In the Chicago Tribune (and RedEye):
Should motorists pay a toll for the privilege of driving in Chicago's central business district?
Ald. Edward Burke (14th) believes it's a good time to raise the question.
Burke on Wednesday introduced a resolution calling for a City Council hearing on the feasibility of levying a "congestion fee" on drivers who set tire downtown.
"Can it reduce pollution? Can it reduce traffic? Can it raise a revenue stream to help out the beleaguered CTA?" Burke asked. "It's certainly a very complicated issue and one that should not be rushed into. But I thought that as long as London is doing it, as long as New York is [proposing] it, perhaps it is an idea that Chicago ought to consider."
How much would be charged, how would tolls be collected and how much money might be generated for the cash-strapped CTA are the types of information the alderman hopes to gather by listening to experts at the hearing.
Mayor Richard Daley said he has an open mind on the congestion-fee concept. But he also has reservations.
With their narrow streets and absence of alleys, London and New York are "completely different" from Chicago, he said.
"Are you going to put [the fee] on all the aldermen who drive every day?" Daley asked. "What about all the trucks coming downtown? What do you do with them?"
"Let's not rush to that and scare everybody off," the mayor declared. "We are trying to keep businesses here and ... move businesses into the city."
There's never a good time to raise a question that foolish.
What Burke is proposing is seemingly the most backwards proposal that my rage-filled brain can remember ever having heard. I don't even know where to begin ranting about this atrocity – other than publicly calling for the Alderman's immediate removal from office on the grounds of sheer stupidity alone.
"Can it reduce pollution? Can it reduce traffic?" It wouldn't take the mental capacity of an 8-year-old to realize that tolls get paid at tollbooths, tollbooths cause lines of cars waiting to pay the toll, and huge lines of cars are the definition of 'increased traffic' that is all the while creating 'increased pollution' by having to linger and create exhaust in concentrated areas. "Can it raise a revenue stream to help out the beleaguered CTA?" It takes a twisted mind to propose charging people to NOT use your product. The idea of charging people money for driving instead of using the CTA just to raise money for the CTA is just absurd. I hope that Burke never works for Microsoft, or we all might have to pay a fee to use a non-Windows operating system!
As if city motorists don't have it hard enough already with congestion that kills fuel efficiency and loads of time as well as the exorbitant fees to park in any parking garage (unless you want to risk meters and outrageous parking tickets) – now this elected official is suggesting we charge them to have to suffer through all this?
This complicated issue that "should not be rushed into" is one that should not have been rushed going from the alderman's brain to his mouth, because it went straight from his mouth to our ears.
This is the most ridiculous idea I can recall coming from the city aldermen since the insane foie gras ban that passed unanimously (meaning that not a single alderman saw how foolish and wrong it was and they should all be ashamed). This "congestion fee" is foolish enough to warrant kicking Burke out of office immediately. The city needs more aldermen who are smart enough to not only come up with some good ideas for a change, but also know when to keep their mouths shut to avoid the bad ideas from ever getting out.
Just remember, folks. AARON SAMUELS FOR CITY COUNCIL ALDERMAN IN 2011! Time for someone with a shred of sanity and logic to help rule the city!
Read more!
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Thursday, June 21, 2007
The 'R' Word?
Apparently there's a new word being banned from our language - though not a word you might expect and not a ban that should be taken lightly (if accepted at all). The word we're forbidden to use is "rape", but you can still hear it said on the air, in the papers, and especially in public conversation between people of any gender, race or ethnicity. You just can't use it in court. You especially can't use it in court during a trial over a rape conviction.
Oh, did I just say the R-word? I meant "sexual assault". Oh, I can't say that either? How about "nonconsentual sex"? Good, that one's still allowed. For now, at least - since the Nebraska judge who's on a word-banning rampage decided to let "sex" itself slide. So far, the list that the judge has allowed to be banned in sexual assault cases is: "rape", "sexual assault", "victim", "assailant", and "sexual assault kit". So I guess you can't even call them sexual assault cases!
How the hell can you be charged with a crime if the courts won't even let you use the name of the crime itself? Nebraska law offers judges broad discretion to ban evidence or language that present the danger of "unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues or misleading the jury." The most common word that has been allowed to be banned from courts is "victim" - because they claim it implies that a crime was committed. The word implies that the person was the subject of an action that is categorized as unwanted or unfavorable. A negative action is not necessarily an illegal action. A defendant could be the victim of a joke or the victim of a mugging - the word 'victim' doesn't mean a crime was committed. Being in COURT means a crime was possibly committed.
Can we not use the word "defendant" because THAT implies that a crime was committed and someone is defending either the action or circumstance or some other defense? It's a TRIAL - we KNOW that a crime was committed if someone's in CRIMINAL COURT. Banning the use of words that imply what we already know to be true is utterly ridiculous.
But it gets worse - because they wanted to also ban the words "sex" and "sexual intercourse", because those words supposedly imply a LACK of crime. The lawyers claim that using "sex" in a sentence inherently implies that it's consentual, which will bias the jury, so they should ban it from this case as well.
This is shaping up to be a horrible "rape"... I mean "sexual"... I mean "nonconsentual"... Um, a horrible "some-personal-and-private-act-that-may-or-may-not-have-been-legal" case.
What was the reason again for banning these words? Something about not wanting to mislead the jury? Oh, well I'm sure that all of the discussion about banning these words and reminding the jury that none of these words are being used so they don't prejudge anyone - that'll certainly keep them led in the right direction. What's that?
Oh - the jury is completely in the dark about this!
What could be more misleading to a jury than hiding the fact that certain words are not going to be used in this trial - words that describe what the trial is about and that they need to decide whether or not it happened and whether or not the defendant did it.
Did WHAT? You can't say it! How can they make an informed decision on the facts of the case to decide if the defendant raped the plaintiff or not if nobody's allowed to use the word "rape"???
None of this is right.
And even though the word "victim" is forbidden in that court of law, it is the court of law itself that has become the victim in this insane debacle.
Sorry, rape victims. To the Nebraska courts, you're all just "unwilling sperm recipients" now. Read more!
Oh, did I just say the R-word? I meant "sexual assault". Oh, I can't say that either? How about "nonconsentual sex"? Good, that one's still allowed. For now, at least - since the Nebraska judge who's on a word-banning rampage decided to let "sex" itself slide. So far, the list that the judge has allowed to be banned in sexual assault cases is: "rape", "sexual assault", "victim", "assailant", and "sexual assault kit". So I guess you can't even call them sexual assault cases!
How the hell can you be charged with a crime if the courts won't even let you use the name of the crime itself? Nebraska law offers judges broad discretion to ban evidence or language that present the danger of "unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues or misleading the jury." The most common word that has been allowed to be banned from courts is "victim" - because they claim it implies that a crime was committed. The word implies that the person was the subject of an action that is categorized as unwanted or unfavorable. A negative action is not necessarily an illegal action. A defendant could be the victim of a joke or the victim of a mugging - the word 'victim' doesn't mean a crime was committed. Being in COURT means a crime was possibly committed.
Can we not use the word "defendant" because THAT implies that a crime was committed and someone is defending either the action or circumstance or some other defense? It's a TRIAL - we KNOW that a crime was committed if someone's in CRIMINAL COURT. Banning the use of words that imply what we already know to be true is utterly ridiculous.
But it gets worse - because they wanted to also ban the words "sex" and "sexual intercourse", because those words supposedly imply a LACK of crime. The lawyers claim that using "sex" in a sentence inherently implies that it's consentual, which will bias the jury, so they should ban it from this case as well.
This is shaping up to be a horrible "rape"... I mean "sexual"... I mean "nonconsentual"... Um, a horrible "some-personal-and-private-act-that-may-or-may-not-have-been-legal" case.
What was the reason again for banning these words? Something about not wanting to mislead the jury? Oh, well I'm sure that all of the discussion about banning these words and reminding the jury that none of these words are being used so they don't prejudge anyone - that'll certainly keep them led in the right direction. What's that?
Oh - the jury is completely in the dark about this!
What could be more misleading to a jury than hiding the fact that certain words are not going to be used in this trial - words that describe what the trial is about and that they need to decide whether or not it happened and whether or not the defendant did it.
Did WHAT? You can't say it! How can they make an informed decision on the facts of the case to decide if the defendant raped the plaintiff or not if nobody's allowed to use the word "rape"???
None of this is right.
And even though the word "victim" is forbidden in that court of law, it is the court of law itself that has become the victim in this insane debacle.
Sorry, rape victims. To the Nebraska courts, you're all just "unwilling sperm recipients" now. Read more!
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
24:7 Energy - A Generic Energy Drink
Today’s energy drink of mention is called “24:7 Energy” (Lemon Lime flavor) – or at least I THINK that’s what it’s called. I honestly haven’t found much documentation for it at all during my searches today. The can itself is rather simple. The numbers 24:7 appear in large digital-clock-style print, with the small word “ENERGY” underneath them. The bottom area of the can is just various blurry small versions of the main logo over and over. They were on sale at my local Walgreens, so I picked up the Lemon Lime and the Cherry Berry flavors, thinking I could check them off my energy drink checklist that I got from BevNet’s 2007 compilation.
I started consuming, and did my searches to find more info, like I did for Jolt Cola yesterday. Unfortunately, the beverage was nowhere to be found on my BevNet list. BevNet had no idea what this drink was. After several hours, I finally found some answers. It turns out that the reason it was on sale at Walgreens and that NOBODY knows anything about it – it because it’s technically a Walgreens item. One of those moderate knockoffs they can sell cheaper while making it exclusive to their store. So if you read this review and want one – you’re stuck having to go to Walgreens or you’re out of luck.
But since it IS an energy drink, and I DID consume it, I’m writing a review anyway.
As for the nutrition – I haven’t been able to locate any information on the caffeine levels or any of the other energy-centric ingredients like taurine and any others with complex chemical-sounding names. I can see on the ingredients list that it does contain taurine and caffeine (more taurine than caffeine, judging by the printed order) – but again, no idea on levels, so I can’t compare it to anything else. As for the generic nutrition info, this drink contains 30g of sugar per serving. And at a 16-ounce can, that’s two full servings. The 30g is only a few more than your standard can of soda, and I’m guessing it doesn’t contain more caffeine than your average soda, either. The sodium content is 120mg per serving, though. That’s 5% of your daily recommended value (and 10% if you’re like most consumers and drink both servings at once).
So now it comes down to the final ratings:
Appearance: 5 of 10
The can is just average, in my opinion. And that’s probably because it’s a “generic-brand” beverage sold exclusively through Walgreens. I mean the logo and design are nice, but what’s the point if the product name doesn’t generate any information off the bat? I shouldn’t have to search extensively just to find out minimal details. If it wants to compete, there should be more information with a basic search. I shouldn’t have to go to the manufacturer’s website (PriLabs, Inc.) just to find out that the beverage does indeed EXIST.
Taste: 6 of 10
The flavor was listed as “Lemon Lime” but all I got out of it was “bitter citrus”. That sour taste was not a welcome accompaniment to the taurine bitterness that most people clamoring against Red Bull will recognize. At least I’m PRETTY SURE it’s because of the taurine. One would think that with the extra sugar, it would be a sweeter beverage. Not the case. Just acid citrus.
Mouthfeel: 4 of 10
I like my energy drinks carbonated, and this one was barely effervescent. The taurine (or whatever it was) gave it that energy drink bitter aftertaste that lingers at the back of the throat. To make matters worse, the sugary nature of the drink didn’t add to a sweet taste, but it did contribute to a sticky feeling in my throat I attribute to overly-sugary products. If you’ve ever eaten a bunch of candy and felt that lump of sticky saliva on the back of your tongue, you’ll know what I’m talking about.
Energy: 8 of 10
Within about 30 minutes of consuming the can, I started noticing the energy overload. I got a bit of the hand-shakes, felt twitchy on and off, and noticed the energy level rising inside me. Unfortunately, it didn’t last. It took less than an hour for the extra-energy twitches to fully subside, leaving me with nothing but my normal dismal energy supply after two or three hours in total. Maybe it’s the possibly-low caffeine level or a too-high taurine level – all I know is that it was a rocket start that a few hours later left me with null but dead weight. Good kick, but no follow-through.
Overall: 5 of 10
What can be said about this Walgreens-exclusive energy drink? Well, it gave me energy – at the price of a not-too-pleasant taste and aftertaste. The energy didn’t last long, but I suppose it would be of use to those who just need a boost to get over something strenuous or one last hour of study at 2am while letting you crash around 4am safely. It’s got its uses – I prefer something with a little more staying power, as I’m sure many would agree. Just like with most knock-off brands, the cost is a little cheaper, but the product is nothing but average.
And five out of ten is certainly a testament to “average”.
Read more!
I started consuming, and did my searches to find more info, like I did for Jolt Cola yesterday. Unfortunately, the beverage was nowhere to be found on my BevNet list. BevNet had no idea what this drink was. After several hours, I finally found some answers. It turns out that the reason it was on sale at Walgreens and that NOBODY knows anything about it – it because it’s technically a Walgreens item. One of those moderate knockoffs they can sell cheaper while making it exclusive to their store. So if you read this review and want one – you’re stuck having to go to Walgreens or you’re out of luck.
But since it IS an energy drink, and I DID consume it, I’m writing a review anyway.
As for the nutrition – I haven’t been able to locate any information on the caffeine levels or any of the other energy-centric ingredients like taurine and any others with complex chemical-sounding names. I can see on the ingredients list that it does contain taurine and caffeine (more taurine than caffeine, judging by the printed order) – but again, no idea on levels, so I can’t compare it to anything else. As for the generic nutrition info, this drink contains 30g of sugar per serving. And at a 16-ounce can, that’s two full servings. The 30g is only a few more than your standard can of soda, and I’m guessing it doesn’t contain more caffeine than your average soda, either. The sodium content is 120mg per serving, though. That’s 5% of your daily recommended value (and 10% if you’re like most consumers and drink both servings at once).
So now it comes down to the final ratings:
Appearance: 5 of 10
The can is just average, in my opinion. And that’s probably because it’s a “generic-brand” beverage sold exclusively through Walgreens. I mean the logo and design are nice, but what’s the point if the product name doesn’t generate any information off the bat? I shouldn’t have to search extensively just to find out minimal details. If it wants to compete, there should be more information with a basic search. I shouldn’t have to go to the manufacturer’s website (PriLabs, Inc.) just to find out that the beverage does indeed EXIST.
Taste: 6 of 10
The flavor was listed as “Lemon Lime” but all I got out of it was “bitter citrus”. That sour taste was not a welcome accompaniment to the taurine bitterness that most people clamoring against Red Bull will recognize. At least I’m PRETTY SURE it’s because of the taurine. One would think that with the extra sugar, it would be a sweeter beverage. Not the case. Just acid citrus.
Mouthfeel: 4 of 10
I like my energy drinks carbonated, and this one was barely effervescent. The taurine (or whatever it was) gave it that energy drink bitter aftertaste that lingers at the back of the throat. To make matters worse, the sugary nature of the drink didn’t add to a sweet taste, but it did contribute to a sticky feeling in my throat I attribute to overly-sugary products. If you’ve ever eaten a bunch of candy and felt that lump of sticky saliva on the back of your tongue, you’ll know what I’m talking about.
Energy: 8 of 10
Within about 30 minutes of consuming the can, I started noticing the energy overload. I got a bit of the hand-shakes, felt twitchy on and off, and noticed the energy level rising inside me. Unfortunately, it didn’t last. It took less than an hour for the extra-energy twitches to fully subside, leaving me with nothing but my normal dismal energy supply after two or three hours in total. Maybe it’s the possibly-low caffeine level or a too-high taurine level – all I know is that it was a rocket start that a few hours later left me with null but dead weight. Good kick, but no follow-through.
Overall: 5 of 10
What can be said about this Walgreens-exclusive energy drink? Well, it gave me energy – at the price of a not-too-pleasant taste and aftertaste. The energy didn’t last long, but I suppose it would be of use to those who just need a boost to get over something strenuous or one last hour of study at 2am while letting you crash around 4am safely. It’s got its uses – I prefer something with a little more staying power, as I’m sure many would agree. Just like with most knock-off brands, the cost is a little cheaper, but the product is nothing but average.
And five out of ten is certainly a testament to “average”.
Read more!
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Jolt Cola Makes a Comeback!
Kids today just have no idea how easy they have it! The past few years have been marked in the history books with this surge of energy drinks flooding the market - giving children and teenagers alike more energy than youth has ever known before. Amid the befuddled psychologists wondering if it's Attention Deficit Disorder or another order of attention-defying energy drinks at work, we adults can even admit to having a few in lieu of the generic coffeehouse fodder letting us work the nine-to-five without feeling like a lunchtime nap.
But for those who can remember...
Back in 1985, a drink hit the market. Created by Wet Planet, this beverage gave the up-all-night crowd a newer and stronger jolt to the system to cram longer, code faster, or work another thumb-callus in the arcade or on a Nintendo Entertainment System.
Not by coincidence, this beverage was named Jolt - and the marketing gurus took off.
Jolt has always maintained a few slogans, such as "The Coffee Alternative" and "Twice the Caffeine".
Don't get those two mixed up - a can of Jolt Cola has never tried to contain twice the caffeine as a cup of coffee. It does, of course, measure up to one, proving that it is indeed an alternative to coffee. A 12-ounce can of Jolt Cola contains 72mg of caffeine. The average 8-ounce cup of coffee contains about 70mg (but of course can vary from 60mg to 120mg, depending on the strength of your brand - the instant stuff is usually closest to 70mg). As for the "popular" colas on the market, Pepsi comes in at 38mg and Coca-Cola comes in at 34mg. And when you've got the Marble Madness, twice the caffeine per can of soda can really make the difference! (For those of you who, like me, Do the Dew, Jolt has 42% more caffeine. Sorry.)
So that was then - and this is now. What's so new about this 20-year-old cola?
The marketing gurus are at it again.
I was walking down the aisle where the energy drinks are kept, and the word "JOLT" emblazoned across the can just caught my eye. "Is it true," I exclaimed, "that you've finally returned, ol' pal?" Indeed, a giantesque can of Jolt Cola was staring back at me. The can itself is a bit of a marvel. It's shaped like a battery, with a plus sign on the nodular top, like you'd find on a battery. This is the look of the 23.5-ounce variety of Jolt Cola (the size the marketing geniuses focused on). What makes this can different from other cans of energy drink is that while it's an aluminum can, it's also resealable. Which is good, because I'm really not the kind of guy who wants to be chugging 23.5 ounces of what I already KNOW is a heavily-caffeinated powerhouse. There's also an ingenius dashed line running up the can that's SUPPOSED to show you how much Jolt Cola you have left in the can. Maybe mine wasn't working properly. Maybe it got warm too fast and ruined the effect. I just didn't see it happening, which was a bit of a letdown.
What WASN'T a letdown was the cola itself - the same tasty brew I consumed in my bounding-off-the-walls youth. As far as colas go, it's pretty standard. The caffeine itself doesn't mar the taste in any way, and while it's NOT a Coke or a Pepsi, it's just as tasty and full of cola flavor. It's got the same 27g of sugar you'd find in the other colas.
So now it comes down to the final ratings:
Appearance: 8 of 10
While I liked the nifty bottle, it's a little busy and the non-functioning meter was disappointing. Even so, the resealable cap more than made up for it and gave it a lot of bonus points.
Taste: 8 of 10
It's just as good as it ever was. Nothing spectacular to make it stand out by taste alone, but in no way bitter like many other caffeine- and taurine-laden drinks can be. A standard cola taste makes this energy drink all the more consumable.
Mouthfeel: 8 of 10
I like my energy drinks carbonated, and this one not only delivered like a regular cola, the resealable cap kept it fizzier longer. Unfortunately, resealing the cap does nothing to keep it cool, and we all know what a bummer warm cola can be. At least it wasn't warm FLAT cola... No aftertaste, no gritty feeling - just the occasional jolt-causing belch. The way it should be.
Energy: 7 of 10
While the cola packs the same punch as it ever did, the world around it kept evolving and perhaps our energy drink market-flood has desensitized me to the rush caffeine can give. It certainly kept me awake and alert, and I have extra energy that I'm assuredly wasting by typing a review, but it was nothing to write home about. And if you DID write home about it, your hand wouldn't be shaking all over the place. Which I suppose can be a good thing.
Overall: 8 of 10
What else can I say? It's got a long, rich history - and a rich taste to match. I wouldn't stay it's going to be setting a standard or setting the bar for the next one - this was just the first. I've got a list of energy drinks currently available on the market and a drive to continue reviewing. I hope you all enjoyed the review as much as I enjoyed this revamped blast from my past.
Blast? I meant "Jolt". Read more!
But for those who can remember...
Back in 1985, a drink hit the market. Created by Wet Planet, this beverage gave the up-all-night crowd a newer and stronger jolt to the system to cram longer, code faster, or work another thumb-callus in the arcade or on a Nintendo Entertainment System.
Not by coincidence, this beverage was named Jolt - and the marketing gurus took off.
Jolt has always maintained a few slogans, such as "The Coffee Alternative" and "Twice the Caffeine".
Don't get those two mixed up - a can of Jolt Cola has never tried to contain twice the caffeine as a cup of coffee. It does, of course, measure up to one, proving that it is indeed an alternative to coffee. A 12-ounce can of Jolt Cola contains 72mg of caffeine. The average 8-ounce cup of coffee contains about 70mg (but of course can vary from 60mg to 120mg, depending on the strength of your brand - the instant stuff is usually closest to 70mg). As for the "popular" colas on the market, Pepsi comes in at 38mg and Coca-Cola comes in at 34mg. And when you've got the Marble Madness, twice the caffeine per can of soda can really make the difference! (For those of you who, like me, Do the Dew, Jolt has 42% more caffeine. Sorry.)
So that was then - and this is now. What's so new about this 20-year-old cola?
The marketing gurus are at it again.
I was walking down the aisle where the energy drinks are kept, and the word "JOLT" emblazoned across the can just caught my eye. "Is it true," I exclaimed, "that you've finally returned, ol' pal?" Indeed, a giantesque can of Jolt Cola was staring back at me. The can itself is a bit of a marvel. It's shaped like a battery, with a plus sign on the nodular top, like you'd find on a battery. This is the look of the 23.5-ounce variety of Jolt Cola (the size the marketing geniuses focused on). What makes this can different from other cans of energy drink is that while it's an aluminum can, it's also resealable. Which is good, because I'm really not the kind of guy who wants to be chugging 23.5 ounces of what I already KNOW is a heavily-caffeinated powerhouse. There's also an ingenius dashed line running up the can that's SUPPOSED to show you how much Jolt Cola you have left in the can. Maybe mine wasn't working properly. Maybe it got warm too fast and ruined the effect. I just didn't see it happening, which was a bit of a letdown.
What WASN'T a letdown was the cola itself - the same tasty brew I consumed in my bounding-off-the-walls youth. As far as colas go, it's pretty standard. The caffeine itself doesn't mar the taste in any way, and while it's NOT a Coke or a Pepsi, it's just as tasty and full of cola flavor. It's got the same 27g of sugar you'd find in the other colas.
So now it comes down to the final ratings:
Appearance: 8 of 10
While I liked the nifty bottle, it's a little busy and the non-functioning meter was disappointing. Even so, the resealable cap more than made up for it and gave it a lot of bonus points.
Taste: 8 of 10
It's just as good as it ever was. Nothing spectacular to make it stand out by taste alone, but in no way bitter like many other caffeine- and taurine-laden drinks can be. A standard cola taste makes this energy drink all the more consumable.
Mouthfeel: 8 of 10
I like my energy drinks carbonated, and this one not only delivered like a regular cola, the resealable cap kept it fizzier longer. Unfortunately, resealing the cap does nothing to keep it cool, and we all know what a bummer warm cola can be. At least it wasn't warm FLAT cola... No aftertaste, no gritty feeling - just the occasional jolt-causing belch. The way it should be.
Energy: 7 of 10
While the cola packs the same punch as it ever did, the world around it kept evolving and perhaps our energy drink market-flood has desensitized me to the rush caffeine can give. It certainly kept me awake and alert, and I have extra energy that I'm assuredly wasting by typing a review, but it was nothing to write home about. And if you DID write home about it, your hand wouldn't be shaking all over the place. Which I suppose can be a good thing.
Overall: 8 of 10
What else can I say? It's got a long, rich history - and a rich taste to match. I wouldn't stay it's going to be setting a standard or setting the bar for the next one - this was just the first. I've got a list of energy drinks currently available on the market and a drive to continue reviewing. I hope you all enjoyed the review as much as I enjoyed this revamped blast from my past.
Blast? I meant "Jolt". Read more!
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Earth Day, Earth Month, Earth Year?
Back in the 1500's, Copernicus was figuring out that the Earth was not the center of the universe. Apparently, nobody bothered to let the Earth know that.
Sure, it sounds like a mean thing to say - accusing the Earth of thinking that it's the center of the universe. Well, take a good hard look at reality and you'll see that we humans still have this mindset that the Earth still IS the center of the universe. We just no longer think of its LOCATION as the center of the universe. We still have the SETI program and other scientists and wingnuts scanning the airwaves for extraterrestrials trying to contact us. Why would E.T. want to talk to us? Surely, being the center of the universe and focal point of everything - any alien communication should certainly be coming OUR way. Aliens in other galaxies MUST be figuring out ways to talk to EARTH!
But I digress. This is about Earth Day and how it has been manipulated into a gigantic guilt-trip overexaggeration of its former self.
Earth Day started not only as a response to a 1969 oil spill, but as a culmination of an earth-friendly ecological movement. Industrialization had been booming, and people decided it was time to think a little bit more about the environment. Gaylord Nelson, a senator from Wisconsin, called for an "environmental teach-in" which he called Earth Day to be celebrated on April 22, 1970. That's it. One day to be recognized, not even asking for it to be an annual thing, which happened to be on the birthday of the man who founded Arbor Day almost a hundred years earlier in 1872. I don't know if this is coincidence or planning on Nelson's part.
The Earth Day of 1970 went well, for the most part. 20 million people celebrated that day, and events were led by Senator Nelson himself. And because NO non-political celebration should EVER be without political undertones, the events were modeled after Vietnam War protest events, and part of the festivities including actual protests of the Vietnam War. In fact, war protests were a part of Earth Day for a while after it became a national holiday repeated in 1971 and each year afterwards. Nothing screams "hippie liberalism" like combining environmentalism and war protestation!
Also in the aftermath of the 1970 Earth Day were the creation of the Clean Air Act as well as the foundation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The celebration of Earth Day is celebrated globally, observed in 175 countries by more than half a billion people each year. It is considered to be the largest-celebrated secular holiday in the world.
So why isn't that enough?
This season, I was greeted with posters and advertisements on the trains and buses for Earth Month Chicago. April 17th through May 20th was to be a celebration of Earth Month, completely disregarding the history and importance April 22nd had in the beginning. All of a sudden, it wasn't enough to focus on the Earth and ways to improve it for one entire day - now the Earth deserved more. It deserved an entire month! An entire month to be celebrated by ONE CITY. Why bother having one day that over 500 million people in 175 countries can share, when one city in one country can spread it arbitrarily over a month??
Are you starting to see the flaws in the logic?
The only thing that the Earth Month Chicago was doing that Earth Day simply couldn't was... No, wait - not a single thing during Earth Month Chicago couldn't have been done on Earth Day. The only difference is that the normal gamut of activities and events one would normally find on Earth Day were being spread across this period of a month. And it wasn't even that the events were to take longer - they were just broken up in little bits everywhere around this month. Whether it was the used cellphone recycling drive, the Green Business Conference, eyeglasses collection or even the recycling convention for household chemicals and computers (I can't figure out why those two are together) - all the events could either be crammed into one day, or could have been celebrated simultaneously in DIFFERENT CITIES. Hell, you could have one in the downtown area and one in a north suburb and one in a south suburb for all I care - get it DONE in ONE DAY and that's your EARTH DAY.
There's no excuse for it to take an entire month. Especially since it's not even a calendar month in any sense. At least Black History month is all of February. This is April 17 - May 20; a very-arbitrary 34 days! It's incredibly hard to celebrate a festival period if you have no clue when it ends or begins. It's even harder if you don't even care in the first place. But the madness doesn't end there - no, not by a long shot...
"Make EVERY month Earth Month!"
That's right - they're actually suggesting that what used to be a one-day-a-year celebration and good idea become an every-day-all-year monotony! There's a reason why most holidays are ONE day out of the entire year - because we'd get sick and tired of it every day and it would lose all its meaning and special qualities! If every day were Valentine's Day, not only would we become disgusted and enraged as the colors pink and red, develop diabetes at more-alarming rates, and probably see the divorce rate spike after a few weeks of love-based torture - but we'd lose all honor and respect for the holiday itself. Not that we had much for a "Hallmark Holiday" in the first place, but that's still more respect than most of us hold for Earth Day as it is.
So let's try and save what little sanctity there is left of Earth Day.
Not a month, not all year. Just one day - April 22nd. Like the other half-billion people in 175 countries.
You know, the people of the Earth we created a Day to focus on. Read more!
Sure, it sounds like a mean thing to say - accusing the Earth of thinking that it's the center of the universe. Well, take a good hard look at reality and you'll see that we humans still have this mindset that the Earth still IS the center of the universe. We just no longer think of its LOCATION as the center of the universe. We still have the SETI program and other scientists and wingnuts scanning the airwaves for extraterrestrials trying to contact us. Why would E.T. want to talk to us? Surely, being the center of the universe and focal point of everything - any alien communication should certainly be coming OUR way. Aliens in other galaxies MUST be figuring out ways to talk to EARTH!
But I digress. This is about Earth Day and how it has been manipulated into a gigantic guilt-trip overexaggeration of its former self.
Earth Day started not only as a response to a 1969 oil spill, but as a culmination of an earth-friendly ecological movement. Industrialization had been booming, and people decided it was time to think a little bit more about the environment. Gaylord Nelson, a senator from Wisconsin, called for an "environmental teach-in" which he called Earth Day to be celebrated on April 22, 1970. That's it. One day to be recognized, not even asking for it to be an annual thing, which happened to be on the birthday of the man who founded Arbor Day almost a hundred years earlier in 1872. I don't know if this is coincidence or planning on Nelson's part.
The Earth Day of 1970 went well, for the most part. 20 million people celebrated that day, and events were led by Senator Nelson himself. And because NO non-political celebration should EVER be without political undertones, the events were modeled after Vietnam War protest events, and part of the festivities including actual protests of the Vietnam War. In fact, war protests were a part of Earth Day for a while after it became a national holiday repeated in 1971 and each year afterwards. Nothing screams "hippie liberalism" like combining environmentalism and war protestation!
Also in the aftermath of the 1970 Earth Day were the creation of the Clean Air Act as well as the foundation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The celebration of Earth Day is celebrated globally, observed in 175 countries by more than half a billion people each year. It is considered to be the largest-celebrated secular holiday in the world.
So why isn't that enough?
This season, I was greeted with posters and advertisements on the trains and buses for Earth Month Chicago. April 17th through May 20th was to be a celebration of Earth Month, completely disregarding the history and importance April 22nd had in the beginning. All of a sudden, it wasn't enough to focus on the Earth and ways to improve it for one entire day - now the Earth deserved more. It deserved an entire month! An entire month to be celebrated by ONE CITY. Why bother having one day that over 500 million people in 175 countries can share, when one city in one country can spread it arbitrarily over a month??
Are you starting to see the flaws in the logic?
The only thing that the Earth Month Chicago was doing that Earth Day simply couldn't was... No, wait - not a single thing during Earth Month Chicago couldn't have been done on Earth Day. The only difference is that the normal gamut of activities and events one would normally find on Earth Day were being spread across this period of a month. And it wasn't even that the events were to take longer - they were just broken up in little bits everywhere around this month. Whether it was the used cellphone recycling drive, the Green Business Conference, eyeglasses collection or even the recycling convention for household chemicals and computers (I can't figure out why those two are together) - all the events could either be crammed into one day, or could have been celebrated simultaneously in DIFFERENT CITIES. Hell, you could have one in the downtown area and one in a north suburb and one in a south suburb for all I care - get it DONE in ONE DAY and that's your EARTH DAY.
There's no excuse for it to take an entire month. Especially since it's not even a calendar month in any sense. At least Black History month is all of February. This is April 17 - May 20; a very-arbitrary 34 days! It's incredibly hard to celebrate a festival period if you have no clue when it ends or begins. It's even harder if you don't even care in the first place. But the madness doesn't end there - no, not by a long shot...
"Make EVERY month Earth Month!"
That's right - they're actually suggesting that what used to be a one-day-a-year celebration and good idea become an every-day-all-year monotony! There's a reason why most holidays are ONE day out of the entire year - because we'd get sick and tired of it every day and it would lose all its meaning and special qualities! If every day were Valentine's Day, not only would we become disgusted and enraged as the colors pink and red, develop diabetes at more-alarming rates, and probably see the divorce rate spike after a few weeks of love-based torture - but we'd lose all honor and respect for the holiday itself. Not that we had much for a "Hallmark Holiday" in the first place, but that's still more respect than most of us hold for Earth Day as it is.
So let's try and save what little sanctity there is left of Earth Day.
Not a month, not all year. Just one day - April 22nd. Like the other half-billion people in 175 countries.
You know, the people of the Earth we created a Day to focus on. Read more!
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
After the May Day Rallies
I live in Chicago - a Blue City in a Blue State with more than enough people willing to take time out of their lives of trying to be productive to disrupt the flow of the city at large with a huge protesting rally and a march downtown. They think that by disrupting the city in every way possible (be it the traffic flow, the noise level, or the absence of working in general) they will be able to coerce people to their side of the argument rather than trying to actually make a difference.
You know how differences in the law are made? Um, by making a law or amending a law.
You know how that's done? Um, voting and petitioning to create/amend legislature.
You know who gets to do that? Um, citizens who have the right to vote.
You know how that's NOT done? Um, by hollering and disrupting a productive city.
According to the papers, 150,000 people took to the streets here in Chicago. While I believe everyone's entitled to an opinion, and voicing that opinion in whatever fashion they see fit (that wacky gift of free speech, you know?) - that also means that I am entitled to my differing opinion, and voicing MY differing opinion in whatever fashion I see fit. I usually see fit to voice my opinion in a mocking tone. So if you can't handle someone poking fun at things that might not be as hilarious, or can't handle someone becoming enraged by things you find to be acceptable - let's agree to disagree beforehand, because it only gets worse from here.
Let's start with signage.
Every good rally/protest is bound to have signs, displaying your messages because it's incredibly rare to get more than 20 people to say the same thing AND in unison so it can be understood, let alone 150,000. What's the first legible sign I see on the picture in the paper? "Legalizacion Para Todos" (Legalization For All). Okay, see I have a problem with this message (or rather this 'call to action'). You see, everyone CAN become legal ALREADY. It just takes the proper paperwork, going through the proper channels, and in some cases, paying the proper amount. Everyone has the opportunity to become a legal citizen - you don't just get to demand to be legal, ESPECIALLY after BREAKING the law by NOT going through those channels. That's like going to a Six Flags and instead of waiting 2 hours in line, you decide to CLIMB THE COASTER to get to the platform. We get it, you went through some hard times and all you really want is to ride the coaster just like everyone else, but you didn't wait in the line, and you're not supposed to climb the coaster in the first place. That means you DON'T get to ride. Not until you go back and wait in the line. Oh, and climbing the coaster is grounds for throwing you out of the park. You knew that risk when you climbed it, so no complaining.
How about the sign reading "No Human Being Is Illegal"? Well, I'll completely agree. I don't really see any reason that a human's existance alone would be a crime. However, things that human DOES are certainly capable of being crimes. You can't stand on someone's private property and then complain when being arrested for trespassing that you're a human being and you have the legal right to exist. Yea, you can exist. You can live. You just can't break the law. That's why you get arrested. And ejected from the private property.
You want worse signage? How about this little gem: "If We Go, We're Taking the Tacos with Us" Oh. My. God. Why is it that if counter-protesters were shouting, "Go back to Mexico - and take your tacos with you," that would be considered SO offensive and 'hateful' - but they're allowed to use stereotyping against themselves and claim power from it? And no offense, but isn't the taco one of those foods that we always claim is from a certain culture, even though it's really not - you know, like how we say pizza is an Italian food but it wasn't created in Italy? I mean, a gyro is like a 'lamb taco' - the art of folding something bready and putting meat inside isn't exactly unique to one culture, let alone one country. I'm sure plenty of Americans (like dorky teenagers working fast-food) can make a taco without you, Paco.
One more brief point about something enraging me:
I want to punch in the face every single illegal immigrant marching in these parades who is carrying and waving and wrapping themselves in the AMERICAN FLAG. What the hell are you trying to say with that statement? We know you love America - that's why you broke the law just to be here. But you BROKE THE LAW and you're NOT A CITIZEN. You have pretty much no right to that flag, other than the fact that you're trespassing in this country so you're at least HERE. Waving a symbol of the very crime you've committed is like a drug dealer holding up a giant flashing sign saying "I Sell Drugs!" or something. I'm not in the mood to come up with a better analogy - deal with it.
Let's just move on to some numbers.
The first number is 400,000 - the number of "unauthorized immigrants" (which I guess is the new P.C. term for 'illegal immigrants') in Chicago. This number was provided by the Urban Institute back in March of this year. The rest of these figures are apparently all going to be coming from a University of Illinois-Chicago study released back in 2002. 30% of all "undocumented immigrants" working in the Chicago metro-area labor market were working in restaurant-related jobs, hand-packing and assembly, janitorial and cleaning jobs. In other words, jobs that require no skill and a high-school dropout could do them. And I'm sure there's a LOT of high-school dropouts looking for jobs to support their habits while still living at home. What really shocked me about this study's findings is that the median hourly wage earned by illegals back in 2002 was $7.00/hr! I mean it's 2007 and the federal minimum wage is $5.15/hr, which will be moving up in July to $7.25/hr. I mean Illinois' minimum wage is $6.50/hr, increasing to $7.50/hr in July. That means that back in 2002, they were still making more than the minimum wage. So I don't want any boo-hooing from the "we pay illegals slave wages" crowd - because it's a lie!
The last thing I want to touch upon is my continued outrage that the media will interview illegal immigrants and get so much information about them - and nobody acts on it. I mean HELLO - according to our laws, they are wanted criminals by admitting to being illegally in the country! So why is it that nobody is enforcing the law? We have the necessary data, or at least enough to go and investigate! So from now on, I am just going to add all of these people to a list and hopefully post it online somewhere. Just a way of saying "THESE PEOPLE ARE CRIMINALS (and I hope a government agent finishes the job and deports them)" because this is just insane in my mind. These interviews should look more like this:
"So, you're an illegal immigrant?"
"Yes, I've lived here illegally for fifteen years."
"POLICE OFFICER! GOT AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT OVER HERE, ADMITTED TO IT ON RECORD!"
So here's info - just from TODAY's article in a Chicago newspaper...
- Celia Martinez, 49, admitted to being illegal
- Jose Garcia, 22, Ukrainian Village, picture in paper, admittedly undocumented
- John Vaiciulis, 32, studies at Joliet Junior College, picture in paper, expired visa
- Olga Vaiciulis, 22, Joliet, picture in paper, undocumented immigrant
- Gustavo Calixto, 27, Chicago Heights, picture in paper, admitted to being illegal
- Julio Lopez, 18, studies at Morton College in Cicero, picture in paper, undocumented
That's six people - five of which have pictures next to their comments, who are illegally in the United States and have talked to a reporter. And yet, nobody's arrested them. Nobody's deported them. We have these laws, and we need to get them enforced. So please, if you are an ICE agent or happen to know one - take a look at this info and let's get these criminals! Maybe if enough get arrested and deported, they'll remember that they're (oh yea) here illegally and shouldn't be so proud to admit their crimes or else they'll suffer the consequences.
March all you want - ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS ILLEGAL, and it's high time we got our enforcement agencies to keep these criminals aware of it. Read more!
You know how differences in the law are made? Um, by making a law or amending a law.
You know how that's done? Um, voting and petitioning to create/amend legislature.
You know who gets to do that? Um, citizens who have the right to vote.
You know how that's NOT done? Um, by hollering and disrupting a productive city.
According to the papers, 150,000 people took to the streets here in Chicago. While I believe everyone's entitled to an opinion, and voicing that opinion in whatever fashion they see fit (that wacky gift of free speech, you know?) - that also means that I am entitled to my differing opinion, and voicing MY differing opinion in whatever fashion I see fit. I usually see fit to voice my opinion in a mocking tone. So if you can't handle someone poking fun at things that might not be as hilarious, or can't handle someone becoming enraged by things you find to be acceptable - let's agree to disagree beforehand, because it only gets worse from here.
Let's start with signage.
Every good rally/protest is bound to have signs, displaying your messages because it's incredibly rare to get more than 20 people to say the same thing AND in unison so it can be understood, let alone 150,000. What's the first legible sign I see on the picture in the paper? "Legalizacion Para Todos" (Legalization For All). Okay, see I have a problem with this message (or rather this 'call to action'). You see, everyone CAN become legal ALREADY. It just takes the proper paperwork, going through the proper channels, and in some cases, paying the proper amount. Everyone has the opportunity to become a legal citizen - you don't just get to demand to be legal, ESPECIALLY after BREAKING the law by NOT going through those channels. That's like going to a Six Flags and instead of waiting 2 hours in line, you decide to CLIMB THE COASTER to get to the platform. We get it, you went through some hard times and all you really want is to ride the coaster just like everyone else, but you didn't wait in the line, and you're not supposed to climb the coaster in the first place. That means you DON'T get to ride. Not until you go back and wait in the line. Oh, and climbing the coaster is grounds for throwing you out of the park. You knew that risk when you climbed it, so no complaining.
How about the sign reading "No Human Being Is Illegal"? Well, I'll completely agree. I don't really see any reason that a human's existance alone would be a crime. However, things that human DOES are certainly capable of being crimes. You can't stand on someone's private property and then complain when being arrested for trespassing that you're a human being and you have the legal right to exist. Yea, you can exist. You can live. You just can't break the law. That's why you get arrested. And ejected from the private property.
You want worse signage? How about this little gem: "If We Go, We're Taking the Tacos with Us" Oh. My. God. Why is it that if counter-protesters were shouting, "Go back to Mexico - and take your tacos with you," that would be considered SO offensive and 'hateful' - but they're allowed to use stereotyping against themselves and claim power from it? And no offense, but isn't the taco one of those foods that we always claim is from a certain culture, even though it's really not - you know, like how we say pizza is an Italian food but it wasn't created in Italy? I mean, a gyro is like a 'lamb taco' - the art of folding something bready and putting meat inside isn't exactly unique to one culture, let alone one country. I'm sure plenty of Americans (like dorky teenagers working fast-food) can make a taco without you, Paco.
One more brief point about something enraging me:
I want to punch in the face every single illegal immigrant marching in these parades who is carrying and waving and wrapping themselves in the AMERICAN FLAG. What the hell are you trying to say with that statement? We know you love America - that's why you broke the law just to be here. But you BROKE THE LAW and you're NOT A CITIZEN. You have pretty much no right to that flag, other than the fact that you're trespassing in this country so you're at least HERE. Waving a symbol of the very crime you've committed is like a drug dealer holding up a giant flashing sign saying "I Sell Drugs!" or something. I'm not in the mood to come up with a better analogy - deal with it.
Let's just move on to some numbers.
The first number is 400,000 - the number of "unauthorized immigrants" (which I guess is the new P.C. term for 'illegal immigrants') in Chicago. This number was provided by the Urban Institute back in March of this year. The rest of these figures are apparently all going to be coming from a University of Illinois-Chicago study released back in 2002. 30% of all "undocumented immigrants" working in the Chicago metro-area labor market were working in restaurant-related jobs, hand-packing and assembly, janitorial and cleaning jobs. In other words, jobs that require no skill and a high-school dropout could do them. And I'm sure there's a LOT of high-school dropouts looking for jobs to support their habits while still living at home. What really shocked me about this study's findings is that the median hourly wage earned by illegals back in 2002 was $7.00/hr! I mean it's 2007 and the federal minimum wage is $5.15/hr, which will be moving up in July to $7.25/hr. I mean Illinois' minimum wage is $6.50/hr, increasing to $7.50/hr in July. That means that back in 2002, they were still making more than the minimum wage. So I don't want any boo-hooing from the "we pay illegals slave wages" crowd - because it's a lie!
The last thing I want to touch upon is my continued outrage that the media will interview illegal immigrants and get so much information about them - and nobody acts on it. I mean HELLO - according to our laws, they are wanted criminals by admitting to being illegally in the country! So why is it that nobody is enforcing the law? We have the necessary data, or at least enough to go and investigate! So from now on, I am just going to add all of these people to a list and hopefully post it online somewhere. Just a way of saying "THESE PEOPLE ARE CRIMINALS (and I hope a government agent finishes the job and deports them)" because this is just insane in my mind. These interviews should look more like this:
"So, you're an illegal immigrant?"
"Yes, I've lived here illegally for fifteen years."
"POLICE OFFICER! GOT AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT OVER HERE, ADMITTED TO IT ON RECORD!"
So here's info - just from TODAY's article in a Chicago newspaper...
- Celia Martinez, 49, admitted to being illegal
- Jose Garcia, 22, Ukrainian Village, picture in paper, admittedly undocumented
- John Vaiciulis, 32, studies at Joliet Junior College, picture in paper, expired visa
- Olga Vaiciulis, 22, Joliet, picture in paper, undocumented immigrant
- Gustavo Calixto, 27, Chicago Heights, picture in paper, admitted to being illegal
- Julio Lopez, 18, studies at Morton College in Cicero, picture in paper, undocumented
That's six people - five of which have pictures next to their comments, who are illegally in the United States and have talked to a reporter. And yet, nobody's arrested them. Nobody's deported them. We have these laws, and we need to get them enforced. So please, if you are an ICE agent or happen to know one - take a look at this info and let's get these criminals! Maybe if enough get arrested and deported, they'll remember that they're (oh yea) here illegally and shouldn't be so proud to admit their crimes or else they'll suffer the consequences.
March all you want - ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS ILLEGAL, and it's high time we got our enforcement agencies to keep these criminals aware of it. Read more!
Monday, April 30, 2007
Wisconsin City Taking Better Steps Against Illegal Immigration
I don't care what political faction you tend to side with, or what your stance on illegal immigration in general may be - there's one question that I think we can ALL agree on the answer:
Is the government adequately enforcing its current illegal immigration laws? No.
Which brings us to Wisconsin. Normally I shy away from the Cheese-Head State as much as I can, since I live in Chicago and to Illinois residents, Wisconsin is pretty much our Canada. However, I am not only going to make reference to the state, I am praising a few cities therein. Waukesha County wants to be the first city in the state of Wisconsin to give its deputies the right to handle illegal immigration cases.
As it is, it's pretty much the Federal Government's job to handle illegal immigration law. An illegal immigrant gets caught in some city, and city officials simply don't have the enforcement power to deport the illegal immigrant like the law says we should be doing. Instead, it's pretty much a catch-and-release situation, allowing the criminal to go free because getting a Federal Agent's attention long enough to have them trek over and handle the illegal immigrant case is too rare of an event.
Personally, I'm outraged at how little the Federal Government (or rather the I.C.E.) actually does. I mean, you identify an illegal immigrant, you capture them, you deport them. It's that easy. And to make matters worse, the media WAVES illegal immigrants in our faces. I remember reading an article in the NEWSPAPER that was also available ONLINE to EVERYONE - talking about illegal immigrants who are having a problem with funding for college. Now, I can't expect a reporter to do the right thing and REPORT the illegals to some law enforcement agency. But when EVERYONE can see the NAMES and FACES and LOCATIONS of two specific freely-confessing illegal immigrants - and the Federal Agents don't get over there and deport them - what the hell are we doing???
The Federal Agencies should KNOW where illegals are. Hell, if I can find and identify illegal immigrants by doing something as simple as opening a newspaper - certainly government agents would be able to do the same, if not more. The problem apparently comes with getting them to DO something about it. And if nobody's going to do anything on a federal level - I say it's about damned time we open that offer up to state and city law enforcement agents. If a city cop is bored enough to issue a ticket for illegally parking, they have enough time to deport all of the illegal immigrants they run across. Yea, it's some extra paperwork, and then ya throw 'em on a plane or a bus or a boat. That's it. I'm sure city officials can handle that. Even the ones in Waukesha County in Wisconsin.
Most people would stop there. But I'm never one to miss a golden opportunity to pitch the idea of "Operation Wetback 2". No, do NOT get all P.C. on me about my flagrant usage of "the W-word" or a "racial slur". It's not MY military operation - it was Eisenhower's!
June 17, 1954 - Operation Wetback went into effect.
What was "Operation Wetback"? Well, the major problem with the stopping of illegal immigration is probably the same today as it was then - every time Border Patrol or the police arrested an illegal immigrant in agricultural areas and whatnot, the owner of the land who hired the illegal immigrant would call up their political connections and get it reversed or charges dropped. So Operation Wetback came into play when Eisenhower hired HIS friend, retired General Joseph "Jumpin' Joe" Swing to the position of INS commissioner. Which meant Jumpin' Joe was the end-all be-all in the INS and no farmer's political intervention was going to contradict the political sway of the President, you know?
So the operation started on June 17, 1954 and involved about 750 INS agents just making a sweep through the agricultural areas, starting in California and Arizona. They swept north from the border and had a combined goal of 1,000 apprehensions each day. By end of July, more than 50,000 aliens had been caught in those two states alone, and it's estimated that almost 500,000 others had simply fled the country, fearing arrest. By September, 80,000 were arrested in Texas and another 500,000 to 700,000 had fled from Texas voluntarily.
Because with Operation Wetback, the arrests weren't the only thing. There was no more simply bringing illegals back to the border, where they'd just illegally cross again. Jumpin' Joe arranged for buses and trains to take the arrested illegals DEEP into Mexico where it'd be harder for them to make it back to the border to try again. And in July, when the sweep spread to Utah, Idaho, Nevada and TEXAS - tens of thousands were put on two hired ships (the Emancipation and the Mercurio) and sent from Port Isabel, Texas, to Vera Cruz, Mexico, more than 500 miles south.
And this was done with less than 1,000 agents - at a time when Border Patrol was less than a TENTH of what it is today.
So how can we improve on Operation Wetback for its stunning sequel?
1. Deport them to places where they won't come back as easily. While I admit that it was a lot harder to travel across a country back in the 50s than it is today, it's still a better deterrent. Make the ones we CATCH go back 500 miles, and maybe that'll once again convince ones we haven't caught yet to simply go back the easier and closer way. Heck, I still like that whole boat idea... We could be REAL bastards and drop 'em off on another continent, or some country with a different language just to make things harder.
2. Hit the business owners harder and punish them worse for hiring illegal immigrants. Without the possibility of jobs, maybe they won't be as quick to jump that border, eh? And DON'T tell me "we crack down plenty hard" or "how much harder could we make it" - we're currently TRYING to pass better legislation to hit people who hire or rent to illegals, who keep boo-hooing that it's not their job to do background checks. Yes, it is - because now you can get arrested/fined for NOT doing it. It's not that hard to ask for proof of citizenship, and it's not that expensive to run the basic checks. Maybe if it were a more-common law, the pricing would go down to be competitive.
3. No more of this "catch and release" stuff for non-Mexican aliens. Apparently if they're caught they usually get set free after their arrest if they promise to appear later before a judge. Shockingly, few show up. Maybe "not from around here" should be considered enough of a flight risk to deny this catch-and-release system. At LEAST hit 'em for bail money so we get SOMETHING out of it if they flee afterwards. Odds are they won't be able to afford it anyway.
So if we set "Operation Wetback 2" into motion, imagine the possibilities. I mean, with ten times the agents out there making the sweeps, you could THEORETICALLY arrest ten times as many illegals. But let's say benefit of the doubt and estimate fivefold results. That means in three months' time, we could deport over 650,000 illegals, and possibly scare away 5 million in the process. And those are moderate estimates, without even incorporating our advanced technology to find even more illegals even faster, and just over 3 months' time. Think what we could do if it lasted a year or two...
Of course, that's just one citizen's opinion... What's yours? Read more!
Is the government adequately enforcing its current illegal immigration laws? No.
Which brings us to Wisconsin. Normally I shy away from the Cheese-Head State as much as I can, since I live in Chicago and to Illinois residents, Wisconsin is pretty much our Canada. However, I am not only going to make reference to the state, I am praising a few cities therein. Waukesha County wants to be the first city in the state of Wisconsin to give its deputies the right to handle illegal immigration cases.
As it is, it's pretty much the Federal Government's job to handle illegal immigration law. An illegal immigrant gets caught in some city, and city officials simply don't have the enforcement power to deport the illegal immigrant like the law says we should be doing. Instead, it's pretty much a catch-and-release situation, allowing the criminal to go free because getting a Federal Agent's attention long enough to have them trek over and handle the illegal immigrant case is too rare of an event.
Personally, I'm outraged at how little the Federal Government (or rather the I.C.E.) actually does. I mean, you identify an illegal immigrant, you capture them, you deport them. It's that easy. And to make matters worse, the media WAVES illegal immigrants in our faces. I remember reading an article in the NEWSPAPER that was also available ONLINE to EVERYONE - talking about illegal immigrants who are having a problem with funding for college. Now, I can't expect a reporter to do the right thing and REPORT the illegals to some law enforcement agency. But when EVERYONE can see the NAMES and FACES and LOCATIONS of two specific freely-confessing illegal immigrants - and the Federal Agents don't get over there and deport them - what the hell are we doing???
The Federal Agencies should KNOW where illegals are. Hell, if I can find and identify illegal immigrants by doing something as simple as opening a newspaper - certainly government agents would be able to do the same, if not more. The problem apparently comes with getting them to DO something about it. And if nobody's going to do anything on a federal level - I say it's about damned time we open that offer up to state and city law enforcement agents. If a city cop is bored enough to issue a ticket for illegally parking, they have enough time to deport all of the illegal immigrants they run across. Yea, it's some extra paperwork, and then ya throw 'em on a plane or a bus or a boat. That's it. I'm sure city officials can handle that. Even the ones in Waukesha County in Wisconsin.
Most people would stop there. But I'm never one to miss a golden opportunity to pitch the idea of "Operation Wetback 2". No, do NOT get all P.C. on me about my flagrant usage of "the W-word" or a "racial slur". It's not MY military operation - it was Eisenhower's!
June 17, 1954 - Operation Wetback went into effect.
What was "Operation Wetback"? Well, the major problem with the stopping of illegal immigration is probably the same today as it was then - every time Border Patrol or the police arrested an illegal immigrant in agricultural areas and whatnot, the owner of the land who hired the illegal immigrant would call up their political connections and get it reversed or charges dropped. So Operation Wetback came into play when Eisenhower hired HIS friend, retired General Joseph "Jumpin' Joe" Swing to the position of INS commissioner. Which meant Jumpin' Joe was the end-all be-all in the INS and no farmer's political intervention was going to contradict the political sway of the President, you know?
So the operation started on June 17, 1954 and involved about 750 INS agents just making a sweep through the agricultural areas, starting in California and Arizona. They swept north from the border and had a combined goal of 1,000 apprehensions each day. By end of July, more than 50,000 aliens had been caught in those two states alone, and it's estimated that almost 500,000 others had simply fled the country, fearing arrest. By September, 80,000 were arrested in Texas and another 500,000 to 700,000 had fled from Texas voluntarily.
Because with Operation Wetback, the arrests weren't the only thing. There was no more simply bringing illegals back to the border, where they'd just illegally cross again. Jumpin' Joe arranged for buses and trains to take the arrested illegals DEEP into Mexico where it'd be harder for them to make it back to the border to try again. And in July, when the sweep spread to Utah, Idaho, Nevada and TEXAS - tens of thousands were put on two hired ships (the Emancipation and the Mercurio) and sent from Port Isabel, Texas, to Vera Cruz, Mexico, more than 500 miles south.
And this was done with less than 1,000 agents - at a time when Border Patrol was less than a TENTH of what it is today.
So how can we improve on Operation Wetback for its stunning sequel?
1. Deport them to places where they won't come back as easily. While I admit that it was a lot harder to travel across a country back in the 50s than it is today, it's still a better deterrent. Make the ones we CATCH go back 500 miles, and maybe that'll once again convince ones we haven't caught yet to simply go back the easier and closer way. Heck, I still like that whole boat idea... We could be REAL bastards and drop 'em off on another continent, or some country with a different language just to make things harder.
2. Hit the business owners harder and punish them worse for hiring illegal immigrants. Without the possibility of jobs, maybe they won't be as quick to jump that border, eh? And DON'T tell me "we crack down plenty hard" or "how much harder could we make it" - we're currently TRYING to pass better legislation to hit people who hire or rent to illegals, who keep boo-hooing that it's not their job to do background checks. Yes, it is - because now you can get arrested/fined for NOT doing it. It's not that hard to ask for proof of citizenship, and it's not that expensive to run the basic checks. Maybe if it were a more-common law, the pricing would go down to be competitive.
3. No more of this "catch and release" stuff for non-Mexican aliens. Apparently if they're caught they usually get set free after their arrest if they promise to appear later before a judge. Shockingly, few show up. Maybe "not from around here" should be considered enough of a flight risk to deny this catch-and-release system. At LEAST hit 'em for bail money so we get SOMETHING out of it if they flee afterwards. Odds are they won't be able to afford it anyway.
So if we set "Operation Wetback 2" into motion, imagine the possibilities. I mean, with ten times the agents out there making the sweeps, you could THEORETICALLY arrest ten times as many illegals. But let's say benefit of the doubt and estimate fivefold results. That means in three months' time, we could deport over 650,000 illegals, and possibly scare away 5 million in the process. And those are moderate estimates, without even incorporating our advanced technology to find even more illegals even faster, and just over 3 months' time. Think what we could do if it lasted a year or two...
Of course, that's just one citizen's opinion... What's yours? Read more!
Monday, February 05, 2007
Football - Stupidest Sport Ever!
Okay - technically they're all equally stupid. But the ways in which football is stupid are much more different than other sports.
80% of plays, nothing happens.
Okay, everyone lines up. Some shouting takes place. Someone shifts around. Still nothing happening. More shouts. Little more shuffling. Ball moves, players push each other a lot, and either the guy holding it runs a little bit and then gets pushed down or he throws it to someone who misses it or catches it and then gets pushed down less than 20 feet from where the ball started from at the beginning of this rigamarole.
15% of the plays, something MIGHT happen, but then there was a penalty and nothing happens.
Okay, everyone lines up. Some shouting takes place. Someone shifts around. Shill nothing happening. More shouts. Little more shuffling. A whistle blows, and all hell breaks loose because someone shuffled wrong. A "false start" or an "offsides" or one of those things. And then everyone has to break for a few seconds while the referrees look at the videotape of the shuffling that may or may not have taken place inappropriately - at which point a decision is made and the nothingness can begin anew.
4% of the plays, something finally happens, but in such a way that some minutia took place which means yet another flag and possible penalty.
Okay, fast-forward to the ball moving, and the guy with the ball actually throws it to someone who somehow manages to catch it, maybe run with it for a few yards, and then gets thrown to the ground or runs out-of-bounds into a cameraman - possibly as an NFL-sponsored program designed to give a cameraman a look into the life of an NFL player, generally by knocking him to the ground in a painful manner. Oh, but wait! A flag has been thrown on the field because in the split second between the guy catching the ball and getting a beat-down, the referees need to verify whether or not his feet were on the ground, or both feet were in-bounds, or whether his shoelaces were untied or something. Three minutes later, the decision is made and the nothingness begins anew.
1% of the plays, something actually happens. Which causes five minutes of detailed review as to WHY it happened or how the other team mistakenly LET it happen.
This is just like the above, but since three minutes didn't get wasted on referees reviewing three different videotaped angles - they decide to waste three minutes with announcers drawing arrows on video screens to show you how the ball was caught because "the player moved his left hand inward at the same time that he moved his right hand inward, and they came together at a central point where the football happened to be, and then he moved his right foot forward as to avoid getting tackled by a large man and then he moved his left foot forward to gain more momentum in an effort to drive the mass of his body closer towards a zone at the end of the football field commonly referred to as an "end zone" so that his team will be rewarded with a certain number of points determined by the... HEY WAKE UP! I'M EXPLAINING SOMETHING EVERYONE IS AWARE OF AND I USED TO PLAY FOOTBALL SO LISTEN TO MY VOICE NOW!"
Seriously, what crappy lottery gets played to drag out these four yokels behind one giant desk and banter with each other about this game? The black guy second from the right reminded me a LOT of Ali Williams from Family Guy. I think I caught him say ONE thing during the entire halftime bullshit report - which he said twice, possibly because it was in his contract - and that was "KEEP YO EYE ON YO LUGGAGE!" as he gripped a football, expertly pointing out the foibles of the Super Bowl players who seemed unable to do just that. Possibly due to it being RAINY and the ball being WET. Maybe if football were played in suits behind a giant desk, they'd have a much easier time of keeping their eyes on their "luggage". Thanks, Ali!
Pressing on...
Football penalties can be moronic.
Okay, in the game of basketball - someone shoves someone to the ground and a whistle is blown and a foul or technical foul gets issued and if you screw up enough times, they throw you out of the game. Now, in football, one of the ASPECTS of the game is shoving someone to the ground. So why are there penalties regarding HOW this is done? "Ref! Ref! He touched my mask! My MASK!!" Whistle. Foul. Penalty. WTF??? "Ref! Ref! He touched my shirt! MY SHIRT!!!" Whistle. Foul. Penalty. WTF???
This is utter nonsense. If you're going to base a major part of the game on brutally knocking down a player, then you have to let someone brutally knock that player down. Know the best way to knock them to the ground? Grab onto them and knock them down. Now, in hockey - I can understand that while beating the shit out of the opponent is a major part of the game (at least it seems that way), the usage of your stick in the process is a no-no. Weapons just hinder the brutality of the beating. But whether you just sock him in whatever teeth he has left, or pull his shirt over his head and work the torso - it's all good.
And then in football, you can't hurt CERTAIN people? There was a play involving a penalty because someone tackled the kicker. The guy came out to kick the field goal, and he kicked the ball and a guy slammed into his leg and knocked him down. BOO-HOO! There should be no penalty for that, EVER! If you're dumb enough to put on the outfit and get your ass onto a football field where you're AWARE that tackling is a major part of the game - you bet your ass tackling is going to be on the menu. If the head coach decided to wander onto the field in the middle of a play and got sacked in the process - I'd expect no penalty for that, either. Coaches know to stay on the sidelines and not ON the field. That's where the tackling generally happens.
It happens off the field just as much. Get a 250-pound man barreling out of bounds, and realize there's people there - someone's gonna get tackled. Usually a cameraman - because there seem to be SO many of them out there. How come there's no penalty for roughing up an innocent bystander? I bet if Dennis Rodman just whucked a basketball out-of-bounds and into the smug begging-for-it face of Vince Vaughn or Ben Affleck, HE'D get a technical foul or something. Football needs a serious reworking in the tackling penalty department.
Halftime Shows. 'Nuff Said.
Lewis Black has a lot of material on the horrid nature of SuperBowl halftime shows. I'd love to just copy it and adapt it all to this particular one. But I have to admit that part of the suckiness was due to the fact that it was fucking RAINING. I suspect that had it not been raining, there would have been more lucrative dancing or worth paying attention to. Instead, we were left with the crooning of PRINCE.
"Because when I think of football - OH YEA - I think of PRINCE!"
While Dave Chappelle alludes to Prince's basketball abilities, I don't think there's anything connecting him to football in general. I don't think there's much linking him to ANYTHING MANLY in general. Let's face it, people - football is considered a "manly sport". This isn't to be sexist - I do a lot of perusing of personal ads and all the women link an interest in football to "being one of the guys" and "their masculine side". All of the shots of his fans screaming madly while rushing the stage were all lanky-looking women who I doubt had any real interest in football in general. At least they didn't do their usual joining of two/three musical "talents" who are a bit mismatched and god-awful. We just got one. And it was Prince.
Purple Rage.
I zoned out through the last two quarters, mostly listening while I was on the computer. I didn't need to SEE the Bears sucking out loud - it was so loud I could hear it from the other room. Which leads me to the endgame. Confetti is streaming down, getting stuck to bald players' heads which are wet with rain or sweat or something else that would make confetti stick to skin - and they announce the trophy being brought in by "the Winningest Coach in the NFL".
"Winningest"??
Yea, they just made up a word. And not in a cool way like Colbert made up "truthiness" or "wikiality" - this is just a stupid word. I'm sure I could get a linguistics expert to verify the sheer stupidity of it. And to make matters worse, this then leads to the most devious of titles in the NFL itself - "MVP". The "Most Valuable Player", huh? Something tells me that this "value" they refer to is backed up by NOTHING factual. I mean, when it comes to a player's value in the NFL - wouldn't you look at the price on his contract? I mean, a yearly salary plus percentage of the initial signing bonus would be the natural way to determine the "most-valued" of players, right? And let's face it - after this last game, all of the players are useless, aren't they? I mean there's always that commercial at the last major sporting event that says that "after tomorrow - we're all undefeated again" or something. I guess it can refer to the value of the player DURING the season, like "without you, we never woulda made it" kind of thing, but that's a bit rude to the other players, isn't it? I mean, it's a TEAM sport, right?
Oh, and the prize for winning MVP? A car.
Hell, even on Oprah there's enough sense to give EVERYONE a car... If I were the losing team, I'd think it'd be pretty easy to just go over to that brand new fancy car and just tip it over. Seriously, these guys are huge and strong. I bet you'd only need like four of them. Just tip it over and say "Who's the most valuable NOW, BITCH?" and walk away. With the Bears, I'm surprised they didn't. Trust me, nobody in Chicago would think they were "poor sports" for doing it. They'd chip into a fundraiser for bail money afterwards as a "thank you". They'd even grunt while they placed money into the fundraising boxes with "Daaaaaa Bail!"
Oh yes, the Lombardi trophy handed to the coach and the team, but mostly the coach was announced as being the "most prestigious award in team sports". REALLY? You're really not only going to freely award this trophy that particular form of superlative, but use the word "prestige" to do so? At least in baseball or basketball, you're not allowed to push people! If football exudes "prestige" - then the most prestigious award in team sports should be the Stanley Cup. After all, it IS a lot BIGGER. And if it's a different kind of prestige, that title really belongs with the Olympic Gold Medal awarded to a team sport. Olympics exude a lot more prestige - and they have a lot more right to use the word "world" in their titles than the National Football League does. I don't want to hear that the Colts are "world champions". That's as dumb as the word "world" in baseball's "World Series".
Before I go, I just want to compare two or three SuperBowl commercials, illustrating the differences between price and elaboration and effectiveness.
Commercial #1: Kentucky Fried Chicken
They scrolled a message saying how they were going to give you a break from all of the overpriced elaborate nonsense commercials. Then it showed a bucket of fried chicken, and said it was like a 10-piece bucket of chicken for $7.99, I think. That's it.
Very effective, in my opinion. It poked fun at the hype of SuperBowl commercials, got its message across, and featured the brilliant return of the FULL TITLE of the company, Kentucky Fried Chicken. They recently decided to shy away from the KFC logo they'd been hiding behind for a long time, and re-emerge with their full title once more.
Commercial #2: GoDaddy.com
A guy in a suit is talking about the company and what they do, selling cheap domain names and whatnot, and then he gets to the marketing department door, and there's a huge party with fun and music and boobs a-plenty and he closes the door after a few seconds and says "Everybody wants to be in Marketing."
Yes, sir, and I'd like to be in Marketing, too! Very effective commercial, in my opinion, because sex sells - even more so when you're pointing out that sex sells. It's all the craftiness of honesty and humor with the added bonus of SEX that SELLS! It not only made me want to find out more about GoDaddy, but also apply for their Marketing department. Until I remembered it was just a commercial. But still... Seriously...
Commerical #3: GM Motors
An elaborate commercial with a lot of CG or machinery as a factory robot gets fired from the shop, and has to live on the streets. He winds up in the crappy position of waving around one of those big arrow signs, and finally commits suicide by jumping off a bridge. He then wakes up back in the factory, and is happy to keep working.
Why the hell would you advertise firing an employee and driving them to suicide?? I mean, it's a robot, but they personified it with human emotions and actions so we could "relate to it" and then it jumps off a bridge because it wants to die?? Why would I want your products after you reminded me of being miserable enough to the point of suicide??? Hell, if the company wanted to really SEAL the deal, after the robot wakes up from this horrible dream - the manager should have fired him for SLEEPING ON THE JOB! This was an awful commercial, and I'm willing to bet there's a lot of online blather about GM's hiring/firing practices from people who bothered to do more research than I felt like as this late hour.
I have work tomorrow and have to get up at 6am to do so.
Failure to do so might result in them firing me and me wanting to jump off a bridge. Thanks, GM! Read more!
80% of plays, nothing happens.
Okay, everyone lines up. Some shouting takes place. Someone shifts around. Still nothing happening. More shouts. Little more shuffling. Ball moves, players push each other a lot, and either the guy holding it runs a little bit and then gets pushed down or he throws it to someone who misses it or catches it and then gets pushed down less than 20 feet from where the ball started from at the beginning of this rigamarole.
15% of the plays, something MIGHT happen, but then there was a penalty and nothing happens.
Okay, everyone lines up. Some shouting takes place. Someone shifts around. Shill nothing happening. More shouts. Little more shuffling. A whistle blows, and all hell breaks loose because someone shuffled wrong. A "false start" or an "offsides" or one of those things. And then everyone has to break for a few seconds while the referrees look at the videotape of the shuffling that may or may not have taken place inappropriately - at which point a decision is made and the nothingness can begin anew.
4% of the plays, something finally happens, but in such a way that some minutia took place which means yet another flag and possible penalty.
Okay, fast-forward to the ball moving, and the guy with the ball actually throws it to someone who somehow manages to catch it, maybe run with it for a few yards, and then gets thrown to the ground or runs out-of-bounds into a cameraman - possibly as an NFL-sponsored program designed to give a cameraman a look into the life of an NFL player, generally by knocking him to the ground in a painful manner. Oh, but wait! A flag has been thrown on the field because in the split second between the guy catching the ball and getting a beat-down, the referees need to verify whether or not his feet were on the ground, or both feet were in-bounds, or whether his shoelaces were untied or something. Three minutes later, the decision is made and the nothingness begins anew.
1% of the plays, something actually happens. Which causes five minutes of detailed review as to WHY it happened or how the other team mistakenly LET it happen.
This is just like the above, but since three minutes didn't get wasted on referees reviewing three different videotaped angles - they decide to waste three minutes with announcers drawing arrows on video screens to show you how the ball was caught because "the player moved his left hand inward at the same time that he moved his right hand inward, and they came together at a central point where the football happened to be, and then he moved his right foot forward as to avoid getting tackled by a large man and then he moved his left foot forward to gain more momentum in an effort to drive the mass of his body closer towards a zone at the end of the football field commonly referred to as an "end zone" so that his team will be rewarded with a certain number of points determined by the... HEY WAKE UP! I'M EXPLAINING SOMETHING EVERYONE IS AWARE OF AND I USED TO PLAY FOOTBALL SO LISTEN TO MY VOICE NOW!"
Seriously, what crappy lottery gets played to drag out these four yokels behind one giant desk and banter with each other about this game? The black guy second from the right reminded me a LOT of Ali Williams from Family Guy. I think I caught him say ONE thing during the entire halftime bullshit report - which he said twice, possibly because it was in his contract - and that was "KEEP YO EYE ON YO LUGGAGE!" as he gripped a football, expertly pointing out the foibles of the Super Bowl players who seemed unable to do just that. Possibly due to it being RAINY and the ball being WET. Maybe if football were played in suits behind a giant desk, they'd have a much easier time of keeping their eyes on their "luggage". Thanks, Ali!
Pressing on...
Football penalties can be moronic.
Okay, in the game of basketball - someone shoves someone to the ground and a whistle is blown and a foul or technical foul gets issued and if you screw up enough times, they throw you out of the game. Now, in football, one of the ASPECTS of the game is shoving someone to the ground. So why are there penalties regarding HOW this is done? "Ref! Ref! He touched my mask! My MASK!!" Whistle. Foul. Penalty. WTF??? "Ref! Ref! He touched my shirt! MY SHIRT!!!" Whistle. Foul. Penalty. WTF???
This is utter nonsense. If you're going to base a major part of the game on brutally knocking down a player, then you have to let someone brutally knock that player down. Know the best way to knock them to the ground? Grab onto them and knock them down. Now, in hockey - I can understand that while beating the shit out of the opponent is a major part of the game (at least it seems that way), the usage of your stick in the process is a no-no. Weapons just hinder the brutality of the beating. But whether you just sock him in whatever teeth he has left, or pull his shirt over his head and work the torso - it's all good.
And then in football, you can't hurt CERTAIN people? There was a play involving a penalty because someone tackled the kicker. The guy came out to kick the field goal, and he kicked the ball and a guy slammed into his leg and knocked him down. BOO-HOO! There should be no penalty for that, EVER! If you're dumb enough to put on the outfit and get your ass onto a football field where you're AWARE that tackling is a major part of the game - you bet your ass tackling is going to be on the menu. If the head coach decided to wander onto the field in the middle of a play and got sacked in the process - I'd expect no penalty for that, either. Coaches know to stay on the sidelines and not ON the field. That's where the tackling generally happens.
It happens off the field just as much. Get a 250-pound man barreling out of bounds, and realize there's people there - someone's gonna get tackled. Usually a cameraman - because there seem to be SO many of them out there. How come there's no penalty for roughing up an innocent bystander? I bet if Dennis Rodman just whucked a basketball out-of-bounds and into the smug begging-for-it face of Vince Vaughn or Ben Affleck, HE'D get a technical foul or something. Football needs a serious reworking in the tackling penalty department.
Halftime Shows. 'Nuff Said.
Lewis Black has a lot of material on the horrid nature of SuperBowl halftime shows. I'd love to just copy it and adapt it all to this particular one. But I have to admit that part of the suckiness was due to the fact that it was fucking RAINING. I suspect that had it not been raining, there would have been more lucrative dancing or worth paying attention to. Instead, we were left with the crooning of PRINCE.
"Because when I think of football - OH YEA - I think of PRINCE!"
While Dave Chappelle alludes to Prince's basketball abilities, I don't think there's anything connecting him to football in general. I don't think there's much linking him to ANYTHING MANLY in general. Let's face it, people - football is considered a "manly sport". This isn't to be sexist - I do a lot of perusing of personal ads and all the women link an interest in football to "being one of the guys" and "their masculine side". All of the shots of his fans screaming madly while rushing the stage were all lanky-looking women who I doubt had any real interest in football in general. At least they didn't do their usual joining of two/three musical "talents" who are a bit mismatched and god-awful. We just got one. And it was Prince.
Purple Rage.
I zoned out through the last two quarters, mostly listening while I was on the computer. I didn't need to SEE the Bears sucking out loud - it was so loud I could hear it from the other room. Which leads me to the endgame. Confetti is streaming down, getting stuck to bald players' heads which are wet with rain or sweat or something else that would make confetti stick to skin - and they announce the trophy being brought in by "the Winningest Coach in the NFL".
"Winningest"??
Yea, they just made up a word. And not in a cool way like Colbert made up "truthiness" or "wikiality" - this is just a stupid word. I'm sure I could get a linguistics expert to verify the sheer stupidity of it. And to make matters worse, this then leads to the most devious of titles in the NFL itself - "MVP". The "Most Valuable Player", huh? Something tells me that this "value" they refer to is backed up by NOTHING factual. I mean, when it comes to a player's value in the NFL - wouldn't you look at the price on his contract? I mean, a yearly salary plus percentage of the initial signing bonus would be the natural way to determine the "most-valued" of players, right? And let's face it - after this last game, all of the players are useless, aren't they? I mean there's always that commercial at the last major sporting event that says that "after tomorrow - we're all undefeated again" or something. I guess it can refer to the value of the player DURING the season, like "without you, we never woulda made it" kind of thing, but that's a bit rude to the other players, isn't it? I mean, it's a TEAM sport, right?
Oh, and the prize for winning MVP? A car.
Hell, even on Oprah there's enough sense to give EVERYONE a car... If I were the losing team, I'd think it'd be pretty easy to just go over to that brand new fancy car and just tip it over. Seriously, these guys are huge and strong. I bet you'd only need like four of them. Just tip it over and say "Who's the most valuable NOW, BITCH?" and walk away. With the Bears, I'm surprised they didn't. Trust me, nobody in Chicago would think they were "poor sports" for doing it. They'd chip into a fundraiser for bail money afterwards as a "thank you". They'd even grunt while they placed money into the fundraising boxes with "Daaaaaa Bail!"
Oh yes, the Lombardi trophy handed to the coach and the team, but mostly the coach was announced as being the "most prestigious award in team sports". REALLY? You're really not only going to freely award this trophy that particular form of superlative, but use the word "prestige" to do so? At least in baseball or basketball, you're not allowed to push people! If football exudes "prestige" - then the most prestigious award in team sports should be the Stanley Cup. After all, it IS a lot BIGGER. And if it's a different kind of prestige, that title really belongs with the Olympic Gold Medal awarded to a team sport. Olympics exude a lot more prestige - and they have a lot more right to use the word "world" in their titles than the National Football League does. I don't want to hear that the Colts are "world champions". That's as dumb as the word "world" in baseball's "World Series".
Before I go, I just want to compare two or three SuperBowl commercials, illustrating the differences between price and elaboration and effectiveness.
Commercial #1: Kentucky Fried Chicken
They scrolled a message saying how they were going to give you a break from all of the overpriced elaborate nonsense commercials. Then it showed a bucket of fried chicken, and said it was like a 10-piece bucket of chicken for $7.99, I think. That's it.
Very effective, in my opinion. It poked fun at the hype of SuperBowl commercials, got its message across, and featured the brilliant return of the FULL TITLE of the company, Kentucky Fried Chicken. They recently decided to shy away from the KFC logo they'd been hiding behind for a long time, and re-emerge with their full title once more.
Commercial #2: GoDaddy.com
A guy in a suit is talking about the company and what they do, selling cheap domain names and whatnot, and then he gets to the marketing department door, and there's a huge party with fun and music and boobs a-plenty and he closes the door after a few seconds and says "Everybody wants to be in Marketing."
Yes, sir, and I'd like to be in Marketing, too! Very effective commercial, in my opinion, because sex sells - even more so when you're pointing out that sex sells. It's all the craftiness of honesty and humor with the added bonus of SEX that SELLS! It not only made me want to find out more about GoDaddy, but also apply for their Marketing department. Until I remembered it was just a commercial. But still... Seriously...
Commerical #3: GM Motors
An elaborate commercial with a lot of CG or machinery as a factory robot gets fired from the shop, and has to live on the streets. He winds up in the crappy position of waving around one of those big arrow signs, and finally commits suicide by jumping off a bridge. He then wakes up back in the factory, and is happy to keep working.
Why the hell would you advertise firing an employee and driving them to suicide?? I mean, it's a robot, but they personified it with human emotions and actions so we could "relate to it" and then it jumps off a bridge because it wants to die?? Why would I want your products after you reminded me of being miserable enough to the point of suicide??? Hell, if the company wanted to really SEAL the deal, after the robot wakes up from this horrible dream - the manager should have fired him for SLEEPING ON THE JOB! This was an awful commercial, and I'm willing to bet there's a lot of online blather about GM's hiring/firing practices from people who bothered to do more research than I felt like as this late hour.
I have work tomorrow and have to get up at 6am to do so.
Failure to do so might result in them firing me and me wanting to jump off a bridge. Thanks, GM! Read more!
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Chicago vs. PETA: Offenders on the Offense!
Before reading this, you might want to catch up by reading the previous parts of this Chicago vs. PETA series:
PART 1: Chicago Bans Food and PETA is to Blame
PART 2: Chicago vs. PETA: The Foie Gras Debate!
PART 3: Chicago vs. PETA: The Lawsuit!
PART 4: Chicago vs. PETA: The Uprising!
PART 5: Chicago vs. PETA: The First Offense!
PART 6: Chicago vs. PETA: A Step In The Right Direction?
And join us in the seventh installment of a series of posts that (in the opinion of the writer) should never have come to be. And PETA is to blame; they shock-videoed the Chicago City Council into agreeing to sign a law banning foie gras from the city. In the second part, I discussed the studies and FACTS proving that the reasons BEHIND the law are unfounded and not based on any facts at all. In the third part I got to speak of the Illinois Restaurant Association (IRA) who believes so strongly in this cause that it's practically paying for both sides of the legal battle, based on the fact that it's unconstitutional to make a city law overturning something the federal government approves, let alone deciding what people can/cannot eat. In the fourth part I got to talk about the restaurants fighting back and how more were serving foie gras than ever once the law took effect. In the fifth part, we learned about the first victim of the law and how little the city even cared, other than the media. In part six, the mayor decided to reconsider his stance on the issue. Part seven revisits the restaurants, several months after the ban went into effect.
And for "offenders" - they certainly are taking the offensive in the foie gras dispute!
Five months after the city ordered restaurants to stop selling foie gras, some fancy restaurants and gourmet shops no longer offer the goose or duck liver delicacy, while others are flouting the ban, listing foie gras on their menus and, in one case, framing the city's warning letter.
That's right, Doug Sohn - owner of Hot Doug's gourmet sausage store - thinks the whole thing is so silly that he framed the warning letter issued by the Health Department and hung it on the wall the way most restaurants hang celebrity endorsements.
And in a way, the notice from the Health Department IS like an endorsement to some of these restaurant owners. In fact, since the ban started over five months ago - there have been a total of NINE complaints. Once again, the result of a first-time complaint is (drumroll, please) a WARNING LETTER. So hanging one of these fabled warning letters is like displaying a limited-edition work of art.
After all, one can only hope that Chicago's aldermen will inevitably pull their heads out of their asses long enough to consider Mayor Daley's proposal to remove the ban that he declared "the silliest ordinance the City Council has ever passed." Once that has been acheived, there will be no more warning letters, and odds are there will have been no fines issued.
One restaurant did come close, as they were almost given a citation from the Health Department for selling foie gras. Fortunately, Bin 36 wasn't actually SELLING the foie gras in question. It was specifically noted that the foie gras terrine was a COMPLIMENTARY addition to the wild mushroom confit salad. Would the salad have cost less without the complimentary foie gras? Sure. But that's not the point. The point is that restaurants are FLAUNTING their foie gras services (and gaining business for doing so) as a mockery of the idiots who put the law into effect and those who support it in general.
Of course, the activists are claiming that the ban is "working".
"Our supporters are going into restaurants, and we're told that they are not selling foie gras," said Gene Baur, president of Farm Sanctuary, a national farm animal protection organization.
Hey, guess what, Gene Baur?
IT'S CALLED LYING! You know, that thing you do when moronic protesters come into your business griping about things? You placate them as efficiently and effectively as possible so they get the hell out - and then resume business as usual.
That's like a cop coming into a Prohibition-era establishment asking if they're serving liquor!
"No sir, officer!"
"Alright, carry on then."
**officer leaves**
**booze resumes flowing**
In fact, that's a very apt analogy - since some restauranteurs have turned the foie gras ban into a new Prohibition, speakeasies and all! A speakeasy was an establishment where you gained access by knowing the password - and at least a few Chicago restaurants will certainly oblige if you ask them for the "special lobster" dish.
But ya didn't hear it from me, see??
Alderman Joe Moore, the ordinance's chief sponsor, said he realizes the Health Department has more pressing issues, but he is dismayed to see restaurants flouting the ordinance. "It evinces a certain degree of arrogance on the part of these establishments," he said.
You can call it arrogance. I prefer to call it "delicious".
Arrogance, sir, is taking a food item that is approved by the United States Department of Agriculture for production and sales - and then claiming that your city is "better" than the United States and its decisions by taking away the rights of citizens to sell or purchase that food.
At least that's one meat-eater's opinion on the matter. What's yours?
Stay tuned for more in the Chicago vs. PETA series - a series we wouldn't have had in the first place if it weren't for PETA sticking its nose in YOUR dinner plate. Read more!
PART 1: Chicago Bans Food and PETA is to Blame
PART 2: Chicago vs. PETA: The Foie Gras Debate!
PART 3: Chicago vs. PETA: The Lawsuit!
PART 4: Chicago vs. PETA: The Uprising!
PART 5: Chicago vs. PETA: The First Offense!
PART 6: Chicago vs. PETA: A Step In The Right Direction?
And join us in the seventh installment of a series of posts that (in the opinion of the writer) should never have come to be. And PETA is to blame; they shock-videoed the Chicago City Council into agreeing to sign a law banning foie gras from the city. In the second part, I discussed the studies and FACTS proving that the reasons BEHIND the law are unfounded and not based on any facts at all. In the third part I got to speak of the Illinois Restaurant Association (IRA) who believes so strongly in this cause that it's practically paying for both sides of the legal battle, based on the fact that it's unconstitutional to make a city law overturning something the federal government approves, let alone deciding what people can/cannot eat. In the fourth part I got to talk about the restaurants fighting back and how more were serving foie gras than ever once the law took effect. In the fifth part, we learned about the first victim of the law and how little the city even cared, other than the media. In part six, the mayor decided to reconsider his stance on the issue. Part seven revisits the restaurants, several months after the ban went into effect.
And for "offenders" - they certainly are taking the offensive in the foie gras dispute!
Five months after the city ordered restaurants to stop selling foie gras, some fancy restaurants and gourmet shops no longer offer the goose or duck liver delicacy, while others are flouting the ban, listing foie gras on their menus and, in one case, framing the city's warning letter.
That's right, Doug Sohn - owner of Hot Doug's gourmet sausage store - thinks the whole thing is so silly that he framed the warning letter issued by the Health Department and hung it on the wall the way most restaurants hang celebrity endorsements.
And in a way, the notice from the Health Department IS like an endorsement to some of these restaurant owners. In fact, since the ban started over five months ago - there have been a total of NINE complaints. Once again, the result of a first-time complaint is (drumroll, please) a WARNING LETTER. So hanging one of these fabled warning letters is like displaying a limited-edition work of art.
After all, one can only hope that Chicago's aldermen will inevitably pull their heads out of their asses long enough to consider Mayor Daley's proposal to remove the ban that he declared "the silliest ordinance the City Council has ever passed." Once that has been acheived, there will be no more warning letters, and odds are there will have been no fines issued.
One restaurant did come close, as they were almost given a citation from the Health Department for selling foie gras. Fortunately, Bin 36 wasn't actually SELLING the foie gras in question. It was specifically noted that the foie gras terrine was a COMPLIMENTARY addition to the wild mushroom confit salad. Would the salad have cost less without the complimentary foie gras? Sure. But that's not the point. The point is that restaurants are FLAUNTING their foie gras services (and gaining business for doing so) as a mockery of the idiots who put the law into effect and those who support it in general.
Of course, the activists are claiming that the ban is "working".
"Our supporters are going into restaurants, and we're told that they are not selling foie gras," said Gene Baur, president of Farm Sanctuary, a national farm animal protection organization.
Hey, guess what, Gene Baur?
IT'S CALLED LYING! You know, that thing you do when moronic protesters come into your business griping about things? You placate them as efficiently and effectively as possible so they get the hell out - and then resume business as usual.
That's like a cop coming into a Prohibition-era establishment asking if they're serving liquor!
"No sir, officer!"
"Alright, carry on then."
**officer leaves**
**booze resumes flowing**
In fact, that's a very apt analogy - since some restauranteurs have turned the foie gras ban into a new Prohibition, speakeasies and all! A speakeasy was an establishment where you gained access by knowing the password - and at least a few Chicago restaurants will certainly oblige if you ask them for the "special lobster" dish.
But ya didn't hear it from me, see??
Alderman Joe Moore, the ordinance's chief sponsor, said he realizes the Health Department has more pressing issues, but he is dismayed to see restaurants flouting the ordinance. "It evinces a certain degree of arrogance on the part of these establishments," he said.
You can call it arrogance. I prefer to call it "delicious".
Arrogance, sir, is taking a food item that is approved by the United States Department of Agriculture for production and sales - and then claiming that your city is "better" than the United States and its decisions by taking away the rights of citizens to sell or purchase that food.
At least that's one meat-eater's opinion on the matter. What's yours?
Stay tuned for more in the Chicago vs. PETA series - a series we wouldn't have had in the first place if it weren't for PETA sticking its nose in YOUR dinner plate. Read more!
Monday, January 08, 2007
"Dear Parent - Your Child is Fat!"
I was tempted to throw a Humor tag on this post, but then thought again as my laughter at the notion of the article in question quickly turned into fuming outrage by the time I'd finished reading. As if we don't scare the crud out of school children enough with pop quizzes, homework and - let's face it - constant news of school shootings and school-related gang violence, idiots in charge of the Hyannis Elementary School in Boston decided to step things up a notch.
Not only are they singling out overweight and "at-risk of obesity" students, they're including mom and dad in the judgemental concept by putting these warnings in letters sent home.
Hopefully some of you are saying, "No! Surely this is a horrible joke!" Hopefully there's some decency still out there among the populous who is shocked and appalled at poor-health ridicule in the form of letters to parents, wasting time of parents and teachers alike. This monstrocity needs to be stopped, people!
The school is claiming that it can hide behind a state law that requires that a school notify parents of children who are overweight or underweight, or who may be at risk of becoming so. I simply cannot believe that a note needs to be given to parents from a school nurse to REMIND them of their child's possible health problems.
"Dear Mr. and/or Mrs. Parent,
Your child is overweight and is at risk for juvenile diabetes and heart problems and other obesity-related problems later on in life unless changes are made to your child's nutrition, diet and exercise patterns.
Sincerely,
Hyannis Elementary School Nurse"
Dear School Nurse,
Being a parent who cares enough about my child to do things like SEE him/her with my EYES, I am well-aware of my child's weight problem. This problem is strictly one facing my child, and hereditarily, myself. I did not need a reminder of my child's weight problem, nor did my child deserve the embarrassment of having me read this letter or the ridicule of other children when confronted on whether or not his parent received such a letter. You may be at risk of legal action and other angry-parent-related problems in your life unless changes are made to your sense of deceny, nosiness and downright lack of respect for my child and the other children of this school.
Angrily,
Mr. and/or Mrs. Parent
And for those of you out there who think that I'm trying to sound like one of the overprotecting liberal boo-hooers I'm usually up-in-arms against - think twice. This isn't about protecting children in my mind - it's about stopping people from being idiot douchebags and wasting everyone's time and effort by stating the obvious and butting into the business of families where they are not and should not be welcome.
You think Vicki Elliott, whose 4-foot-tall, 66-pound daughter was sent home with a letter warning that she was "at risk of becoming overweight," needs a reminder that her daughter might be overweight or at risk of becoming overweight??
I'm willing to bet she's reminded of it enough when her daughter comes home crying because of the mean things kids say to her.
I'm not saying her daughter needs protection.
I'm not saying her mother is wrong or needs to be taught a lesson or given pointers.
I'm saying it's not the school's business, and it's insulting to point out the obvious and undermine parents, who can do a perfectly fine job of raising a snot-nosed brat on their own.
I'd prefer they focused on learning to f*cking count - it'll come in handy when they're forced to count calories later on in life, or at least to maybe count my change correctly while on shift at their McJob!
The original article Read more!
Not only are they singling out overweight and "at-risk of obesity" students, they're including mom and dad in the judgemental concept by putting these warnings in letters sent home.
Hopefully some of you are saying, "No! Surely this is a horrible joke!" Hopefully there's some decency still out there among the populous who is shocked and appalled at poor-health ridicule in the form of letters to parents, wasting time of parents and teachers alike. This monstrocity needs to be stopped, people!
The school is claiming that it can hide behind a state law that requires that a school notify parents of children who are overweight or underweight, or who may be at risk of becoming so. I simply cannot believe that a note needs to be given to parents from a school nurse to REMIND them of their child's possible health problems.
"Dear Mr. and/or Mrs. Parent,
Your child is overweight and is at risk for juvenile diabetes and heart problems and other obesity-related problems later on in life unless changes are made to your child's nutrition, diet and exercise patterns.
Sincerely,
Hyannis Elementary School Nurse"
Dear School Nurse,
Being a parent who cares enough about my child to do things like SEE him/her with my EYES, I am well-aware of my child's weight problem. This problem is strictly one facing my child, and hereditarily, myself. I did not need a reminder of my child's weight problem, nor did my child deserve the embarrassment of having me read this letter or the ridicule of other children when confronted on whether or not his parent received such a letter. You may be at risk of legal action and other angry-parent-related problems in your life unless changes are made to your sense of deceny, nosiness and downright lack of respect for my child and the other children of this school.
Angrily,
Mr. and/or Mrs. Parent
And for those of you out there who think that I'm trying to sound like one of the overprotecting liberal boo-hooers I'm usually up-in-arms against - think twice. This isn't about protecting children in my mind - it's about stopping people from being idiot douchebags and wasting everyone's time and effort by stating the obvious and butting into the business of families where they are not and should not be welcome.
You think Vicki Elliott, whose 4-foot-tall, 66-pound daughter was sent home with a letter warning that she was "at risk of becoming overweight," needs a reminder that her daughter might be overweight or at risk of becoming overweight??
I'm willing to bet she's reminded of it enough when her daughter comes home crying because of the mean things kids say to her.
I'm not saying her daughter needs protection.
I'm not saying her mother is wrong or needs to be taught a lesson or given pointers.
I'm saying it's not the school's business, and it's insulting to point out the obvious and undermine parents, who can do a perfectly fine job of raising a snot-nosed brat on their own.
I'd prefer they focused on learning to f*cking count - it'll come in handy when they're forced to count calories later on in life, or at least to maybe count my change correctly while on shift at their McJob!
The original article Read more!
Sunday, January 07, 2007
Illegal Immigrants Rewarded for Killing Atlanta Deputy?
Sometimes when I'm looking for things to write about, I'll do a search on a news site, like Google News or maybe Yahoo or something like that. After my last big post about animal rights terrorists, I felt like i'd done by part in the anti-PETA niche for a few days at least - it was time to return to a long-overdue niche about illegal immigrants. I do a search for recent news articles about illegal immigrants, and two articles came up in the Top 5 most recent, right NEXT to each other:
"Ban on renting to illegal immigrants halted"
"Illegal Immigrants Kill Sheriff's Deputy"
If you think that's not noteworthy, you might not know that BOTH of these events took place in Atlanta, GA.
Atlanta Deputy Sheriff Loren Lilly, who was a legal U.S. citizen, was doing his duty protecting other legal citizens and was killed on his way to work by two suspected illegal immigrants in a hit and run crash.
Witnesses say the driver and passenger in the Taurus ran from the scene. Police later arrested the two, 27-year-old Joel Perea, and 23-year-old Maurilio Herrera. Perea is charged with felony vehicular homicide, hit and run, failure to maintain a lane, and driving without a license. Herrera is charged with false report of a crime. They're being held at the Cobb County Jail, and police say federal immigration officials have placed a hold on both.
WND has reported on the growing list of illegal immigrants who have not only ignored U.S. immigration laws, but state laws against drinking and driving as well, killing innocents on the highways in the process.
Okay, so on New Year's Eve - two illegal immigrants driving without a license (well, only one was driving) killed an Atlanta deputy. I'd like to believe that their being "held" by federal immigration officials means they're getting DEPORTED the hell out of our country - though with our system the way it is to day, I have little faith that this is the case.
So what happens less than a week later in Atlanta??
A suburban Atlanta county agreed to delay a new ban on renting homes to illegal immigrants until challenges of similar laws in other states are resolved.
That's right, they're wussing out and delaying the start of a ban that should have gone into effect on Monday, just because the other DECENT cities that passed the same or similar laws banning the rental/sale of homes to illegal immigrants are being challenged by liberal boo-hooers and awaiting a court decision. So rather than make the law go into effect so MAYBE the township will get some use out of it and finally crack down on illegal immigrants in the neighborhood and the landlords who would be breaking the law by renting the home to them - they're delaying it just in case some judge decides to overturn the law in another city and they won't look like "the bad guys" for enacting a law that was passed by the legislature.
"These laws place a wedge in our communities, pitting neighbor against neighbor," said Gerry Weber, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union (who apparently doesn't get the fact that there's a difference between 'pitting neighbor against neighbor' and 'pitting legal citizens against brazen criminals'). It's an outrage that liberals aren't getting it through their thick skulls that illegal immigrants are CRIMINALS and have BROKEN THE LAW by entering illegally, not to mention the large number of FURTHER crimes they commit in addition to their simply being here illegally.
What about a law saying that it's illegal to rent a home to an ESCAPED FUGITIVE who broke out of prison? Surely neighbors wouldn't want to be living next to someone who broke out of jail and will likely commit more crimes! Would you call that law 'pitting neighbor against neighbor'?? There's a reason why most landlords run background checks in the first place - to make sure they're aware of a criminal history or OUTSTANDING WARRANTS. You know, reasons why the tenant might be arrested and therefore unable to be paying rent. Not to mention the legal issue of aiding a criminal.
And in ATLANTA? Where illegal immigrants just KILLED a deputy??
Your town is just ASKING for trouble. Continuing to delay this law going into effect and delaying the chance to crack down on illegal immigrants cluttering up your neighborhoods will only result in more crimes and more deaths.
I sincerely hope no other police officers' lives are taken as a result of this foolish attempt to delay or overturn a law that makes sense and could protect your families from getting killed like Atlanta Deputy Sheriff Loren Lilly.
The deputy article
The rental ban article Read more!
"Ban on renting to illegal immigrants halted"
"Illegal Immigrants Kill Sheriff's Deputy"
If you think that's not noteworthy, you might not know that BOTH of these events took place in Atlanta, GA.
Atlanta Deputy Sheriff Loren Lilly, who was a legal U.S. citizen, was doing his duty protecting other legal citizens and was killed on his way to work by two suspected illegal immigrants in a hit and run crash.
Witnesses say the driver and passenger in the Taurus ran from the scene. Police later arrested the two, 27-year-old Joel Perea, and 23-year-old Maurilio Herrera. Perea is charged with felony vehicular homicide, hit and run, failure to maintain a lane, and driving without a license. Herrera is charged with false report of a crime. They're being held at the Cobb County Jail, and police say federal immigration officials have placed a hold on both.
WND has reported on the growing list of illegal immigrants who have not only ignored U.S. immigration laws, but state laws against drinking and driving as well, killing innocents on the highways in the process.
Okay, so on New Year's Eve - two illegal immigrants driving without a license (well, only one was driving) killed an Atlanta deputy. I'd like to believe that their being "held" by federal immigration officials means they're getting DEPORTED the hell out of our country - though with our system the way it is to day, I have little faith that this is the case.
So what happens less than a week later in Atlanta??
A suburban Atlanta county agreed to delay a new ban on renting homes to illegal immigrants until challenges of similar laws in other states are resolved.
That's right, they're wussing out and delaying the start of a ban that should have gone into effect on Monday, just because the other DECENT cities that passed the same or similar laws banning the rental/sale of homes to illegal immigrants are being challenged by liberal boo-hooers and awaiting a court decision. So rather than make the law go into effect so MAYBE the township will get some use out of it and finally crack down on illegal immigrants in the neighborhood and the landlords who would be breaking the law by renting the home to them - they're delaying it just in case some judge decides to overturn the law in another city and they won't look like "the bad guys" for enacting a law that was passed by the legislature.
"These laws place a wedge in our communities, pitting neighbor against neighbor," said Gerry Weber, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union (who apparently doesn't get the fact that there's a difference between 'pitting neighbor against neighbor' and 'pitting legal citizens against brazen criminals'). It's an outrage that liberals aren't getting it through their thick skulls that illegal immigrants are CRIMINALS and have BROKEN THE LAW by entering illegally, not to mention the large number of FURTHER crimes they commit in addition to their simply being here illegally.
What about a law saying that it's illegal to rent a home to an ESCAPED FUGITIVE who broke out of prison? Surely neighbors wouldn't want to be living next to someone who broke out of jail and will likely commit more crimes! Would you call that law 'pitting neighbor against neighbor'?? There's a reason why most landlords run background checks in the first place - to make sure they're aware of a criminal history or OUTSTANDING WARRANTS. You know, reasons why the tenant might be arrested and therefore unable to be paying rent. Not to mention the legal issue of aiding a criminal.
And in ATLANTA? Where illegal immigrants just KILLED a deputy??
Your town is just ASKING for trouble. Continuing to delay this law going into effect and delaying the chance to crack down on illegal immigrants cluttering up your neighborhoods will only result in more crimes and more deaths.
I sincerely hope no other police officers' lives are taken as a result of this foolish attempt to delay or overturn a law that makes sense and could protect your families from getting killed like Atlanta Deputy Sheriff Loren Lilly.
The deputy article
The rental ban article Read more!
Saturday, January 06, 2007
WARNING! POM Juice Contaminated by Terrorists!
Look out! A seemingly-healthy bottle of POM juice may be one of the 487 bottles that were tampered with by animal liberation terrorists. Anonymous communiques being sent to the Animal Liberation Press Office have been coming in ever since the Animal Enterprise Terrorist Act went into effect. The terrorists, upset that they're now labelled as the terrorists that they are, are resorting to TERRORISM in response. While some of the communiques are lesser-degree terrorist acts under the new law, like gluing the locks of fur/leather stores along several blocks in Manhattan, this act might actually KILL you.
They claim that drinking the tampered juice will result in "diarrhea, vomiting and headaches" - symptoms which could be caused by a chemical that could prove fatal, or could themselves be fatal if consumed by a weak-healthed person trying to drink some healthy juice.
So WHY? Why would they be targeting a company like POM Wonderful, manufacturing pomegranate and other healthy juices, with such a horrific act? Well, because POM apparently tests their juices on animals so they can make the claims that they do. PETA and other more-violent animal rights activist groups have been up in arms at the juice company, protesting for them to join the Naked Juice Company which is a collective that doesn't test on animals.
Here's an excerpt their communique:
"in a well coordinated action, 487 bottles of pom wonderful juices were tampered with along the Eastern seaboard in stores like wild oats, d'agostino's and food emporiums. those who drink the contaminated juice won't die like the animals in pom labs, but the diarrhea, vomiting and headaches will hopefully send a strong message that people will no longer allow innocent defenseless animals to be tormented and killed for a health juice and to line the pockets of profiteers who dont have feelings for those weaker than they are....thanks to feinstein and inhoff and the stupid animal enterprise terrorist law that violates the principles that this country is supposed to be founded on, more and more activists like us will choose to retreat into the shadows and fight for the animals underground"
So rather than protest in a legal fashion at the POM Wonderful headquarters or outside stores that sell POM - you know, LEGAL acts of protest that are NOT affected by the Animal Enterprise Terrorist Act - they've decided to not only threaten the business by tampering with bottles of juice already in stores and out of the liable hands of the company itself, but they're threatening the lives and health of anyone who stumbles upon one of the 487 tampered bottles! That's the DEFINITION of terrorism - harming/killing people or threatening to do so in order to coerce your ideas onto people! That's why the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act was created and signed into law in the first place!
It's sheer idiocy that the creation of a sensible and decent law is resulting in the INCREASE of people willing to break it and BRAGGING (though cowardly doing so anonymously) that they've broken it. Only in the illegal immigration battle is there a more-bold defiance of FEDERAL LAW.
Well, animal liberation douchebag terrorists - I sincerely hope that you've had your fun, because you've now broken a federal law and it's in their jurisdiction - so they get to treat you like the other terrorists out there, and we ALL know how unpleasant of an ordeal that can be! I hope that you not only get pinned for the terrorism you caused, but that they add charges of attempted murder because you neglegently could have killed someone with the additives you put into the juice by tampering with the bottles.
I sincerely pray that nobody DOES die from ingesting the tampered juice - and I pray that these terrorists are located and justice is served.
(And as long as idiots want to BREAK new laws, I suggest we make it illegal to give money/shelter to the homeless, illegal to deport illegal immigrants without jurisdiction, and illegal to give me millions of dollars out of thanks for helping to fight animal enterprise terrorism with my posts.)
Maybe then all of those things would actually get done and we could all live happily and I could live wealthily.
(The full communique)
(click here for a larger list of terrorist acts being bragged about, including this one) Read more!
They claim that drinking the tampered juice will result in "diarrhea, vomiting and headaches" - symptoms which could be caused by a chemical that could prove fatal, or could themselves be fatal if consumed by a weak-healthed person trying to drink some healthy juice.
So WHY? Why would they be targeting a company like POM Wonderful, manufacturing pomegranate and other healthy juices, with such a horrific act? Well, because POM apparently tests their juices on animals so they can make the claims that they do. PETA and other more-violent animal rights activist groups have been up in arms at the juice company, protesting for them to join the Naked Juice Company which is a collective that doesn't test on animals.
Here's an excerpt their communique:
"in a well coordinated action, 487 bottles of pom wonderful juices were tampered with along the Eastern seaboard in stores like wild oats, d'agostino's and food emporiums. those who drink the contaminated juice won't die like the animals in pom labs, but the diarrhea, vomiting and headaches will hopefully send a strong message that people will no longer allow innocent defenseless animals to be tormented and killed for a health juice and to line the pockets of profiteers who dont have feelings for those weaker than they are....thanks to feinstein and inhoff and the stupid animal enterprise terrorist law that violates the principles that this country is supposed to be founded on, more and more activists like us will choose to retreat into the shadows and fight for the animals underground"
So rather than protest in a legal fashion at the POM Wonderful headquarters or outside stores that sell POM - you know, LEGAL acts of protest that are NOT affected by the Animal Enterprise Terrorist Act - they've decided to not only threaten the business by tampering with bottles of juice already in stores and out of the liable hands of the company itself, but they're threatening the lives and health of anyone who stumbles upon one of the 487 tampered bottles! That's the DEFINITION of terrorism - harming/killing people or threatening to do so in order to coerce your ideas onto people! That's why the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act was created and signed into law in the first place!
It's sheer idiocy that the creation of a sensible and decent law is resulting in the INCREASE of people willing to break it and BRAGGING (though cowardly doing so anonymously) that they've broken it. Only in the illegal immigration battle is there a more-bold defiance of FEDERAL LAW.
Well, animal liberation douchebag terrorists - I sincerely hope that you've had your fun, because you've now broken a federal law and it's in their jurisdiction - so they get to treat you like the other terrorists out there, and we ALL know how unpleasant of an ordeal that can be! I hope that you not only get pinned for the terrorism you caused, but that they add charges of attempted murder because you neglegently could have killed someone with the additives you put into the juice by tampering with the bottles.
I sincerely pray that nobody DOES die from ingesting the tampered juice - and I pray that these terrorists are located and justice is served.
(And as long as idiots want to BREAK new laws, I suggest we make it illegal to give money/shelter to the homeless, illegal to deport illegal immigrants without jurisdiction, and illegal to give me millions of dollars out of thanks for helping to fight animal enterprise terrorism with my posts.)
Maybe then all of those things would actually get done and we could all live happily and I could live wealthily.
(The full communique)
(click here for a larger list of terrorist acts being bragged about, including this one) Read more!
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Idiotic Product: Sauna Belt
Alright, this idiotic product is a standard one. The basic concept is to create a large heating pad with velcro straps so you can wrap it around "problem areas" and claiming that the heat leads to sweating, which affects the "problem areas" in ways other than general dehydration and minor burns by missetting the "Self-Limiting Temperature Control Gauge".
So let's look beyond this general idiocy and try and get a bit more focused on what makes this product and advertisement itself so IDIOTIC:
The article claims "Now you won’t need to leave the house to work up a sweat, with Sauna Belt you can just relax in the comfort of your own home."
Okay, let's dissect this.
They claim a benefit of their product is the fact that now you don't have to leave the house to get sweaty. Maybe it's just me being a fat person, but I've gotten plenty sweaty without needing to leave the house - it's called BEING HOT. Hell, you can close the bathroom door, turn on the hot faucet for the tub, and within 10 minutes you'd have a sauna of more than a belt status.
Of course, you'd have to be smart enough to realize that you can get hot and sweaty without ordering a Sauna Belt, let alone without leaving the house. They should really have said you can work up a sweat without EXERCISING - a more annoying thing than having to leave the house. Speaking of which, the damned thing is electric and has a power cord, so it's not a matter of you "not having to leave the house", it's a matter of you "not being ABLE to leave the house"!
So instead of the fake idea that you have to burden yourself by leaving the house in order to sweat, they've sold you a product that burderns you with not being ABLE to leave the house. One more reason why this is an IDIOTIC PRODUCT.
The ad goes on with a small list:
- CE Approved – Guaranteed Safe
- Self-Limiting Temperature Control Gauge
- Made With Very High Quality Materials
- 68 Inch Built In Power Cord
- Auto-Shut-Off After 50 Minutes
What is the "CE" and what authority do THEY have to approve something or guarantee its safety??
Seriously, I looked all over this ad, and I have no idea what the CE is or why I should trust their judgement. Did the Croatian Embassy approve this product and guarantee its safety? A Chinese Emissary? College Education? I certainly don't feel very safe or guaranteed of anything at this point.
I don't know what makes this temperature control gauge "self-limiting". It limits itself? Then how is it a control gauge if it overrides what you set it to? "I want it at 100 degrees." *now resetting to 85 degrees* "NO! I said 100 degrees!" *now limiting to 80 degrees* I'm sure that it's a great idea to have it NOT go to 200 degrees, but that's why there's a maximum setting. Why have a max setting if it limits itself to never get there?
"Made with Very High Quality Materials"?? Well, thanks for boasting about the quality of the materials you used to create this modified heating pad with velcro straps. I'm so glad I'm getting such "very high quality" for the low price of $19.99 and I'm sure your "CE" approves of the materials used and guarantees their "very high quality".
68-inch power cord? Thanks for letting me know the exact maximum distance my "problem areas" will be able to be from the nearest power cord (unless I bother to use an extension cord for my IDIOTIC PRODUCT)! Good to know that I won't be getting 6 feet away from the wall! I'm so glad I don't have to leave my house to sweat!!
As for automatically shutting itself off after 50 minutes - this is the only semi-decent thing I've read about this product. They bothered to make sure that if somehow the self-limiting temperature causes you to pass out from pain or dehydration or horrific malfunction - it'll only keep burning you for 50 minutes from when you turned it on. It also limits your sauna sessions to 50 minutes at a time, though I'm sure that restarting it after those 50 minutes right away won't cause any real downtime for you.
"Beware Of The Sauna Belt Look-a-Like."
Oh yes, I wouldn't want to waste my money on a look-a-like product that's a mangled heating pad with velcro and ISN'T made with "Very High Quality" materials or approved/guaranteed by... my high school football team, the Chaminade Eagles? No, that would be a COMPLETE waste of my money. The only thing worse than wasting money on an idiotic product would certainly be wasting your money on a LOOKALIKE idiotic product!
Included in the list of things it comes with are "Instruction Booklet And Diet Plan" and "Tape Measure". Instructions are always a great thing to send with a product - thank goodness you decided to AFFIRM that instructions WILL be sent with the purchase of this product! As for the Diet Plan, that's a bit insulting! That's like admitting that your product will never work, and you're much better off throwing it away and following a diet plan if you really wanted to lose that weight or drop sizes in your "problem areas". Speaking of which - nothing reaffirms that your "problem areas" are problematic like the inclusion of a Tape Measure! That's like including a coupon for an x-ray/scan when you buy a nicotine patch to remind you of what crappy shape your lungs are in!
Here's the icing on the cake - Poor math skills!
Mentioned a total of five times is the fact that if you buy one at $19.99, you'll get a second one free and the total value of this super-deal is $140!
Quick digress: Why would you want a second one, even if it's free? It doesn't look like something you should/could use two of at the same time. It's not appropriate to use as a gift. It must be doubt about the "very high quality" materials and saying you have a spare for when the first one craps out. Seriously, WHY give TWO??
Okay - so the total value is $140, and you get two "Sauna Belt"s. Mathematically, that would bring the value of each Sauna Belt to... about... $70. And yet it's being sold for $19.99, right? Well, then THAT must be the value of the item, isn't it? If I sell you a $30 sweater and throw in a second one for free, that makes the total value $60. So why is it that giving me two items costing $19.99 would make the total value $100 more than the ACTUAL total value??
Unless they're saying that the items given OTHER than the belts cover that extra $100 they're boasting is the value of the deal. Let's see, it includes... the belt. Okay, that doesn't count. An adjustable heat regulator, which is built in to the power cord which is part of the belt itself, so that doesn't count either. Okay, you get instructions and the Diet Plan and that tape measure. Which is somehow all worth $100. Yea, I don't even want to venture how wrong that is or ponder a solid-gold tape measure or instructions written on velvet or suede or something.
The math doesn't add up. Nothing adds up.
This is completely and utterly an IDIOTIC PRODUCT!
(Even though it's approved and guaranteed by the "CE".)
See the fabled $140 value for yourself! Read more!
So let's look beyond this general idiocy and try and get a bit more focused on what makes this product and advertisement itself so IDIOTIC:
The article claims "Now you won’t need to leave the house to work up a sweat, with Sauna Belt you can just relax in the comfort of your own home."
Okay, let's dissect this.
They claim a benefit of their product is the fact that now you don't have to leave the house to get sweaty. Maybe it's just me being a fat person, but I've gotten plenty sweaty without needing to leave the house - it's called BEING HOT. Hell, you can close the bathroom door, turn on the hot faucet for the tub, and within 10 minutes you'd have a sauna of more than a belt status.
Of course, you'd have to be smart enough to realize that you can get hot and sweaty without ordering a Sauna Belt, let alone without leaving the house. They should really have said you can work up a sweat without EXERCISING - a more annoying thing than having to leave the house. Speaking of which, the damned thing is electric and has a power cord, so it's not a matter of you "not having to leave the house", it's a matter of you "not being ABLE to leave the house"!
So instead of the fake idea that you have to burden yourself by leaving the house in order to sweat, they've sold you a product that burderns you with not being ABLE to leave the house. One more reason why this is an IDIOTIC PRODUCT.
The ad goes on with a small list:
- CE Approved – Guaranteed Safe
- Self-Limiting Temperature Control Gauge
- Made With Very High Quality Materials
- 68 Inch Built In Power Cord
- Auto-Shut-Off After 50 Minutes
What is the "CE" and what authority do THEY have to approve something or guarantee its safety??
Seriously, I looked all over this ad, and I have no idea what the CE is or why I should trust their judgement. Did the Croatian Embassy approve this product and guarantee its safety? A Chinese Emissary? College Education? I certainly don't feel very safe or guaranteed of anything at this point.
I don't know what makes this temperature control gauge "self-limiting". It limits itself? Then how is it a control gauge if it overrides what you set it to? "I want it at 100 degrees." *now resetting to 85 degrees* "NO! I said 100 degrees!" *now limiting to 80 degrees* I'm sure that it's a great idea to have it NOT go to 200 degrees, but that's why there's a maximum setting. Why have a max setting if it limits itself to never get there?
"Made with Very High Quality Materials"?? Well, thanks for boasting about the quality of the materials you used to create this modified heating pad with velcro straps. I'm so glad I'm getting such "very high quality" for the low price of $19.99 and I'm sure your "CE" approves of the materials used and guarantees their "very high quality".
68-inch power cord? Thanks for letting me know the exact maximum distance my "problem areas" will be able to be from the nearest power cord (unless I bother to use an extension cord for my IDIOTIC PRODUCT)! Good to know that I won't be getting 6 feet away from the wall! I'm so glad I don't have to leave my house to sweat!!
As for automatically shutting itself off after 50 minutes - this is the only semi-decent thing I've read about this product. They bothered to make sure that if somehow the self-limiting temperature causes you to pass out from pain or dehydration or horrific malfunction - it'll only keep burning you for 50 minutes from when you turned it on. It also limits your sauna sessions to 50 minutes at a time, though I'm sure that restarting it after those 50 minutes right away won't cause any real downtime for you.
"Beware Of The Sauna Belt Look-a-Like."
Oh yes, I wouldn't want to waste my money on a look-a-like product that's a mangled heating pad with velcro and ISN'T made with "Very High Quality" materials or approved/guaranteed by... my high school football team, the Chaminade Eagles? No, that would be a COMPLETE waste of my money. The only thing worse than wasting money on an idiotic product would certainly be wasting your money on a LOOKALIKE idiotic product!
Included in the list of things it comes with are "Instruction Booklet And Diet Plan" and "Tape Measure". Instructions are always a great thing to send with a product - thank goodness you decided to AFFIRM that instructions WILL be sent with the purchase of this product! As for the Diet Plan, that's a bit insulting! That's like admitting that your product will never work, and you're much better off throwing it away and following a diet plan if you really wanted to lose that weight or drop sizes in your "problem areas". Speaking of which - nothing reaffirms that your "problem areas" are problematic like the inclusion of a Tape Measure! That's like including a coupon for an x-ray/scan when you buy a nicotine patch to remind you of what crappy shape your lungs are in!
Here's the icing on the cake - Poor math skills!
Mentioned a total of five times is the fact that if you buy one at $19.99, you'll get a second one free and the total value of this super-deal is $140!
Quick digress: Why would you want a second one, even if it's free? It doesn't look like something you should/could use two of at the same time. It's not appropriate to use as a gift. It must be doubt about the "very high quality" materials and saying you have a spare for when the first one craps out. Seriously, WHY give TWO??
Okay - so the total value is $140, and you get two "Sauna Belt"s. Mathematically, that would bring the value of each Sauna Belt to... about... $70. And yet it's being sold for $19.99, right? Well, then THAT must be the value of the item, isn't it? If I sell you a $30 sweater and throw in a second one for free, that makes the total value $60. So why is it that giving me two items costing $19.99 would make the total value $100 more than the ACTUAL total value??
Unless they're saying that the items given OTHER than the belts cover that extra $100 they're boasting is the value of the deal. Let's see, it includes... the belt. Okay, that doesn't count. An adjustable heat regulator, which is built in to the power cord which is part of the belt itself, so that doesn't count either. Okay, you get instructions and the Diet Plan and that tape measure. Which is somehow all worth $100. Yea, I don't even want to venture how wrong that is or ponder a solid-gold tape measure or instructions written on velvet or suede or something.
The math doesn't add up. Nothing adds up.
This is completely and utterly an IDIOTIC PRODUCT!
(Even though it's approved and guaranteed by the "CE".)
See the fabled $140 value for yourself! Read more!
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
CEOs Already Done (Compared to You) for 2007
It's what's all the rage right now - Democrats winning and the populous clamoring for that raise in the minimum wage. Well, starting January 1st, a lot of minimum wage hikes took effect, even though many many businesses were closed for the national holiday and whatnot. Of course, if you were a salaried CEO, that wouldn't matter at all - you'd be getting paid no matter what.
Here's the scary part - and the lesson to be learned about the different between the S&P 500 and the Average Joe:
Compared to the Average Joe working a full-time job at minimum wage - the CEOs are already done for the year.
I guess this is where the math comes in. From the various reports I've been reading about the 2005 fiscal year's reports of the salaries of the CEOs for the Standard & Poor's 500 companies, the average salary per CEO ranges from $10.2 million to $13.5 million. Let's take the lowest value and assume that the average salary for a CEO is only $10 million for the year.
$10,000,000 a year =
$192,307.69 a week =
$27,472.52 a day =
$1,144.68 an hour =
$19.078 a minute =
$0.32 a second
That's what they're getting paid every second of every minute of every hour of every day of every week as the paychecks come rolling in - whether they're the kind of CEO who works a 90-hour workweek or sits back and plays golf most days of the week while grunts take care of everything. Now let's do more math with this whole rate hike for the minimum wage.
The Federal Minimum Wage is now $5.15/hr though sometime in early-to-mid 2007 it'll become $7.25/hr. Some states have their own minimum wage laws. In Kansas, the state with the lowest minimum wage (which applies to jobs not covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act), you'd only earn $2.65/hr. The state with the highest minimum wage is Washington, with a wage of $7.93/hr. In fact, a few cities have higher minimum wages - in Los Angeles, if you don't get health benefits, your minimum wage is $10.33/hr. So let's do the math for a full-time employee working a standard 40-hour full-time workweek:
40 hrs x 52 weeks -> 2,080 paid hours
Non-FLSA Kansas: $5,512/year
Now (Federal): $10,712/year
With the hike: $15,080/year
In Washington: $16,494.40/year
In Los Angeles: $21,486.40/year
Here comes the fun math!
So, Average Joe, that's how much you made from an honest day's work of 40 solid hours a week. If enough people complain about my estimates of 40 hrs/week as being too low, or that I should take into account hard-workers and overtime or something, I'll update this. (Let's face it, nobody comments/debates on my posts anymore.) So while you were celebrating the New Year holiday with an actual day off (if you were lucky enough to get that day off) - let's see what the CEOs were earning while they got the day off, too!
By 5:00 AM, before most of the populous had even woken up, the CEOs amassed an average of over $5,700 - passing the annual yearly income in Kansas if you happened to work at a business not covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act.
How long until they earned what Average Joe would earn this year without the rate hike?
January 1st, 2007 - 9:22 AM:
The CEOs just surpassed your annual pay.
But what about after this rate hike up to $7.25/hr?
January 1st, 2007 - 1:11 PM:
The CEOs just surpassed your annual pay.
Okay, okay... How about if I move to Washington?
January 1st, 2007 - 2:25 PM:
The CEOs just surpassed your annual pay.
Fine! I'll move to L.A. and forego health benefits!
January 1st, 2007 - 6:47 PM:
The CEOs just surpassed your annual pay.
Is this scaring you at all?
Before most of the working-class had time to get over their HANGOVERS from celebrating the ball dropping and the new year starting, let alone wake up if they partied hard enough, CEOs already earned in less than one day what minimum-wagers would earn in the entire year.
Then there's taxes. Which affect both sides of this argument quite differently, and may be brought up in a further investigation.
For now, I'll let this sink in - and give you time to sleep on it.
Because after all, in the time you'll spend sleeping - a CEO probably made your annual pay without having to lift a finger, whether fingers were lifted or not.
One report
Another report
The article that started my thinking
Minimum wage info Read more!
Here's the scary part - and the lesson to be learned about the different between the S&P 500 and the Average Joe:
Compared to the Average Joe working a full-time job at minimum wage - the CEOs are already done for the year.
I guess this is where the math comes in. From the various reports I've been reading about the 2005 fiscal year's reports of the salaries of the CEOs for the Standard & Poor's 500 companies, the average salary per CEO ranges from $10.2 million to $13.5 million. Let's take the lowest value and assume that the average salary for a CEO is only $10 million for the year.
$10,000,000 a year =
$192,307.69 a week =
$27,472.52 a day =
$1,144.68 an hour =
$19.078 a minute =
$0.32 a second
That's what they're getting paid every second of every minute of every hour of every day of every week as the paychecks come rolling in - whether they're the kind of CEO who works a 90-hour workweek or sits back and plays golf most days of the week while grunts take care of everything. Now let's do more math with this whole rate hike for the minimum wage.
The Federal Minimum Wage is now $5.15/hr though sometime in early-to-mid 2007 it'll become $7.25/hr. Some states have their own minimum wage laws. In Kansas, the state with the lowest minimum wage (which applies to jobs not covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act), you'd only earn $2.65/hr. The state with the highest minimum wage is Washington, with a wage of $7.93/hr. In fact, a few cities have higher minimum wages - in Los Angeles, if you don't get health benefits, your minimum wage is $10.33/hr. So let's do the math for a full-time employee working a standard 40-hour full-time workweek:
40 hrs x 52 weeks -> 2,080 paid hours
Non-FLSA Kansas: $5,512/year
Now (Federal): $10,712/year
With the hike: $15,080/year
In Washington: $16,494.40/year
In Los Angeles: $21,486.40/year
Here comes the fun math!
So, Average Joe, that's how much you made from an honest day's work of 40 solid hours a week. If enough people complain about my estimates of 40 hrs/week as being too low, or that I should take into account hard-workers and overtime or something, I'll update this. (Let's face it, nobody comments/debates on my posts anymore.) So while you were celebrating the New Year holiday with an actual day off (if you were lucky enough to get that day off) - let's see what the CEOs were earning while they got the day off, too!
By 5:00 AM, before most of the populous had even woken up, the CEOs amassed an average of over $5,700 - passing the annual yearly income in Kansas if you happened to work at a business not covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act.
How long until they earned what Average Joe would earn this year without the rate hike?
January 1st, 2007 - 9:22 AM:
The CEOs just surpassed your annual pay.
But what about after this rate hike up to $7.25/hr?
January 1st, 2007 - 1:11 PM:
The CEOs just surpassed your annual pay.
Okay, okay... How about if I move to Washington?
January 1st, 2007 - 2:25 PM:
The CEOs just surpassed your annual pay.
Fine! I'll move to L.A. and forego health benefits!
January 1st, 2007 - 6:47 PM:
The CEOs just surpassed your annual pay.
Is this scaring you at all?
Before most of the working-class had time to get over their HANGOVERS from celebrating the ball dropping and the new year starting, let alone wake up if they partied hard enough, CEOs already earned in less than one day what minimum-wagers would earn in the entire year.
Then there's taxes. Which affect both sides of this argument quite differently, and may be brought up in a further investigation.
For now, I'll let this sink in - and give you time to sleep on it.
Because after all, in the time you'll spend sleeping - a CEO probably made your annual pay without having to lift a finger, whether fingers were lifted or not.
One report
Another report
The article that started my thinking
Minimum wage info Read more!
Friday, December 15, 2006
PETA vs Basketball
If you hadn't been aware of it (much like myself prior to these articles) - the NBA last season changed to a new synthetic basketball that contained no leather. I, not being a sports fan in the least, had no idea of the switch until I came across the news that they would soon be switching back. I'm not sure WHY they changed the ball in the first place, but my suspicion is that it had more to do with animal rights activists than "the goodness of their hearts for the sake of cows the world over". I'm betting most basketball players love a good steak and certainly have the cash to purchase it on a whim.
The news article speaks of the many many complaints that came in all last season about the switch to the new synthetic ball and the damage it was causing. They even went so far as to mention that they ONLY positive feedback about getting rid of the leather basketballs came from (you guessed it) PETA.
NBA 1, PETA 0. Nothin' but net.
Among the complaints about the new ball, many were sensibly about the damage done to the players' hands. Some complained of paper-cut types of injuries from the rougher surface. Some complained that it roughened the skin and required frequent application of lotions to counteract the effect. Some said it was too slick - some said it was too sticky. A few even said it bounced funny. It also did damage to fingernails of some players.
In the game of basketball - hands are apparently a valuable item.
So David Stern, commissioner of the NBA said that as of January 1st, leather balls will be making a comeback. And while presumably every NBA player who has to USE the basketballs is cheering in celebration - the ONLY complaints we're hearing are coming from (you guesses it again) PETA.
This time - they're snippy!
Seriously. I'm an evil human being (according to some people I know) and even I wouldn't go as far in the "catty bitch" department of insults that PETA is throwing around. I read the "open letter" that PETA addressed to the NBA. While news sources are only reporting on the facade of "olive branchery" regarding the supposed deal that PETA is making - I can see it for what it truly is.
The news reports say that in the letter, PETA bargains that if the NBA stay with the synthetic basketballs instead of going back to leather, they will offer a lifetime supply of hand-lotion to all the NBA players.
While that IS the gist of the "deal" - if you look at the letter itself, you'll notice that PETA is more or less goading the NBA players with hurtful remarks and insults. Seriously, if they weren't doing this just for some nansy-pansy "save the cows" bullsh*t - I'd almost respect their evil bitterness exuded in this letter.
Here's a smattering of the language and jibes used in the open letter:
"As excruciating as these “injuries” must be for a world-class athlete, thousands of cows stand to suffer far worse" - making fun of the pain that the synthetic basketballs caused to players
"PETA would like to offer a lifetime supply of cruelty-free hand cream to any NBA siss … excuse me, superstar who’d be willing to give the composite ball another shot." - the point I was making earlier. You can't (IN THE SAME BREATH) make an offer or compromise AND insult the people you're making the offer/compromise to! "Wanna split a cab, assface?" "Could I borrow your pen, sh*t-for-brains?"
"we understand that the delicate hands of pampered NBA superstars are far more sensitive than those of your average Joe who actually has to work for a living." - if that's not a catty-bitch comment then I don't know what is.
"The hand cream comes in a variety of scents, including “Filthy Rich Organic” (perfect for any overpaid millionaire)" - again, another jibe, making me wonder if such a scent even exists and making me MORE doubtful they'd make this "deal" in the first place.
"Shaq . . . since you’ve only played four games all season, surely you have time to work a moisturizing routine into your schedule." - I don't follow sports so I don't know why he didn't play many games. This jab was mean and funny, but again - if it's favoring PETA then I'm still against it.
"Or LeBron, maybe you’re interested. The NCAA has used the composite ball for years—so it’s not only an education that you missed out on." - okay, now THAT's just rude! Insulting a person's education choice is just grasping at straws like an ignorant fool. We can't ALL go to college, you pompous f*cktards!
"judging by the reaction of some players, it seems like balls are in pretty short supply around the NBA these days."
For any newsperson who DARES to say that PETA's letter to the NBA is an "olive branch", "compromise" or anything alluding to a fair or honest deal - I challenge them to actually READ the letter. These kinds of jokes are okay if you're a comedian on a cable TV show or in private company telling them to friends or colleagues. This is NOT the kind of thing a person/organization should be making public.
I only hope that the holier-than-thou attitude POURING from this rude and offensive "open letter" draws even MORE people to my side of the cause, striving to chastize, put down and someday put a stop to PETA as a whole.
If you ever thought that PETA was a group of caring individuals, or that any of the things I say about them are a lie - why don't you read the letter for yourself and verify the offenses committed by PETA by writing it, associating with it and presenting it to the public.
It makes an anti-sports person like me want to go out and BUY a leather basketball - in hopes of one day bouncing it against a PETA member's smug face.
Read more!
The news article speaks of the many many complaints that came in all last season about the switch to the new synthetic ball and the damage it was causing. They even went so far as to mention that they ONLY positive feedback about getting rid of the leather basketballs came from (you guessed it) PETA.
NBA 1, PETA 0. Nothin' but net.
Among the complaints about the new ball, many were sensibly about the damage done to the players' hands. Some complained of paper-cut types of injuries from the rougher surface. Some complained that it roughened the skin and required frequent application of lotions to counteract the effect. Some said it was too slick - some said it was too sticky. A few even said it bounced funny. It also did damage to fingernails of some players.
In the game of basketball - hands are apparently a valuable item.
So David Stern, commissioner of the NBA said that as of January 1st, leather balls will be making a comeback. And while presumably every NBA player who has to USE the basketballs is cheering in celebration - the ONLY complaints we're hearing are coming from (you guesses it again) PETA.
This time - they're snippy!
Seriously. I'm an evil human being (according to some people I know) and even I wouldn't go as far in the "catty bitch" department of insults that PETA is throwing around. I read the "open letter" that PETA addressed to the NBA. While news sources are only reporting on the facade of "olive branchery" regarding the supposed deal that PETA is making - I can see it for what it truly is.
The news reports say that in the letter, PETA bargains that if the NBA stay with the synthetic basketballs instead of going back to leather, they will offer a lifetime supply of hand-lotion to all the NBA players.
While that IS the gist of the "deal" - if you look at the letter itself, you'll notice that PETA is more or less goading the NBA players with hurtful remarks and insults. Seriously, if they weren't doing this just for some nansy-pansy "save the cows" bullsh*t - I'd almost respect their evil bitterness exuded in this letter.
Here's a smattering of the language and jibes used in the open letter:
"As excruciating as these “injuries” must be for a world-class athlete, thousands of cows stand to suffer far worse" - making fun of the pain that the synthetic basketballs caused to players
"PETA would like to offer a lifetime supply of cruelty-free hand cream to any NBA siss … excuse me, superstar who’d be willing to give the composite ball another shot." - the point I was making earlier. You can't (IN THE SAME BREATH) make an offer or compromise AND insult the people you're making the offer/compromise to! "Wanna split a cab, assface?" "Could I borrow your pen, sh*t-for-brains?"
"we understand that the delicate hands of pampered NBA superstars are far more sensitive than those of your average Joe who actually has to work for a living." - if that's not a catty-bitch comment then I don't know what is.
"The hand cream comes in a variety of scents, including “Filthy Rich Organic” (perfect for any overpaid millionaire)" - again, another jibe, making me wonder if such a scent even exists and making me MORE doubtful they'd make this "deal" in the first place.
"Shaq . . . since you’ve only played four games all season, surely you have time to work a moisturizing routine into your schedule." - I don't follow sports so I don't know why he didn't play many games. This jab was mean and funny, but again - if it's favoring PETA then I'm still against it.
"Or LeBron, maybe you’re interested. The NCAA has used the composite ball for years—so it’s not only an education that you missed out on." - okay, now THAT's just rude! Insulting a person's education choice is just grasping at straws like an ignorant fool. We can't ALL go to college, you pompous f*cktards!
"judging by the reaction of some players, it seems like balls are in pretty short supply around the NBA these days."
For any newsperson who DARES to say that PETA's letter to the NBA is an "olive branch", "compromise" or anything alluding to a fair or honest deal - I challenge them to actually READ the letter. These kinds of jokes are okay if you're a comedian on a cable TV show or in private company telling them to friends or colleagues. This is NOT the kind of thing a person/organization should be making public.
I only hope that the holier-than-thou attitude POURING from this rude and offensive "open letter" draws even MORE people to my side of the cause, striving to chastize, put down and someday put a stop to PETA as a whole.
If you ever thought that PETA was a group of caring individuals, or that any of the things I say about them are a lie - why don't you read the letter for yourself and verify the offenses committed by PETA by writing it, associating with it and presenting it to the public.
It makes an anti-sports person like me want to go out and BUY a leather basketball - in hopes of one day bouncing it against a PETA member's smug face.
Read more!
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
NEWS FLASH: Burritos are not sandwiches!
It was hard to decide a category in which to place this news flash. I first thought about the Legal section, since it was all about the lawsuit over the burrito's status as a sandwich or not a sandwich - but then I thought about the heart of the matter: food logic.
The whole debate about burritos and sandwiches all started when a Panera store (of a huge franchise based in St. Louis with stores across the nation) in the White City Shopping Center added a clause in its lease with the shopping center that there would not be another sandwich shop allowed to rent space while Panera is there. Then along came the Qdoba Mexican Grill, which led to Panera invoking that clause to prevent the new store from opening, and challenging its right to even rent space in the shopping center.
And they went to court, hearing testimony from Webster's Dictionary, a chef and a former high-ranking federal agriculture official.
Verdict: Burritos are not sandwiches.
The court heard a lot of testimony on the subject. Panera claimed that a flour tortilla is a bread, and a food product with bread and filling is a sandwich. The judge wound up ruling that "a sandwich is not commonly understood to include burritos, tacos and quesadillas, which are typically made with a single tortilla and stuffed with a choice filling of meat, rice, and beans." Well, the actual ruling took up eight pages, but that was the bread and butter of the decision.
Bread and butter: Sandwich or No Sandwich?
In fact, the whole difference between Panera's self-serving broad definition of a sandwich being any bread/grain product and a filling, versus the court's ruling about sandwiches following more of the dictionary definition of two individual pieces of leavened bread and usually containing meat, cheese or another savory mixture - it raises a few other questions.
Let's think of things Panera would think are sandwiches that a court (and probably a nutritional anthropologist) would disagree with!
Calzone - one slab of pizza dough, folded over, and containing pizza sauce, cheese, and sometimes meats.
Pizza Puff - the same, but usually fried rather than baked.
Burrito - the reigning champion of "Not a Sandwich"
Taco - also only one tortilla, folded over
Quesadilla - questionable, as more traditional methods say one tortilla folded over, but I have cooked several times with two tortillas. This could be a sandwich, unless leavening comes into play, in which case my tortilla might still be safe from sandwichdom.
Ravioli - A bread product with a meat/cheese filling, but uses only one piece of dough.
Eggroll - also only one piece of dough.
Pierogi - also only one piece of dough.
Gyro - one piece of flatbread, which isn't really that flat
Now let's take on a few questionable items, and I'll let you help decide as you pretend to be a high-powered Superior Court judge who is stuck handling cases of "What is a Sandwich?"
"Sandwich" or "No Sandwich"?
S'mores - two pieces of bread-type food, filling that is usually not meaty or cheesy.
Chicago-Style Stuffed Pizza - a pizza that has both a bottom crust and a top crust, obviously with a pizza filling in the middle.
Ritz Bits Sandwiches (with cheese or peanut butter) - two separate crackers, filling of cheesy/savory nature. Is the term "sandwich" in the title an admission of guilt? Does this affect the law itself?
Nachos - another Mexican dish, comprised of MORE THAN ONE piece of bread-product, with cheese in-between as a "filling". Could Panera cry "sandwich" over this culinary treat after its relative, the burrito, has walked away clean?
Lasagna - the meaty cheesy filling is placed between separate layers of noodles. Does a sandwich have to be something hand-held, as it was supposedly originally created by the Earl of Sandwich to hold meaty food in his hand while playing cards?
Oreos - Two cookies, including a filling. While Oreos are the brand-name misnomer given to lots of non-Oreo cookies (like Band-aids are misnomered for adhesive bandages and Kleenex are for tissues), the category of cookie is known as "sandwich cookies" by the industry. Admission of guilt or simple racial profiling and stereotyping as Sandwich?
Pie - a classic two-breaded filled food item! While meat pies are not as common as the fruity variety, and more and more cream-based pies have no top shell - classic pie chefs are aware that the standard pie would make an excellent example of a possible Sandwich candidate.
You decide. You rule.
Sandwich? No Sandwich?
Have fun being judge and jury, and feel free to bring any other food items to the courtroom to be judged as you see fit!
(You know, this might be a stupidly-funny skit for SNL or MadTV of something. A gameshow/courtshow titled "Sandwich or No Sandwich?" and featuring a really fat judge who "knows about sandwiches". Hell, if "Extreme Akim" could be a judge on that outrageous debacle of a court show, "Eye for an Eye", and have a disclaimer in the credits to let viewers know that "Extreme Akim is not a judge. Rulings are not final or legally binding." - why couldn't THIS show fly?)
This is my claim on the whole idea. Patent Pending! Copyright Pending! Trademark Pending! Bwaaarg!!!
What foods would you bring to "Sandwich or No Sandwich"? Leave a comment and let me know!
And then Digg this article!
Read more!
The whole debate about burritos and sandwiches all started when a Panera store (of a huge franchise based in St. Louis with stores across the nation) in the White City Shopping Center added a clause in its lease with the shopping center that there would not be another sandwich shop allowed to rent space while Panera is there. Then along came the Qdoba Mexican Grill, which led to Panera invoking that clause to prevent the new store from opening, and challenging its right to even rent space in the shopping center.
And they went to court, hearing testimony from Webster's Dictionary, a chef and a former high-ranking federal agriculture official.
Verdict: Burritos are not sandwiches.
The court heard a lot of testimony on the subject. Panera claimed that a flour tortilla is a bread, and a food product with bread and filling is a sandwich. The judge wound up ruling that "a sandwich is not commonly understood to include burritos, tacos and quesadillas, which are typically made with a single tortilla and stuffed with a choice filling of meat, rice, and beans." Well, the actual ruling took up eight pages, but that was the bread and butter of the decision.
Bread and butter: Sandwich or No Sandwich?
In fact, the whole difference between Panera's self-serving broad definition of a sandwich being any bread/grain product and a filling, versus the court's ruling about sandwiches following more of the dictionary definition of two individual pieces of leavened bread and usually containing meat, cheese or another savory mixture - it raises a few other questions.
Let's think of things Panera would think are sandwiches that a court (and probably a nutritional anthropologist) would disagree with!
Calzone - one slab of pizza dough, folded over, and containing pizza sauce, cheese, and sometimes meats.
Pizza Puff - the same, but usually fried rather than baked.
Burrito - the reigning champion of "Not a Sandwich"
Taco - also only one tortilla, folded over
Quesadilla - questionable, as more traditional methods say one tortilla folded over, but I have cooked several times with two tortillas. This could be a sandwich, unless leavening comes into play, in which case my tortilla might still be safe from sandwichdom.
Ravioli - A bread product with a meat/cheese filling, but uses only one piece of dough.
Eggroll - also only one piece of dough.
Pierogi - also only one piece of dough.
Gyro - one piece of flatbread, which isn't really that flat
Now let's take on a few questionable items, and I'll let you help decide as you pretend to be a high-powered Superior Court judge who is stuck handling cases of "What is a Sandwich?"
"Sandwich" or "No Sandwich"?
S'mores - two pieces of bread-type food, filling that is usually not meaty or cheesy.
Chicago-Style Stuffed Pizza - a pizza that has both a bottom crust and a top crust, obviously with a pizza filling in the middle.
Ritz Bits Sandwiches (with cheese or peanut butter) - two separate crackers, filling of cheesy/savory nature. Is the term "sandwich" in the title an admission of guilt? Does this affect the law itself?
Nachos - another Mexican dish, comprised of MORE THAN ONE piece of bread-product, with cheese in-between as a "filling". Could Panera cry "sandwich" over this culinary treat after its relative, the burrito, has walked away clean?
Lasagna - the meaty cheesy filling is placed between separate layers of noodles. Does a sandwich have to be something hand-held, as it was supposedly originally created by the Earl of Sandwich to hold meaty food in his hand while playing cards?
Oreos - Two cookies, including a filling. While Oreos are the brand-name misnomer given to lots of non-Oreo cookies (like Band-aids are misnomered for adhesive bandages and Kleenex are for tissues), the category of cookie is known as "sandwich cookies" by the industry. Admission of guilt or simple racial profiling and stereotyping as Sandwich?
Pie - a classic two-breaded filled food item! While meat pies are not as common as the fruity variety, and more and more cream-based pies have no top shell - classic pie chefs are aware that the standard pie would make an excellent example of a possible Sandwich candidate.
You decide. You rule.
Sandwich? No Sandwich?
Have fun being judge and jury, and feel free to bring any other food items to the courtroom to be judged as you see fit!
(You know, this might be a stupidly-funny skit for SNL or MadTV of something. A gameshow/courtshow titled "Sandwich or No Sandwich?" and featuring a really fat judge who "knows about sandwiches". Hell, if "Extreme Akim" could be a judge on that outrageous debacle of a court show, "Eye for an Eye", and have a disclaimer in the credits to let viewers know that "Extreme Akim is not a judge. Rulings are not final or legally binding." - why couldn't THIS show fly?)
This is my claim on the whole idea. Patent Pending! Copyright Pending! Trademark Pending! Bwaaarg!!!
What foods would you bring to "Sandwich or No Sandwich"? Leave a comment and let me know!
And then Digg this article!
Read more!
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Chicago vs. PETA: A Step In The Right Direction?
Before reading this, you might want to catch up by reading the previous parts of this Chicago vs. PETA series:
PART 1: Chicago Bans Food and PETA is to Blame
PART 2: Chicago vs. PETA: The Foie Gras Debate!
PART 3: Chicago vs. PETA: The Lawsuit!
PART 4: Chicago vs. PETA: The Uprising!
PART 5: Chicago vs. PETA: The First Offense!
And join us in the sixth installment of a series of posts that (in the opinion of the writer) should never have come to be. And PETA is to blame; they shock-videoed the Chicago City Council into agreeing to sign a law banning foie gras from the city. In the second part, I discussed the studies and FACTS proving that the reasons BEHIND the law are unfounded and not based on any facts at all. In the third part I got to speak of the Illinois Restaurant Association (IRA) who believes so strongly in this cause that it's practically paying for both sides of the legal battle, based on the fact that it's unconstitutional to make a city law overturning something the federal government approves, let alone deciding what people can/cannot eat. In the fourth part I got to talk about the restaurants fighting back and how more were serving foie gras than ever once the law took effect. In this fifth part, we learned about the first victim of the law and how little the city even cared, other than the media. In part six, the mayor has decided to reconsider his stance on the issue.
In fact, if all goes well, Mayor Richard M. Daley may have just put into motion the proposal to rid his fine city of this unsightly legal blemish once and for all.
Heck, the man even finally admitted that the city council's initial decision led to "the funniest law they ever passed". And while he didn't veto it outright (like he should have) when the law passed his desk, he's now agreeing with the masses that it's a horribly stupid idea in general and has taken steps to correct his mistake in letting it slide.
Chicago Mayor Daley signed on to a repeal proposal introduced by two city aldermen, according to his spokeswoman. This went into effect on Thursday. The original ban angered some restaurant owners and gourmets (as well as a few bloggers like myself), who argued that the city was going too far by restricting what residents could eat. Daley criticized it also as a waste of the city council's time, but he didn't veto it.
This change of heart MAY have something to do with the fact that the city was almost caught up in yet ANOTHER storm of disapproval as the city of Chicago's councilmen decided to downgrade their new attack on trans fats. They had previously been considering a NEW ban on restaurants using trans fats to cook food, but after the outrage of their previous "food ban" idea, they downgraded it to a "negotiation" and possible "compromise" with the Illinois Restarant Association.
Going from a ban on "animal cruelty" food to a ban purely based on nothing but "wanting to be healthier" - I don't know what the result would have been, but I'm assuming protests and fires might have been possible outcomes.
We have the right to eat unhealthy foods. No ban is going to stop that. No law ever should.
So a possible step in the right direction is taking place on the foie gras issue. The council's Health Committee will vote on the issue and decide if it should be brought before the city council. Who might finally come to their senses and NOT be swayed by PETA and other animals rights "boo-hoo" criers who prey on the ignorant like themselves - people who don't bother to learn the facts and forget that people are animals too.
Stay tuned for more in the Chicago vs. PETA series - a series we wouldn't have had in the first place if it weren't for PETA sticking its nose in YOUR dinner plate. Read more!
PART 1: Chicago Bans Food and PETA is to Blame
PART 2: Chicago vs. PETA: The Foie Gras Debate!
PART 3: Chicago vs. PETA: The Lawsuit!
PART 4: Chicago vs. PETA: The Uprising!
PART 5: Chicago vs. PETA: The First Offense!
And join us in the sixth installment of a series of posts that (in the opinion of the writer) should never have come to be. And PETA is to blame; they shock-videoed the Chicago City Council into agreeing to sign a law banning foie gras from the city. In the second part, I discussed the studies and FACTS proving that the reasons BEHIND the law are unfounded and not based on any facts at all. In the third part I got to speak of the Illinois Restaurant Association (IRA) who believes so strongly in this cause that it's practically paying for both sides of the legal battle, based on the fact that it's unconstitutional to make a city law overturning something the federal government approves, let alone deciding what people can/cannot eat. In the fourth part I got to talk about the restaurants fighting back and how more were serving foie gras than ever once the law took effect. In this fifth part, we learned about the first victim of the law and how little the city even cared, other than the media. In part six, the mayor has decided to reconsider his stance on the issue.
In fact, if all goes well, Mayor Richard M. Daley may have just put into motion the proposal to rid his fine city of this unsightly legal blemish once and for all.
Heck, the man even finally admitted that the city council's initial decision led to "the funniest law they ever passed". And while he didn't veto it outright (like he should have) when the law passed his desk, he's now agreeing with the masses that it's a horribly stupid idea in general and has taken steps to correct his mistake in letting it slide.
Chicago Mayor Daley signed on to a repeal proposal introduced by two city aldermen, according to his spokeswoman. This went into effect on Thursday. The original ban angered some restaurant owners and gourmets (as well as a few bloggers like myself), who argued that the city was going too far by restricting what residents could eat. Daley criticized it also as a waste of the city council's time, but he didn't veto it.
This change of heart MAY have something to do with the fact that the city was almost caught up in yet ANOTHER storm of disapproval as the city of Chicago's councilmen decided to downgrade their new attack on trans fats. They had previously been considering a NEW ban on restaurants using trans fats to cook food, but after the outrage of their previous "food ban" idea, they downgraded it to a "negotiation" and possible "compromise" with the Illinois Restarant Association.
Going from a ban on "animal cruelty" food to a ban purely based on nothing but "wanting to be healthier" - I don't know what the result would have been, but I'm assuming protests and fires might have been possible outcomes.
We have the right to eat unhealthy foods. No ban is going to stop that. No law ever should.
So a possible step in the right direction is taking place on the foie gras issue. The council's Health Committee will vote on the issue and decide if it should be brought before the city council. Who might finally come to their senses and NOT be swayed by PETA and other animals rights "boo-hoo" criers who prey on the ignorant like themselves - people who don't bother to learn the facts and forget that people are animals too.
Stay tuned for more in the Chicago vs. PETA series - a series we wouldn't have had in the first place if it weren't for PETA sticking its nose in YOUR dinner plate. Read more!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
