Face it, we're being enslaved. Slavery is not at all over - not by a longshot - because none of us are truly free. We cannot do the things we were guaranteed the right to do, challenged by oppressive overseers who try to put us back in our "place" every day.
And here in the city of Chicago, two of this era's greater-ranking oppressors are merging and will be sharing the city's overseeing. I'm speaking, of course, about Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Now I don't really have as much of a beef with Jackson; he stays out of the newspapers more often than not and is more of a behind-the-scenes kind of guy (as far as I can tell). Or it could just be that he's totally not behind-the-scenes; he's just severely overshadowed by the pompous windbag of oppression known as Al Sharpton.
Use the "n-word" in public (or loudly in the privacy of your own home) and the odds are good that it will travel like a twinge on a spider's web, alerting the beast that it's time to feed and suck the life out of another morsel. Say it on any broadcast waves, and the swarm is akin to a scene in Braveheart. Even now, I can picture Al Sharpton with the half-blue face, shouting:
"They can have cops shoot us! They can lynch us in the streets! They can portray us poorly in the media! But they can NEVER SAY THE N-WORD!!!"
Well guess what, Sharpton? Yes, we can! We have the right to use any word we want, at any time we want, in any place we want!
Oh, I think except for "fire" in a crowded auditorium. I think that's one's actually illegal, because it can get people killed in the ensuing trampling - though saying the WORD isn't illegal, just the result of it is illegal. Or something. It's a slippery slope...
Back to the point: Sharpton and Jackson are both proponents of the "death" of 'the n-word'. They even had a ceremony for its burial and everything. Which was then promptly defiled. It just goes to prove my point: You cannot kill words, and you cannot forbid them to be spoken. If you tried to ban/kill the word "green" - let's say you're against the unholy union of pureblood blues and yellows and you consider it an offense to the color wheel at large - wouldn't you also have to ban the word "verde" ("green" in Spanish)? What about "midori" (Japanese) or "vert" (French) or "зеленый цвет" (Russian)? No matter what words you take away, you can't change the fact that it IS a color and it's the IDEA of that color that creates the words, not the other way around. Removing the "n-word" isn't going to remove the hatred or feelings that lead people to USE that word; you've got the whole thing backwards! Even if you removed the right to say all known forms of the word "green" from every single language, people would have to find new ways to say it or express it. The color remains, and it wouldn't be long before "blellow" (blue-yellow) came into play. Kill it, and you'd get "yellue" (yellow-blue). Kill that, and people might start just calling it a word you couldn't get rid of...
Like "Kermit". Could you really kill off that word, just because it NOW represents some word or idea that you don't like? That's what we're faced with today.
Newer "n-words" are being formed thanks to the destruction and burial of the old one. Now, instead of the "true n-word", some people on the street have switched to "ninja". What are you going to do about that, oppressors Jackson and Sharpton? You can't kill a word that has thousands of years of history completely unrelated to the negative idea you're foolishly trying to hunt down and kill without bothering to try the root of the problem.
And the root of the problem is the hatred. Without the hatred, there'd be no reason to create or use "n-words" of any variety. Words are an expression of feelings and ideas - you can't just treat every instance of a word as just one emotion or feeling or idea being tied to it. One person from the Deep South might use the "n-word" as a way to express outright hatred and loathing for a race of people. One person of that race might use the "n-word" as a way to express a "brotherhood" or connection with other people of that race. Nobody should be allowed to mandate that one usage is associated with all utterances of that word, and no matter if you use it to express brotherhood, comedy, or even the factual (like reading a transcript) - the mandate says it's nothing but hatred and loathing.
That's a load of "BS-word".
No matter what the foolish reason for trying to cut the word down to size, you can't curb the ideas and emotions behind it. Nobody can tell you how to feel or how to think. You have the right to enjoy something or dislike something. That's right, you have the liberty of hatred. You can hold a grudge, form an enemy, even pray for genocide. You can have any idea you choose to be nestled in your head - and even the right to say them out loud and express them. Following through with them, however, is another case entirely. You have the freedom to wish for genocide; you don't have the freedom to put it into action. But that's a rant for another day.
I think I've spoken my peace. Which I am fully entitled to do. I have the freedom of speech. And I have the freedom of hatred towards those who do not respect the freedoms of speech and hatred.
So Mr. Jackson and Mr. Sharpton - keep your wits about you, because I won't be stifled by your oppressive beliefs that words can be "bad". Words are always good, because it's always better to use them than to resort to violence instead. Any good mother can tell you that. The ideas are what you're supposed to be against, not the words expressing them. And unfortunately for you, the ideas in someone else's head are not yours to govern. The best you can hope for is you speak your mind, just as you should let others speak theirs, and hope that in time, your words can sway their minds away from the hatred and loathing that lead them to use their words in ways you don't like.
Until then, we'll just have to agree to disagree - and speak our minds as such.
Which we both have the freedom to do.
Read more!
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Friday, July 27, 2007
Smoking Ban vs Gay Marriage
Before I even get off into my usual slur of bad analogies, half-baked jokes and other things that prevent me from forming a coherent verbal (but not written) sentence before 8am - I have no idea what I'm talking about. You hear that? My opinions on these subjects really don't matter because neither of them really affect me directly. Just like men and abortion rights, we can have an opinion, but we'll be seen as wrong just for having one since it's not our issue and it apparently never will be. Now that this is out of the way, I'll say my peace.
Hopefully at least SOME of you read my last piece, about the new Illinois smoking ban that still allows people to smoke, just nowhere where they'd LIKE to smoke. Like in places where there's shelter from the environment other than their own home. What was GOING to follow was a piece about the new cigarette taxes coming into legislation.
I can't begin to think of a better analog for "adding insult to injury."
Instead, certain reader responses in the RedEye this morning just got me BACK onto this original rant, and I felt I had to add more on because people STILL just don't get it: there should NOT be laws being created to ostracize people just based on the theory that secondhand smoke is really that dangerous. Again, I haven't seen any scientific proof. And even if there were test subjects in controlled environments who got cancer from extreme doses of secondhand smoke, I highly doubt that those experiments would reflect the REAL world, where secondhand smoke isn't that concentrated (even indoors) and the hundreds or thousands of other factors that determine when a person gets which cancer.
But no! The liberals (who, might I remind you, are taking away liberties rather than protecting them) are trying to argue that they can tell you where you can't smoke because they're afraid of dying from secondhand smoke. Fine. If you want to make the argument that a hypothetical scary result that hasn't been factually proven yet can be stopped by one of the things that might trigger it in limited circumstances (a long way of saying "you MIGHT get cancer from POSSIBLY secondhand smoke IF this all happened INDOORS and you ignore everyone OUTDOORS")...
...then I say that you have to also agree with the arguments to ban gay marriage.
That's right, I went there. I went there, took some photos, bought a T-shirt, came back, and showed you boring slideshows of it all. Smoking ban? Gay marriage ban. But why, Aaron? Why would you equate something as silly as not being able to smoke indoors with the lifelong struggle of the gay community to commit to each other for life in a federally-recognized ceremony?
Because it's the same argument being made against gay marriage that was made against smoking indoors: something that could potentially harm in a non-proven way if conditions were met. I'm taking about the "gay marriage destroys families" argument here.
I'm arguing that there's an equal percentage of people trying to prove that this seemingly-unlikely event is what triggered their horrible problem. Trying to pin secondhand smoke as the culprit for lung cancer in non-smokers is just as improbable as pinning gay marriage as the culprit for the lack of value of the sacrament of marriage itself.
After all, while being gay is NOT a choice that can be turned on or off, deciding to couple and deciding to want to get married is TOTALLY a choice. You can be gay and do whatever you want to other gay people for as long as you'd like - but when you make the choice to invade the institution of marriage, that apparently affects OTHER people in the bond of marriage and some see it as possibly destructive.
Likewise, while nicotine addiction is not as much of a choice (at serious levels of addiction), it is TOTALLY a choice to start smoking. And you can smoke whatever kinds of cigars and cigarettes you want for as long as you'd like - but when you make the choice to invade the air space of other people indoors, that apparently affects OTHER people in the room and some see it as possibly destructive to their health.
Can you agree on the similarities in the arguments?? One is just as ridiculous as the other! And yet the insane one about SMOKING is easily thrown together as actual legislation by the liberals, while the insane one about GAY MARRIAGE is a rallying point liberals AGAINST the same argument!
Sorry, liberals, but you can't have it both ways. One fauly argument becoming law should equate to more laws backed by the same argument - whether it's something you believe in or not. Smokers believe they have the right to smoke. You argue it threatens the health of others and besides, "smoking is bad for you anyway so maybe this'll help people to quit." Gays believe they have the right to get married. Others argue it threatens the sanctity of marriage and besides, "being gay is morally wrong anyway so maybe this'll help people to get right with God."
Are you starting to see how absurd it all is?
You don't have the right to quash someone's liberties because you're afraid people could get hurt and die. If that were the case all around for everything, people shouldn't be allowed to play sports because there's a high risk of steroid use, and people shouldn't be allowed to drive cars because they can't be trusted to not crash and kill people, and farmers shouldn't be allowed to grow peanuts anymore because so many people are allergic to them and they kill so many people.
You have the right to defend yourself from imminent danger.
You don't have the right to legislate a ban on anything that could potentially be dangerous.
Because people have the right to do dangerous things - to themselves especially, and potentially to others. You can drink alcohol. You can own a gun. You can drive a car. You can bungee jump and parasail and skydive. You can also smoke a cigarette.
And if people are going to take away that liberty for such a stupid reason, I'm just saying that the things THEY believe they have the liberty to do should be taken away just as easily.
And please don't try to turn this into me being a homophobe or against gay marriage. I have several gay friends and I'm not against gay marriage. If you read this piece properly, you'd see that I'm trying to NOT ban gay marriage by trying to get this smoking ban lifted due to the ridiculous reasoning that brought it into existance. It just usually gets a hot-button topic to get people to actually notice the NOT-hot-button topics.
Read more!
Hopefully at least SOME of you read my last piece, about the new Illinois smoking ban that still allows people to smoke, just nowhere where they'd LIKE to smoke. Like in places where there's shelter from the environment other than their own home. What was GOING to follow was a piece about the new cigarette taxes coming into legislation.
I can't begin to think of a better analog for "adding insult to injury."
Instead, certain reader responses in the RedEye this morning just got me BACK onto this original rant, and I felt I had to add more on because people STILL just don't get it: there should NOT be laws being created to ostracize people just based on the theory that secondhand smoke is really that dangerous. Again, I haven't seen any scientific proof. And even if there were test subjects in controlled environments who got cancer from extreme doses of secondhand smoke, I highly doubt that those experiments would reflect the REAL world, where secondhand smoke isn't that concentrated (even indoors) and the hundreds or thousands of other factors that determine when a person gets which cancer.
But no! The liberals (who, might I remind you, are taking away liberties rather than protecting them) are trying to argue that they can tell you where you can't smoke because they're afraid of dying from secondhand smoke. Fine. If you want to make the argument that a hypothetical scary result that hasn't been factually proven yet can be stopped by one of the things that might trigger it in limited circumstances (a long way of saying "you MIGHT get cancer from POSSIBLY secondhand smoke IF this all happened INDOORS and you ignore everyone OUTDOORS")...
...then I say that you have to also agree with the arguments to ban gay marriage.
That's right, I went there. I went there, took some photos, bought a T-shirt, came back, and showed you boring slideshows of it all. Smoking ban? Gay marriage ban. But why, Aaron? Why would you equate something as silly as not being able to smoke indoors with the lifelong struggle of the gay community to commit to each other for life in a federally-recognized ceremony?
Because it's the same argument being made against gay marriage that was made against smoking indoors: something that could potentially harm in a non-proven way if conditions were met. I'm taking about the "gay marriage destroys families" argument here.
I'm arguing that there's an equal percentage of people trying to prove that this seemingly-unlikely event is what triggered their horrible problem. Trying to pin secondhand smoke as the culprit for lung cancer in non-smokers is just as improbable as pinning gay marriage as the culprit for the lack of value of the sacrament of marriage itself.
After all, while being gay is NOT a choice that can be turned on or off, deciding to couple and deciding to want to get married is TOTALLY a choice. You can be gay and do whatever you want to other gay people for as long as you'd like - but when you make the choice to invade the institution of marriage, that apparently affects OTHER people in the bond of marriage and some see it as possibly destructive.
Likewise, while nicotine addiction is not as much of a choice (at serious levels of addiction), it is TOTALLY a choice to start smoking. And you can smoke whatever kinds of cigars and cigarettes you want for as long as you'd like - but when you make the choice to invade the air space of other people indoors, that apparently affects OTHER people in the room and some see it as possibly destructive to their health.
Can you agree on the similarities in the arguments?? One is just as ridiculous as the other! And yet the insane one about SMOKING is easily thrown together as actual legislation by the liberals, while the insane one about GAY MARRIAGE is a rallying point liberals AGAINST the same argument!
Sorry, liberals, but you can't have it both ways. One fauly argument becoming law should equate to more laws backed by the same argument - whether it's something you believe in or not. Smokers believe they have the right to smoke. You argue it threatens the health of others and besides, "smoking is bad for you anyway so maybe this'll help people to quit." Gays believe they have the right to get married. Others argue it threatens the sanctity of marriage and besides, "being gay is morally wrong anyway so maybe this'll help people to get right with God."
Are you starting to see how absurd it all is?
You don't have the right to quash someone's liberties because you're afraid people could get hurt and die. If that were the case all around for everything, people shouldn't be allowed to play sports because there's a high risk of steroid use, and people shouldn't be allowed to drive cars because they can't be trusted to not crash and kill people, and farmers shouldn't be allowed to grow peanuts anymore because so many people are allergic to them and they kill so many people.
You have the right to defend yourself from imminent danger.
You don't have the right to legislate a ban on anything that could potentially be dangerous.
Because people have the right to do dangerous things - to themselves especially, and potentially to others. You can drink alcohol. You can own a gun. You can drive a car. You can bungee jump and parasail and skydive. You can also smoke a cigarette.
And if people are going to take away that liberty for such a stupid reason, I'm just saying that the things THEY believe they have the liberty to do should be taken away just as easily.
And please don't try to turn this into me being a homophobe or against gay marriage. I have several gay friends and I'm not against gay marriage. If you read this piece properly, you'd see that I'm trying to NOT ban gay marriage by trying to get this smoking ban lifted due to the ridiculous reasoning that brought it into existance. It just usually gets a hot-button topic to get people to actually notice the NOT-hot-button topics.
Read more!
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Liberals Taking Away More Liberties!
You know, I always thought that the word "liberal" was supposed to be about liberty - about making sure we citizens had the liberties and rights to live our lives as we saw fit without having the government come in and trample those rights.
Turns out I was wrong. Because everyone else seems to be wrong. These people we call "Liberals" - the Democrats who blue up the blue states with their anti-Republican stances - aren't the ones who are protecting our liberties. They're the ones taking them away. And Gov. Blagojevich just pulled down his pants and made a bowel movement all over another liberty on Monday.
The liberty to smoke.
Thanks to the new law signed by the governor, on Jan 1st, 2008, smoking will be restricted to private homes and outside (more than 15 feet from a public building entrance). No more smoking in taverns or restaurants with bar areas. Can't smoke in a dormitory, either. Can't smoke in a PRIVATE home if there's a business open to the public operating out of the same space.
Face it - your liberties have just been written off.
You know what? I'm not even a smoker. I loathe the smell of cigarette smoke, it doesn't take much for me to start coughing, and I'm sure several branches of my family tree have been affected by smokers and the cancers they PROBABLY got from all of their smoking. (Yea, that's right - I'm still not totally convinced. I mean I'm convinced that smoking can cause cancer - but at the rate of other things scientists keep coming up with that ALSO cause cancer, I'm not as sure you can pin any of it directly on the smoking itself.) Even so, I am fully aware that they have every right to smoke and do whatever they want to themselves for themselves. You know what I have the right to do?
Go stand somewhere else.
Which is why I can understand why some places SHOULD be non-smoking, or rather that they should have designated non-smoking areas and designated smoking areas. Workplaces, because there you don't have the right to go somewhere else. Eateries, so you can have the CHOICE to be in one or the other section. Gas stations, so you don't make things explode.
Other than that (and probably some other places, but I'm not here to make a list of hypothetical exceptions to my own rule), smoke wherever and whenever! And if I've got a problem with that, I can stand somewhere else! This goes right along with the idiots who don't realize the have the option to change the channel or station when something they don't like is on the TV or radio. Stop taking away our freedom of speech and expression and go practice your freedom of choice and choose something else! These are our liberties, people! Stop letting those false advocates of liberty take them away!
The article I'm reading has a quote from a 70-year-old named Wally who says, "It's the General Assembly being our new nanny. After this they'll ban foods that are too fatty. You'll have to ask the state what you can eat and drink - they'll start regulating hamburgers." Oh, Wally... I guess you don't know/remember that they've already started with the trans fats... Your burgers ARE being regulated, Wally.
For those of you who want to argue "secondhand smoke", I'm going to refer you back to "go somewhere else" and leave it at that. These people are the ones arguing that since it affects them and endangers their health that they should be able to make it illegal. So here's one (or two) of my famously-crazy analogies:
I'm standing on the street with one leg placed out at an angle. I'm not trying to trip anyone at all - I'm just placing my leg out because I feel like it and I have every right to stand how I choose to. It's not MY fault if you don't have the wherewithall to, um, LOOK AROUND and notice it and trip over my leg that's been in the same position for the past three minutes. Lots of people didn't trip, because they walked somewhere else and paid attention and were vigilant about where their feet were walking. Just because you got hurt somehow doesn't mean what I did was illegal. I didn't do in in a malicious manner and I wasn't attacking someone. You just tripped. I am not at fault.
Let's try something even closer. I'm standing on the street with my dog, on a leash. Everything's legal with that. Dog's not even pooping on the sidewalk. And then you come along, with your horrible allergy to dogs, and maybe you didn't notice the dog or you didn't think you'd wind up that close to the dog, but you breathe in some dog hair from my dog and start having an allergic reaction. You're going to potentially die, even though the risk is low because it was just errant dog hair or something and worst case scenario we call 9-1-1 and they pump you full of epinephrine or something. Even so, I didn't do anything wrong - YOU did by not paying attention to your OWN problems. I'm allowed to have a dog and follow the laws. You shouldn't be allowed to blame me for your allergic reaction. See a dog - get the hell away from it.
You don't get to declare it illegal to have a dog out in public because people on the street might have an allergic reaction.
I don't have any advice as to how to fix this. My initial thought was a call to every smoker to follow every disgusted-look-giving non-smoker they encounter, blowing as much smoke at them as possible. Maybe if you could smoke inside, you wouldn't be out here, blowing smoke at people. Of course, that gives them argument to be extreme jackasses and try to ban smoking entirely.
My second thought was a smoking protest - lining up about fifty smokers in a ring 15 feet away from the entrance to an important building (like the Sears Tower where I work) and just smoking. As everyone outside tries to get in, say you can't move, because you can't get within 15 feet of the door. At first I threw out this idea because preventing entrance to a public building is probably an arrestable offense, but then I remembered - the place has two entrances! (Three, if you count the Skydeck, where the tourists are supposed to go to get up to the top but always wander into the office entrances instead.)
I just don't know what else to offer other than my condolences. I mean, I'm not a smoker, so this really doesn't affect me much more than my smoking friends getting a little grumpier over having nowhere nice to smoke. Let's face it, in the summer and the winter, the extreme temperatures are NOT helpful to smokers. This law is even LESS helpful.
And don't even get me started on "but maybe this will encourage them to quit." That's not for the government to decide. That's not for you to decide with a vote, either. That's for them and ONLY them to decide. They have that liberty to choose what to start and when to quit.
At least they used to. Until the "liberals" decided otherwise.
Read more!
Turns out I was wrong. Because everyone else seems to be wrong. These people we call "Liberals" - the Democrats who blue up the blue states with their anti-Republican stances - aren't the ones who are protecting our liberties. They're the ones taking them away. And Gov. Blagojevich just pulled down his pants and made a bowel movement all over another liberty on Monday.
The liberty to smoke.
Thanks to the new law signed by the governor, on Jan 1st, 2008, smoking will be restricted to private homes and outside (more than 15 feet from a public building entrance). No more smoking in taverns or restaurants with bar areas. Can't smoke in a dormitory, either. Can't smoke in a PRIVATE home if there's a business open to the public operating out of the same space.
Face it - your liberties have just been written off.
You know what? I'm not even a smoker. I loathe the smell of cigarette smoke, it doesn't take much for me to start coughing, and I'm sure several branches of my family tree have been affected by smokers and the cancers they PROBABLY got from all of their smoking. (Yea, that's right - I'm still not totally convinced. I mean I'm convinced that smoking can cause cancer - but at the rate of other things scientists keep coming up with that ALSO cause cancer, I'm not as sure you can pin any of it directly on the smoking itself.) Even so, I am fully aware that they have every right to smoke and do whatever they want to themselves for themselves. You know what I have the right to do?
Go stand somewhere else.
Which is why I can understand why some places SHOULD be non-smoking, or rather that they should have designated non-smoking areas and designated smoking areas. Workplaces, because there you don't have the right to go somewhere else. Eateries, so you can have the CHOICE to be in one or the other section. Gas stations, so you don't make things explode.
Other than that (and probably some other places, but I'm not here to make a list of hypothetical exceptions to my own rule), smoke wherever and whenever! And if I've got a problem with that, I can stand somewhere else! This goes right along with the idiots who don't realize the have the option to change the channel or station when something they don't like is on the TV or radio. Stop taking away our freedom of speech and expression and go practice your freedom of choice and choose something else! These are our liberties, people! Stop letting those false advocates of liberty take them away!
The article I'm reading has a quote from a 70-year-old named Wally who says, "It's the General Assembly being our new nanny. After this they'll ban foods that are too fatty. You'll have to ask the state what you can eat and drink - they'll start regulating hamburgers." Oh, Wally... I guess you don't know/remember that they've already started with the trans fats... Your burgers ARE being regulated, Wally.
For those of you who want to argue "secondhand smoke", I'm going to refer you back to "go somewhere else" and leave it at that. These people are the ones arguing that since it affects them and endangers their health that they should be able to make it illegal. So here's one (or two) of my famously-crazy analogies:
I'm standing on the street with one leg placed out at an angle. I'm not trying to trip anyone at all - I'm just placing my leg out because I feel like it and I have every right to stand how I choose to. It's not MY fault if you don't have the wherewithall to, um, LOOK AROUND and notice it and trip over my leg that's been in the same position for the past three minutes. Lots of people didn't trip, because they walked somewhere else and paid attention and were vigilant about where their feet were walking. Just because you got hurt somehow doesn't mean what I did was illegal. I didn't do in in a malicious manner and I wasn't attacking someone. You just tripped. I am not at fault.
Let's try something even closer. I'm standing on the street with my dog, on a leash. Everything's legal with that. Dog's not even pooping on the sidewalk. And then you come along, with your horrible allergy to dogs, and maybe you didn't notice the dog or you didn't think you'd wind up that close to the dog, but you breathe in some dog hair from my dog and start having an allergic reaction. You're going to potentially die, even though the risk is low because it was just errant dog hair or something and worst case scenario we call 9-1-1 and they pump you full of epinephrine or something. Even so, I didn't do anything wrong - YOU did by not paying attention to your OWN problems. I'm allowed to have a dog and follow the laws. You shouldn't be allowed to blame me for your allergic reaction. See a dog - get the hell away from it.
You don't get to declare it illegal to have a dog out in public because people on the street might have an allergic reaction.
I don't have any advice as to how to fix this. My initial thought was a call to every smoker to follow every disgusted-look-giving non-smoker they encounter, blowing as much smoke at them as possible. Maybe if you could smoke inside, you wouldn't be out here, blowing smoke at people. Of course, that gives them argument to be extreme jackasses and try to ban smoking entirely.
My second thought was a smoking protest - lining up about fifty smokers in a ring 15 feet away from the entrance to an important building (like the Sears Tower where I work) and just smoking. As everyone outside tries to get in, say you can't move, because you can't get within 15 feet of the door. At first I threw out this idea because preventing entrance to a public building is probably an arrestable offense, but then I remembered - the place has two entrances! (Three, if you count the Skydeck, where the tourists are supposed to go to get up to the top but always wander into the office entrances instead.)
I just don't know what else to offer other than my condolences. I mean, I'm not a smoker, so this really doesn't affect me much more than my smoking friends getting a little grumpier over having nowhere nice to smoke. Let's face it, in the summer and the winter, the extreme temperatures are NOT helpful to smokers. This law is even LESS helpful.
And don't even get me started on "but maybe this will encourage them to quit." That's not for the government to decide. That's not for you to decide with a vote, either. That's for them and ONLY them to decide. They have that liberty to choose what to start and when to quit.
At least they used to. Until the "liberals" decided otherwise.
Read more!
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Rats: A New Delicacy?
Gotta hand it to the Chinese. They're really taking advantage of the saying about every cloud having a silver lining. I'm sure we can all recall the famous line from the Simpsons (because that's more likely than knowing the fact without The Simpsons as guidance) that "the Chinese use the same word for 'crisis' as they do for 'opportunity'." All that aside, it really boils down to another age-old adage:
When life hands you lemons, make lemonade.
Well, the lemons being handed to the Chinese all started when a Hunan lake flooded, possibly as a result of the Three Gorges Dam project. This flooding displaced the home of a few billion rats, who are now plaguing areas in central China. And staying as true as possible to that adage, they're making lemonade - by selling the rats as a delicacy to Guangdong restaurants in the southern part of the country.
"Recently there have been a lot of rats ... Guangzhou people are rich and like to eat exotic things, so business is very good," the China News Service quoted a vendor as saying, referring to the capital of Guangdong province.
Some vendors had asked people from a village in Hunan province, near Dongting Lake, to sell them live rats, the Beijing News said today.
"The buyers offered 6 yuan for a kilo, but as to where they will sell the rats, they would not say," the newspaper quoted a local resident as saying, adding that villagers had to catch the rats live.
Yes, I suppose that's the REAL catch of it all - the rats they're catching have to be caught alive. No, not for some purpose of cooking them while they're still alive, but I guess it's more along the lines of "the fresher the better" - akin to giant lobster tanks in fancy restaurants so the customer knows his dinner delight wasn't made from frozen meat or something like that.
Maybe they've got nice big cages writhing with rats in these Guangzhou restaurants?
As for the 6 yuan for a kilogram of rats (about $0.79 in USD), the villagers have no problem with that price, since they claim it's easy to catch up to 150 kilos of rats in a night. There's just that many of them, destroying 1.6 million hectares of crops and possibly spreading disease. And the consumer end of the deal? The restaurants have been advertising "rat banquets" and charging the inflated price of 136 yuan per kilogram of tasty rat meat (almost $18) to the people of Guangdong.
And for those who can't get to a restaurant to enjoy this delicacy? Oh, the Chinese media has reported that citizens have posted several recipes for rat on the internet.
I hope a rat version of "lemonade" is one of those recipes...
The delicious original article Read more!
When life hands you lemons, make lemonade.
Well, the lemons being handed to the Chinese all started when a Hunan lake flooded, possibly as a result of the Three Gorges Dam project. This flooding displaced the home of a few billion rats, who are now plaguing areas in central China. And staying as true as possible to that adage, they're making lemonade - by selling the rats as a delicacy to Guangdong restaurants in the southern part of the country.
"Recently there have been a lot of rats ... Guangzhou people are rich and like to eat exotic things, so business is very good," the China News Service quoted a vendor as saying, referring to the capital of Guangdong province.
Some vendors had asked people from a village in Hunan province, near Dongting Lake, to sell them live rats, the Beijing News said today.
"The buyers offered 6 yuan for a kilo, but as to where they will sell the rats, they would not say," the newspaper quoted a local resident as saying, adding that villagers had to catch the rats live.
Yes, I suppose that's the REAL catch of it all - the rats they're catching have to be caught alive. No, not for some purpose of cooking them while they're still alive, but I guess it's more along the lines of "the fresher the better" - akin to giant lobster tanks in fancy restaurants so the customer knows his dinner delight wasn't made from frozen meat or something like that.
Maybe they've got nice big cages writhing with rats in these Guangzhou restaurants?
As for the 6 yuan for a kilogram of rats (about $0.79 in USD), the villagers have no problem with that price, since they claim it's easy to catch up to 150 kilos of rats in a night. There's just that many of them, destroying 1.6 million hectares of crops and possibly spreading disease. And the consumer end of the deal? The restaurants have been advertising "rat banquets" and charging the inflated price of 136 yuan per kilogram of tasty rat meat (almost $18) to the people of Guangdong.
And for those who can't get to a restaurant to enjoy this delicacy? Oh, the Chinese media has reported that citizens have posted several recipes for rat on the internet.
I hope a rat version of "lemonade" is one of those recipes...
The delicious original article Read more!
Monday, July 16, 2007
Waukegan - You Are Not Dead To Me!
Rejoice!
The aldermen of Waukegan may keep their jobs in my eyes, for they held true to their words and did not back down from the swarm of protesters who used everything from prayer vigils to corporate boycotts to coerce the city councilmen away from their initial 7-2 ruling in favor of applying for the federal program which will train some police officers and give them the power to set the deportation process in motion. Even though the hall only had enough seats for 200 people, of course the city had to sell 400 tickets to the meeting. This led to over 100 people having to stand in the room and hallways, hoping for a seat to open up. This is in addition to the hundreds outside, still protesting for and against the measure.
The new count? 8-2 in favor of applying for the federal program!
The extra vote came from the Mayor, also in favor of applying for the program. While I have not yet confirmed this, I suspect that the two "nay"s were the same as the first vote, those two aldermen who claimed it would lead to racial profiling or that it would frighten even the legal immigrants and they wouldn't be able to trust the police.
While it IS true that the ability to deport extends not just to illegal immigrants, but also to legal immigrants - that only applies to those who are arrested for heinous crimes like murder, rape and some drug-related felonies.
So hey, legal immigrants - don't murder or rape or smuggle cocaine! Got it??
That's all it takes! Don't commit these crimes! I'm more than willing to admit that harsher laws don't really have that desired effect to deter criminals from committing those crimes - but you have to admit that once deportation is on the line for immigrants (both legal and illegal), they're hopefully going to think twice before KILLING SOMEONE. I mean "think thrice", because if you're going to kill someone without a second thought, you don't deserve deportation - you deserve the death penalty.
Maybe now that we've shown that SOME City Councils out there have the balls to follow through with their decision to apply for this great federal program that cuts down on the red tape and paperwork, we can get some other cities with high illegal immigration populations to apply for it as well.
This is a trend that needs some momentum, and we need to keep it going bigger and stronger. Maybe someday major cities like Chicago will be able to participate and we can finally start ENFORCING the laws that ALREADY EXIST!
Write your City Council! Tell them to apply for 287(g) and get your local law enforcement this training program!
An article ringing in the good news! Read more!
The aldermen of Waukegan may keep their jobs in my eyes, for they held true to their words and did not back down from the swarm of protesters who used everything from prayer vigils to corporate boycotts to coerce the city councilmen away from their initial 7-2 ruling in favor of applying for the federal program which will train some police officers and give them the power to set the deportation process in motion. Even though the hall only had enough seats for 200 people, of course the city had to sell 400 tickets to the meeting. This led to over 100 people having to stand in the room and hallways, hoping for a seat to open up. This is in addition to the hundreds outside, still protesting for and against the measure.
The new count? 8-2 in favor of applying for the federal program!
The extra vote came from the Mayor, also in favor of applying for the program. While I have not yet confirmed this, I suspect that the two "nay"s were the same as the first vote, those two aldermen who claimed it would lead to racial profiling or that it would frighten even the legal immigrants and they wouldn't be able to trust the police.
While it IS true that the ability to deport extends not just to illegal immigrants, but also to legal immigrants - that only applies to those who are arrested for heinous crimes like murder, rape and some drug-related felonies.
So hey, legal immigrants - don't murder or rape or smuggle cocaine! Got it??
That's all it takes! Don't commit these crimes! I'm more than willing to admit that harsher laws don't really have that desired effect to deter criminals from committing those crimes - but you have to admit that once deportation is on the line for immigrants (both legal and illegal), they're hopefully going to think twice before KILLING SOMEONE. I mean "think thrice", because if you're going to kill someone without a second thought, you don't deserve deportation - you deserve the death penalty.
Maybe now that we've shown that SOME City Councils out there have the balls to follow through with their decision to apply for this great federal program that cuts down on the red tape and paperwork, we can get some other cities with high illegal immigration populations to apply for it as well.
This is a trend that needs some momentum, and we need to keep it going bigger and stronger. Maybe someday major cities like Chicago will be able to participate and we can finally start ENFORCING the laws that ALREADY EXIST!
Write your City Council! Tell them to apply for 287(g) and get your local law enforcement this training program!
An article ringing in the good news! Read more!
Back to Waukegan - Voting AGAIN?
This is just ridiculous. I thought I could be proud of Waukegan, a city so close to the metropolis of Chicago where I live, for voting 7-2 a while back to approve the application process for federal training for their law enforcement to gain the ability to deport illegal immigrants. And it turns out that they caved in to the protesters and nay-sayers and "scared Latino community" and there's actually going to be a re-vote.
If Waukegan's City Councilmen wind up changing their vote as a result of protests and claims of "racial profiling" - they no longer deserve to be aldermen.
Here's the deal, people. This vote doesn't mean that all of the police get to go around and bust into your house and demand to see a green card or they're kicking your ass out to Honduras or Mexico or wherever you're from. This vote doesn't even mean that the local law enforcement officers are going to be trained at all! This vote is about filling out a freakin' application!
Guess what? The federal government could say "no" to them!
Furthermore, if the application goes through, it's not even like every cop is going to have this power and they're all gonna be on the lookout for anyone darker than Screech from Saved by the Bell so they can harass and deport on sight. The application is to get federal training in deportation for TWO OFFICERS. Which means that there wouldn't be a lynch mob roaming the streets looking for anyone speaking Spanish. It means that when a criminal gets arrested for a serious crime and turns out to be an illegal immigrant, instead of having to send notification to the I.C.E. in Washington D.C. and having to wait for paperwork to get filed, which is often too late - now they can start that paperwork at the source, in the local police agency.
It's to get rid of criminals who are AGAIN breaking the law - first by entering our country illegally, and then by committing another heinous crime against our citizens and getting caught for it.
But the Latino community is still in an uproar. "They're going to racially profile us," I can hear them whine.
Hey! If you're here legally - and you're not breaking the law by committing violent crimes - you've got NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT! The fact that thousands of Latinos are signing these petitions and complaining means their either they're too dumb to realize that if they don't break the law, they're not going to be arrested and deported - or they're mostly comprised of criminals because they're here illegally and they don't want anyone to catch them and deport them for it!
Every time there's a possibility for a law to catch a new group of criminals, look at those who are against it. There's a good chance those people are against it because they're going to be found guilty of it - which means they have the most to lose.
That's not racially profiling. That's LOGIC.
The Waukegan City Hall only has enough seating for a few hundred people. Over a thousand are expected to show up in protest. Only those people with tickets are going to be allowed in.
I say - they should have to have a ticket and a GREEN CARD or other proof of citizenship.
Only the legal citizens of a city should be allowed to help decide how their city is governed and ruled and protected. You can't let the criminals make the laws; there wouldn't be any.
I support 287(g) and call upon the City Council of Waukegan to make the right decision.
The one they already made.
A few articles about the vote tonight:
This article
And this article
Okay, one more article
Read more!
If Waukegan's City Councilmen wind up changing their vote as a result of protests and claims of "racial profiling" - they no longer deserve to be aldermen.
Here's the deal, people. This vote doesn't mean that all of the police get to go around and bust into your house and demand to see a green card or they're kicking your ass out to Honduras or Mexico or wherever you're from. This vote doesn't even mean that the local law enforcement officers are going to be trained at all! This vote is about filling out a freakin' application!
Guess what? The federal government could say "no" to them!
Furthermore, if the application goes through, it's not even like every cop is going to have this power and they're all gonna be on the lookout for anyone darker than Screech from Saved by the Bell so they can harass and deport on sight. The application is to get federal training in deportation for TWO OFFICERS. Which means that there wouldn't be a lynch mob roaming the streets looking for anyone speaking Spanish. It means that when a criminal gets arrested for a serious crime and turns out to be an illegal immigrant, instead of having to send notification to the I.C.E. in Washington D.C. and having to wait for paperwork to get filed, which is often too late - now they can start that paperwork at the source, in the local police agency.
It's to get rid of criminals who are AGAIN breaking the law - first by entering our country illegally, and then by committing another heinous crime against our citizens and getting caught for it.
But the Latino community is still in an uproar. "They're going to racially profile us," I can hear them whine.
Hey! If you're here legally - and you're not breaking the law by committing violent crimes - you've got NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT! The fact that thousands of Latinos are signing these petitions and complaining means their either they're too dumb to realize that if they don't break the law, they're not going to be arrested and deported - or they're mostly comprised of criminals because they're here illegally and they don't want anyone to catch them and deport them for it!
Every time there's a possibility for a law to catch a new group of criminals, look at those who are against it. There's a good chance those people are against it because they're going to be found guilty of it - which means they have the most to lose.
That's not racially profiling. That's LOGIC.
The Waukegan City Hall only has enough seating for a few hundred people. Over a thousand are expected to show up in protest. Only those people with tickets are going to be allowed in.
I say - they should have to have a ticket and a GREEN CARD or other proof of citizenship.
Only the legal citizens of a city should be allowed to help decide how their city is governed and ruled and protected. You can't let the criminals make the laws; there wouldn't be any.
I support 287(g) and call upon the City Council of Waukegan to make the right decision.
The one they already made.
A few articles about the vote tonight:
This article
And this article
Okay, one more article
Read more!
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Chicago Cabbies Suck Out Loud - And It Costs Them!
It's only July, but cab drivers here in Chicago have already amassed 2,600 citations for the year - bringing in a total of $280,246 in fines as revenue for the city. These citations and fines come from a variety of reasons, such as unclean/damaged vehicles, reckless driving, abusive behavior and my personal pet peeve, talking on cell phones. That's right, cab drivers in Chicago are NOT allowed to use cell phones while driving, even if they use a hands-free device to do so. It's against the law, and if a call is made to complain about a driver talking on a cell phone, that's a $200 citation and a 5-day license suspension for the first offense. A second offense results in a $750 fine and 29 days of suspension.
If you think I'm here to complain about the "harsh penalties" and rally in favor of cabbies - you're dead wrong.
I'm calling the citizens of Chicago to unite and TAKE ACTION and get more of these citations going!
These are the strings that came attached to a cab rate hike that was given to the cabbies in 2005. City Hall allowed for what amounts to an 11.7% rate increase based on things like the base fare, additional passengers and the general per-mile rate. In return, drivers got a few added sanctions to make sure that the rate increase was worth it to the customers. They can be cited and fined for everything from a bad attitude to an untidy cab to letting a non-cabbie drive the cab. And, of course, talking on a cell phone. Here's a rundown of the citation count, revenue generated and average cost per citation as of June:
Discourtesy - 1,197 citations - $83,030 in fines (Average: $69 each)
Reckless Driving - 1,086 citations - $39,696 in fines (Average: $37 each)
Operating Unclean/Damaged Vehicles - 227 citations - $19,015 in fines (Average: $84 each)
Cell Phone Use - 150 citations - $13,790 in fines (Average: $92 each)
Abusive Behavior - 139 citations - $12,779 in fines (Average: $92 each)
Overcharging Customers - 39 citations - $2,580 in fines (Average: 66 each)
Allowing a Non-Licensed Public Chauffeur to Operate the Cab - 49 citations - $8,325 in fines (Average: $170 each)
Only 150 citations for cell phone usage?? I had never known that you could simply call 311 with the cab number to file a complaint about cab drivers using their cell-phones, even if they're hands-free, to get one of these citations issued (and get them suspended for 5 days). If I had called in every cabbie this year alone that I watched talking on a cell phone - just the ones I've been IN this year - that number could probably have already hit 200.
That's why I'm encouraging ANYONE in Chicago who uses a taxi to be vigilant and start calling these in. I'd held off because while I knew it was wrong for a driver to use a cell phone while driving, I had no idea that the hands-free was also illegal when it comes to cabbies, and the punishment that gets doled out as a result of a complaint. Now that I know this is a Chicago fact, as well as HOW to report these cabbies (best done through 311 and not the taxi's service number printed in the taxi) - I'm going to start.
We need a change. Cabbies are already reportedly on the march about raising the fare by another 10% due to "rising gas prices" - foolishly not realizing that higher gas prices means people are more likely to take a cab rather than drive, which gives them more business and more opportunities to make money. Let's try and get them to adhere to the sanctions they agreed to back in 2005 for the LAST rate hike before we even consider for one nanosecond the idea of raising their rates.
After all, what's the point of raising the rates to use a taxi if they're just going to keep giving more and more of it back to the government to pay for all of their citations for breaking their sanctions?
The original article with the numbers Read more!
If you think I'm here to complain about the "harsh penalties" and rally in favor of cabbies - you're dead wrong.
I'm calling the citizens of Chicago to unite and TAKE ACTION and get more of these citations going!
These are the strings that came attached to a cab rate hike that was given to the cabbies in 2005. City Hall allowed for what amounts to an 11.7% rate increase based on things like the base fare, additional passengers and the general per-mile rate. In return, drivers got a few added sanctions to make sure that the rate increase was worth it to the customers. They can be cited and fined for everything from a bad attitude to an untidy cab to letting a non-cabbie drive the cab. And, of course, talking on a cell phone. Here's a rundown of the citation count, revenue generated and average cost per citation as of June:
Discourtesy - 1,197 citations - $83,030 in fines (Average: $69 each)
Reckless Driving - 1,086 citations - $39,696 in fines (Average: $37 each)
Operating Unclean/Damaged Vehicles - 227 citations - $19,015 in fines (Average: $84 each)
Cell Phone Use - 150 citations - $13,790 in fines (Average: $92 each)
Abusive Behavior - 139 citations - $12,779 in fines (Average: $92 each)
Overcharging Customers - 39 citations - $2,580 in fines (Average: 66 each)
Allowing a Non-Licensed Public Chauffeur to Operate the Cab - 49 citations - $8,325 in fines (Average: $170 each)
Only 150 citations for cell phone usage?? I had never known that you could simply call 311 with the cab number to file a complaint about cab drivers using their cell-phones, even if they're hands-free, to get one of these citations issued (and get them suspended for 5 days). If I had called in every cabbie this year alone that I watched talking on a cell phone - just the ones I've been IN this year - that number could probably have already hit 200.
That's why I'm encouraging ANYONE in Chicago who uses a taxi to be vigilant and start calling these in. I'd held off because while I knew it was wrong for a driver to use a cell phone while driving, I had no idea that the hands-free was also illegal when it comes to cabbies, and the punishment that gets doled out as a result of a complaint. Now that I know this is a Chicago fact, as well as HOW to report these cabbies (best done through 311 and not the taxi's service number printed in the taxi) - I'm going to start.
We need a change. Cabbies are already reportedly on the march about raising the fare by another 10% due to "rising gas prices" - foolishly not realizing that higher gas prices means people are more likely to take a cab rather than drive, which gives them more business and more opportunities to make money. Let's try and get them to adhere to the sanctions they agreed to back in 2005 for the LAST rate hike before we even consider for one nanosecond the idea of raising their rates.
After all, what's the point of raising the rates to use a taxi if they're just going to keep giving more and more of it back to the government to pay for all of their citations for breaking their sanctions?
The original article with the numbers Read more!
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Wal-Mart and Life Insurance
Karen Armatrout died in 1997. She was an employee of Wal-Mart at the time. Earlier, and without Karen's knowledge, Wal-Mart took out a life insurance policy on her. When she died in 1997, Wal-Mart collected on the insurance money. As it turns out, Wal-Mart has placed life insurance policies on about 350,000 of their employees. Michael Myers (no relation to the horror-movie character or Canadian actor), an attorney in Texas, estimates that Wal-Mart collected on the life insurance of 75 to 100 policies taken out on Florida employees. He's trying to turn Armatrout's case into a class-action lawsuit.
Wal-Mart filed for these life insurance policies back in 1993, for all of their full-time employees between the ages of 18 and 70 who were taking part in the medical benefits program. They were supposedly given notification and the opportunity to opt out. They stopped taking out the policies in 1995, and due to the fact that they were losing money with this program, canceled the policies in 2000.
So here's where judge and jury will step into it - was there wrongdoing? Who's to blame if there was?
I say Wal-Mart is not at all at fault here. I'm not even seeing fault in the first place, except possibly with the insurance companies selling the life insurance policies. The whole problem people seem to be finding with Wal-Mart in this case is I guess either that the employees didn't know about the policies, or that they think Wal-Mart is trying to "profit off the deaths of others" or something.
First off, they obviously didn't profit from this venture, which is why they canceled all of their outstanding policies in 2000. I can completely understand where Wal-Mart is coming from with having them in the first place. I started working for this company about a year ago. When they hired me, on my first day we went into the conference room (there was another guy hired at the same time) and the boss pretty much went over the company policies with us. One thing he mentioned is that the company is going to do everything they can to make sure we stay in these jobs. It's not a matter of "one complaint and you're out" or threatening firings if numbers start slipping. He made us aware of how much money is spent on advertising for the open positions, the time spent by employees to interview when they could be doing other profitable things, and the time spent training someone new - not to mention the profit lost in these positions which were empty between the last person leaving and one of us filling that spot.
Employees are expensive to obtain, train, and even more expensive then lost. I've clawed my way up in this business, though more laterally than vertically. I'm by no means a supervisor or manager, but I now have knowledge of many things in the company, and have a lot of people reliant on my work and the information I know and the files I keep. I finally feel that I have job security because firing me would be losing so much information, having to start over on huge deals and projects, and training a full replacement would either take several months or several new hires.
That in mind, if I were to die - the company would still be out lots of money. Why wouldn't they consider a life insurance policy on me? Or rather - the idea of one. I'm not sure if my value to the company is really worth a life insurance package, but in a larger scale, I can totally see it happening. Large companies take policies out on VPs and other executives. Does it really matter if the employee knows? Not really. The company wouldn't want to let them know how much or how little they're worth, and not everyone would respond calmly to finding out their dead body is now worth money.
Which brings us to the policy-sellers. I don't know much about life insurance policies or that entire industry at all. I don't know how legal it is to have a policy on someone without their signature. I would think that a policy on my head would be something I would have to sign off on. My realist logic, though, says that is probably not the case. I don't have to know who's profiting from my death - it's their insurance, anyway. If I were a director of a movie, I could see myself maybe taking out a policy on an actor or something. If I stand to lose money based on someone dying - I don't care if you personally know them or not, you'd want that investment to be safe. Life insurance doesn't sound like a bad idea.
Do I really see a lawsuit here? No.
I just see an overreacting and emotional loved one who's lashing out at someone who seems better off in some way as a result of that person dying. And if they want it as a class-action lawsuit, it's just a larger number of emotional people.
The company didn't profit. It just helped cushion the blow of the financial burden of rehiring and money lost as a result of that employee's death. Families take out policies on loved ones to help pay for the financial burden of funeral costs. A decrease in sales and interviewing schedules and training programs are the funeral costs to a company - they should have the right to take out policies to help with their burdens as well.
Of course, I could be wrong. I don't know the whole legal aspect of it all. I'm just a person making logical assumptions and what my brain thinks is right and wrong. Let me know if you think otherwise or have more information on the legality of it all.
The original article Read more!
Wal-Mart filed for these life insurance policies back in 1993, for all of their full-time employees between the ages of 18 and 70 who were taking part in the medical benefits program. They were supposedly given notification and the opportunity to opt out. They stopped taking out the policies in 1995, and due to the fact that they were losing money with this program, canceled the policies in 2000.
So here's where judge and jury will step into it - was there wrongdoing? Who's to blame if there was?
I say Wal-Mart is not at all at fault here. I'm not even seeing fault in the first place, except possibly with the insurance companies selling the life insurance policies. The whole problem people seem to be finding with Wal-Mart in this case is I guess either that the employees didn't know about the policies, or that they think Wal-Mart is trying to "profit off the deaths of others" or something.
First off, they obviously didn't profit from this venture, which is why they canceled all of their outstanding policies in 2000. I can completely understand where Wal-Mart is coming from with having them in the first place. I started working for this company about a year ago. When they hired me, on my first day we went into the conference room (there was another guy hired at the same time) and the boss pretty much went over the company policies with us. One thing he mentioned is that the company is going to do everything they can to make sure we stay in these jobs. It's not a matter of "one complaint and you're out" or threatening firings if numbers start slipping. He made us aware of how much money is spent on advertising for the open positions, the time spent by employees to interview when they could be doing other profitable things, and the time spent training someone new - not to mention the profit lost in these positions which were empty between the last person leaving and one of us filling that spot.
Employees are expensive to obtain, train, and even more expensive then lost. I've clawed my way up in this business, though more laterally than vertically. I'm by no means a supervisor or manager, but I now have knowledge of many things in the company, and have a lot of people reliant on my work and the information I know and the files I keep. I finally feel that I have job security because firing me would be losing so much information, having to start over on huge deals and projects, and training a full replacement would either take several months or several new hires.
That in mind, if I were to die - the company would still be out lots of money. Why wouldn't they consider a life insurance policy on me? Or rather - the idea of one. I'm not sure if my value to the company is really worth a life insurance package, but in a larger scale, I can totally see it happening. Large companies take policies out on VPs and other executives. Does it really matter if the employee knows? Not really. The company wouldn't want to let them know how much or how little they're worth, and not everyone would respond calmly to finding out their dead body is now worth money.
Which brings us to the policy-sellers. I don't know much about life insurance policies or that entire industry at all. I don't know how legal it is to have a policy on someone without their signature. I would think that a policy on my head would be something I would have to sign off on. My realist logic, though, says that is probably not the case. I don't have to know who's profiting from my death - it's their insurance, anyway. If I were a director of a movie, I could see myself maybe taking out a policy on an actor or something. If I stand to lose money based on someone dying - I don't care if you personally know them or not, you'd want that investment to be safe. Life insurance doesn't sound like a bad idea.
Do I really see a lawsuit here? No.
I just see an overreacting and emotional loved one who's lashing out at someone who seems better off in some way as a result of that person dying. And if they want it as a class-action lawsuit, it's just a larger number of emotional people.
The company didn't profit. It just helped cushion the blow of the financial burden of rehiring and money lost as a result of that employee's death. Families take out policies on loved ones to help pay for the financial burden of funeral costs. A decrease in sales and interviewing schedules and training programs are the funeral costs to a company - they should have the right to take out policies to help with their burdens as well.
Of course, I could be wrong. I don't know the whole legal aspect of it all. I'm just a person making logical assumptions and what my brain thinks is right and wrong. Let me know if you think otherwise or have more information on the legality of it all.
The original article Read more!
Sunday, July 01, 2007
Meat-Eaters Deserve the Tax Breaks!
Everybody poops.
It's such a well-known fact, they actually made a book with that title. Well, the creation of the book is more for toilet-training purposes, but the fact remains. A corollary to that fact would have to be the statement that "everybody farts" as well. Which is where our story really focuses. It's a fact that you do have to keep in mind - not that everybody poops, mind you, but that everybody farts. The follow-up fact to that is that while everybody does indeed fart, NOT everybody's farts contain methane gas. You have to keep that fact in mind as well, because there's a big to-do about methane gas in the world today. It's apparently one of those huge factors in greenhouse effects and global warming - those things that everyone seems to be taking very seriously.
So seriously, in fact, that they got TAXES involved in it. And nothing could be more serious than taxes. So even though we're talking about farts, let's try to keep our serious faces on. I know mine is certainly on, because I am taking on my old nemesis, PETA, with these facts that I actually did research and had to use mathematics!
This whole ordeal started about a month ago, when I read a letter from Ingrid Newkirk addressed to Washington D.C. politicos saying that just as hybrid car-buyers are getting a tax break, vegetarians deserve a tax break as well.
That's how it all started. PETA's president decided to compare the ecological benefits of purchasing a hybrid car (as opposed to a "gas-guzzler") to the supposed ecological benefits of eating vegetables (or rather "not eating meat" - since I know vegetarians don't actually have to eat vegetables, they just don't eat meat). Newkirk got this particular bee in her bonnet after the U.N. released a study saying that the cattle industry (or rather the collective of "large ruminants", which are animals with four stomachs) is the biggest producer of methane gas in the United States.
That's what the study said. I'm not going to refute their research or their study. Not at all. The first stomach of four in ruminants is where a lot of methane gets created, and cows are known for releasing methane gas. Just keep in mind that everybody farts, and human farts can contain methane as well. Trust me, it'll come back up later, I promise. I believe the study said that the American cattle industry produces 5.5 million metric tons of methane gas. Okay, that's our number one producer of methane, we admit it. So where does Newkirk take this fact?
She says that because vegetarians DON'T eat meat, they're NOT contributing to this "number one problem" and therefore deserve a tax break. Never mind the fact that it would be impossible to prove for a fact that one is a vegetarian (she suggests sales receipts that show no meat, which could easily be the one shopping trip you take that DIDN'T involve beef galore) - that's the entire basis behind her "vegetarians deserve a tax break" argument.
Now it's time to prove how backwards her logic really is.
Okay, so all of these cows produce a lot of methane. According to PETA, they'd love to see all of these animals roam free, rather than be cooped up, bred, and then slaughtered for their delicious tasty meat (or their lovely skin, or precious tallow, or everything else you can do with a dead cow - and that's a lot, just ask a Native American, since I'm told they were able to find a use for every single part of what they killed). So thanks to PETA, now only are we not EATING the cows, but they're free to roam, have sex, and have baby cows, and thus we still have a helluva lot of cows, farting and producing their deadly methane.
Smooth move, Ingrid. You've killed us all. I'm pretty sure that "killing us all" was never tax-deductible.
Do you know what omnivores like myself and the rest of the meat-eating population do? We eat cows. Which means we make cows dead. Do you know what dead cows don't do? They don't fart or produce methane gas. They just provide us with tasty eats. You know what foods humans eat does NOT produce methane? Meats. In fact, the more meat you eat, the less methane you produce, and the less chance you have of producing methane at all whilst farting. Which everyone does. (Glad you remembered!)
Seems to ME that the one who's doing the most to bring down the level of cow-produced methane gas would be the people killing cows and eating them. That's US, the meat-eating omnivores. Not YOU, the vegetarians. Seems like WE're the ones who deserve the tax break, which we could easily prove with sales receipts because they'd SHOW we eat meat and are killing all those pesky methane-producing cows!
I eat cows - to save the planet. (I should really make a T-shirt that says that. Or maybe "EAT A STEAK - SAVE THE WORLD" or something.)
Now that I've thoroughly put down Ingrid Newkirk's plan to get PETA members tax breaks and stolen those ill-gotten tax breaks for the meat-eating crowd like myself, it's time we kept pressing forward. PETA thinks they're the only ones who can find research, twist it completely, and prove a horrible point for their cause. Well, Newkirk - TWO can play at that game! It took me a while, but I finally got a lot of questions answered about human flatulence and what levels of methane WE produce as non-ruminant mammals. It's true - we don't produce NEARLY the levels of methane as our four-stomached dinners, but I stumbled across some information that was VERY interesting.
Remember how I told you that while everybody farts, not everyone produces methane gas?
Good. Here's where the fun begins. It turns out that while fats and proteins produce very little gas and little chance of methane - the highest producers of gas are things like vegetables, fruits, beans, whole wheat, bran and diet foods that contain sorbitol. Things that vegetarians like to eat! There was a study I found that was about testing the isotopes of methane to see if human-produced methane had a "fingerprint" to discern it from environmental methane. The real interesting part of the experiment was the unintended result that the colonic methane gas of omnivores was on average 4,000 times less than the colonic methane gas of vegetarians.
Let me repeat: the average methane production in an omnivore was 15 parts-per-million, and in a vegetarian it was 60,000 parts-per-million.
Not only was the methane concentration higher, but a vegetarian diet, as I just mentioned, contains many more gas-producing foods. The average human produces between 0.5 and 1.5 liters of colonic gas every day, and farts between 10 and 20 times a day. Let's say that the average human with the average diet produces the average amount of gas each day, so about 1 liter. The average vegetarian produces gas on the higher end of the spectrum, so let's guess 1.5 liters per day.
Here's where the math comes in. I'll make it quick for you.
One liter of gas weighs about 1.3 grams, or 0.0013 grams.
One one-millionth of that (parts-per-million) is 0.0000000013 kilograms.
We factor in the 1 liter for an omnivore, 1.5 liters for a vegetarian, and the respective methane gas parts-per-million, and we get:
Daily methane for an omnivore: 0.0000000195 kg
Daily methane for vegetarians: 0.000117 kg
Annual methane for an omnivore: 0.0000071175 kg
Annual methane for vegetarians: 0.042705 kg
Now then, we've got about 6.6 billion people living on the Earth nowadays (give or take a few million). Let's assume that a worst-case scenario is that PETA wins and everyone in the world is now a vegetarian. (That's right, Newkirk, that's the WORST-case scenario!) Or the best-case scenario is that everyone who reads this article winds up either convincing every vegetarian on the planet to eat meat (or just kills them). Either way, best-case scenario is 0% vegetarian, worst-case is 100% vegetarian. Let's see what happens to the precious planet now!
Annual methane production worldwide if all were omnivorous: 46,976 kg
Annual methane production worldwide if all were vegetarian: 281,853,000 kg
(This "metric ton" that the U.N. report uses is 1,000 kilograms, so:)
Annual methane production worldwide if all were omnivorous: 47 metric tons
Annual methane production worldwide if all were vegetarian: 281,853 metric tons
Smooth move, Ingrid. You've once again killed us all.
Okay, in reality even 281,853 metric tons can't compare to the 5.5 million metric tons produced by the cattle industry. That's why I made the previous point about how we omnivores are working to kill and eat those global-warming bovines. PETA would rather let them all roam free and never pay for their environment-destroying flatulence. I don't believe in "ruminant amnesty" programs. I say they all get rounded up and deported - to my stomach.
But doesn't that math prove the point that vegetarians are through and through more a danger on the methane scale? They produce more in parts-per-million, eat more foods that produce that deadlier colonic gas, and are doing everything to STOP killing the main cause of the United States's methane problem! I say it's meat-eaters who deserve the tax breaks! PETA and Newkirk can go suck a fart-inducing carrot!
EAT A STEAK - SAVE THE WORLD!
(Yea, THAT'S the T-shirt I need! Too bad it's hard to print all of the rest of this math on the shirt that proves the point. Oh well, at least you read it and if you buy the shirt, you could at least inform all those who question the logic.)
Here are some of my resources:
PETA's backwards-logic letter asking for vegetarian tax breaks
Vegetarian diets produce more gas
Vegetarians produce more methane
That lousy study attacking the cattle industry
Check back, because I may have a link to buy a T-shirt very soon!
In fact, Check out my store! I'll add more later, after some polling!
Read more!
It's such a well-known fact, they actually made a book with that title. Well, the creation of the book is more for toilet-training purposes, but the fact remains. A corollary to that fact would have to be the statement that "everybody farts" as well. Which is where our story really focuses. It's a fact that you do have to keep in mind - not that everybody poops, mind you, but that everybody farts. The follow-up fact to that is that while everybody does indeed fart, NOT everybody's farts contain methane gas. You have to keep that fact in mind as well, because there's a big to-do about methane gas in the world today. It's apparently one of those huge factors in greenhouse effects and global warming - those things that everyone seems to be taking very seriously.
So seriously, in fact, that they got TAXES involved in it. And nothing could be more serious than taxes. So even though we're talking about farts, let's try to keep our serious faces on. I know mine is certainly on, because I am taking on my old nemesis, PETA, with these facts that I actually did research and had to use mathematics!
This whole ordeal started about a month ago, when I read a letter from Ingrid Newkirk addressed to Washington D.C. politicos saying that just as hybrid car-buyers are getting a tax break, vegetarians deserve a tax break as well.
That's how it all started. PETA's president decided to compare the ecological benefits of purchasing a hybrid car (as opposed to a "gas-guzzler") to the supposed ecological benefits of eating vegetables (or rather "not eating meat" - since I know vegetarians don't actually have to eat vegetables, they just don't eat meat). Newkirk got this particular bee in her bonnet after the U.N. released a study saying that the cattle industry (or rather the collective of "large ruminants", which are animals with four stomachs) is the biggest producer of methane gas in the United States.
That's what the study said. I'm not going to refute their research or their study. Not at all. The first stomach of four in ruminants is where a lot of methane gets created, and cows are known for releasing methane gas. Just keep in mind that everybody farts, and human farts can contain methane as well. Trust me, it'll come back up later, I promise. I believe the study said that the American cattle industry produces 5.5 million metric tons of methane gas. Okay, that's our number one producer of methane, we admit it. So where does Newkirk take this fact?
She says that because vegetarians DON'T eat meat, they're NOT contributing to this "number one problem" and therefore deserve a tax break. Never mind the fact that it would be impossible to prove for a fact that one is a vegetarian (she suggests sales receipts that show no meat, which could easily be the one shopping trip you take that DIDN'T involve beef galore) - that's the entire basis behind her "vegetarians deserve a tax break" argument.
Now it's time to prove how backwards her logic really is.
Okay, so all of these cows produce a lot of methane. According to PETA, they'd love to see all of these animals roam free, rather than be cooped up, bred, and then slaughtered for their delicious tasty meat (or their lovely skin, or precious tallow, or everything else you can do with a dead cow - and that's a lot, just ask a Native American, since I'm told they were able to find a use for every single part of what they killed). So thanks to PETA, now only are we not EATING the cows, but they're free to roam, have sex, and have baby cows, and thus we still have a helluva lot of cows, farting and producing their deadly methane.
Smooth move, Ingrid. You've killed us all. I'm pretty sure that "killing us all" was never tax-deductible.
Do you know what omnivores like myself and the rest of the meat-eating population do? We eat cows. Which means we make cows dead. Do you know what dead cows don't do? They don't fart or produce methane gas. They just provide us with tasty eats. You know what foods humans eat does NOT produce methane? Meats. In fact, the more meat you eat, the less methane you produce, and the less chance you have of producing methane at all whilst farting. Which everyone does. (Glad you remembered!)
Seems to ME that the one who's doing the most to bring down the level of cow-produced methane gas would be the people killing cows and eating them. That's US, the meat-eating omnivores. Not YOU, the vegetarians. Seems like WE're the ones who deserve the tax break, which we could easily prove with sales receipts because they'd SHOW we eat meat and are killing all those pesky methane-producing cows!
I eat cows - to save the planet. (I should really make a T-shirt that says that. Or maybe "EAT A STEAK - SAVE THE WORLD" or something.)
Now that I've thoroughly put down Ingrid Newkirk's plan to get PETA members tax breaks and stolen those ill-gotten tax breaks for the meat-eating crowd like myself, it's time we kept pressing forward. PETA thinks they're the only ones who can find research, twist it completely, and prove a horrible point for their cause. Well, Newkirk - TWO can play at that game! It took me a while, but I finally got a lot of questions answered about human flatulence and what levels of methane WE produce as non-ruminant mammals. It's true - we don't produce NEARLY the levels of methane as our four-stomached dinners, but I stumbled across some information that was VERY interesting.
Remember how I told you that while everybody farts, not everyone produces methane gas?
Good. Here's where the fun begins. It turns out that while fats and proteins produce very little gas and little chance of methane - the highest producers of gas are things like vegetables, fruits, beans, whole wheat, bran and diet foods that contain sorbitol. Things that vegetarians like to eat! There was a study I found that was about testing the isotopes of methane to see if human-produced methane had a "fingerprint" to discern it from environmental methane. The real interesting part of the experiment was the unintended result that the colonic methane gas of omnivores was on average 4,000 times less than the colonic methane gas of vegetarians.
Let me repeat: the average methane production in an omnivore was 15 parts-per-million, and in a vegetarian it was 60,000 parts-per-million.
Not only was the methane concentration higher, but a vegetarian diet, as I just mentioned, contains many more gas-producing foods. The average human produces between 0.5 and 1.5 liters of colonic gas every day, and farts between 10 and 20 times a day. Let's say that the average human with the average diet produces the average amount of gas each day, so about 1 liter. The average vegetarian produces gas on the higher end of the spectrum, so let's guess 1.5 liters per day.
Here's where the math comes in. I'll make it quick for you.
One liter of gas weighs about 1.3 grams, or 0.0013 grams.
One one-millionth of that (parts-per-million) is 0.0000000013 kilograms.
We factor in the 1 liter for an omnivore, 1.5 liters for a vegetarian, and the respective methane gas parts-per-million, and we get:
Daily methane for an omnivore: 0.0000000195 kg
Daily methane for vegetarians: 0.000117 kg
Annual methane for an omnivore: 0.0000071175 kg
Annual methane for vegetarians: 0.042705 kg
Now then, we've got about 6.6 billion people living on the Earth nowadays (give or take a few million). Let's assume that a worst-case scenario is that PETA wins and everyone in the world is now a vegetarian. (That's right, Newkirk, that's the WORST-case scenario!) Or the best-case scenario is that everyone who reads this article winds up either convincing every vegetarian on the planet to eat meat (or just kills them). Either way, best-case scenario is 0% vegetarian, worst-case is 100% vegetarian. Let's see what happens to the precious planet now!
Annual methane production worldwide if all were omnivorous: 46,976 kg
Annual methane production worldwide if all were vegetarian: 281,853,000 kg
(This "metric ton" that the U.N. report uses is 1,000 kilograms, so:)
Annual methane production worldwide if all were omnivorous: 47 metric tons
Annual methane production worldwide if all were vegetarian: 281,853 metric tons
Smooth move, Ingrid. You've once again killed us all.
Okay, in reality even 281,853 metric tons can't compare to the 5.5 million metric tons produced by the cattle industry. That's why I made the previous point about how we omnivores are working to kill and eat those global-warming bovines. PETA would rather let them all roam free and never pay for their environment-destroying flatulence. I don't believe in "ruminant amnesty" programs. I say they all get rounded up and deported - to my stomach.
But doesn't that math prove the point that vegetarians are through and through more a danger on the methane scale? They produce more in parts-per-million, eat more foods that produce that deadlier colonic gas, and are doing everything to STOP killing the main cause of the United States's methane problem! I say it's meat-eaters who deserve the tax breaks! PETA and Newkirk can go suck a fart-inducing carrot!
EAT A STEAK - SAVE THE WORLD!
(Yea, THAT'S the T-shirt I need! Too bad it's hard to print all of the rest of this math on the shirt that proves the point. Oh well, at least you read it and if you buy the shirt, you could at least inform all those who question the logic.)
Here are some of my resources:
PETA's backwards-logic letter asking for vegetarian tax breaks
Vegetarian diets produce more gas
Vegetarians produce more methane
That lousy study attacking the cattle industry
Check back, because I may have a link to buy a T-shirt very soon!
In fact, Check out my store! I'll add more later, after some polling!
Read more!
Friday, June 29, 2007
Advancing to a Cure for Cancer, HIV/AIDS
What a week it has certainly been for the medical field! While most were still blankly staring into the continued aftermath of the inanity of Paris Hilton finishing her jail sentence and claiming that it not only make a difference in her life, but that she wants it to make a difference in the lives of others and other Miss America contestant-like statements - scientists were working to actually MAKE A DIFFERENCE!
Mid-week, there were reports of the workings of a current possible cure for cancer.
Yes, I said "cure for cancer"! Still thinking about Paris Hilton now?? It's a freakin' CURE FOR CANCER we're talking about now - you know, actual NEWS about something IMPORTANT! While "cure for cancer" may technically be jumping the gun, when this blogger sees an article saying that scientists have been working on a vaccine to cure cancer in dogs AND it's actually working AND it has the potential to help cure it in humans as well...
That's what I'd call a step in the right direction and it warrants the use of the phrase "cure for cancer" - dog, human or otherwise!
Coco is a 13-year-old Pomeranian with malignant melanoma and Callie, a seven-year-old golden retriever, has the same cancer. Tucson Veterinary Oncologist Mary Kay Klein has been treating both dogs with an experimental Canine Melanoma Vaccine. Dr. Klein says tests have gone so well that recently the vaccine was conditionally approved for commercial use in dogs.
"Dogs are very much like people. They tend to be the same age proportionately as you and I are when they get these diseases. The diseases look the same underneath the microscope," said Klein.
Right now only cancer vets are approved to use the dog vaccine. The next step is to make it available to all vets and work on a similar human treatment is in process.
If you think THAT is a reason to jump up on a table and sing the cheers for humankind and its prosperity - there's MORE.
I just read an article today that says that scientists have a potential cure for HIV. That's right - scientists have discovered a way to remove the virus from infected cells! While it's no cure for AIDS, which is a later stage of the HIV infection, if you can cure the HIV virus, you can cure AIDS before it even happens! Just think of the implecations if this potential cure makes it that last step to an ACTUAL cure that eventually gets approved by the FDA!
Never mind the potential capitalistic nature of drug companies and how they'll poorly handle the manufacturing and marketing and sales of the drug - we could freakin' CURE HIV AND AIDS!!
The scientists engineered an enzyme which attacks the DNA of the HIV virus and cuts it out of the infected cell. The enzyme is still far from being ready to use as a treatment, but it offers a glimmer of hope for the more than 40 million people infected worldwide.
"A customized enzyme that effectively excises integrated HIV-1 from infected cells in vitro might one day help to eradicate (the) virus from AIDS patients," wrote Alan Engelman, of Harvard University's Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.
Current treatments focus on suppressing the HIV virus in order to delay the onset of AIDS and dramatically extend the life of infected patients. What makes HIV so deadly, however, is its ability to insert itself into the body's cells and force those cells to produce new infection. That enzyme was able to eliminate the HIV virus from infected human cells in about three months in the laboratory.
Okay, so the side effects are unknown thus far, and the method of using the enzyme needs to be further worked on before it can really be called a cure - but isn't this the biggest step forward we've had on the front against HIV and AIDS? Isn't this our largest push in a direction towards a cure? I say it's something to celebrate.
So earlier this week, a possible cure for cancer.
In today's news, a possible cure for HIV/AIDS.
Maybe this weekend we can finally get to work on cryogenics and subsequent immortality! Read more!
Mid-week, there were reports of the workings of a current possible cure for cancer.
Yes, I said "cure for cancer"! Still thinking about Paris Hilton now?? It's a freakin' CURE FOR CANCER we're talking about now - you know, actual NEWS about something IMPORTANT! While "cure for cancer" may technically be jumping the gun, when this blogger sees an article saying that scientists have been working on a vaccine to cure cancer in dogs AND it's actually working AND it has the potential to help cure it in humans as well...
That's what I'd call a step in the right direction and it warrants the use of the phrase "cure for cancer" - dog, human or otherwise!
Coco is a 13-year-old Pomeranian with malignant melanoma and Callie, a seven-year-old golden retriever, has the same cancer. Tucson Veterinary Oncologist Mary Kay Klein has been treating both dogs with an experimental Canine Melanoma Vaccine. Dr. Klein says tests have gone so well that recently the vaccine was conditionally approved for commercial use in dogs.
"Dogs are very much like people. They tend to be the same age proportionately as you and I are when they get these diseases. The diseases look the same underneath the microscope," said Klein.
Right now only cancer vets are approved to use the dog vaccine. The next step is to make it available to all vets and work on a similar human treatment is in process.
If you think THAT is a reason to jump up on a table and sing the cheers for humankind and its prosperity - there's MORE.
I just read an article today that says that scientists have a potential cure for HIV. That's right - scientists have discovered a way to remove the virus from infected cells! While it's no cure for AIDS, which is a later stage of the HIV infection, if you can cure the HIV virus, you can cure AIDS before it even happens! Just think of the implecations if this potential cure makes it that last step to an ACTUAL cure that eventually gets approved by the FDA!
Never mind the potential capitalistic nature of drug companies and how they'll poorly handle the manufacturing and marketing and sales of the drug - we could freakin' CURE HIV AND AIDS!!
The scientists engineered an enzyme which attacks the DNA of the HIV virus and cuts it out of the infected cell. The enzyme is still far from being ready to use as a treatment, but it offers a glimmer of hope for the more than 40 million people infected worldwide.
"A customized enzyme that effectively excises integrated HIV-1 from infected cells in vitro might one day help to eradicate (the) virus from AIDS patients," wrote Alan Engelman, of Harvard University's Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.
Current treatments focus on suppressing the HIV virus in order to delay the onset of AIDS and dramatically extend the life of infected patients. What makes HIV so deadly, however, is its ability to insert itself into the body's cells and force those cells to produce new infection. That enzyme was able to eliminate the HIV virus from infected human cells in about three months in the laboratory.
Okay, so the side effects are unknown thus far, and the method of using the enzyme needs to be further worked on before it can really be called a cure - but isn't this the biggest step forward we've had on the front against HIV and AIDS? Isn't this our largest push in a direction towards a cure? I say it's something to celebrate.
So earlier this week, a possible cure for cancer.
In today's news, a possible cure for HIV/AIDS.
Maybe this weekend we can finally get to work on cryogenics and subsequent immortality! Read more!
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Florida Sheriff Has the Right Idea
It's so simple - I can't believe we hadn't thought of it sooner. We've all seen footage of sting operations, probably on the TV show COPS, where the police will leave a car in a high-crime area with something valuable inside and then just sit back and wait for some criminal to steal it so they can arrest another criminal. Maybe you've seen it and had a thought about "entrapment", or accused them of "creating a crime" when in reality they just created a controlled opportunity for crime rather than having to wait for that person to commit a crime somewhere else.
This idea is about a hundred times better. And we have Florida Sheriff Frank McKeithen, who created the Illegal Alien Task Force. So what's the plan? Well, it's based on the classic notion of "an innocent person wouldn't do that."
The task force gets several police cars together and have them all pull up with their sirens at a construction site. Then all they have to do is see who runs.
The task force chases down the runners and if they cut through private property in the pursuit, they can charge the runner with trespassing. If the runner is hiding on property while fleeing, they also have the option of charing them with loitering. If they get into a car to get away, odds are good that reckless driving or speeding become viable options. Once they're under arrest, a quick check for green cards or other proof of citizenship can lead to the wave of notifications to I.C.E. of who they suspect of being an illegal immigrant.
You can't even accuse the police officers of "creating a crime" - because they're hunting for people who already broke the law. The only crimes being created are created by the criminals who have decided to flee from the police. And if they weren't already in trouble with the law or afraid of being deported - they'd have no reason to run.
And you can't argue that it's not working - because over 500 people have been reported to immigration officials since November by this task force. And the real target is the construction industry, due to the long-standing Florida law prohibiting employers from knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. If you're working on a site and five police cars can manage to scare away your entire work crew - your business is obviously not using proper hiring practices.
"[B]uilders are worried the crackdown will deprive them of the labor they need to take part in a building boom in which Panama City's Beach cheap spring-break motels are being torn down and replaced with high-rise condos."
Hey, builders! Try hiring CITIZENS!! Yeah, those people who are legally allowed to be employed in your state and have a much lesser chance of running away from the job site due to police sirens!
I applaud this sheriff and the Illegal Alien Task Force he created. Finally, an idea that works to help combat the rampant illegal immigration in our land. If only more local and state law enforcement officers would offer to chip in and help out the I.C.E. and get these criminals off our streets and out of our country! Read more!
This idea is about a hundred times better. And we have Florida Sheriff Frank McKeithen, who created the Illegal Alien Task Force. So what's the plan? Well, it's based on the classic notion of "an innocent person wouldn't do that."
The task force gets several police cars together and have them all pull up with their sirens at a construction site. Then all they have to do is see who runs.
The task force chases down the runners and if they cut through private property in the pursuit, they can charge the runner with trespassing. If the runner is hiding on property while fleeing, they also have the option of charing them with loitering. If they get into a car to get away, odds are good that reckless driving or speeding become viable options. Once they're under arrest, a quick check for green cards or other proof of citizenship can lead to the wave of notifications to I.C.E. of who they suspect of being an illegal immigrant.
You can't even accuse the police officers of "creating a crime" - because they're hunting for people who already broke the law. The only crimes being created are created by the criminals who have decided to flee from the police. And if they weren't already in trouble with the law or afraid of being deported - they'd have no reason to run.
And you can't argue that it's not working - because over 500 people have been reported to immigration officials since November by this task force. And the real target is the construction industry, due to the long-standing Florida law prohibiting employers from knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. If you're working on a site and five police cars can manage to scare away your entire work crew - your business is obviously not using proper hiring practices.
"[B]uilders are worried the crackdown will deprive them of the labor they need to take part in a building boom in which Panama City's Beach cheap spring-break motels are being torn down and replaced with high-rise condos."
Hey, builders! Try hiring CITIZENS!! Yeah, those people who are legally allowed to be employed in your state and have a much lesser chance of running away from the job site due to police sirens!
I applaud this sheriff and the Illegal Alien Task Force he created. Finally, an idea that works to help combat the rampant illegal immigration in our land. If only more local and state law enforcement officers would offer to chip in and help out the I.C.E. and get these criminals off our streets and out of our country! Read more!
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Waukegan Applies for Deportation Abilities
It's nice to hear some good news on the illegal immigration front. What with the amnesty bill still meandering through the upper levels of the government, it's nice to see that on a local level, there are those who haven't given in or given up in the fight against illegal immigration.
On Monday, the City Council of Waukegan voted 7-2 to authorize Police Chief William Biang to apply to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for the power to enforce federal immigration laws. City officials say that while the details have yet to be hammered out, they assure the townsfolk that this is just a measure to further stop violent criminal offenders, and further punish undocumented criminals. Mayor Richard Hyde put it bluntly: "The purpose of this is to get those who commit felonies off the street and out of the country."
Apparently the federal government allows for local law enforcement to apply for this power, which can be granted after approval, certification and training. This program has been going on since 1996 when Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. I'm sad that I'd never heard about this program. I'm certainly going to write to MY city officials and suggest it.
Of course, my city alderman are the idiots who unanimously passed a ban on foie gras, and is "highly influenced" by Alderman Burke - the moron who wants to have city drivers pay a "congestion fee" and also wants to ban a radar that makes drivers safe. I doubt a logical and sensible idea like local deportation rights would go over well.
(At least, not until 2011 when I run for City Council Alderman!!)
So here's where we get into the debate and I get to point out things in the article that riled me up enough to actually post about this. I mean, it's news enough to hear about a fight in your backyard for a cause you actually believe in - but the idiocy of those against it just boggles the mind sometimes.
"Long a predominantly white, working-class city, Waukegan has seen an influx of immigrants from Mexico and other Central American countries in recent decades. According to 2005 U.S. census estimates, 38,000 to 50,000 of the city's 91,000 residents are Hispanic or Latino. Authorities don't have a good estimate as to how many undocumented immigrants live in the city." . . . "[Alderman] Cunningham objected because it could lead to racial profiling."
Yea, do the math. The huge influx of immigrants, many probably illegal, are from Mexico and other countries where Hispanic/Latino is the primary race. Do you really think the white guys are going to get asked to show proof of citizenship? The black guys not mentioned in the statistics? Or do you think it's going to be the huge number of Mexicans being asked to show that they're not illegally in the country?
It's not racial profiling. It's called MATH. And LOGIC.
Margaret Carrasco, 47, a former mayoral candidate, said there are some who 'will see this as a license to hunt down immigrants. Is that the society that we want?' She said the program would make law-abiding immigrants reluctant to call police to report crimes for fear that they would be arrested for being undocumented.
Hey, Margaret! I think we DO want a society that actively removes criminals from itself! I think a society that's able to govern itself by identifying those that are illegally in that society and then kicking them OUT of that society - that's a society I want to be a part of. Margaret Carrasco would apparently rather have a society that says, "Oh, there's a rapist on the loose somewhere in town - no big rush or importance catching this sex offender." Is illegal immigration on the same level as rape? Maybe not. But if the rapist is an illegal immigrant, and this policy is geared to deport undocumented violent criminals, then I feel safe in making that leap.
Oh, and did anyone else cringe at the stupidity of her reference to undocumented immigrants being "law-abiding"?
HEY! Being an undocumented immigrant is what's known as "illegal immigration" and that means you DIDN'T abide by the law. It means you BROKE the law. Again, this magical thing called LOGIC. I'm so sorry that you apparently never took (or slept through) Common Sense 101 in school. I've heard a lot of lessons on sanity and rational thinking get taught there.
This application, if approved, would allow the local law enforcement to just hurry along the process. Instead of having to wait on the federal I.C.E. agents after busting several illegal immigrants involved in a drug-trafficking ring, the police officers would be able to start the deportation paperwork themselves and save time in the process. Yes, if you're illegally here, and you commit a crime, the police should be informing I.C.E. and deporting you. Unfortunately, this process takes too long with not enough federal agents, and these criminals slip through the cracks or something else happens and the opportunity to deport them is lost.
Let's not allow that to happen any more. Please write to your City Council aldermen and tell them to apply for the power to enforce this federal law.
Especially if you're in Chicago, like me. Every city applying for this power is another step towards finally being able to properly enforce the immigration laws we already have - before our government winds up screwing us all over with an amnesty bill. Read more!
On Monday, the City Council of Waukegan voted 7-2 to authorize Police Chief William Biang to apply to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for the power to enforce federal immigration laws. City officials say that while the details have yet to be hammered out, they assure the townsfolk that this is just a measure to further stop violent criminal offenders, and further punish undocumented criminals. Mayor Richard Hyde put it bluntly: "The purpose of this is to get those who commit felonies off the street and out of the country."
Apparently the federal government allows for local law enforcement to apply for this power, which can be granted after approval, certification and training. This program has been going on since 1996 when Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. I'm sad that I'd never heard about this program. I'm certainly going to write to MY city officials and suggest it.
Of course, my city alderman are the idiots who unanimously passed a ban on foie gras, and is "highly influenced" by Alderman Burke - the moron who wants to have city drivers pay a "congestion fee" and also wants to ban a radar that makes drivers safe. I doubt a logical and sensible idea like local deportation rights would go over well.
(At least, not until 2011 when I run for City Council Alderman!!)
So here's where we get into the debate and I get to point out things in the article that riled me up enough to actually post about this. I mean, it's news enough to hear about a fight in your backyard for a cause you actually believe in - but the idiocy of those against it just boggles the mind sometimes.
"Long a predominantly white, working-class city, Waukegan has seen an influx of immigrants from Mexico and other Central American countries in recent decades. According to 2005 U.S. census estimates, 38,000 to 50,000 of the city's 91,000 residents are Hispanic or Latino. Authorities don't have a good estimate as to how many undocumented immigrants live in the city." . . . "[Alderman] Cunningham objected because it could lead to racial profiling."
Yea, do the math. The huge influx of immigrants, many probably illegal, are from Mexico and other countries where Hispanic/Latino is the primary race. Do you really think the white guys are going to get asked to show proof of citizenship? The black guys not mentioned in the statistics? Or do you think it's going to be the huge number of Mexicans being asked to show that they're not illegally in the country?
It's not racial profiling. It's called MATH. And LOGIC.
Margaret Carrasco, 47, a former mayoral candidate, said there are some who 'will see this as a license to hunt down immigrants. Is that the society that we want?' She said the program would make law-abiding immigrants reluctant to call police to report crimes for fear that they would be arrested for being undocumented.
Hey, Margaret! I think we DO want a society that actively removes criminals from itself! I think a society that's able to govern itself by identifying those that are illegally in that society and then kicking them OUT of that society - that's a society I want to be a part of. Margaret Carrasco would apparently rather have a society that says, "Oh, there's a rapist on the loose somewhere in town - no big rush or importance catching this sex offender." Is illegal immigration on the same level as rape? Maybe not. But if the rapist is an illegal immigrant, and this policy is geared to deport undocumented violent criminals, then I feel safe in making that leap.
Oh, and did anyone else cringe at the stupidity of her reference to undocumented immigrants being "law-abiding"?
HEY! Being an undocumented immigrant is what's known as "illegal immigration" and that means you DIDN'T abide by the law. It means you BROKE the law. Again, this magical thing called LOGIC. I'm so sorry that you apparently never took (or slept through) Common Sense 101 in school. I've heard a lot of lessons on sanity and rational thinking get taught there.
This application, if approved, would allow the local law enforcement to just hurry along the process. Instead of having to wait on the federal I.C.E. agents after busting several illegal immigrants involved in a drug-trafficking ring, the police officers would be able to start the deportation paperwork themselves and save time in the process. Yes, if you're illegally here, and you commit a crime, the police should be informing I.C.E. and deporting you. Unfortunately, this process takes too long with not enough federal agents, and these criminals slip through the cracks or something else happens and the opportunity to deport them is lost.
Let's not allow that to happen any more. Please write to your City Council aldermen and tell them to apply for the power to enforce this federal law.
Especially if you're in Chicago, like me. Every city applying for this power is another step towards finally being able to properly enforce the immigration laws we already have - before our government winds up screwing us all over with an amnesty bill. Read more!
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
PETA vs Michael Moore?
Is there anyone who is safe from the bony wagging finger of Ingrid Newkirk?
One would think that PeTA will not even resort to befriending liberal groups and personalities. Or rather, PeTA just doesn't make friends easily. Their idea of "making friends" is screaming: "HEY POOPYFACE! STINKY POOPYFACE IS ICKY BECAUSE HE HAS POOP ON HIS FACE! WIPE SOME POOP OFF YOUR FACE AND MAYBE I'LL LOVE YOU AND ENDORSE YOU NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO!" So who's under attack today? Well well well, if it isn't liberal pompous windbag Michael Moore!
Since PeTA apparently doesn't believe in the statement "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", their president has decided to follow in her hate-filled footsteps and take on the shock-umentarian himself with a scathing letter accusing him of being unhealthy because he eats meat.
"There’s an elephant in the room, and it is you," PETA president Ingrid Newkirk wrote in a letter to Moore.
Newkirk decided to go with a classic weight joke because Moore's new documentary about healthcare, titled "Sicko," is what's making him a hypocrite. He's making a movie titled "Sicko", but HE'S the Sicko because he eats meat! Fatty fatty meat-eater; that's the message the head of PeTA is trying to get across.
Hey bitch! Did you know that there are plenty of unhealthy VEGETARIAN foods, too? Did you know that Cheesy Poofs and Snacky Cakes and a variety of fattening foods are free of animal products and waiting to dole out some extra chins? No animals were harmed in the making of delicious sodas and chocolates, were they?
Just because you label your food intake in some "diet" category, like vegetarian or Atkins or South Beach, that doesn't mean the foods you consume will make you any healthier. You can always find new ways and varieties of foods to make you or keep you fat. I should know. I'm fat.
I'm fat, and I eat meat. I'm not fat BECAUSE I eat meat. I'm fat because I make poor decisions, am lazy and don't do things in moderation. My becoming a vegetarian wouldn't make me thin. It also wouldn't prevent any animals from being killed. Vegetarianism does nothing to the meat industry. The more vegetarians there are, the lower the prices go on meat to make up for the market flux. Same number of animals get killed, and better prices for meat-eaters! It's almost as if there were some kind of capitalist conspiracy behind it!
Maybe you could get Michael Moore to do some claptrap documentary about the capitalist meat conspiracy!!
Oh wait, you called him fat and made fun of him. I highly doubt he'll make that movie and change the world in favor of vegetarianism and all things PETA now...
Too fucking bad, Ingrid Newkirk. Who's the poopyface now??
"Read more about Ingrid's 'love-letter' to Moore)
Read more!
One would think that PeTA will not even resort to befriending liberal groups and personalities. Or rather, PeTA just doesn't make friends easily. Their idea of "making friends" is screaming: "HEY POOPYFACE! STINKY POOPYFACE IS ICKY BECAUSE HE HAS POOP ON HIS FACE! WIPE SOME POOP OFF YOUR FACE AND MAYBE I'LL LOVE YOU AND ENDORSE YOU NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO!" So who's under attack today? Well well well, if it isn't liberal pompous windbag Michael Moore!
Since PeTA apparently doesn't believe in the statement "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", their president has decided to follow in her hate-filled footsteps and take on the shock-umentarian himself with a scathing letter accusing him of being unhealthy because he eats meat.
"There’s an elephant in the room, and it is you," PETA president Ingrid Newkirk wrote in a letter to Moore.
Newkirk decided to go with a classic weight joke because Moore's new documentary about healthcare, titled "Sicko," is what's making him a hypocrite. He's making a movie titled "Sicko", but HE'S the Sicko because he eats meat! Fatty fatty meat-eater; that's the message the head of PeTA is trying to get across.
Hey bitch! Did you know that there are plenty of unhealthy VEGETARIAN foods, too? Did you know that Cheesy Poofs and Snacky Cakes and a variety of fattening foods are free of animal products and waiting to dole out some extra chins? No animals were harmed in the making of delicious sodas and chocolates, were they?
Just because you label your food intake in some "diet" category, like vegetarian or Atkins or South Beach, that doesn't mean the foods you consume will make you any healthier. You can always find new ways and varieties of foods to make you or keep you fat. I should know. I'm fat.
I'm fat, and I eat meat. I'm not fat BECAUSE I eat meat. I'm fat because I make poor decisions, am lazy and don't do things in moderation. My becoming a vegetarian wouldn't make me thin. It also wouldn't prevent any animals from being killed. Vegetarianism does nothing to the meat industry. The more vegetarians there are, the lower the prices go on meat to make up for the market flux. Same number of animals get killed, and better prices for meat-eaters! It's almost as if there were some kind of capitalist conspiracy behind it!
Maybe you could get Michael Moore to do some claptrap documentary about the capitalist meat conspiracy!!
Oh wait, you called him fat and made fun of him. I highly doubt he'll make that movie and change the world in favor of vegetarianism and all things PETA now...
Too fucking bad, Ingrid Newkirk. Who's the poopyface now??
"Read more about Ingrid's 'love-letter' to Moore)
Read more!
Monday, June 25, 2007
Radar Ban? - Why Alderman Burke Should Resign Immediately
It's a sunny afternoon, and you're cruising down the avenue. The top's down, you're soaking in the sunlight, and you don't care how fast your convertible is zooming down the street. You're too enraptured by whatever CD you've got in your sound system to notice a small sign as you're passing by. Suddenly, your Cobra Electronics device you just installed starts flashing and verbally warns you of a speed/redlight camera at the upcoming intersection. You look at the spedometer, and tone it down to a legal speed. You come to a full and complete stop at the red light. It turns green, and you accelerate once more as you drive on to your significant other's pad for some lovin'. All's well that ends well - no ticket for you, and no life-threatening crashes or injuries all around. What could be wrong with this picture?
Alderman Burke wants that device banned.
Because he'd rather have you endangering your safety and the safety of others than risk missing out on an opportunity to ticket you $90.
There's no doubt about it - Burke claims that the cameras used to ticket redlight-runners and speed-demons are just a way for the city to profit. "That is why all these cameras are being installed. ... The reality is that people blow through these intersections and they are going to be caught and they are going to be fined. It has become a big revenue source, absolutely," said Burke. In fact, he went on to say that these tickets are "budgeted in our annual appropriation ordinance" - that the government is DEPENDING on people to disobey the law.
"I don't think the [city's] goal is to allow the motorist to subvert the system that we are spending so much money on," Burke said. I don't know how much it takes to install the cameras or the costs to keep them monitoring and cranking out the tickets, but last year the cameras profited the city $19.8 million in total. At $90 a ticket, that's 220,000 tickets for the year, which is an average of 603 each day (or 25 per hour). Every hour, those cameras are netting $2,250 for the city - and they're complaining about how much they're SPENDING on the cameras?
As for "subverting the system" - is Burke suggesting that a system being utilized to alert drivers of an upcoming camera and possible ticket is the crime? That people being warned of getting caught for reckless driving is what's bringing down the cashflow system of the red-light cameras??
Hey Alderman Douchebag! Every single ticketing camera has a SIGN to WARN drivers!
The only difference between the current system and the Cobra Electronics device is that one is a small sign that many fail to notice before it's too late (if at all), and one is a few more bells and whistles going off to further alert the driver to slow down and play it safe or the camera will be issuing a ticket. Both do the exact same thing - warn the driver to slow down and obey the rules, because a camera is watching and will automatically ticket you. The only difference is the degree.
And if banning a product because it does a BETTER job than the GOVERNMENT of keeping drivers SAFE makes any sense to you - apparently you could be a douchebag alderman for the Chicago City Council like Burke.
VOTE AARON SAMUELS FOR ALDERMAN IN 2011! A VOTE FOR SANITY! Read more!
Alderman Burke wants that device banned.
Because he'd rather have you endangering your safety and the safety of others than risk missing out on an opportunity to ticket you $90.
There's no doubt about it - Burke claims that the cameras used to ticket redlight-runners and speed-demons are just a way for the city to profit. "That is why all these cameras are being installed. ... The reality is that people blow through these intersections and they are going to be caught and they are going to be fined. It has become a big revenue source, absolutely," said Burke. In fact, he went on to say that these tickets are "budgeted in our annual appropriation ordinance" - that the government is DEPENDING on people to disobey the law.
"I don't think the [city's] goal is to allow the motorist to subvert the system that we are spending so much money on," Burke said. I don't know how much it takes to install the cameras or the costs to keep them monitoring and cranking out the tickets, but last year the cameras profited the city $19.8 million in total. At $90 a ticket, that's 220,000 tickets for the year, which is an average of 603 each day (or 25 per hour). Every hour, those cameras are netting $2,250 for the city - and they're complaining about how much they're SPENDING on the cameras?
As for "subverting the system" - is Burke suggesting that a system being utilized to alert drivers of an upcoming camera and possible ticket is the crime? That people being warned of getting caught for reckless driving is what's bringing down the cashflow system of the red-light cameras??
Hey Alderman Douchebag! Every single ticketing camera has a SIGN to WARN drivers!
The only difference between the current system and the Cobra Electronics device is that one is a small sign that many fail to notice before it's too late (if at all), and one is a few more bells and whistles going off to further alert the driver to slow down and play it safe or the camera will be issuing a ticket. Both do the exact same thing - warn the driver to slow down and obey the rules, because a camera is watching and will automatically ticket you. The only difference is the degree.
And if banning a product because it does a BETTER job than the GOVERNMENT of keeping drivers SAFE makes any sense to you - apparently you could be a douchebag alderman for the Chicago City Council like Burke.
VOTE AARON SAMUELS FOR ALDERMAN IN 2011! A VOTE FOR SANITY! Read more!
Saturday, June 23, 2007
"Congestion Fee" - Why Alderman Burke Should Resign Immediately
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!
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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
