extra gift, your Centerpiece Gourmet with its skewers and cookie cutters would NOT have come with the LEAF-SHAPED cookie cutter! Have fun making flowery centerpieces of food without a leaf shape! Thank goodness we're giving you this bonus cookie cutter for FREE when you order our product! And be thankful we're giving it to you for free, because a leaf-shaped cookie cutter is apparently AN OVER $50 VALUE! It's just like the ones the PROFESSIONALS use!
In conclusion, don't be an idiot who bought this IDIOTIC PRODUCT.
Stick to cubes of food with toothpicks and a real centerpiece that nobody will eat. Your guests will thank you.
(Or be an idiot and buy this IDIOTIC PRODUCT for $24.99)
This post is also available at ThisIsBy.Us 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, June 04, 2008
PETA and Lobsters
PETA is just one step closer to complete insanity, judging by this latest little publicity stunt that will never take off.
The situation starts off with Skowhegan, Maine - a county that is currently building a new jail and is trying to sell off their outdated jail. That sounds sensible enough. And then PETA gets in the act. PETA has sent a proposal to the Somerset County commissioners to LEASE their jail to PETA so they can turn it into a "Lobster Empathy Center" (that's what they're calling it). The realtor handling the jail's sale has identified the proposal as "likely a publicity stunt."
Judge for yourself with this excerpt from the letter sent by PETA to the commissioners:
"A prison is the perfect setting to demonstrate how lobsters suffer when they are caught in traps or confined to cramped, filthy supermarket tanks. The center will teach visitors to have compassion for these interesting, sensitive animals while also commemorating the millions of lobsters who are ripped from their homes in the ocean off the coast of Maine each year before being boiled alive."
Luckily, unlike the Chicago City Council who were all taken in by PETA shock video and banned the sale of foie gras two years ago (and recently realized their mistake and repealed it), Commissioner Chairman Phil Roy isn't buying it and is willing to point out the many many issues regarding this letter.
1. Skowhegan isn't even part of coastal Maine.
This whole shenanigan is to make the public aware of the lobster catching going on at the coast of Maine. Stupidly, they chose a town about 53 MILES away from the coast of Maine (namely Rockland, home of the Maine Lobster Festival) to launch their futile efforts.
2. PETA complains about lobster jail, but never lifted a finger about the humans kept in those conditions.
Even this commissioner will point out that humans are animals too, and PETA couldn't care less about the humans who have to suffer with "objectionable" conditions - but if an animal has to go through something even remotely similar to those conditions? That's the only time PETA pretends to care and sends out these insane letters.
3. PETA wants to use the space for propaganda that lobsters feel pain.
Studies have frankly been done for a number of years with no factual conclusion on the subject. One famous study, however, sides with the "it is unlikely that they can feel pain" camp. Biologists have said for years that the lobster's primitive nervous system and underdeveloped brain are akin to an insect, and while lobsters react to stimuli (like boiling water), the reactions are escape mechanisms and NOT a conscious response or an indication of pain, they say.
"It's a semantic thing: No brain, no pain."
4. PETA wants to trap visitors and put rubber bands on their fingers.
That's just ridiculous. While I can understand that there's a parallel between rubber bands on claws - those rubber bands are there for the protection of those handling the lobsters, not to torture or be "mean" to the lobsters. If a vicious dog was threatening to bite people, you'd put a muzzle on it. If your cat is scratching the furniture or people - you get it declawed. It's a safety precaution and exploiting it under the guise of torturing a defenseless creature is insane. It's because the creature ISN'T defenseless! Plus, the whole notion of human-sized lobster traps and cramming people into a giant replica lobster tank with filthy glass walls? That's going a little too far. The place was going to be set in a JAIL and you're going further out of your way to remind people that they don't like being confined in dirty small spaces? Waste of time and bigger waste of props.
This whole thing is crazy from square one.
Nonetheless, even if it's (obviously) a publicity stunt, it's being forwarded to the realtor along with all other offers. The realty company has expressed that all offers would be considered, but admitted that the county has no interest in leasing the jail. The property needs to be sold, and the use of the property is the bigger issue being looked at. The county wants to provide jobs and "get the property back on the tax rolls." There are currently 22 leads already, including one proposal to purchase the jail for "a gristmill, artists colony, bakery and other cultural uses."
I'm hoping that seems like an infinitely better idea than leasing the building to a terrorist organization like PETA for the purpose of turning it into a "Lobster Empathy Center".
What do you think? Isn't lobster delicious? "No brain, no pain?"
(The article about PETA's indecent proposal)
(The study showing lobsters probably don't feel pain in the first place) Read more!
The situation starts off with Skowhegan, Maine - a county that is currently building a new jail and is trying to sell off their outdated jail. That sounds sensible enough. And then PETA gets in the act. PETA has sent a proposal to the Somerset County commissioners to LEASE their jail to PETA so they can turn it into a "Lobster Empathy Center" (that's what they're calling it). The realtor handling the jail's sale has identified the proposal as "likely a publicity stunt."
Judge for yourself with this excerpt from the letter sent by PETA to the commissioners:
"A prison is the perfect setting to demonstrate how lobsters suffer when they are caught in traps or confined to cramped, filthy supermarket tanks. The center will teach visitors to have compassion for these interesting, sensitive animals while also commemorating the millions of lobsters who are ripped from their homes in the ocean off the coast of Maine each year before being boiled alive."
Luckily, unlike the Chicago City Council who were all taken in by PETA shock video and banned the sale of foie gras two years ago (and recently realized their mistake and repealed it), Commissioner Chairman Phil Roy isn't buying it and is willing to point out the many many issues regarding this letter.
1. Skowhegan isn't even part of coastal Maine.
This whole shenanigan is to make the public aware of the lobster catching going on at the coast of Maine. Stupidly, they chose a town about 53 MILES away from the coast of Maine (namely Rockland, home of the Maine Lobster Festival) to launch their futile efforts.
2. PETA complains about lobster jail, but never lifted a finger about the humans kept in those conditions.
Even this commissioner will point out that humans are animals too, and PETA couldn't care less about the humans who have to suffer with "objectionable" conditions - but if an animal has to go through something even remotely similar to those conditions? That's the only time PETA pretends to care and sends out these insane letters.
3. PETA wants to use the space for propaganda that lobsters feel pain.
Studies have frankly been done for a number of years with no factual conclusion on the subject. One famous study, however, sides with the "it is unlikely that they can feel pain" camp. Biologists have said for years that the lobster's primitive nervous system and underdeveloped brain are akin to an insect, and while lobsters react to stimuli (like boiling water), the reactions are escape mechanisms and NOT a conscious response or an indication of pain, they say.
"It's a semantic thing: No brain, no pain."
4. PETA wants to trap visitors and put rubber bands on their fingers.
That's just ridiculous. While I can understand that there's a parallel between rubber bands on claws - those rubber bands are there for the protection of those handling the lobsters, not to torture or be "mean" to the lobsters. If a vicious dog was threatening to bite people, you'd put a muzzle on it. If your cat is scratching the furniture or people - you get it declawed. It's a safety precaution and exploiting it under the guise of torturing a defenseless creature is insane. It's because the creature ISN'T defenseless! Plus, the whole notion of human-sized lobster traps and cramming people into a giant replica lobster tank with filthy glass walls? That's going a little too far. The place was going to be set in a JAIL and you're going further out of your way to remind people that they don't like being confined in dirty small spaces? Waste of time and bigger waste of props.
This whole thing is crazy from square one.
Nonetheless, even if it's (obviously) a publicity stunt, it's being forwarded to the realtor along with all other offers. The realty company has expressed that all offers would be considered, but admitted that the county has no interest in leasing the jail. The property needs to be sold, and the use of the property is the bigger issue being looked at. The county wants to provide jobs and "get the property back on the tax rolls." There are currently 22 leads already, including one proposal to purchase the jail for "a gristmill, artists colony, bakery and other cultural uses."
I'm hoping that seems like an infinitely better idea than leasing the building to a terrorist organization like PETA for the purpose of turning it into a "Lobster Empathy Center".
What do you think? Isn't lobster delicious? "No brain, no pain?"
(The article about PETA's indecent proposal)
(The study showing lobsters probably don't feel pain in the first place) Read more!
Monday, June 02, 2008
Sharon Stone vs. China
Normally, I wouldn't be upset with Sharon Stone. She's got a long history of being on PETA's bad side, which usually put her on my good side. While I'm not a fan of wearing fur (it's too hot for my tastes), Sharon Stone truly is - and PETA has been verbal against her and her outfits many times. She even wore a brooch that contained a RAT FOOT, which those animal-rights hippies were severely opposed to.
But alas, nobody is perfect, and Sharon Stone decided to voice her opinion regarding the recent earthquake in China - and is pretty much accusing them of deserving it through karma because of their treatment of Tibet.
First off, I don't think we should ever pay attention to the opinions of actors/actresses. They're paid to look pretty and do/say what they're told through the use of scripts and directors. Just like the notion of a "trophy wife" whose job is to shut up and look pretty, I wouldn't want to trust the opinion of someone who's just supposed to look good - depending on the opinion's relevance. If the person were famous for winning the Nobel Prize in Physics, I'd trust their opinion on physics-related matters; likewise I WOULD trust an actress's opinion on movie-business affairs or getting good representation.
When it comes to earthquakes, politics and international affairs, though? Shut the hell up and look pretty, damn it!
Secondly, if you're Earl Hickey or his brother Randy (AKA "fictional characters on a TV show"), I can understand you attributing things to karma. Unfortunately, you're NOT those people, which means you don't attribute EVERYTHING to karma and pick and choose what is "karma" and what isn't based on your own selfish opinions. I know for a fact that China experienced major earthquakes in 1976, 1975, 1974, 1970, 1969, 1933, 1932, 1927 and 1556 was one of their worst if you're judging by the death toll.
Which is more likely? That some supernatural force judged a country and magically caused this wrath to befall them - or that China is part of the Pacific Rim and is located on top of numerous fault lines where earthquakes naturally occur over time and it occurred again a few weeks ago?
Thirdly, if you were really crazy enough to take the "China is bad and deserved it" approach, why would you choose this earthquake to be the pinnacle point of karmic justice? I mean, China's been repressing Tibet for quite some time. Wouldn't you really want to attribute this disaster to the more recent and more-widely-publicized LEAD PAINT and TAINTED PRODUCT fiascos? I'm just saying, if you're going to argue that being mean to other people yields a natural disaster, it's hard to back that up with further evidence. I don't recall any natural disasters occurring during Hitler-era Germany or even in genocide-filled African/Middle-Eastern countries (unless you consider "living in those countries" as disaster enough, in which case I'm sure there were many countries in those regions NOT performing genocide).
Far worse things have been committed to deserve karmic punishment. I've also never heard of GOOD karma befalling countries, whether they deserved it or not.
So what was China's response to this accusation of being quake-worthy in the eyes of karma?
The founder of one of China's biggest cinema chains said that his company will no longer show Sharon Stone's movies.
While I'm not entirely sure that I agree that this is really much of a retaliation in the first place, it's a symbolic gesture that at least is backed up by an idea that I CAN agree with:
Ng See-Yuen, founder of the UME Cineplex chain and the chairman of the Federation of Hong Kong Filmmakers, called Stone's comments "inappropriate," adding that actors should not bring personal politics to comments about a natural disaster that has left five million Chinese homeless, according to the Reporter.
That's kind of what I've been saying all along, but with an added oomph at the end. Actors aren't supposed to be spouting their opinions about things - especially about things that have had such a devastating effect on mostly-innocent people. You can keep your own opinions about China's governmental policies regarding the Tibet region and people, but saying that some 2-year-old Chinese girl deserved to have her home and worldly possessions destroyed by a natural disaster because she happens to live in a country with a not-perfect record of civil rights?
That is certainly "inappropriate" and it's absurd to even mention it in the first place.
Actors and actresses should just shut up and look pretty because that's what we pay them to do.
Do you agree with Ng that Sharon's comment was inappropriate? Do you agree with Sharon that Ng's people randomly deserved a natural disaster because their government does some naughty things? Or do you just agree with me that you should trust an entertainer's political statements as much as the advice of a blind optometrist?
(The article mentioned here) Read more!
But alas, nobody is perfect, and Sharon Stone decided to voice her opinion regarding the recent earthquake in China - and is pretty much accusing them of deserving it through karma because of their treatment of Tibet.
First off, I don't think we should ever pay attention to the opinions of actors/actresses. They're paid to look pretty and do/say what they're told through the use of scripts and directors. Just like the notion of a "trophy wife" whose job is to shut up and look pretty, I wouldn't want to trust the opinion of someone who's just supposed to look good - depending on the opinion's relevance. If the person were famous for winning the Nobel Prize in Physics, I'd trust their opinion on physics-related matters; likewise I WOULD trust an actress's opinion on movie-business affairs or getting good representation.
When it comes to earthquakes, politics and international affairs, though? Shut the hell up and look pretty, damn it!
Secondly, if you're Earl Hickey or his brother Randy (AKA "fictional characters on a TV show"), I can understand you attributing things to karma. Unfortunately, you're NOT those people, which means you don't attribute EVERYTHING to karma and pick and choose what is "karma" and what isn't based on your own selfish opinions. I know for a fact that China experienced major earthquakes in 1976, 1975, 1974, 1970, 1969, 1933, 1932, 1927 and 1556 was one of their worst if you're judging by the death toll.
Which is more likely? That some supernatural force judged a country and magically caused this wrath to befall them - or that China is part of the Pacific Rim and is located on top of numerous fault lines where earthquakes naturally occur over time and it occurred again a few weeks ago?
Thirdly, if you were really crazy enough to take the "China is bad and deserved it" approach, why would you choose this earthquake to be the pinnacle point of karmic justice? I mean, China's been repressing Tibet for quite some time. Wouldn't you really want to attribute this disaster to the more recent and more-widely-publicized LEAD PAINT and TAINTED PRODUCT fiascos? I'm just saying, if you're going to argue that being mean to other people yields a natural disaster, it's hard to back that up with further evidence. I don't recall any natural disasters occurring during Hitler-era Germany or even in genocide-filled African/Middle-Eastern countries (unless you consider "living in those countries" as disaster enough, in which case I'm sure there were many countries in those regions NOT performing genocide).
Far worse things have been committed to deserve karmic punishment. I've also never heard of GOOD karma befalling countries, whether they deserved it or not.
So what was China's response to this accusation of being quake-worthy in the eyes of karma?
The founder of one of China's biggest cinema chains said that his company will no longer show Sharon Stone's movies.
While I'm not entirely sure that I agree that this is really much of a retaliation in the first place, it's a symbolic gesture that at least is backed up by an idea that I CAN agree with:
Ng See-Yuen, founder of the UME Cineplex chain and the chairman of the Federation of Hong Kong Filmmakers, called Stone's comments "inappropriate," adding that actors should not bring personal politics to comments about a natural disaster that has left five million Chinese homeless, according to the Reporter.
That's kind of what I've been saying all along, but with an added oomph at the end. Actors aren't supposed to be spouting their opinions about things - especially about things that have had such a devastating effect on mostly-innocent people. You can keep your own opinions about China's governmental policies regarding the Tibet region and people, but saying that some 2-year-old Chinese girl deserved to have her home and worldly possessions destroyed by a natural disaster because she happens to live in a country with a not-perfect record of civil rights?
That is certainly "inappropriate" and it's absurd to even mention it in the first place.
Actors and actresses should just shut up and look pretty because that's what we pay them to do.
Do you agree with Ng that Sharon's comment was inappropriate? Do you agree with Sharon that Ng's people randomly deserved a natural disaster because their government does some naughty things? Or do you just agree with me that you should trust an entertainer's political statements as much as the advice of a blind optometrist?
(The article mentioned here) Read more!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
