Okay - technically they're all equally stupid. But the ways in which football is stupid are much more different than other sports.
80% of plays, nothing happens.
Okay, everyone lines up. Some shouting takes place. Someone shifts around. Still nothing happening. More shouts. Little more shuffling. Ball moves, players push each other a lot, and either the guy holding it runs a little bit and then gets pushed down or he throws it to someone who misses it or catches it and then gets pushed down less than 20 feet from where the ball started from at the beginning of this rigamarole.
15% of the plays, something MIGHT happen, but then there was a penalty and nothing happens.
Okay, everyone lines up. Some shouting takes place. Someone shifts around. Shill nothing happening. More shouts. Little more shuffling. A whistle blows, and all hell breaks loose because someone shuffled wrong. A "false start" or an "offsides" or one of those things. And then everyone has to break for a few seconds while the referrees look at the videotape of the shuffling that may or may not have taken place inappropriately - at which point a decision is made and the nothingness can begin anew.
4% of the plays, something finally happens, but in such a way that some minutia took place which means yet another flag and possible penalty.
Okay, fast-forward to the ball moving, and the guy with the ball actually throws it to someone who somehow manages to catch it, maybe run with it for a few yards, and then gets thrown to the ground or runs out-of-bounds into a cameraman - possibly as an NFL-sponsored program designed to give a cameraman a look into the life of an NFL player, generally by knocking him to the ground in a painful manner. Oh, but wait! A flag has been thrown on the field because in the split second between the guy catching the ball and getting a beat-down, the referees need to verify whether or not his feet were on the ground, or both feet were in-bounds, or whether his shoelaces were untied or something. Three minutes later, the decision is made and the nothingness begins anew.
1% of the plays, something actually happens. Which causes five minutes of detailed review as to WHY it happened or how the other team mistakenly LET it happen.
This is just like the above, but since three minutes didn't get wasted on referees reviewing three different videotaped angles - they decide to waste three minutes with announcers drawing arrows on video screens to show you how the ball was caught because "the player moved his left hand inward at the same time that he moved his right hand inward, and they came together at a central point where the football happened to be, and then he moved his right foot forward as to avoid getting tackled by a large man and then he moved his left foot forward to gain more momentum in an effort to drive the mass of his body closer towards a zone at the end of the football field commonly referred to as an "end zone" so that his team will be rewarded with a certain number of points determined by the... HEY WAKE UP! I'M EXPLAINING SOMETHING EVERYONE IS AWARE OF AND I USED TO PLAY FOOTBALL SO LISTEN TO MY VOICE NOW!"
Seriously, what crappy lottery gets played to drag out these four yokels behind one giant desk and banter with each other about this game? The black guy second from the right reminded me a LOT of Ali Williams from Family Guy. I think I caught him say ONE thing during the entire halftime bullshit report - which he said twice, possibly because it was in his contract - and that was "KEEP YO EYE ON YO LUGGAGE!" as he gripped a football, expertly pointing out the foibles of the Super Bowl players who seemed unable to do just that. Possibly due to it being RAINY and the ball being WET. Maybe if football were played in suits behind a giant desk, they'd have a much easier time of keeping their eyes on their "luggage". Thanks, Ali!
Pressing on...
Football penalties can be moronic.
Okay, in the game of basketball - someone shoves someone to the ground and a whistle is blown and a foul or technical foul gets issued and if you screw up enough times, they throw you out of the game. Now, in football, one of the ASPECTS of the game is shoving someone to the ground. So why are there penalties regarding HOW this is done? "Ref! Ref! He touched my mask! My MASK!!" Whistle. Foul. Penalty. WTF??? "Ref! Ref! He touched my shirt! MY SHIRT!!!" Whistle. Foul. Penalty. WTF???
This is utter nonsense. If you're going to base a major part of the game on brutally knocking down a player, then you have to let someone brutally knock that player down. Know the best way to knock them to the ground? Grab onto them and knock them down. Now, in hockey - I can understand that while beating the shit out of the opponent is a major part of the game (at least it seems that way), the usage of your stick in the process is a no-no. Weapons just hinder the brutality of the beating. But whether you just sock him in whatever teeth he has left, or pull his shirt over his head and work the torso - it's all good.
And then in football, you can't hurt CERTAIN people? There was a play involving a penalty because someone tackled the kicker. The guy came out to kick the field goal, and he kicked the ball and a guy slammed into his leg and knocked him down. BOO-HOO! There should be no penalty for that, EVER! If you're dumb enough to put on the outfit and get your ass onto a football field where you're AWARE that tackling is a major part of the game - you bet your ass tackling is going to be on the menu. If the head coach decided to wander onto the field in the middle of a play and got sacked in the process - I'd expect no penalty for that, either. Coaches know to stay on the sidelines and not ON the field. That's where the tackling generally happens.
It happens off the field just as much. Get a 250-pound man barreling out of bounds, and realize there's people there - someone's gonna get tackled. Usually a cameraman - because there seem to be SO many of them out there. How come there's no penalty for roughing up an innocent bystander? I bet if Dennis Rodman just whucked a basketball out-of-bounds and into the smug begging-for-it face of Vince Vaughn or Ben Affleck, HE'D get a technical foul or something. Football needs a serious reworking in the tackling penalty department.
Halftime Shows. 'Nuff Said.
Lewis Black has a lot of material on the horrid nature of SuperBowl halftime shows. I'd love to just copy it and adapt it all to this particular one. But I have to admit that part of the suckiness was due to the fact that it was fucking RAINING. I suspect that had it not been raining, there would have been more lucrative dancing or worth paying attention to. Instead, we were left with the crooning of PRINCE.
"Because when I think of football - OH YEA - I think of PRINCE!"
While Dave Chappelle alludes to Prince's basketball abilities, I don't think there's anything connecting him to football in general. I don't think there's much linking him to ANYTHING MANLY in general. Let's face it, people - football is considered a "manly sport". This isn't to be sexist - I do a lot of perusing of personal ads and all the women link an interest in football to "being one of the guys" and "their masculine side". All of the shots of his fans screaming madly while rushing the stage were all lanky-looking women who I doubt had any real interest in football in general. At least they didn't do their usual joining of two/three musical "talents" who are a bit mismatched and god-awful. We just got one. And it was Prince.
Purple Rage.
I zoned out through the last two quarters, mostly listening while I was on the computer. I didn't need to SEE the Bears sucking out loud - it was so loud I could hear it from the other room. Which leads me to the endgame. Confetti is streaming down, getting stuck to bald players' heads which are wet with rain or sweat or something else that would make confetti stick to skin - and they announce the trophy being brought in by "the Winningest Coach in the NFL".
"Winningest"??
Yea, they just made up a word. And not in a cool way like Colbert made up "truthiness" or "wikiality" - this is just a stupid word. I'm sure I could get a linguistics expert to verify the sheer stupidity of it. And to make matters worse, this then leads to the most devious of titles in the NFL itself - "MVP". The "Most Valuable Player", huh? Something tells me that this "value" they refer to is backed up by NOTHING factual. I mean, when it comes to a player's value in the NFL - wouldn't you look at the price on his contract? I mean, a yearly salary plus percentage of the initial signing bonus would be the natural way to determine the "most-valued" of players, right? And let's face it - after this last game, all of the players are useless, aren't they? I mean there's always that commercial at the last major sporting event that says that "after tomorrow - we're all undefeated again" or something. I guess it can refer to the value of the player DURING the season, like "without you, we never woulda made it" kind of thing, but that's a bit rude to the other players, isn't it? I mean, it's a TEAM sport, right?
Oh, and the prize for winning MVP? A car.
Hell, even on Oprah there's enough sense to give EVERYONE a car... If I were the losing team, I'd think it'd be pretty easy to just go over to that brand new fancy car and just tip it over. Seriously, these guys are huge and strong. I bet you'd only need like four of them. Just tip it over and say "Who's the most valuable NOW, BITCH?" and walk away. With the Bears, I'm surprised they didn't. Trust me, nobody in Chicago would think they were "poor sports" for doing it. They'd chip into a fundraiser for bail money afterwards as a "thank you". They'd even grunt while they placed money into the fundraising boxes with "Daaaaaa Bail!"
Oh yes, the Lombardi trophy handed to the coach and the team, but mostly the coach was announced as being the "most prestigious award in team sports". REALLY? You're really not only going to freely award this trophy that particular form of superlative, but use the word "prestige" to do so? At least in baseball or basketball, you're not allowed to push people! If football exudes "prestige" - then the most prestigious award in team sports should be the Stanley Cup. After all, it IS a lot BIGGER. And if it's a different kind of prestige, that title really belongs with the Olympic Gold Medal awarded to a team sport. Olympics exude a lot more prestige - and they have a lot more right to use the word "world" in their titles than the National Football League does. I don't want to hear that the Colts are "world champions". That's as dumb as the word "world" in baseball's "World Series".
Before I go, I just want to compare two or three SuperBowl commercials, illustrating the differences between price and elaboration and effectiveness.
Commercial #1: Kentucky Fried Chicken
They scrolled a message saying how they were going to give you a break from all of the overpriced elaborate nonsense commercials. Then it showed a bucket of fried chicken, and said it was like a 10-piece bucket of chicken for $7.99, I think. That's it.
Very effective, in my opinion. It poked fun at the hype of SuperBowl commercials, got its message across, and featured the brilliant return of the FULL TITLE of the company, Kentucky Fried Chicken. They recently decided to shy away from the KFC logo they'd been hiding behind for a long time, and re-emerge with their full title once more.
Commercial #2: GoDaddy.com
A guy in a suit is talking about the company and what they do, selling cheap domain names and whatnot, and then he gets to the marketing department door, and there's a huge party with fun and music and boobs a-plenty and he closes the door after a few seconds and says "Everybody wants to be in Marketing."
Yes, sir, and I'd like to be in Marketing, too! Very effective commercial, in my opinion, because sex sells - even more so when you're pointing out that sex sells. It's all the craftiness of honesty and humor with the added bonus of SEX that SELLS! It not only made me want to find out more about GoDaddy, but also apply for their Marketing department. Until I remembered it was just a commercial. But still... Seriously...
Commerical #3: GM Motors
An elaborate commercial with a lot of CG or machinery as a factory robot gets fired from the shop, and has to live on the streets. He winds up in the crappy position of waving around one of those big arrow signs, and finally commits suicide by jumping off a bridge. He then wakes up back in the factory, and is happy to keep working.
Why the hell would you advertise firing an employee and driving them to suicide?? I mean, it's a robot, but they personified it with human emotions and actions so we could "relate to it" and then it jumps off a bridge because it wants to die?? Why would I want your products after you reminded me of being miserable enough to the point of suicide??? Hell, if the company wanted to really SEAL the deal, after the robot wakes up from this horrible dream - the manager should have fired him for SLEEPING ON THE JOB! This was an awful commercial, and I'm willing to bet there's a lot of online blather about GM's hiring/firing practices from people who bothered to do more research than I felt like as this late hour.
I have work tomorrow and have to get up at 6am to do so.
Failure to do so might result in them firing me and me wanting to jump off a bridge. Thanks, GM!
Read more!
Monday, February 05, 2007
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Chicago vs. PETA: Offenders on the Offense!
Before reading this, you might want to catch up by reading the previous parts of this Chicago vs. PETA series:
PART 1: Chicago Bans Food and PETA is to Blame
PART 2: Chicago vs. PETA: The Foie Gras Debate!
PART 3: Chicago vs. PETA: The Lawsuit!
PART 4: Chicago vs. PETA: The Uprising!
PART 5: Chicago vs. PETA: The First Offense!
PART 6: Chicago vs. PETA: A Step In The Right Direction?
And join us in the seventh installment of a series of posts that (in the opinion of the writer) should never have come to be. And PETA is to blame; they shock-videoed the Chicago City Council into agreeing to sign a law banning foie gras from the city. In the second part, I discussed the studies and FACTS proving that the reasons BEHIND the law are unfounded and not based on any facts at all. In the third part I got to speak of the Illinois Restaurant Association (IRA) who believes so strongly in this cause that it's practically paying for both sides of the legal battle, based on the fact that it's unconstitutional to make a city law overturning something the federal government approves, let alone deciding what people can/cannot eat. In the fourth part I got to talk about the restaurants fighting back and how more were serving foie gras than ever once the law took effect. In the fifth part, we learned about the first victim of the law and how little the city even cared, other than the media. In part six, the mayor decided to reconsider his stance on the issue. Part seven revisits the restaurants, several months after the ban went into effect.
And for "offenders" - they certainly are taking the offensive in the foie gras dispute!
Five months after the city ordered restaurants to stop selling foie gras, some fancy restaurants and gourmet shops no longer offer the goose or duck liver delicacy, while others are flouting the ban, listing foie gras on their menus and, in one case, framing the city's warning letter.
That's right, Doug Sohn - owner of Hot Doug's gourmet sausage store - thinks the whole thing is so silly that he framed the warning letter issued by the Health Department and hung it on the wall the way most restaurants hang celebrity endorsements.
And in a way, the notice from the Health Department IS like an endorsement to some of these restaurant owners. In fact, since the ban started over five months ago - there have been a total of NINE complaints. Once again, the result of a first-time complaint is (drumroll, please) a WARNING LETTER. So hanging one of these fabled warning letters is like displaying a limited-edition work of art.
After all, one can only hope that Chicago's aldermen will inevitably pull their heads out of their asses long enough to consider Mayor Daley's proposal to remove the ban that he declared "the silliest ordinance the City Council has ever passed." Once that has been acheived, there will be no more warning letters, and odds are there will have been no fines issued.
One restaurant did come close, as they were almost given a citation from the Health Department for selling foie gras. Fortunately, Bin 36 wasn't actually SELLING the foie gras in question. It was specifically noted that the foie gras terrine was a COMPLIMENTARY addition to the wild mushroom confit salad. Would the salad have cost less without the complimentary foie gras? Sure. But that's not the point. The point is that restaurants are FLAUNTING their foie gras services (and gaining business for doing so) as a mockery of the idiots who put the law into effect and those who support it in general.
Of course, the activists are claiming that the ban is "working".
"Our supporters are going into restaurants, and we're told that they are not selling foie gras," said Gene Baur, president of Farm Sanctuary, a national farm animal protection organization.
Hey, guess what, Gene Baur?
IT'S CALLED LYING! You know, that thing you do when moronic protesters come into your business griping about things? You placate them as efficiently and effectively as possible so they get the hell out - and then resume business as usual.
That's like a cop coming into a Prohibition-era establishment asking if they're serving liquor!
"No sir, officer!"
"Alright, carry on then."
**officer leaves**
**booze resumes flowing**
In fact, that's a very apt analogy - since some restauranteurs have turned the foie gras ban into a new Prohibition, speakeasies and all! A speakeasy was an establishment where you gained access by knowing the password - and at least a few Chicago restaurants will certainly oblige if you ask them for the "special lobster" dish.
But ya didn't hear it from me, see??
Alderman Joe Moore, the ordinance's chief sponsor, said he realizes the Health Department has more pressing issues, but he is dismayed to see restaurants flouting the ordinance. "It evinces a certain degree of arrogance on the part of these establishments," he said.
You can call it arrogance. I prefer to call it "delicious".
Arrogance, sir, is taking a food item that is approved by the United States Department of Agriculture for production and sales - and then claiming that your city is "better" than the United States and its decisions by taking away the rights of citizens to sell or purchase that food.
At least that's one meat-eater's opinion on the matter. What's yours?
Stay tuned for more in the Chicago vs. PETA series - a series we wouldn't have had in the first place if it weren't for PETA sticking its nose in YOUR dinner plate. Read more!
PART 1: Chicago Bans Food and PETA is to Blame
PART 2: Chicago vs. PETA: The Foie Gras Debate!
PART 3: Chicago vs. PETA: The Lawsuit!
PART 4: Chicago vs. PETA: The Uprising!
PART 5: Chicago vs. PETA: The First Offense!
PART 6: Chicago vs. PETA: A Step In The Right Direction?
And join us in the seventh installment of a series of posts that (in the opinion of the writer) should never have come to be. And PETA is to blame; they shock-videoed the Chicago City Council into agreeing to sign a law banning foie gras from the city. In the second part, I discussed the studies and FACTS proving that the reasons BEHIND the law are unfounded and not based on any facts at all. In the third part I got to speak of the Illinois Restaurant Association (IRA) who believes so strongly in this cause that it's practically paying for both sides of the legal battle, based on the fact that it's unconstitutional to make a city law overturning something the federal government approves, let alone deciding what people can/cannot eat. In the fourth part I got to talk about the restaurants fighting back and how more were serving foie gras than ever once the law took effect. In the fifth part, we learned about the first victim of the law and how little the city even cared, other than the media. In part six, the mayor decided to reconsider his stance on the issue. Part seven revisits the restaurants, several months after the ban went into effect.
And for "offenders" - they certainly are taking the offensive in the foie gras dispute!
Five months after the city ordered restaurants to stop selling foie gras, some fancy restaurants and gourmet shops no longer offer the goose or duck liver delicacy, while others are flouting the ban, listing foie gras on their menus and, in one case, framing the city's warning letter.
That's right, Doug Sohn - owner of Hot Doug's gourmet sausage store - thinks the whole thing is so silly that he framed the warning letter issued by the Health Department and hung it on the wall the way most restaurants hang celebrity endorsements.
And in a way, the notice from the Health Department IS like an endorsement to some of these restaurant owners. In fact, since the ban started over five months ago - there have been a total of NINE complaints. Once again, the result of a first-time complaint is (drumroll, please) a WARNING LETTER. So hanging one of these fabled warning letters is like displaying a limited-edition work of art.
After all, one can only hope that Chicago's aldermen will inevitably pull their heads out of their asses long enough to consider Mayor Daley's proposal to remove the ban that he declared "the silliest ordinance the City Council has ever passed." Once that has been acheived, there will be no more warning letters, and odds are there will have been no fines issued.
One restaurant did come close, as they were almost given a citation from the Health Department for selling foie gras. Fortunately, Bin 36 wasn't actually SELLING the foie gras in question. It was specifically noted that the foie gras terrine was a COMPLIMENTARY addition to the wild mushroom confit salad. Would the salad have cost less without the complimentary foie gras? Sure. But that's not the point. The point is that restaurants are FLAUNTING their foie gras services (and gaining business for doing so) as a mockery of the idiots who put the law into effect and those who support it in general.
Of course, the activists are claiming that the ban is "working".
"Our supporters are going into restaurants, and we're told that they are not selling foie gras," said Gene Baur, president of Farm Sanctuary, a national farm animal protection organization.
Hey, guess what, Gene Baur?
IT'S CALLED LYING! You know, that thing you do when moronic protesters come into your business griping about things? You placate them as efficiently and effectively as possible so they get the hell out - and then resume business as usual.
That's like a cop coming into a Prohibition-era establishment asking if they're serving liquor!
"No sir, officer!"
"Alright, carry on then."
**officer leaves**
**booze resumes flowing**
In fact, that's a very apt analogy - since some restauranteurs have turned the foie gras ban into a new Prohibition, speakeasies and all! A speakeasy was an establishment where you gained access by knowing the password - and at least a few Chicago restaurants will certainly oblige if you ask them for the "special lobster" dish.
But ya didn't hear it from me, see??
Alderman Joe Moore, the ordinance's chief sponsor, said he realizes the Health Department has more pressing issues, but he is dismayed to see restaurants flouting the ordinance. "It evinces a certain degree of arrogance on the part of these establishments," he said.
You can call it arrogance. I prefer to call it "delicious".
Arrogance, sir, is taking a food item that is approved by the United States Department of Agriculture for production and sales - and then claiming that your city is "better" than the United States and its decisions by taking away the rights of citizens to sell or purchase that food.
At least that's one meat-eater's opinion on the matter. What's yours?
Stay tuned for more in the Chicago vs. PETA series - a series we wouldn't have had in the first place if it weren't for PETA sticking its nose in YOUR dinner plate. Read more!
Monday, January 08, 2007
"Dear Parent - Your Child is Fat!"
I was tempted to throw a Humor tag on this post, but then thought again as my laughter at the notion of the article in question quickly turned into fuming outrage by the time I'd finished reading. As if we don't scare the crud out of school children enough with pop quizzes, homework and - let's face it - constant news of school shootings and school-related gang violence, idiots in charge of the Hyannis Elementary School in Boston decided to step things up a notch.
Not only are they singling out overweight and "at-risk of obesity" students, they're including mom and dad in the judgemental concept by putting these warnings in letters sent home.
Hopefully some of you are saying, "No! Surely this is a horrible joke!" Hopefully there's some decency still out there among the populous who is shocked and appalled at poor-health ridicule in the form of letters to parents, wasting time of parents and teachers alike. This monstrocity needs to be stopped, people!
The school is claiming that it can hide behind a state law that requires that a school notify parents of children who are overweight or underweight, or who may be at risk of becoming so. I simply cannot believe that a note needs to be given to parents from a school nurse to REMIND them of their child's possible health problems.
"Dear Mr. and/or Mrs. Parent,
Your child is overweight and is at risk for juvenile diabetes and heart problems and other obesity-related problems later on in life unless changes are made to your child's nutrition, diet and exercise patterns.
Sincerely,
Hyannis Elementary School Nurse"
Dear School Nurse,
Being a parent who cares enough about my child to do things like SEE him/her with my EYES, I am well-aware of my child's weight problem. This problem is strictly one facing my child, and hereditarily, myself. I did not need a reminder of my child's weight problem, nor did my child deserve the embarrassment of having me read this letter or the ridicule of other children when confronted on whether or not his parent received such a letter. You may be at risk of legal action and other angry-parent-related problems in your life unless changes are made to your sense of deceny, nosiness and downright lack of respect for my child and the other children of this school.
Angrily,
Mr. and/or Mrs. Parent
And for those of you out there who think that I'm trying to sound like one of the overprotecting liberal boo-hooers I'm usually up-in-arms against - think twice. This isn't about protecting children in my mind - it's about stopping people from being idiot douchebags and wasting everyone's time and effort by stating the obvious and butting into the business of families where they are not and should not be welcome.
You think Vicki Elliott, whose 4-foot-tall, 66-pound daughter was sent home with a letter warning that she was "at risk of becoming overweight," needs a reminder that her daughter might be overweight or at risk of becoming overweight??
I'm willing to bet she's reminded of it enough when her daughter comes home crying because of the mean things kids say to her.
I'm not saying her daughter needs protection.
I'm not saying her mother is wrong or needs to be taught a lesson or given pointers.
I'm saying it's not the school's business, and it's insulting to point out the obvious and undermine parents, who can do a perfectly fine job of raising a snot-nosed brat on their own.
I'd prefer they focused on learning to f*cking count - it'll come in handy when they're forced to count calories later on in life, or at least to maybe count my change correctly while on shift at their McJob!
The original article Read more!
Not only are they singling out overweight and "at-risk of obesity" students, they're including mom and dad in the judgemental concept by putting these warnings in letters sent home.
Hopefully some of you are saying, "No! Surely this is a horrible joke!" Hopefully there's some decency still out there among the populous who is shocked and appalled at poor-health ridicule in the form of letters to parents, wasting time of parents and teachers alike. This monstrocity needs to be stopped, people!
The school is claiming that it can hide behind a state law that requires that a school notify parents of children who are overweight or underweight, or who may be at risk of becoming so. I simply cannot believe that a note needs to be given to parents from a school nurse to REMIND them of their child's possible health problems.
"Dear Mr. and/or Mrs. Parent,
Your child is overweight and is at risk for juvenile diabetes and heart problems and other obesity-related problems later on in life unless changes are made to your child's nutrition, diet and exercise patterns.
Sincerely,
Hyannis Elementary School Nurse"
Dear School Nurse,
Being a parent who cares enough about my child to do things like SEE him/her with my EYES, I am well-aware of my child's weight problem. This problem is strictly one facing my child, and hereditarily, myself. I did not need a reminder of my child's weight problem, nor did my child deserve the embarrassment of having me read this letter or the ridicule of other children when confronted on whether or not his parent received such a letter. You may be at risk of legal action and other angry-parent-related problems in your life unless changes are made to your sense of deceny, nosiness and downright lack of respect for my child and the other children of this school.
Angrily,
Mr. and/or Mrs. Parent
And for those of you out there who think that I'm trying to sound like one of the overprotecting liberal boo-hooers I'm usually up-in-arms against - think twice. This isn't about protecting children in my mind - it's about stopping people from being idiot douchebags and wasting everyone's time and effort by stating the obvious and butting into the business of families where they are not and should not be welcome.
You think Vicki Elliott, whose 4-foot-tall, 66-pound daughter was sent home with a letter warning that she was "at risk of becoming overweight," needs a reminder that her daughter might be overweight or at risk of becoming overweight??
I'm willing to bet she's reminded of it enough when her daughter comes home crying because of the mean things kids say to her.
I'm not saying her daughter needs protection.
I'm not saying her mother is wrong or needs to be taught a lesson or given pointers.
I'm saying it's not the school's business, and it's insulting to point out the obvious and undermine parents, who can do a perfectly fine job of raising a snot-nosed brat on their own.
I'd prefer they focused on learning to f*cking count - it'll come in handy when they're forced to count calories later on in life, or at least to maybe count my change correctly while on shift at their McJob!
The original article Read more!
Sunday, January 07, 2007
Illegal Immigrants Rewarded for Killing Atlanta Deputy?
Sometimes when I'm looking for things to write about, I'll do a search on a news site, like Google News or maybe Yahoo or something like that. After my last big post about animal rights terrorists, I felt like i'd done by part in the anti-PETA niche for a few days at least - it was time to return to a long-overdue niche about illegal immigrants. I do a search for recent news articles about illegal immigrants, and two articles came up in the Top 5 most recent, right NEXT to each other:
"Ban on renting to illegal immigrants halted"
"Illegal Immigrants Kill Sheriff's Deputy"
If you think that's not noteworthy, you might not know that BOTH of these events took place in Atlanta, GA.
Atlanta Deputy Sheriff Loren Lilly, who was a legal U.S. citizen, was doing his duty protecting other legal citizens and was killed on his way to work by two suspected illegal immigrants in a hit and run crash.
Witnesses say the driver and passenger in the Taurus ran from the scene. Police later arrested the two, 27-year-old Joel Perea, and 23-year-old Maurilio Herrera. Perea is charged with felony vehicular homicide, hit and run, failure to maintain a lane, and driving without a license. Herrera is charged with false report of a crime. They're being held at the Cobb County Jail, and police say federal immigration officials have placed a hold on both.
WND has reported on the growing list of illegal immigrants who have not only ignored U.S. immigration laws, but state laws against drinking and driving as well, killing innocents on the highways in the process.
Okay, so on New Year's Eve - two illegal immigrants driving without a license (well, only one was driving) killed an Atlanta deputy. I'd like to believe that their being "held" by federal immigration officials means they're getting DEPORTED the hell out of our country - though with our system the way it is to day, I have little faith that this is the case.
So what happens less than a week later in Atlanta??
A suburban Atlanta county agreed to delay a new ban on renting homes to illegal immigrants until challenges of similar laws in other states are resolved.
That's right, they're wussing out and delaying the start of a ban that should have gone into effect on Monday, just because the other DECENT cities that passed the same or similar laws banning the rental/sale of homes to illegal immigrants are being challenged by liberal boo-hooers and awaiting a court decision. So rather than make the law go into effect so MAYBE the township will get some use out of it and finally crack down on illegal immigrants in the neighborhood and the landlords who would be breaking the law by renting the home to them - they're delaying it just in case some judge decides to overturn the law in another city and they won't look like "the bad guys" for enacting a law that was passed by the legislature.
"These laws place a wedge in our communities, pitting neighbor against neighbor," said Gerry Weber, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union (who apparently doesn't get the fact that there's a difference between 'pitting neighbor against neighbor' and 'pitting legal citizens against brazen criminals'). It's an outrage that liberals aren't getting it through their thick skulls that illegal immigrants are CRIMINALS and have BROKEN THE LAW by entering illegally, not to mention the large number of FURTHER crimes they commit in addition to their simply being here illegally.
What about a law saying that it's illegal to rent a home to an ESCAPED FUGITIVE who broke out of prison? Surely neighbors wouldn't want to be living next to someone who broke out of jail and will likely commit more crimes! Would you call that law 'pitting neighbor against neighbor'?? There's a reason why most landlords run background checks in the first place - to make sure they're aware of a criminal history or OUTSTANDING WARRANTS. You know, reasons why the tenant might be arrested and therefore unable to be paying rent. Not to mention the legal issue of aiding a criminal.
And in ATLANTA? Where illegal immigrants just KILLED a deputy??
Your town is just ASKING for trouble. Continuing to delay this law going into effect and delaying the chance to crack down on illegal immigrants cluttering up your neighborhoods will only result in more crimes and more deaths.
I sincerely hope no other police officers' lives are taken as a result of this foolish attempt to delay or overturn a law that makes sense and could protect your families from getting killed like Atlanta Deputy Sheriff Loren Lilly.
The deputy article
The rental ban article Read more!
"Ban on renting to illegal immigrants halted"
"Illegal Immigrants Kill Sheriff's Deputy"
If you think that's not noteworthy, you might not know that BOTH of these events took place in Atlanta, GA.
Atlanta Deputy Sheriff Loren Lilly, who was a legal U.S. citizen, was doing his duty protecting other legal citizens and was killed on his way to work by two suspected illegal immigrants in a hit and run crash.
Witnesses say the driver and passenger in the Taurus ran from the scene. Police later arrested the two, 27-year-old Joel Perea, and 23-year-old Maurilio Herrera. Perea is charged with felony vehicular homicide, hit and run, failure to maintain a lane, and driving without a license. Herrera is charged with false report of a crime. They're being held at the Cobb County Jail, and police say federal immigration officials have placed a hold on both.
WND has reported on the growing list of illegal immigrants who have not only ignored U.S. immigration laws, but state laws against drinking and driving as well, killing innocents on the highways in the process.
Okay, so on New Year's Eve - two illegal immigrants driving without a license (well, only one was driving) killed an Atlanta deputy. I'd like to believe that their being "held" by federal immigration officials means they're getting DEPORTED the hell out of our country - though with our system the way it is to day, I have little faith that this is the case.
So what happens less than a week later in Atlanta??
A suburban Atlanta county agreed to delay a new ban on renting homes to illegal immigrants until challenges of similar laws in other states are resolved.
That's right, they're wussing out and delaying the start of a ban that should have gone into effect on Monday, just because the other DECENT cities that passed the same or similar laws banning the rental/sale of homes to illegal immigrants are being challenged by liberal boo-hooers and awaiting a court decision. So rather than make the law go into effect so MAYBE the township will get some use out of it and finally crack down on illegal immigrants in the neighborhood and the landlords who would be breaking the law by renting the home to them - they're delaying it just in case some judge decides to overturn the law in another city and they won't look like "the bad guys" for enacting a law that was passed by the legislature.
"These laws place a wedge in our communities, pitting neighbor against neighbor," said Gerry Weber, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union (who apparently doesn't get the fact that there's a difference between 'pitting neighbor against neighbor' and 'pitting legal citizens against brazen criminals'). It's an outrage that liberals aren't getting it through their thick skulls that illegal immigrants are CRIMINALS and have BROKEN THE LAW by entering illegally, not to mention the large number of FURTHER crimes they commit in addition to their simply being here illegally.
What about a law saying that it's illegal to rent a home to an ESCAPED FUGITIVE who broke out of prison? Surely neighbors wouldn't want to be living next to someone who broke out of jail and will likely commit more crimes! Would you call that law 'pitting neighbor against neighbor'?? There's a reason why most landlords run background checks in the first place - to make sure they're aware of a criminal history or OUTSTANDING WARRANTS. You know, reasons why the tenant might be arrested and therefore unable to be paying rent. Not to mention the legal issue of aiding a criminal.
And in ATLANTA? Where illegal immigrants just KILLED a deputy??
Your town is just ASKING for trouble. Continuing to delay this law going into effect and delaying the chance to crack down on illegal immigrants cluttering up your neighborhoods will only result in more crimes and more deaths.
I sincerely hope no other police officers' lives are taken as a result of this foolish attempt to delay or overturn a law that makes sense and could protect your families from getting killed like Atlanta Deputy Sheriff Loren Lilly.
The deputy article
The rental ban article Read more!
Saturday, January 06, 2007
WARNING! POM Juice Contaminated by Terrorists!
Look out! A seemingly-healthy bottle of POM juice may be one of the 487 bottles that were tampered with by animal liberation terrorists. Anonymous communiques being sent to the Animal Liberation Press Office have been coming in ever since the Animal Enterprise Terrorist Act went into effect. The terrorists, upset that they're now labelled as the terrorists that they are, are resorting to TERRORISM in response. While some of the communiques are lesser-degree terrorist acts under the new law, like gluing the locks of fur/leather stores along several blocks in Manhattan, this act might actually KILL you.
They claim that drinking the tampered juice will result in "diarrhea, vomiting and headaches" - symptoms which could be caused by a chemical that could prove fatal, or could themselves be fatal if consumed by a weak-healthed person trying to drink some healthy juice.
So WHY? Why would they be targeting a company like POM Wonderful, manufacturing pomegranate and other healthy juices, with such a horrific act? Well, because POM apparently tests their juices on animals so they can make the claims that they do. PETA and other more-violent animal rights activist groups have been up in arms at the juice company, protesting for them to join the Naked Juice Company which is a collective that doesn't test on animals.
Here's an excerpt their communique:
"in a well coordinated action, 487 bottles of pom wonderful juices were tampered with along the Eastern seaboard in stores like wild oats, d'agostino's and food emporiums. those who drink the contaminated juice won't die like the animals in pom labs, but the diarrhea, vomiting and headaches will hopefully send a strong message that people will no longer allow innocent defenseless animals to be tormented and killed for a health juice and to line the pockets of profiteers who dont have feelings for those weaker than they are....thanks to feinstein and inhoff and the stupid animal enterprise terrorist law that violates the principles that this country is supposed to be founded on, more and more activists like us will choose to retreat into the shadows and fight for the animals underground"
So rather than protest in a legal fashion at the POM Wonderful headquarters or outside stores that sell POM - you know, LEGAL acts of protest that are NOT affected by the Animal Enterprise Terrorist Act - they've decided to not only threaten the business by tampering with bottles of juice already in stores and out of the liable hands of the company itself, but they're threatening the lives and health of anyone who stumbles upon one of the 487 tampered bottles! That's the DEFINITION of terrorism - harming/killing people or threatening to do so in order to coerce your ideas onto people! That's why the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act was created and signed into law in the first place!
It's sheer idiocy that the creation of a sensible and decent law is resulting in the INCREASE of people willing to break it and BRAGGING (though cowardly doing so anonymously) that they've broken it. Only in the illegal immigration battle is there a more-bold defiance of FEDERAL LAW.
Well, animal liberation douchebag terrorists - I sincerely hope that you've had your fun, because you've now broken a federal law and it's in their jurisdiction - so they get to treat you like the other terrorists out there, and we ALL know how unpleasant of an ordeal that can be! I hope that you not only get pinned for the terrorism you caused, but that they add charges of attempted murder because you neglegently could have killed someone with the additives you put into the juice by tampering with the bottles.
I sincerely pray that nobody DOES die from ingesting the tampered juice - and I pray that these terrorists are located and justice is served.
(And as long as idiots want to BREAK new laws, I suggest we make it illegal to give money/shelter to the homeless, illegal to deport illegal immigrants without jurisdiction, and illegal to give me millions of dollars out of thanks for helping to fight animal enterprise terrorism with my posts.)
Maybe then all of those things would actually get done and we could all live happily and I could live wealthily.
(The full communique)
(click here for a larger list of terrorist acts being bragged about, including this one) Read more!
They claim that drinking the tampered juice will result in "diarrhea, vomiting and headaches" - symptoms which could be caused by a chemical that could prove fatal, or could themselves be fatal if consumed by a weak-healthed person trying to drink some healthy juice.
So WHY? Why would they be targeting a company like POM Wonderful, manufacturing pomegranate and other healthy juices, with such a horrific act? Well, because POM apparently tests their juices on animals so they can make the claims that they do. PETA and other more-violent animal rights activist groups have been up in arms at the juice company, protesting for them to join the Naked Juice Company which is a collective that doesn't test on animals.
Here's an excerpt their communique:
"in a well coordinated action, 487 bottles of pom wonderful juices were tampered with along the Eastern seaboard in stores like wild oats, d'agostino's and food emporiums. those who drink the contaminated juice won't die like the animals in pom labs, but the diarrhea, vomiting and headaches will hopefully send a strong message that people will no longer allow innocent defenseless animals to be tormented and killed for a health juice and to line the pockets of profiteers who dont have feelings for those weaker than they are....thanks to feinstein and inhoff and the stupid animal enterprise terrorist law that violates the principles that this country is supposed to be founded on, more and more activists like us will choose to retreat into the shadows and fight for the animals underground"
So rather than protest in a legal fashion at the POM Wonderful headquarters or outside stores that sell POM - you know, LEGAL acts of protest that are NOT affected by the Animal Enterprise Terrorist Act - they've decided to not only threaten the business by tampering with bottles of juice already in stores and out of the liable hands of the company itself, but they're threatening the lives and health of anyone who stumbles upon one of the 487 tampered bottles! That's the DEFINITION of terrorism - harming/killing people or threatening to do so in order to coerce your ideas onto people! That's why the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act was created and signed into law in the first place!
It's sheer idiocy that the creation of a sensible and decent law is resulting in the INCREASE of people willing to break it and BRAGGING (though cowardly doing so anonymously) that they've broken it. Only in the illegal immigration battle is there a more-bold defiance of FEDERAL LAW.
Well, animal liberation douchebag terrorists - I sincerely hope that you've had your fun, because you've now broken a federal law and it's in their jurisdiction - so they get to treat you like the other terrorists out there, and we ALL know how unpleasant of an ordeal that can be! I hope that you not only get pinned for the terrorism you caused, but that they add charges of attempted murder because you neglegently could have killed someone with the additives you put into the juice by tampering with the bottles.
I sincerely pray that nobody DOES die from ingesting the tampered juice - and I pray that these terrorists are located and justice is served.
(And as long as idiots want to BREAK new laws, I suggest we make it illegal to give money/shelter to the homeless, illegal to deport illegal immigrants without jurisdiction, and illegal to give me millions of dollars out of thanks for helping to fight animal enterprise terrorism with my posts.)
Maybe then all of those things would actually get done and we could all live happily and I could live wealthily.
(The full communique)
(click here for a larger list of terrorist acts being bragged about, including this one) Read more!
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Idiotic Product: Sauna Belt
Alright, this idiotic product is a standard one. The basic concept is to create a large heating pad with velcro straps so you can wrap it around "problem areas" and claiming that the heat leads to sweating, which affects the "problem areas" in ways other than general dehydration and minor burns by missetting the "Self-Limiting Temperature Control Gauge".
So let's look beyond this general idiocy and try and get a bit more focused on what makes this product and advertisement itself so IDIOTIC:
The article claims "Now you won’t need to leave the house to work up a sweat, with Sauna Belt you can just relax in the comfort of your own home."
Okay, let's dissect this.
They claim a benefit of their product is the fact that now you don't have to leave the house to get sweaty. Maybe it's just me being a fat person, but I've gotten plenty sweaty without needing to leave the house - it's called BEING HOT. Hell, you can close the bathroom door, turn on the hot faucet for the tub, and within 10 minutes you'd have a sauna of more than a belt status.
Of course, you'd have to be smart enough to realize that you can get hot and sweaty without ordering a Sauna Belt, let alone without leaving the house. They should really have said you can work up a sweat without EXERCISING - a more annoying thing than having to leave the house. Speaking of which, the damned thing is electric and has a power cord, so it's not a matter of you "not having to leave the house", it's a matter of you "not being ABLE to leave the house"!
So instead of the fake idea that you have to burden yourself by leaving the house in order to sweat, they've sold you a product that burderns you with not being ABLE to leave the house. One more reason why this is an IDIOTIC PRODUCT.
The ad goes on with a small list:
- CE Approved – Guaranteed Safe
- Self-Limiting Temperature Control Gauge
- Made With Very High Quality Materials
- 68 Inch Built In Power Cord
- Auto-Shut-Off After 50 Minutes
What is the "CE" and what authority do THEY have to approve something or guarantee its safety??
Seriously, I looked all over this ad, and I have no idea what the CE is or why I should trust their judgement. Did the Croatian Embassy approve this product and guarantee its safety? A Chinese Emissary? College Education? I certainly don't feel very safe or guaranteed of anything at this point.
I don't know what makes this temperature control gauge "self-limiting". It limits itself? Then how is it a control gauge if it overrides what you set it to? "I want it at 100 degrees." *now resetting to 85 degrees* "NO! I said 100 degrees!" *now limiting to 80 degrees* I'm sure that it's a great idea to have it NOT go to 200 degrees, but that's why there's a maximum setting. Why have a max setting if it limits itself to never get there?
"Made with Very High Quality Materials"?? Well, thanks for boasting about the quality of the materials you used to create this modified heating pad with velcro straps. I'm so glad I'm getting such "very high quality" for the low price of $19.99 and I'm sure your "CE" approves of the materials used and guarantees their "very high quality".
68-inch power cord? Thanks for letting me know the exact maximum distance my "problem areas" will be able to be from the nearest power cord (unless I bother to use an extension cord for my IDIOTIC PRODUCT)! Good to know that I won't be getting 6 feet away from the wall! I'm so glad I don't have to leave my house to sweat!!
As for automatically shutting itself off after 50 minutes - this is the only semi-decent thing I've read about this product. They bothered to make sure that if somehow the self-limiting temperature causes you to pass out from pain or dehydration or horrific malfunction - it'll only keep burning you for 50 minutes from when you turned it on. It also limits your sauna sessions to 50 minutes at a time, though I'm sure that restarting it after those 50 minutes right away won't cause any real downtime for you.
"Beware Of The Sauna Belt Look-a-Like."
Oh yes, I wouldn't want to waste my money on a look-a-like product that's a mangled heating pad with velcro and ISN'T made with "Very High Quality" materials or approved/guaranteed by... my high school football team, the Chaminade Eagles? No, that would be a COMPLETE waste of my money. The only thing worse than wasting money on an idiotic product would certainly be wasting your money on a LOOKALIKE idiotic product!
Included in the list of things it comes with are "Instruction Booklet And Diet Plan" and "Tape Measure". Instructions are always a great thing to send with a product - thank goodness you decided to AFFIRM that instructions WILL be sent with the purchase of this product! As for the Diet Plan, that's a bit insulting! That's like admitting that your product will never work, and you're much better off throwing it away and following a diet plan if you really wanted to lose that weight or drop sizes in your "problem areas". Speaking of which - nothing reaffirms that your "problem areas" are problematic like the inclusion of a Tape Measure! That's like including a coupon for an x-ray/scan when you buy a nicotine patch to remind you of what crappy shape your lungs are in!
Here's the icing on the cake - Poor math skills!
Mentioned a total of five times is the fact that if you buy one at $19.99, you'll get a second one free and the total value of this super-deal is $140!
Quick digress: Why would you want a second one, even if it's free? It doesn't look like something you should/could use two of at the same time. It's not appropriate to use as a gift. It must be doubt about the "very high quality" materials and saying you have a spare for when the first one craps out. Seriously, WHY give TWO??
Okay - so the total value is $140, and you get two "Sauna Belt"s. Mathematically, that would bring the value of each Sauna Belt to... about... $70. And yet it's being sold for $19.99, right? Well, then THAT must be the value of the item, isn't it? If I sell you a $30 sweater and throw in a second one for free, that makes the total value $60. So why is it that giving me two items costing $19.99 would make the total value $100 more than the ACTUAL total value??
Unless they're saying that the items given OTHER than the belts cover that extra $100 they're boasting is the value of the deal. Let's see, it includes... the belt. Okay, that doesn't count. An adjustable heat regulator, which is built in to the power cord which is part of the belt itself, so that doesn't count either. Okay, you get instructions and the Diet Plan and that tape measure. Which is somehow all worth $100. Yea, I don't even want to venture how wrong that is or ponder a solid-gold tape measure or instructions written on velvet or suede or something.
The math doesn't add up. Nothing adds up.
This is completely and utterly an IDIOTIC PRODUCT!
(Even though it's approved and guaranteed by the "CE".)
See the fabled $140 value for yourself! Read more!
So let's look beyond this general idiocy and try and get a bit more focused on what makes this product and advertisement itself so IDIOTIC:
The article claims "Now you won’t need to leave the house to work up a sweat, with Sauna Belt you can just relax in the comfort of your own home."
Okay, let's dissect this.
They claim a benefit of their product is the fact that now you don't have to leave the house to get sweaty. Maybe it's just me being a fat person, but I've gotten plenty sweaty without needing to leave the house - it's called BEING HOT. Hell, you can close the bathroom door, turn on the hot faucet for the tub, and within 10 minutes you'd have a sauna of more than a belt status.
Of course, you'd have to be smart enough to realize that you can get hot and sweaty without ordering a Sauna Belt, let alone without leaving the house. They should really have said you can work up a sweat without EXERCISING - a more annoying thing than having to leave the house. Speaking of which, the damned thing is electric and has a power cord, so it's not a matter of you "not having to leave the house", it's a matter of you "not being ABLE to leave the house"!
So instead of the fake idea that you have to burden yourself by leaving the house in order to sweat, they've sold you a product that burderns you with not being ABLE to leave the house. One more reason why this is an IDIOTIC PRODUCT.
The ad goes on with a small list:
- CE Approved – Guaranteed Safe
- Self-Limiting Temperature Control Gauge
- Made With Very High Quality Materials
- 68 Inch Built In Power Cord
- Auto-Shut-Off After 50 Minutes
What is the "CE" and what authority do THEY have to approve something or guarantee its safety??
Seriously, I looked all over this ad, and I have no idea what the CE is or why I should trust their judgement. Did the Croatian Embassy approve this product and guarantee its safety? A Chinese Emissary? College Education? I certainly don't feel very safe or guaranteed of anything at this point.
I don't know what makes this temperature control gauge "self-limiting". It limits itself? Then how is it a control gauge if it overrides what you set it to? "I want it at 100 degrees." *now resetting to 85 degrees* "NO! I said 100 degrees!" *now limiting to 80 degrees* I'm sure that it's a great idea to have it NOT go to 200 degrees, but that's why there's a maximum setting. Why have a max setting if it limits itself to never get there?
"Made with Very High Quality Materials"?? Well, thanks for boasting about the quality of the materials you used to create this modified heating pad with velcro straps. I'm so glad I'm getting such "very high quality" for the low price of $19.99 and I'm sure your "CE" approves of the materials used and guarantees their "very high quality".
68-inch power cord? Thanks for letting me know the exact maximum distance my "problem areas" will be able to be from the nearest power cord (unless I bother to use an extension cord for my IDIOTIC PRODUCT)! Good to know that I won't be getting 6 feet away from the wall! I'm so glad I don't have to leave my house to sweat!!
As for automatically shutting itself off after 50 minutes - this is the only semi-decent thing I've read about this product. They bothered to make sure that if somehow the self-limiting temperature causes you to pass out from pain or dehydration or horrific malfunction - it'll only keep burning you for 50 minutes from when you turned it on. It also limits your sauna sessions to 50 minutes at a time, though I'm sure that restarting it after those 50 minutes right away won't cause any real downtime for you.
"Beware Of The Sauna Belt Look-a-Like."
Oh yes, I wouldn't want to waste my money on a look-a-like product that's a mangled heating pad with velcro and ISN'T made with "Very High Quality" materials or approved/guaranteed by... my high school football team, the Chaminade Eagles? No, that would be a COMPLETE waste of my money. The only thing worse than wasting money on an idiotic product would certainly be wasting your money on a LOOKALIKE idiotic product!
Included in the list of things it comes with are "Instruction Booklet And Diet Plan" and "Tape Measure". Instructions are always a great thing to send with a product - thank goodness you decided to AFFIRM that instructions WILL be sent with the purchase of this product! As for the Diet Plan, that's a bit insulting! That's like admitting that your product will never work, and you're much better off throwing it away and following a diet plan if you really wanted to lose that weight or drop sizes in your "problem areas". Speaking of which - nothing reaffirms that your "problem areas" are problematic like the inclusion of a Tape Measure! That's like including a coupon for an x-ray/scan when you buy a nicotine patch to remind you of what crappy shape your lungs are in!
Here's the icing on the cake - Poor math skills!
Mentioned a total of five times is the fact that if you buy one at $19.99, you'll get a second one free and the total value of this super-deal is $140!
Quick digress: Why would you want a second one, even if it's free? It doesn't look like something you should/could use two of at the same time. It's not appropriate to use as a gift. It must be doubt about the "very high quality" materials and saying you have a spare for when the first one craps out. Seriously, WHY give TWO??
Okay - so the total value is $140, and you get two "Sauna Belt"s. Mathematically, that would bring the value of each Sauna Belt to... about... $70. And yet it's being sold for $19.99, right? Well, then THAT must be the value of the item, isn't it? If I sell you a $30 sweater and throw in a second one for free, that makes the total value $60. So why is it that giving me two items costing $19.99 would make the total value $100 more than the ACTUAL total value??
Unless they're saying that the items given OTHER than the belts cover that extra $100 they're boasting is the value of the deal. Let's see, it includes... the belt. Okay, that doesn't count. An adjustable heat regulator, which is built in to the power cord which is part of the belt itself, so that doesn't count either. Okay, you get instructions and the Diet Plan and that tape measure. Which is somehow all worth $100. Yea, I don't even want to venture how wrong that is or ponder a solid-gold tape measure or instructions written on velvet or suede or something.
The math doesn't add up. Nothing adds up.
This is completely and utterly an IDIOTIC PRODUCT!
(Even though it's approved and guaranteed by the "CE".)
See the fabled $140 value for yourself! Read more!
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
CEOs Already Done (Compared to You) for 2007
It's what's all the rage right now - Democrats winning and the populous clamoring for that raise in the minimum wage. Well, starting January 1st, a lot of minimum wage hikes took effect, even though many many businesses were closed for the national holiday and whatnot. Of course, if you were a salaried CEO, that wouldn't matter at all - you'd be getting paid no matter what.
Here's the scary part - and the lesson to be learned about the different between the S&P 500 and the Average Joe:
Compared to the Average Joe working a full-time job at minimum wage - the CEOs are already done for the year.
I guess this is where the math comes in. From the various reports I've been reading about the 2005 fiscal year's reports of the salaries of the CEOs for the Standard & Poor's 500 companies, the average salary per CEO ranges from $10.2 million to $13.5 million. Let's take the lowest value and assume that the average salary for a CEO is only $10 million for the year.
$10,000,000 a year =
$192,307.69 a week =
$27,472.52 a day =
$1,144.68 an hour =
$19.078 a minute =
$0.32 a second
That's what they're getting paid every second of every minute of every hour of every day of every week as the paychecks come rolling in - whether they're the kind of CEO who works a 90-hour workweek or sits back and plays golf most days of the week while grunts take care of everything. Now let's do more math with this whole rate hike for the minimum wage.
The Federal Minimum Wage is now $5.15/hr though sometime in early-to-mid 2007 it'll become $7.25/hr. Some states have their own minimum wage laws. In Kansas, the state with the lowest minimum wage (which applies to jobs not covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act), you'd only earn $2.65/hr. The state with the highest minimum wage is Washington, with a wage of $7.93/hr. In fact, a few cities have higher minimum wages - in Los Angeles, if you don't get health benefits, your minimum wage is $10.33/hr. So let's do the math for a full-time employee working a standard 40-hour full-time workweek:
40 hrs x 52 weeks -> 2,080 paid hours
Non-FLSA Kansas: $5,512/year
Now (Federal): $10,712/year
With the hike: $15,080/year
In Washington: $16,494.40/year
In Los Angeles: $21,486.40/year
Here comes the fun math!
So, Average Joe, that's how much you made from an honest day's work of 40 solid hours a week. If enough people complain about my estimates of 40 hrs/week as being too low, or that I should take into account hard-workers and overtime or something, I'll update this. (Let's face it, nobody comments/debates on my posts anymore.) So while you were celebrating the New Year holiday with an actual day off (if you were lucky enough to get that day off) - let's see what the CEOs were earning while they got the day off, too!
By 5:00 AM, before most of the populous had even woken up, the CEOs amassed an average of over $5,700 - passing the annual yearly income in Kansas if you happened to work at a business not covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act.
How long until they earned what Average Joe would earn this year without the rate hike?
January 1st, 2007 - 9:22 AM:
The CEOs just surpassed your annual pay.
But what about after this rate hike up to $7.25/hr?
January 1st, 2007 - 1:11 PM:
The CEOs just surpassed your annual pay.
Okay, okay... How about if I move to Washington?
January 1st, 2007 - 2:25 PM:
The CEOs just surpassed your annual pay.
Fine! I'll move to L.A. and forego health benefits!
January 1st, 2007 - 6:47 PM:
The CEOs just surpassed your annual pay.
Is this scaring you at all?
Before most of the working-class had time to get over their HANGOVERS from celebrating the ball dropping and the new year starting, let alone wake up if they partied hard enough, CEOs already earned in less than one day what minimum-wagers would earn in the entire year.
Then there's taxes. Which affect both sides of this argument quite differently, and may be brought up in a further investigation.
For now, I'll let this sink in - and give you time to sleep on it.
Because after all, in the time you'll spend sleeping - a CEO probably made your annual pay without having to lift a finger, whether fingers were lifted or not.
One report
Another report
The article that started my thinking
Minimum wage info Read more!
Here's the scary part - and the lesson to be learned about the different between the S&P 500 and the Average Joe:
Compared to the Average Joe working a full-time job at minimum wage - the CEOs are already done for the year.
I guess this is where the math comes in. From the various reports I've been reading about the 2005 fiscal year's reports of the salaries of the CEOs for the Standard & Poor's 500 companies, the average salary per CEO ranges from $10.2 million to $13.5 million. Let's take the lowest value and assume that the average salary for a CEO is only $10 million for the year.
$10,000,000 a year =
$192,307.69 a week =
$27,472.52 a day =
$1,144.68 an hour =
$19.078 a minute =
$0.32 a second
That's what they're getting paid every second of every minute of every hour of every day of every week as the paychecks come rolling in - whether they're the kind of CEO who works a 90-hour workweek or sits back and plays golf most days of the week while grunts take care of everything. Now let's do more math with this whole rate hike for the minimum wage.
The Federal Minimum Wage is now $5.15/hr though sometime in early-to-mid 2007 it'll become $7.25/hr. Some states have their own minimum wage laws. In Kansas, the state with the lowest minimum wage (which applies to jobs not covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act), you'd only earn $2.65/hr. The state with the highest minimum wage is Washington, with a wage of $7.93/hr. In fact, a few cities have higher minimum wages - in Los Angeles, if you don't get health benefits, your minimum wage is $10.33/hr. So let's do the math for a full-time employee working a standard 40-hour full-time workweek:
40 hrs x 52 weeks -> 2,080 paid hours
Non-FLSA Kansas: $5,512/year
Now (Federal): $10,712/year
With the hike: $15,080/year
In Washington: $16,494.40/year
In Los Angeles: $21,486.40/year
Here comes the fun math!
So, Average Joe, that's how much you made from an honest day's work of 40 solid hours a week. If enough people complain about my estimates of 40 hrs/week as being too low, or that I should take into account hard-workers and overtime or something, I'll update this. (Let's face it, nobody comments/debates on my posts anymore.) So while you were celebrating the New Year holiday with an actual day off (if you were lucky enough to get that day off) - let's see what the CEOs were earning while they got the day off, too!
By 5:00 AM, before most of the populous had even woken up, the CEOs amassed an average of over $5,700 - passing the annual yearly income in Kansas if you happened to work at a business not covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act.
How long until they earned what Average Joe would earn this year without the rate hike?
January 1st, 2007 - 9:22 AM:
The CEOs just surpassed your annual pay.
But what about after this rate hike up to $7.25/hr?
January 1st, 2007 - 1:11 PM:
The CEOs just surpassed your annual pay.
Okay, okay... How about if I move to Washington?
January 1st, 2007 - 2:25 PM:
The CEOs just surpassed your annual pay.
Fine! I'll move to L.A. and forego health benefits!
January 1st, 2007 - 6:47 PM:
The CEOs just surpassed your annual pay.
Is this scaring you at all?
Before most of the working-class had time to get over their HANGOVERS from celebrating the ball dropping and the new year starting, let alone wake up if they partied hard enough, CEOs already earned in less than one day what minimum-wagers would earn in the entire year.
Then there's taxes. Which affect both sides of this argument quite differently, and may be brought up in a further investigation.
For now, I'll let this sink in - and give you time to sleep on it.
Because after all, in the time you'll spend sleeping - a CEO probably made your annual pay without having to lift a finger, whether fingers were lifted or not.
One report
Another report
The article that started my thinking
Minimum wage info Read more!
Friday, December 15, 2006
PETA vs Basketball
If you hadn't been aware of it (much like myself prior to these articles) - the NBA last season changed to a new synthetic basketball that contained no leather. I, not being a sports fan in the least, had no idea of the switch until I came across the news that they would soon be switching back. I'm not sure WHY they changed the ball in the first place, but my suspicion is that it had more to do with animal rights activists than "the goodness of their hearts for the sake of cows the world over". I'm betting most basketball players love a good steak and certainly have the cash to purchase it on a whim.
The news article speaks of the many many complaints that came in all last season about the switch to the new synthetic ball and the damage it was causing. They even went so far as to mention that they ONLY positive feedback about getting rid of the leather basketballs came from (you guessed it) PETA.
NBA 1, PETA 0. Nothin' but net.
Among the complaints about the new ball, many were sensibly about the damage done to the players' hands. Some complained of paper-cut types of injuries from the rougher surface. Some complained that it roughened the skin and required frequent application of lotions to counteract the effect. Some said it was too slick - some said it was too sticky. A few even said it bounced funny. It also did damage to fingernails of some players.
In the game of basketball - hands are apparently a valuable item.
So David Stern, commissioner of the NBA said that as of January 1st, leather balls will be making a comeback. And while presumably every NBA player who has to USE the basketballs is cheering in celebration - the ONLY complaints we're hearing are coming from (you guesses it again) PETA.
This time - they're snippy!
Seriously. I'm an evil human being (according to some people I know) and even I wouldn't go as far in the "catty bitch" department of insults that PETA is throwing around. I read the "open letter" that PETA addressed to the NBA. While news sources are only reporting on the facade of "olive branchery" regarding the supposed deal that PETA is making - I can see it for what it truly is.
The news reports say that in the letter, PETA bargains that if the NBA stay with the synthetic basketballs instead of going back to leather, they will offer a lifetime supply of hand-lotion to all the NBA players.
While that IS the gist of the "deal" - if you look at the letter itself, you'll notice that PETA is more or less goading the NBA players with hurtful remarks and insults. Seriously, if they weren't doing this just for some nansy-pansy "save the cows" bullsh*t - I'd almost respect their evil bitterness exuded in this letter.
Here's a smattering of the language and jibes used in the open letter:
"As excruciating as these “injuries” must be for a world-class athlete, thousands of cows stand to suffer far worse" - making fun of the pain that the synthetic basketballs caused to players
"PETA would like to offer a lifetime supply of cruelty-free hand cream to any NBA siss … excuse me, superstar who’d be willing to give the composite ball another shot." - the point I was making earlier. You can't (IN THE SAME BREATH) make an offer or compromise AND insult the people you're making the offer/compromise to! "Wanna split a cab, assface?" "Could I borrow your pen, sh*t-for-brains?"
"we understand that the delicate hands of pampered NBA superstars are far more sensitive than those of your average Joe who actually has to work for a living." - if that's not a catty-bitch comment then I don't know what is.
"The hand cream comes in a variety of scents, including “Filthy Rich Organic” (perfect for any overpaid millionaire)" - again, another jibe, making me wonder if such a scent even exists and making me MORE doubtful they'd make this "deal" in the first place.
"Shaq . . . since you’ve only played four games all season, surely you have time to work a moisturizing routine into your schedule." - I don't follow sports so I don't know why he didn't play many games. This jab was mean and funny, but again - if it's favoring PETA then I'm still against it.
"Or LeBron, maybe you’re interested. The NCAA has used the composite ball for years—so it’s not only an education that you missed out on." - okay, now THAT's just rude! Insulting a person's education choice is just grasping at straws like an ignorant fool. We can't ALL go to college, you pompous f*cktards!
"judging by the reaction of some players, it seems like balls are in pretty short supply around the NBA these days."
For any newsperson who DARES to say that PETA's letter to the NBA is an "olive branch", "compromise" or anything alluding to a fair or honest deal - I challenge them to actually READ the letter. These kinds of jokes are okay if you're a comedian on a cable TV show or in private company telling them to friends or colleagues. This is NOT the kind of thing a person/organization should be making public.
I only hope that the holier-than-thou attitude POURING from this rude and offensive "open letter" draws even MORE people to my side of the cause, striving to chastize, put down and someday put a stop to PETA as a whole.
If you ever thought that PETA was a group of caring individuals, or that any of the things I say about them are a lie - why don't you read the letter for yourself and verify the offenses committed by PETA by writing it, associating with it and presenting it to the public.
It makes an anti-sports person like me want to go out and BUY a leather basketball - in hopes of one day bouncing it against a PETA member's smug face.
Read more!
The news article speaks of the many many complaints that came in all last season about the switch to the new synthetic ball and the damage it was causing. They even went so far as to mention that they ONLY positive feedback about getting rid of the leather basketballs came from (you guessed it) PETA.
NBA 1, PETA 0. Nothin' but net.
Among the complaints about the new ball, many were sensibly about the damage done to the players' hands. Some complained of paper-cut types of injuries from the rougher surface. Some complained that it roughened the skin and required frequent application of lotions to counteract the effect. Some said it was too slick - some said it was too sticky. A few even said it bounced funny. It also did damage to fingernails of some players.
In the game of basketball - hands are apparently a valuable item.
So David Stern, commissioner of the NBA said that as of January 1st, leather balls will be making a comeback. And while presumably every NBA player who has to USE the basketballs is cheering in celebration - the ONLY complaints we're hearing are coming from (you guesses it again) PETA.
This time - they're snippy!
Seriously. I'm an evil human being (according to some people I know) and even I wouldn't go as far in the "catty bitch" department of insults that PETA is throwing around. I read the "open letter" that PETA addressed to the NBA. While news sources are only reporting on the facade of "olive branchery" regarding the supposed deal that PETA is making - I can see it for what it truly is.
The news reports say that in the letter, PETA bargains that if the NBA stay with the synthetic basketballs instead of going back to leather, they will offer a lifetime supply of hand-lotion to all the NBA players.
While that IS the gist of the "deal" - if you look at the letter itself, you'll notice that PETA is more or less goading the NBA players with hurtful remarks and insults. Seriously, if they weren't doing this just for some nansy-pansy "save the cows" bullsh*t - I'd almost respect their evil bitterness exuded in this letter.
Here's a smattering of the language and jibes used in the open letter:
"As excruciating as these “injuries” must be for a world-class athlete, thousands of cows stand to suffer far worse" - making fun of the pain that the synthetic basketballs caused to players
"PETA would like to offer a lifetime supply of cruelty-free hand cream to any NBA siss … excuse me, superstar who’d be willing to give the composite ball another shot." - the point I was making earlier. You can't (IN THE SAME BREATH) make an offer or compromise AND insult the people you're making the offer/compromise to! "Wanna split a cab, assface?" "Could I borrow your pen, sh*t-for-brains?"
"we understand that the delicate hands of pampered NBA superstars are far more sensitive than those of your average Joe who actually has to work for a living." - if that's not a catty-bitch comment then I don't know what is.
"The hand cream comes in a variety of scents, including “Filthy Rich Organic” (perfect for any overpaid millionaire)" - again, another jibe, making me wonder if such a scent even exists and making me MORE doubtful they'd make this "deal" in the first place.
"Shaq . . . since you’ve only played four games all season, surely you have time to work a moisturizing routine into your schedule." - I don't follow sports so I don't know why he didn't play many games. This jab was mean and funny, but again - if it's favoring PETA then I'm still against it.
"Or LeBron, maybe you’re interested. The NCAA has used the composite ball for years—so it’s not only an education that you missed out on." - okay, now THAT's just rude! Insulting a person's education choice is just grasping at straws like an ignorant fool. We can't ALL go to college, you pompous f*cktards!
"judging by the reaction of some players, it seems like balls are in pretty short supply around the NBA these days."
For any newsperson who DARES to say that PETA's letter to the NBA is an "olive branch", "compromise" or anything alluding to a fair or honest deal - I challenge them to actually READ the letter. These kinds of jokes are okay if you're a comedian on a cable TV show or in private company telling them to friends or colleagues. This is NOT the kind of thing a person/organization should be making public.
I only hope that the holier-than-thou attitude POURING from this rude and offensive "open letter" draws even MORE people to my side of the cause, striving to chastize, put down and someday put a stop to PETA as a whole.
If you ever thought that PETA was a group of caring individuals, or that any of the things I say about them are a lie - why don't you read the letter for yourself and verify the offenses committed by PETA by writing it, associating with it and presenting it to the public.
It makes an anti-sports person like me want to go out and BUY a leather basketball - in hopes of one day bouncing it against a PETA member's smug face.
Read more!
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
NEWS FLASH: Burritos are not sandwiches!
It was hard to decide a category in which to place this news flash. I first thought about the Legal section, since it was all about the lawsuit over the burrito's status as a sandwich or not a sandwich - but then I thought about the heart of the matter: food logic.
The whole debate about burritos and sandwiches all started when a Panera store (of a huge franchise based in St. Louis with stores across the nation) in the White City Shopping Center added a clause in its lease with the shopping center that there would not be another sandwich shop allowed to rent space while Panera is there. Then along came the Qdoba Mexican Grill, which led to Panera invoking that clause to prevent the new store from opening, and challenging its right to even rent space in the shopping center.
And they went to court, hearing testimony from Webster's Dictionary, a chef and a former high-ranking federal agriculture official.
Verdict: Burritos are not sandwiches.
The court heard a lot of testimony on the subject. Panera claimed that a flour tortilla is a bread, and a food product with bread and filling is a sandwich. The judge wound up ruling that "a sandwich is not commonly understood to include burritos, tacos and quesadillas, which are typically made with a single tortilla and stuffed with a choice filling of meat, rice, and beans." Well, the actual ruling took up eight pages, but that was the bread and butter of the decision.
Bread and butter: Sandwich or No Sandwich?
In fact, the whole difference between Panera's self-serving broad definition of a sandwich being any bread/grain product and a filling, versus the court's ruling about sandwiches following more of the dictionary definition of two individual pieces of leavened bread and usually containing meat, cheese or another savory mixture - it raises a few other questions.
Let's think of things Panera would think are sandwiches that a court (and probably a nutritional anthropologist) would disagree with!
Calzone - one slab of pizza dough, folded over, and containing pizza sauce, cheese, and sometimes meats.
Pizza Puff - the same, but usually fried rather than baked.
Burrito - the reigning champion of "Not a Sandwich"
Taco - also only one tortilla, folded over
Quesadilla - questionable, as more traditional methods say one tortilla folded over, but I have cooked several times with two tortillas. This could be a sandwich, unless leavening comes into play, in which case my tortilla might still be safe from sandwichdom.
Ravioli - A bread product with a meat/cheese filling, but uses only one piece of dough.
Eggroll - also only one piece of dough.
Pierogi - also only one piece of dough.
Gyro - one piece of flatbread, which isn't really that flat
Now let's take on a few questionable items, and I'll let you help decide as you pretend to be a high-powered Superior Court judge who is stuck handling cases of "What is a Sandwich?"
"Sandwich" or "No Sandwich"?
S'mores - two pieces of bread-type food, filling that is usually not meaty or cheesy.
Chicago-Style Stuffed Pizza - a pizza that has both a bottom crust and a top crust, obviously with a pizza filling in the middle.
Ritz Bits Sandwiches (with cheese or peanut butter) - two separate crackers, filling of cheesy/savory nature. Is the term "sandwich" in the title an admission of guilt? Does this affect the law itself?
Nachos - another Mexican dish, comprised of MORE THAN ONE piece of bread-product, with cheese in-between as a "filling". Could Panera cry "sandwich" over this culinary treat after its relative, the burrito, has walked away clean?
Lasagna - the meaty cheesy filling is placed between separate layers of noodles. Does a sandwich have to be something hand-held, as it was supposedly originally created by the Earl of Sandwich to hold meaty food in his hand while playing cards?
Oreos - Two cookies, including a filling. While Oreos are the brand-name misnomer given to lots of non-Oreo cookies (like Band-aids are misnomered for adhesive bandages and Kleenex are for tissues), the category of cookie is known as "sandwich cookies" by the industry. Admission of guilt or simple racial profiling and stereotyping as Sandwich?
Pie - a classic two-breaded filled food item! While meat pies are not as common as the fruity variety, and more and more cream-based pies have no top shell - classic pie chefs are aware that the standard pie would make an excellent example of a possible Sandwich candidate.
You decide. You rule.
Sandwich? No Sandwich?
Have fun being judge and jury, and feel free to bring any other food items to the courtroom to be judged as you see fit!
(You know, this might be a stupidly-funny skit for SNL or MadTV of something. A gameshow/courtshow titled "Sandwich or No Sandwich?" and featuring a really fat judge who "knows about sandwiches". Hell, if "Extreme Akim" could be a judge on that outrageous debacle of a court show, "Eye for an Eye", and have a disclaimer in the credits to let viewers know that "Extreme Akim is not a judge. Rulings are not final or legally binding." - why couldn't THIS show fly?)
This is my claim on the whole idea. Patent Pending! Copyright Pending! Trademark Pending! Bwaaarg!!!
What foods would you bring to "Sandwich or No Sandwich"? Leave a comment and let me know!
And then Digg this article!
Read more!
The whole debate about burritos and sandwiches all started when a Panera store (of a huge franchise based in St. Louis with stores across the nation) in the White City Shopping Center added a clause in its lease with the shopping center that there would not be another sandwich shop allowed to rent space while Panera is there. Then along came the Qdoba Mexican Grill, which led to Panera invoking that clause to prevent the new store from opening, and challenging its right to even rent space in the shopping center.
And they went to court, hearing testimony from Webster's Dictionary, a chef and a former high-ranking federal agriculture official.
Verdict: Burritos are not sandwiches.
The court heard a lot of testimony on the subject. Panera claimed that a flour tortilla is a bread, and a food product with bread and filling is a sandwich. The judge wound up ruling that "a sandwich is not commonly understood to include burritos, tacos and quesadillas, which are typically made with a single tortilla and stuffed with a choice filling of meat, rice, and beans." Well, the actual ruling took up eight pages, but that was the bread and butter of the decision.
Bread and butter: Sandwich or No Sandwich?
In fact, the whole difference between Panera's self-serving broad definition of a sandwich being any bread/grain product and a filling, versus the court's ruling about sandwiches following more of the dictionary definition of two individual pieces of leavened bread and usually containing meat, cheese or another savory mixture - it raises a few other questions.
Let's think of things Panera would think are sandwiches that a court (and probably a nutritional anthropologist) would disagree with!
Calzone - one slab of pizza dough, folded over, and containing pizza sauce, cheese, and sometimes meats.
Pizza Puff - the same, but usually fried rather than baked.
Burrito - the reigning champion of "Not a Sandwich"
Taco - also only one tortilla, folded over
Quesadilla - questionable, as more traditional methods say one tortilla folded over, but I have cooked several times with two tortillas. This could be a sandwich, unless leavening comes into play, in which case my tortilla might still be safe from sandwichdom.
Ravioli - A bread product with a meat/cheese filling, but uses only one piece of dough.
Eggroll - also only one piece of dough.
Pierogi - also only one piece of dough.
Gyro - one piece of flatbread, which isn't really that flat
Now let's take on a few questionable items, and I'll let you help decide as you pretend to be a high-powered Superior Court judge who is stuck handling cases of "What is a Sandwich?"
"Sandwich" or "No Sandwich"?
S'mores - two pieces of bread-type food, filling that is usually not meaty or cheesy.
Chicago-Style Stuffed Pizza - a pizza that has both a bottom crust and a top crust, obviously with a pizza filling in the middle.
Ritz Bits Sandwiches (with cheese or peanut butter) - two separate crackers, filling of cheesy/savory nature. Is the term "sandwich" in the title an admission of guilt? Does this affect the law itself?
Nachos - another Mexican dish, comprised of MORE THAN ONE piece of bread-product, with cheese in-between as a "filling". Could Panera cry "sandwich" over this culinary treat after its relative, the burrito, has walked away clean?
Lasagna - the meaty cheesy filling is placed between separate layers of noodles. Does a sandwich have to be something hand-held, as it was supposedly originally created by the Earl of Sandwich to hold meaty food in his hand while playing cards?
Oreos - Two cookies, including a filling. While Oreos are the brand-name misnomer given to lots of non-Oreo cookies (like Band-aids are misnomered for adhesive bandages and Kleenex are for tissues), the category of cookie is known as "sandwich cookies" by the industry. Admission of guilt or simple racial profiling and stereotyping as Sandwich?
Pie - a classic two-breaded filled food item! While meat pies are not as common as the fruity variety, and more and more cream-based pies have no top shell - classic pie chefs are aware that the standard pie would make an excellent example of a possible Sandwich candidate.
You decide. You rule.
Sandwich? No Sandwich?
Have fun being judge and jury, and feel free to bring any other food items to the courtroom to be judged as you see fit!
(You know, this might be a stupidly-funny skit for SNL or MadTV of something. A gameshow/courtshow titled "Sandwich or No Sandwich?" and featuring a really fat judge who "knows about sandwiches". Hell, if "Extreme Akim" could be a judge on that outrageous debacle of a court show, "Eye for an Eye", and have a disclaimer in the credits to let viewers know that "Extreme Akim is not a judge. Rulings are not final or legally binding." - why couldn't THIS show fly?)
This is my claim on the whole idea. Patent Pending! Copyright Pending! Trademark Pending! Bwaaarg!!!
What foods would you bring to "Sandwich or No Sandwich"? Leave a comment and let me know!
And then Digg this article!
Read more!
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Chicago vs. PETA: A Step In The Right Direction?
Before reading this, you might want to catch up by reading the previous parts of this Chicago vs. PETA series:
PART 1: Chicago Bans Food and PETA is to Blame
PART 2: Chicago vs. PETA: The Foie Gras Debate!
PART 3: Chicago vs. PETA: The Lawsuit!
PART 4: Chicago vs. PETA: The Uprising!
PART 5: Chicago vs. PETA: The First Offense!
And join us in the sixth installment of a series of posts that (in the opinion of the writer) should never have come to be. And PETA is to blame; they shock-videoed the Chicago City Council into agreeing to sign a law banning foie gras from the city. In the second part, I discussed the studies and FACTS proving that the reasons BEHIND the law are unfounded and not based on any facts at all. In the third part I got to speak of the Illinois Restaurant Association (IRA) who believes so strongly in this cause that it's practically paying for both sides of the legal battle, based on the fact that it's unconstitutional to make a city law overturning something the federal government approves, let alone deciding what people can/cannot eat. In the fourth part I got to talk about the restaurants fighting back and how more were serving foie gras than ever once the law took effect. In this fifth part, we learned about the first victim of the law and how little the city even cared, other than the media. In part six, the mayor has decided to reconsider his stance on the issue.
In fact, if all goes well, Mayor Richard M. Daley may have just put into motion the proposal to rid his fine city of this unsightly legal blemish once and for all.
Heck, the man even finally admitted that the city council's initial decision led to "the funniest law they ever passed". And while he didn't veto it outright (like he should have) when the law passed his desk, he's now agreeing with the masses that it's a horribly stupid idea in general and has taken steps to correct his mistake in letting it slide.
Chicago Mayor Daley signed on to a repeal proposal introduced by two city aldermen, according to his spokeswoman. This went into effect on Thursday. The original ban angered some restaurant owners and gourmets (as well as a few bloggers like myself), who argued that the city was going too far by restricting what residents could eat. Daley criticized it also as a waste of the city council's time, but he didn't veto it.
This change of heart MAY have something to do with the fact that the city was almost caught up in yet ANOTHER storm of disapproval as the city of Chicago's councilmen decided to downgrade their new attack on trans fats. They had previously been considering a NEW ban on restaurants using trans fats to cook food, but after the outrage of their previous "food ban" idea, they downgraded it to a "negotiation" and possible "compromise" with the Illinois Restarant Association.
Going from a ban on "animal cruelty" food to a ban purely based on nothing but "wanting to be healthier" - I don't know what the result would have been, but I'm assuming protests and fires might have been possible outcomes.
We have the right to eat unhealthy foods. No ban is going to stop that. No law ever should.
So a possible step in the right direction is taking place on the foie gras issue. The council's Health Committee will vote on the issue and decide if it should be brought before the city council. Who might finally come to their senses and NOT be swayed by PETA and other animals rights "boo-hoo" criers who prey on the ignorant like themselves - people who don't bother to learn the facts and forget that people are animals too.
Stay tuned for more in the Chicago vs. PETA series - a series we wouldn't have had in the first place if it weren't for PETA sticking its nose in YOUR dinner plate. Read more!
PART 1: Chicago Bans Food and PETA is to Blame
PART 2: Chicago vs. PETA: The Foie Gras Debate!
PART 3: Chicago vs. PETA: The Lawsuit!
PART 4: Chicago vs. PETA: The Uprising!
PART 5: Chicago vs. PETA: The First Offense!
And join us in the sixth installment of a series of posts that (in the opinion of the writer) should never have come to be. And PETA is to blame; they shock-videoed the Chicago City Council into agreeing to sign a law banning foie gras from the city. In the second part, I discussed the studies and FACTS proving that the reasons BEHIND the law are unfounded and not based on any facts at all. In the third part I got to speak of the Illinois Restaurant Association (IRA) who believes so strongly in this cause that it's practically paying for both sides of the legal battle, based on the fact that it's unconstitutional to make a city law overturning something the federal government approves, let alone deciding what people can/cannot eat. In the fourth part I got to talk about the restaurants fighting back and how more were serving foie gras than ever once the law took effect. In this fifth part, we learned about the first victim of the law and how little the city even cared, other than the media. In part six, the mayor has decided to reconsider his stance on the issue.
In fact, if all goes well, Mayor Richard M. Daley may have just put into motion the proposal to rid his fine city of this unsightly legal blemish once and for all.
Heck, the man even finally admitted that the city council's initial decision led to "the funniest law they ever passed". And while he didn't veto it outright (like he should have) when the law passed his desk, he's now agreeing with the masses that it's a horribly stupid idea in general and has taken steps to correct his mistake in letting it slide.
Chicago Mayor Daley signed on to a repeal proposal introduced by two city aldermen, according to his spokeswoman. This went into effect on Thursday. The original ban angered some restaurant owners and gourmets (as well as a few bloggers like myself), who argued that the city was going too far by restricting what residents could eat. Daley criticized it also as a waste of the city council's time, but he didn't veto it.
This change of heart MAY have something to do with the fact that the city was almost caught up in yet ANOTHER storm of disapproval as the city of Chicago's councilmen decided to downgrade their new attack on trans fats. They had previously been considering a NEW ban on restaurants using trans fats to cook food, but after the outrage of their previous "food ban" idea, they downgraded it to a "negotiation" and possible "compromise" with the Illinois Restarant Association.
Going from a ban on "animal cruelty" food to a ban purely based on nothing but "wanting to be healthier" - I don't know what the result would have been, but I'm assuming protests and fires might have been possible outcomes.
We have the right to eat unhealthy foods. No ban is going to stop that. No law ever should.
So a possible step in the right direction is taking place on the foie gras issue. The council's Health Committee will vote on the issue and decide if it should be brought before the city council. Who might finally come to their senses and NOT be swayed by PETA and other animals rights "boo-hoo" criers who prey on the ignorant like themselves - people who don't bother to learn the facts and forget that people are animals too.
Stay tuned for more in the Chicago vs. PETA series - a series we wouldn't have had in the first place if it weren't for PETA sticking its nose in YOUR dinner plate. Read more!
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Chicago vs. PETA: The First Offense!
Before reading this, you might want to catch up by reading the previous parts of this Chicago vs. PETA series:
PART 1: Chicago Bans Food and PETA is to Blame
PART 2: Chicago vs. PETA: The Foie Gras Debate!
PART 3: Chicago vs. PETA: The Lawsuit!
PART 4: Chicago vs. PETA: The Uprising!
And join us in the fifth installment of a series of posts that (in the opinion of the writer) should never have come to be. And PETA is to blame; they shock-videoed the Chicago City Council into agreeing to sign a law banning foie gras from the city. In the second part, I discussed the studies and FACTS proving that the reasons BEHIND the law are unfounded and not based on any facts at all. In the third part I got to speak of the Illinois Restaurant Association (IRA) who believes so strongly in this cause that it's practically paying for both sides of the legal battle, based on the fact that it's unconstitutional to make a city law overturning something the federal government approves, let alone deciding what people can/cannot eat. In the fourth part I got to talk about the restaurants fighting back and how more were serving foie gras than ever once the law took effect. In this fifth part, we'll learn about the first victim of the law.
The first known offender of the foie gras ban has been reported. His warning letter will be in the mail eventually.
The offense was anonymously reported on Friday night as someone called the 311 non-emergency system and complained that foie gras was being served at Block 44, a Lincoln Square restaurant. The chef, Rick Spiros, acknowledged that he had indeed served about 8 orders of foie gras that night - even though he knew that the ban was in place and it was illegal to do so. his reasoning was that he wasn't trying to be one of the uprising restaurants or anything, he was simply trying to avoid wasting the very expensive food. And the very BEST way to do that - is to sell it to hungry restaurant patrons.
Says Rick Spiros, "I had a couple pieces left over, and I just got rid of it. I just did it. I'm a bad chef, I guess. People loved it. People bought it. One person complained? I'll take the slap on the wrist. I'm not in fourth grade. I had the decision to make, and I served it."
He claims this was a one-time thing and now that his foie gras has been sold and enjoyably eaten, he doesn't plan on buying anymore and continuing to violate the new law. Even so, he certainly doesn't SUPPORT the law. "There are so many other things to worry about...there's graffiti on my door, no one cares about that. We all live here." He also added that "It's ridiculous. There's far too many things going on in this town to worry about a duck liver. I don't know what the person's problem was in the first place with the whole thing, but I do know black and white. There are things far more important to be dealing with in the city, the Health Department and in the restaurant business. Foie gras is the lowest on the totem pole."
Tim Hadac, who you all remember from the other parts of this series is a spokesman for the City Health Department, said that this complaint means that they will be sending a letter to Block 44 to remind them of the law and let them know they expect compliance with it. "If we get a second complaint, we'll be out there, ticket book in hand. If we find a violation if and when we inspect, we'll write 'em a ticket for $250," he said.
Yea. We'll be waiting. We're certainly shaking in our hypothetical boots as it is.
Stay tuned for more in the Chicago vs. PETA series - a series we wouldn't have had in the first place if it weren't for PETA sticking its nose in YOUR dinner plate. Read more!
PART 1: Chicago Bans Food and PETA is to Blame
PART 2: Chicago vs. PETA: The Foie Gras Debate!
PART 3: Chicago vs. PETA: The Lawsuit!
PART 4: Chicago vs. PETA: The Uprising!
And join us in the fifth installment of a series of posts that (in the opinion of the writer) should never have come to be. And PETA is to blame; they shock-videoed the Chicago City Council into agreeing to sign a law banning foie gras from the city. In the second part, I discussed the studies and FACTS proving that the reasons BEHIND the law are unfounded and not based on any facts at all. In the third part I got to speak of the Illinois Restaurant Association (IRA) who believes so strongly in this cause that it's practically paying for both sides of the legal battle, based on the fact that it's unconstitutional to make a city law overturning something the federal government approves, let alone deciding what people can/cannot eat. In the fourth part I got to talk about the restaurants fighting back and how more were serving foie gras than ever once the law took effect. In this fifth part, we'll learn about the first victim of the law.
The first known offender of the foie gras ban has been reported. His warning letter will be in the mail eventually.
The offense was anonymously reported on Friday night as someone called the 311 non-emergency system and complained that foie gras was being served at Block 44, a Lincoln Square restaurant. The chef, Rick Spiros, acknowledged that he had indeed served about 8 orders of foie gras that night - even though he knew that the ban was in place and it was illegal to do so. his reasoning was that he wasn't trying to be one of the uprising restaurants or anything, he was simply trying to avoid wasting the very expensive food. And the very BEST way to do that - is to sell it to hungry restaurant patrons.
Says Rick Spiros, "I had a couple pieces left over, and I just got rid of it. I just did it. I'm a bad chef, I guess. People loved it. People bought it. One person complained? I'll take the slap on the wrist. I'm not in fourth grade. I had the decision to make, and I served it."
He claims this was a one-time thing and now that his foie gras has been sold and enjoyably eaten, he doesn't plan on buying anymore and continuing to violate the new law. Even so, he certainly doesn't SUPPORT the law. "There are so many other things to worry about...there's graffiti on my door, no one cares about that. We all live here." He also added that "It's ridiculous. There's far too many things going on in this town to worry about a duck liver. I don't know what the person's problem was in the first place with the whole thing, but I do know black and white. There are things far more important to be dealing with in the city, the Health Department and in the restaurant business. Foie gras is the lowest on the totem pole."
Tim Hadac, who you all remember from the other parts of this series is a spokesman for the City Health Department, said that this complaint means that they will be sending a letter to Block 44 to remind them of the law and let them know they expect compliance with it. "If we get a second complaint, we'll be out there, ticket book in hand. If we find a violation if and when we inspect, we'll write 'em a ticket for $250," he said.
Yea. We'll be waiting. We're certainly shaking in our hypothetical boots as it is.
Stay tuned for more in the Chicago vs. PETA series - a series we wouldn't have had in the first place if it weren't for PETA sticking its nose in YOUR dinner plate. Read more!
Friday, August 25, 2006
College is Killing the Birth Rate; Grade 13?
Chicago mayor Daley says that college is pretty much ruining the birth rate here in America. It's causing fewer babies to be born, and threatens to stagnate both knowledge and knowledge-based economy. And while the mayor starts making accusations and offering "plans", it will wind up in the lap of whoever wins the race for governor. Education funding will be a hot issue for both candidates, especially with some of the ideas that mayor Daley is throwing around.
For example, a "Grade 13" - a fifth year of high school.
While his accusations of what college are doing to America make some sense, his plans/ideas may not hold as much water. College tuitions are indeed costly, and can range anywhere from $40,000 to $70,000 to probably much higher than that if it's a private school. And while scholarships and financial aid can help, their help is limited and the brunt of the expense winds up on both the student and the family as a whole.
It's basically coming down to a family unit deciding to stop at a certain number of children simply out of the fear of what college expenses will be. And mayor Daley doesn't want parents to stop having children for that reason, especially when it means that children simply can't afford higher education at all.
Daley adds, "If we’re a land of opportunity and we want to be a knowledge-based society and we want to compete against India and China, we had better educate our children." The fact is that the senior year of high school is spent more on trying to find a college and find ways to PAY for that college than really learning the material needed to get INTO the college. The added stress really gums up the works as well.
So maybe this fifth year of high school isn't such a bad idea.
After all, it would mean that 4th-year students can do the work they're supposed to be doing. And by the 4th year of high school, many students are taking classes that will either give them credits for college or AP exams that do the same. Imagine if there were a fifth year to get MORE of those credits so your stay in college would be shortened all that much, plus have an easier college-like schedule to provide the free time needed to apply and work out financial situations as well. Daley thinks that all children should have the opportunity to go to college, learn the knowledge and skills one can reap there, and keep America on top of that knowledge-based economy.
As for me, I'm not sure if all high school students really SHOULD go to college. Of course, this is mostly based on my theory that we can work on getting rid of illegal immigrants and open the work force up to provide jobs to the many who can't afford or survive college. That could ease up on the unemployment rate and maybe then employers wouldn't need to make all of the good jobs so competitive and requiring college degrees to make sure they're picking the "cream of the crop" who DID afford and survive college.
I've encountered way too many low-budget low-quality jobs that you simply need to be totally overqualified to handle. Employers apparently think that anything involving a computer should require a degree (often in a field that has nothing to do with computers). Welcome to the year 2000, folks. We know computers. We've hit a generation where high school diplomas mean a LOT more skills than were previously available to non-collegiate applicants, you know?
Or maybe those diplomas will mean that much more with an extra year of high-school knowledge crammed into the brains of our youths? What do you think about Grade 13 and mayor Daley's accusations of college killing the birth rate?
The original article Read more!
For example, a "Grade 13" - a fifth year of high school.
While his accusations of what college are doing to America make some sense, his plans/ideas may not hold as much water. College tuitions are indeed costly, and can range anywhere from $40,000 to $70,000 to probably much higher than that if it's a private school. And while scholarships and financial aid can help, their help is limited and the brunt of the expense winds up on both the student and the family as a whole.
It's basically coming down to a family unit deciding to stop at a certain number of children simply out of the fear of what college expenses will be. And mayor Daley doesn't want parents to stop having children for that reason, especially when it means that children simply can't afford higher education at all.
Daley adds, "If we’re a land of opportunity and we want to be a knowledge-based society and we want to compete against India and China, we had better educate our children." The fact is that the senior year of high school is spent more on trying to find a college and find ways to PAY for that college than really learning the material needed to get INTO the college. The added stress really gums up the works as well.
So maybe this fifth year of high school isn't such a bad idea.
After all, it would mean that 4th-year students can do the work they're supposed to be doing. And by the 4th year of high school, many students are taking classes that will either give them credits for college or AP exams that do the same. Imagine if there were a fifth year to get MORE of those credits so your stay in college would be shortened all that much, plus have an easier college-like schedule to provide the free time needed to apply and work out financial situations as well. Daley thinks that all children should have the opportunity to go to college, learn the knowledge and skills one can reap there, and keep America on top of that knowledge-based economy.
As for me, I'm not sure if all high school students really SHOULD go to college. Of course, this is mostly based on my theory that we can work on getting rid of illegal immigrants and open the work force up to provide jobs to the many who can't afford or survive college. That could ease up on the unemployment rate and maybe then employers wouldn't need to make all of the good jobs so competitive and requiring college degrees to make sure they're picking the "cream of the crop" who DID afford and survive college.
I've encountered way too many low-budget low-quality jobs that you simply need to be totally overqualified to handle. Employers apparently think that anything involving a computer should require a degree (often in a field that has nothing to do with computers). Welcome to the year 2000, folks. We know computers. We've hit a generation where high school diplomas mean a LOT more skills than were previously available to non-collegiate applicants, you know?
Or maybe those diplomas will mean that much more with an extra year of high-school knowledge crammed into the brains of our youths? What do you think about Grade 13 and mayor Daley's accusations of college killing the birth rate?
The original article Read more!
Illegal Immigrants: RIGHT OVER THERE!
It's official: illegal immigrants simply have more rights than regular US citizens. And I'll tell you why: BECAUSE THEY'RE ILLEGAL. They are, by definition, breaking the law by being in this country without legal citizenship, documentation, et cetera. And with this rise of town ordinances that LOOK like they'll finally be making a difference by banning/punishing those who HIRE or RENT LIVING SPACE to illegal immigrants - it's just becoming more and more clear that while the CITIZENS care, the POLICE don't.
Because in all the photos of the protests, the police are in view to "keep the peace", but the law-breakers are RIGHT OVER THERE!
Let's try an analogy. Let's say that the solidarity isn't for illegal immigrants, it's for another group of law-breakers. Let's say the "Car Stereo Stealing Coalition" was having a march, trying to protest a law increasing the penalty for stealing car stereos. Which means there's about 300 people who have STOLEN CAR STEREOS and are practically CONFESSING to the crime. And the police are there to make sure nobody HURTS the thieves while they march, holding high their stolen car stereos to prove they are members of the CSSC.
How about the "Cuban Cigar Connoseurs"? Marching in a puff of smoke from illegally-purchased cigars down the street, possibly wearing Castro beards. Blowing their illegal smoke right in a police officer's face. Possibly asking them for a light! Just please don't let those other protestors throw water on my beautiful Cubano, eh?
This law makes sense, if you think about it a LITTLE. Okay, rent to a family of illegal immigrants, and you get penalized. Try thinking about it harder, because there's nothing about DEPORTING THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS there. If you're illegal, your landlord gets slapped and punished, and your biggest worry is trying to find ANOTHER PLACE to rent and get THAT landlord punished. And the same thing with the jobs. Imagine if your boss of ten employees hires one illegal. And then your BOSS gets arrested. Sure, the illegal has to leave, but don't you think YOUR job is in danger with your boss in prison or something?
And if you're one of those bleeding-heart liberals who's all "why you being so mean to the poor illegals?" then I have another analogy for you. It's not that great, but maybe it'll shed some light on the animosity that the issue creates:
You're back in the third grade. And you're in line to get some yummy cookies. And you've finally made it after minutes of waiting to the next 10 kids to get cookies. And some mean kid in front of you lets 5 of his friends get "cuts". It not only delays YOUR cookie enjoyment, but THEY get to enjoy cookies BEFORE you and WITHOUT waiting all those precious snacktime minutes that YOU waited. And you complain to the teacher, who just tells you "you're still going to get cookies, so please stop the complaining".
Well instead of cookies, maybe it's healthcare. Or a job.
And instead of minutes, it's hours or even days or longer.
And instead of a teacher, it's the police.
Who does NOTHING about the "cutting". Except tells YOU to stop arguing about it, while not punishing the offenders.
Welcome to our world, liberals.
Maybe there's not enough cookies, like JOBS, and they get them but you don't, because their "cut" in line was because they'll work for less than you.
What we need in this country are police officers and the Department of Immigration to get off their butts and DO SOMETHING about the problem. Building a wall along Mexico is great for keeping them out, but we have to acknowledge the vast number who are already here. In Riverside, NJ where this protest happened, the town has 8,000 and it's estimated that 3,500 of them are illegal immigrants.
And if 200-500 of them get together and protest, how about getting the fucking Department of Immigration over there and deporting some of the fucking illegals??
Don't like our ordinance that chastises you for breaking the law and entering our country illegally?
Fine.
Get the hell out and the law won't bother you anymore.
The article about the protest
Read more!
Because in all the photos of the protests, the police are in view to "keep the peace", but the law-breakers are RIGHT OVER THERE!
Let's try an analogy. Let's say that the solidarity isn't for illegal immigrants, it's for another group of law-breakers. Let's say the "Car Stereo Stealing Coalition" was having a march, trying to protest a law increasing the penalty for stealing car stereos. Which means there's about 300 people who have STOLEN CAR STEREOS and are practically CONFESSING to the crime. And the police are there to make sure nobody HURTS the thieves while they march, holding high their stolen car stereos to prove they are members of the CSSC.
How about the "Cuban Cigar Connoseurs"? Marching in a puff of smoke from illegally-purchased cigars down the street, possibly wearing Castro beards. Blowing their illegal smoke right in a police officer's face. Possibly asking them for a light! Just please don't let those other protestors throw water on my beautiful Cubano, eh?
This law makes sense, if you think about it a LITTLE. Okay, rent to a family of illegal immigrants, and you get penalized. Try thinking about it harder, because there's nothing about DEPORTING THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS there. If you're illegal, your landlord gets slapped and punished, and your biggest worry is trying to find ANOTHER PLACE to rent and get THAT landlord punished. And the same thing with the jobs. Imagine if your boss of ten employees hires one illegal. And then your BOSS gets arrested. Sure, the illegal has to leave, but don't you think YOUR job is in danger with your boss in prison or something?
And if you're one of those bleeding-heart liberals who's all "why you being so mean to the poor illegals?" then I have another analogy for you. It's not that great, but maybe it'll shed some light on the animosity that the issue creates:
You're back in the third grade. And you're in line to get some yummy cookies. And you've finally made it after minutes of waiting to the next 10 kids to get cookies. And some mean kid in front of you lets 5 of his friends get "cuts". It not only delays YOUR cookie enjoyment, but THEY get to enjoy cookies BEFORE you and WITHOUT waiting all those precious snacktime minutes that YOU waited. And you complain to the teacher, who just tells you "you're still going to get cookies, so please stop the complaining".
Well instead of cookies, maybe it's healthcare. Or a job.
And instead of minutes, it's hours or even days or longer.
And instead of a teacher, it's the police.
Who does NOTHING about the "cutting". Except tells YOU to stop arguing about it, while not punishing the offenders.
Welcome to our world, liberals.
Maybe there's not enough cookies, like JOBS, and they get them but you don't, because their "cut" in line was because they'll work for less than you.
What we need in this country are police officers and the Department of Immigration to get off their butts and DO SOMETHING about the problem. Building a wall along Mexico is great for keeping them out, but we have to acknowledge the vast number who are already here. In Riverside, NJ where this protest happened, the town has 8,000 and it's estimated that 3,500 of them are illegal immigrants.
And if 200-500 of them get together and protest, how about getting the fucking Department of Immigration over there and deporting some of the fucking illegals??
Don't like our ordinance that chastises you for breaking the law and entering our country illegally?
Fine.
Get the hell out and the law won't bother you anymore.
The article about the protest
Read more!
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Chicago vs. PETA: The Uprising!
Before reading this, you might want to catch up by reading the previous parts of this Chicago vs. PETA series:
PART 1: Chicago Bans Food and PETA is to Blame
PART 2: Chicago vs. PETA: The Foie Gras Debate!
PART 3: Chicago vs. PETA: The Lawsuit!
And join us in the fourth installment of a series of posts that (in the opinion of the writer) should never have come to be. And PETA is to blame; they shock-videoed the Chicago City Council into agreeing to sign a law banning foie gras from the city. In the second part, I discussed the studies and FACTS proving that the reasons BEHIND the law are unfounded and not based on any facts at all. In the third part I got to speak of the Illinois Restaurant Association (IRA) who believes so strongly in this cause that it's practically paying for both sides of the legal battle, based on the fact that it's unconstitutional to make a city law overturning something the federal government approves, let alone deciding what people can/cannot eat. This fourth installment is about the first day of the ban, and what the IRA is doing to fight it.
Because foie gras hasn't gone away - it's being served in more places than EVER!
In a form of civil disobedience straight out of the heart of America, Chicago restaurants are creating an uprising against the city ordinance banning the sale of foie gras by selling it EVERYWHERE! (Oh, when I say "heart of America", I mean making a point AND turning a profit.) Acting out against the unfair banning of a food item that the federal government has no problem with grading, testing and selling all across the country. There are a few other cities that have passed such an ordinance about the non-vegetarian delicacy, but Chicago is the first one to be hit by it, and Chicagoans and their restaurant owners are more than willing to hit back.
The famous Harry Caray's has never before sold foie gras in its restaurant. But to spite this ban that took effect yesterday, the owners were proud to add a few new items to the menu: a pan-seared foie gras and scallops appetizer ($14.95) and a Vesuvio-style entree pairing foie gras and tenderloin ($33.95). Why would a restaurant that was not previously in violation of the ordinance decide to add these violation-items on the day the ordinance takes effect?
Says owner Grant DePorter, "This ban is embarrassing Chicago. We really don't think the City Council should decide what Chicagoans eat. What's next? Some other city outlaws brussels sprouts? Another outlaws chicken? Another, green beans?"
So with all of these restaurants not subtly but BLATANTLY defying the unfair city ordinance AND profiting from it, what is the city going to do to them?
So far - nothing.
Tim Hadac, a spokesman for the Chicago Department of Public Health that should be enforcing this ban, said that although the law went into effect yesterday, on Tuesday the 22nd, the city would start enforcing it today. He went on to later say what the enforcement WOULD be, and the answer is practically "very little". City officials will respond to citizen complaints, said Hadac, first sending a warning letter to restaurants, then demanding a fine - from $250 to $500 - for second offenses. Joe Moore, the guy who proposed the unconstitutional ban in the first place, added that "The city gave them a day of fun, but tomorrow we'll see what happens."
Yes. We certainly will. And I'll keep on posting about it to try and raise awareness of this unjust law that you and PETA brought into this city like a pestilence until things have been made right again. And frankly, going back to my orignal comment at the start of this article about the "heart of America" - at the prices that Harry Caray's is selling the foie gras dishes alone, don't you think it's laughable to have the SECOND slap (after all the time it takes to mail letters nowadays) fine be $250-$500? I can just see DePorter saying "Uh-oh, another $500 fine! Let's sell 20 more foie gras entrees, turn a profit, and STICK IT TO 'EM!" and possibly adding a Harry Caray tribute of "HOLY COW!"
Stay tuned for more in the Chicago vs. PETA series - a series we wouldn't have had in the first place if it weren't for PETA sticking its nose in YOUR dinner plate. Read more!
PART 1: Chicago Bans Food and PETA is to Blame
PART 2: Chicago vs. PETA: The Foie Gras Debate!
PART 3: Chicago vs. PETA: The Lawsuit!
And join us in the fourth installment of a series of posts that (in the opinion of the writer) should never have come to be. And PETA is to blame; they shock-videoed the Chicago City Council into agreeing to sign a law banning foie gras from the city. In the second part, I discussed the studies and FACTS proving that the reasons BEHIND the law are unfounded and not based on any facts at all. In the third part I got to speak of the Illinois Restaurant Association (IRA) who believes so strongly in this cause that it's practically paying for both sides of the legal battle, based on the fact that it's unconstitutional to make a city law overturning something the federal government approves, let alone deciding what people can/cannot eat. This fourth installment is about the first day of the ban, and what the IRA is doing to fight it.
Because foie gras hasn't gone away - it's being served in more places than EVER!
In a form of civil disobedience straight out of the heart of America, Chicago restaurants are creating an uprising against the city ordinance banning the sale of foie gras by selling it EVERYWHERE! (Oh, when I say "heart of America", I mean making a point AND turning a profit.) Acting out against the unfair banning of a food item that the federal government has no problem with grading, testing and selling all across the country. There are a few other cities that have passed such an ordinance about the non-vegetarian delicacy, but Chicago is the first one to be hit by it, and Chicagoans and their restaurant owners are more than willing to hit back.
The famous Harry Caray's has never before sold foie gras in its restaurant. But to spite this ban that took effect yesterday, the owners were proud to add a few new items to the menu: a pan-seared foie gras and scallops appetizer ($14.95) and a Vesuvio-style entree pairing foie gras and tenderloin ($33.95). Why would a restaurant that was not previously in violation of the ordinance decide to add these violation-items on the day the ordinance takes effect?
Says owner Grant DePorter, "This ban is embarrassing Chicago. We really don't think the City Council should decide what Chicagoans eat. What's next? Some other city outlaws brussels sprouts? Another outlaws chicken? Another, green beans?"
So with all of these restaurants not subtly but BLATANTLY defying the unfair city ordinance AND profiting from it, what is the city going to do to them?
So far - nothing.
Tim Hadac, a spokesman for the Chicago Department of Public Health that should be enforcing this ban, said that although the law went into effect yesterday, on Tuesday the 22nd, the city would start enforcing it today. He went on to later say what the enforcement WOULD be, and the answer is practically "very little". City officials will respond to citizen complaints, said Hadac, first sending a warning letter to restaurants, then demanding a fine - from $250 to $500 - for second offenses. Joe Moore, the guy who proposed the unconstitutional ban in the first place, added that "The city gave them a day of fun, but tomorrow we'll see what happens."
Yes. We certainly will. And I'll keep on posting about it to try and raise awareness of this unjust law that you and PETA brought into this city like a pestilence until things have been made right again. And frankly, going back to my orignal comment at the start of this article about the "heart of America" - at the prices that Harry Caray's is selling the foie gras dishes alone, don't you think it's laughable to have the SECOND slap (after all the time it takes to mail letters nowadays) fine be $250-$500? I can just see DePorter saying "Uh-oh, another $500 fine! Let's sell 20 more foie gras entrees, turn a profit, and STICK IT TO 'EM!" and possibly adding a Harry Caray tribute of "HOLY COW!"
Stay tuned for more in the Chicago vs. PETA series - a series we wouldn't have had in the first place if it weren't for PETA sticking its nose in YOUR dinner plate. Read more!
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Chicago vs. PETA: The Lawsuit!
Before reading this, you might want to catch up by reading the previous parts of this Chicago vs. PETA series:
PART 1: Chicago Bans Food and PETA is to Blame
PART 2: Chicago vs. PETA: The Foie Gras Debate!
And join us in the third installment of a series of posts that (in the opinion of the writer) should never have come to be. And PETA is to blame; they shock-videoed the Chicago City Council into agreeing to sign a law banning foie gras from the city. In the second part, I discussed the studies and FACTS proving that the reasons BEHIND the law are unfounded and not based on any facts at all. And now, as I predicted, the lawsuit is on.
The Illinois Restaurant Association vs. the City of Chicago
The Illinois Restaurant Association, also known as "Chicago Chefs for Choice", have started the ball rolling with a few obvious legal issues being brought up. First and foremost, "the argument is that this [ban] violates interstate commerce and the city is usurping the federal government's power by banning a product that's federally approved for shipment across state lines." This is the foundation for the legal battle at-hand, but there are many not-so-legal and yet totally-common-sense arguments to be made.
In the words of the Illinois Restaurant Association's president, Colleen McShane, "We believe the City Council does not have a right to tell people what to have for dinner."
It goes back to that little thing we Americans have, called 'freedom' - a thing we used to be able to flaunt and brag about to other countries, rather than take away from our citizens and have the whole world laughing at us for doing so.
As for the legal issue stated above, what right does Chicago have to ban something that's already approved by the United States Department of Agriculture? If the USDA says it's okay, why would one city in particular get to say that it's not? And frankly, you KNOW that these Chicago restaurant owners, American farmers, lovers of foie gras and lovers of freedom in general are SERIOUS about the issue because of where the money to have these legal battles is going to come from: their own pockets.
Chicago citizens suing Chicago: those court fees have to come from somewhere. And not only are the Chicago citizens going to be paying their OWN court fees, the City of Chicago's court fees are paid by the taxpayers! And if you're willing to pay for both sides of the court fees, you must be strongly steadfast in your views and arguments to make that kind of sacrifice.
Stay tuned for more in the Chicago vs. PETA series - a series we wouldn't have had in the first place if it weren't for PETA sticking its nose in YOUR dinner plate. Read more!
PART 1: Chicago Bans Food and PETA is to Blame
PART 2: Chicago vs. PETA: The Foie Gras Debate!
And join us in the third installment of a series of posts that (in the opinion of the writer) should never have come to be. And PETA is to blame; they shock-videoed the Chicago City Council into agreeing to sign a law banning foie gras from the city. In the second part, I discussed the studies and FACTS proving that the reasons BEHIND the law are unfounded and not based on any facts at all. And now, as I predicted, the lawsuit is on.
The Illinois Restaurant Association vs. the City of Chicago
The Illinois Restaurant Association, also known as "Chicago Chefs for Choice", have started the ball rolling with a few obvious legal issues being brought up. First and foremost, "the argument is that this [ban] violates interstate commerce and the city is usurping the federal government's power by banning a product that's federally approved for shipment across state lines." This is the foundation for the legal battle at-hand, but there are many not-so-legal and yet totally-common-sense arguments to be made.
In the words of the Illinois Restaurant Association's president, Colleen McShane, "We believe the City Council does not have a right to tell people what to have for dinner."
It goes back to that little thing we Americans have, called 'freedom' - a thing we used to be able to flaunt and brag about to other countries, rather than take away from our citizens and have the whole world laughing at us for doing so.
As for the legal issue stated above, what right does Chicago have to ban something that's already approved by the United States Department of Agriculture? If the USDA says it's okay, why would one city in particular get to say that it's not? And frankly, you KNOW that these Chicago restaurant owners, American farmers, lovers of foie gras and lovers of freedom in general are SERIOUS about the issue because of where the money to have these legal battles is going to come from: their own pockets.
Chicago citizens suing Chicago: those court fees have to come from somewhere. And not only are the Chicago citizens going to be paying their OWN court fees, the City of Chicago's court fees are paid by the taxpayers! And if you're willing to pay for both sides of the court fees, you must be strongly steadfast in your views and arguments to make that kind of sacrifice.
Stay tuned for more in the Chicago vs. PETA series - a series we wouldn't have had in the first place if it weren't for PETA sticking its nose in YOUR dinner plate. Read more!
Sunday, August 13, 2006
Chicago vs. PETA: The Foie Gras Debate!
In the last installment of this debate, it sure as heck seemed like we were seeing the end of the story. If you read my post back then, Chicago Bans Food and PETA is to Blame, you'd remember that PETA used some dirty underhanded tricks to scare the politicians into signing the bill that effectively bans the sale/production/consumption of foie gras in Chicago.
You might have also noticed the tactics they DIDN'T use in their argument - THE FACTS.
Well, Chicago restaurants, business owners, and citizens who remember that this is still AMERICA and that PETA and that law do NOT have the power to take away our rights - they've made a petition to repeal the ban and the debate is underway in the weeks before the ban takes place.
So since I obviously side on the anti-PETA and pro-America end of the debate, I'm going to present you with the FACTS that those tree-hugging tofu-fartin' hippies were just going to hide under the hemp carpet and pray nobody ever found. Their main argument is that the foie gras method is cruel and painful. Their only evidence is that video showing a farmer forcefully over-feeding a duck, possibly playing some sappy or bone-chilling music for added effect.
Now then, for the defense - I've got a bunch of evidence to the CONTRARY of what PETA wants you to believe. First off, we'll tackle the easy matter of them being kept in cages as being "cruel". Well, the FACTS tell us that for the first 12-14 weeks, the ducks and geese are neither force-fed nor are they in cages at all. They roam free in lovely grassy areas. It's only the last 2-4 weeks that they are put in cages - which is ONLY done for the feedings - and then allowed to go back out and roam free. Possibly as free as the wind blows and/or the grass grows.
So now we get to the "painful" force-feeding done to fatten up those tasty livers before harvest time. I pose to YOU this question: If YOU had to undergo a painful process every day that was possibly "traumatic", what would you do? I'll answer for you, and hopefully you'll agree with at least ONE of the answers. I'm guessing that if this happened to you, you would:
1) Not like it. Sadomasochism aside, you would indeed feel pain or trauma.
2) Not want to get back in that cage where the traumatic pain happened.
3) Not want to go near the man that did this trauma to you.
4) Not do this act TO YOURSELF, since you obviously don't like it when someone else does it to you.
In exemplum, if a bully beat you up afterschool in the parking lot, you would cry because you got beaten up, avoid both the bully and that parking lot, and not beat yourself up because you obviously don't like getting beaten up.
ENTER THE EVIDENCE
Scientists did a study. You know, scientists with the numbers and data and logical reasoning that don't involve sappy videos to "make a point". REAL evidence and facts backed up with proof. The kind you'd hope to see in a real debate.
1) Not liking it; feeling pain. When the brain undergoes stress and/or pain, it shoots out corticosterone. And when they tested the corticosterone levels of these roaming-free ducks and geese during their FIRST force-feeding in the cages and two MORE force-feedings, there was NO significant increase in corticosterone. They also made sure that they were testing right and the ducks were able to make it by putting them in nets for 15 minutes, and sure enough there was corticosterone and obvious stress. Nets are bad for ducks and they get stressed by being in them. Force-feeding? Not really.
2) Avoidance of force-feeding cages. When ducks and geese were studied after the initial force-feeding, ducks only showed a little bit of avoidance and geese showed no signs of avoidance at all. And over time, the avoidance measured in the ducks became shorter with time.
3) Avoidance of feeder. When presented with a complete stranger rather than the usual caregiver, there was more aversion than with the caregiver - and both decreased greatly over time. So whether done by a stranger or familiar person, by the third feeding there was very little avoidance of the force-feedings. But we come to the final phase now, which I find to be the most damning against PETA...
4) Wouldn't do it to yourself. Guess what? Ducks and geese OVERFEED THEMSELVES! Geese spontaneously overeat grass and carrots by themselves at levels of over 3kg a day if left to their own devices. Ducks are not as large, but still undergo spontaneous hyperphagia (overeating) and can consume up to 750g when they do so. These are (shockingly) about the levels of overfeeding that the farmers force-feed them. So they're feeding them what they'd NORMALLY be eating when they overeat - they're just making SURE that they do it.
And no offense, but am I the only one who thinks of the farmer as "mommy" and the ducks/geese as "babies" and the phrase "Here comes the AIRPLANE!" coming into play with a funnel and feed instead of a spoon with mashed peas?
So ducks and geese regularly overfeed themselves. When farmers make sure they do it, they neither become afraid of the farmers, nor the cages where it happens, nor do they show significant signs of pain or stress when it happens!
The defense rests, your honor.
Time for you, the jury, to deliberate. PETA presented you with scary and mean-spirited video footage of a farmer force-feeding ducks. And while it may look painful to YOU, remember the FACT that it isn't painful to THEM. PETA plays on your emotions. Science plays on the facts. And while you may not LIKE the methods used in spite of the facts saying it's okay, you admittedly have the right to NOT eat/buy/cook foie gras. And guess what? If you have the right to NOT eat it, isn't it only natural that other people have the right TO eat it?
This is America. And if you can let PETA win and trick laws into effect that ban one kind of food, who's to say they won't get away with outlawing veal, or beef, or meat in general?
You have the right to eat meat. You have the right to eat whatever the hell you want. Fight for that right. Read more!
You might have also noticed the tactics they DIDN'T use in their argument - THE FACTS.
Well, Chicago restaurants, business owners, and citizens who remember that this is still AMERICA and that PETA and that law do NOT have the power to take away our rights - they've made a petition to repeal the ban and the debate is underway in the weeks before the ban takes place.
So since I obviously side on the anti-PETA and pro-America end of the debate, I'm going to present you with the FACTS that those tree-hugging tofu-fartin' hippies were just going to hide under the hemp carpet and pray nobody ever found. Their main argument is that the foie gras method is cruel and painful. Their only evidence is that video showing a farmer forcefully over-feeding a duck, possibly playing some sappy or bone-chilling music for added effect.
Now then, for the defense - I've got a bunch of evidence to the CONTRARY of what PETA wants you to believe. First off, we'll tackle the easy matter of them being kept in cages as being "cruel". Well, the FACTS tell us that for the first 12-14 weeks, the ducks and geese are neither force-fed nor are they in cages at all. They roam free in lovely grassy areas. It's only the last 2-4 weeks that they are put in cages - which is ONLY done for the feedings - and then allowed to go back out and roam free. Possibly as free as the wind blows and/or the grass grows.
So now we get to the "painful" force-feeding done to fatten up those tasty livers before harvest time. I pose to YOU this question: If YOU had to undergo a painful process every day that was possibly "traumatic", what would you do? I'll answer for you, and hopefully you'll agree with at least ONE of the answers. I'm guessing that if this happened to you, you would:
1) Not like it. Sadomasochism aside, you would indeed feel pain or trauma.
2) Not want to get back in that cage where the traumatic pain happened.
3) Not want to go near the man that did this trauma to you.
4) Not do this act TO YOURSELF, since you obviously don't like it when someone else does it to you.
In exemplum, if a bully beat you up afterschool in the parking lot, you would cry because you got beaten up, avoid both the bully and that parking lot, and not beat yourself up because you obviously don't like getting beaten up.
ENTER THE EVIDENCE
Scientists did a study. You know, scientists with the numbers and data and logical reasoning that don't involve sappy videos to "make a point". REAL evidence and facts backed up with proof. The kind you'd hope to see in a real debate.
1) Not liking it; feeling pain. When the brain undergoes stress and/or pain, it shoots out corticosterone. And when they tested the corticosterone levels of these roaming-free ducks and geese during their FIRST force-feeding in the cages and two MORE force-feedings, there was NO significant increase in corticosterone. They also made sure that they were testing right and the ducks were able to make it by putting them in nets for 15 minutes, and sure enough there was corticosterone and obvious stress. Nets are bad for ducks and they get stressed by being in them. Force-feeding? Not really.
2) Avoidance of force-feeding cages. When ducks and geese were studied after the initial force-feeding, ducks only showed a little bit of avoidance and geese showed no signs of avoidance at all. And over time, the avoidance measured in the ducks became shorter with time.
3) Avoidance of feeder. When presented with a complete stranger rather than the usual caregiver, there was more aversion than with the caregiver - and both decreased greatly over time. So whether done by a stranger or familiar person, by the third feeding there was very little avoidance of the force-feedings. But we come to the final phase now, which I find to be the most damning against PETA...
4) Wouldn't do it to yourself. Guess what? Ducks and geese OVERFEED THEMSELVES! Geese spontaneously overeat grass and carrots by themselves at levels of over 3kg a day if left to their own devices. Ducks are not as large, but still undergo spontaneous hyperphagia (overeating) and can consume up to 750g when they do so. These are (shockingly) about the levels of overfeeding that the farmers force-feed them. So they're feeding them what they'd NORMALLY be eating when they overeat - they're just making SURE that they do it.
And no offense, but am I the only one who thinks of the farmer as "mommy" and the ducks/geese as "babies" and the phrase "Here comes the AIRPLANE!" coming into play with a funnel and feed instead of a spoon with mashed peas?
So ducks and geese regularly overfeed themselves. When farmers make sure they do it, they neither become afraid of the farmers, nor the cages where it happens, nor do they show significant signs of pain or stress when it happens!
The defense rests, your honor.
Time for you, the jury, to deliberate. PETA presented you with scary and mean-spirited video footage of a farmer force-feeding ducks. And while it may look painful to YOU, remember the FACT that it isn't painful to THEM. PETA plays on your emotions. Science plays on the facts. And while you may not LIKE the methods used in spite of the facts saying it's okay, you admittedly have the right to NOT eat/buy/cook foie gras. And guess what? If you have the right to NOT eat it, isn't it only natural that other people have the right TO eat it?
This is America. And if you can let PETA win and trick laws into effect that ban one kind of food, who's to say they won't get away with outlawing veal, or beef, or meat in general?
You have the right to eat meat. You have the right to eat whatever the hell you want. Fight for that right. Read more!
Saturday, August 12, 2006
Baby Names: Asia Cracks Down on Horrible Parents
Technorati Profile
This is a special post, dedicated to all of the parents out there who give their children godawful names that will lead to ridicule and shame for the entirety of that poor child's life. A child is not a pet that should be given a cute and unique name that sounds humorous or inspiring (like "Humorous Smith" or "Inspiring Jones") - not that pets should be named thusly, either (see: How to Own a Pet (Part 1) for more info). In Asia, countries are finally setting forth on a mission to stop this aspect of horrible parenting once and for all - with quite an awesome method of doing so:
Malaysian parents will no longer be allowed to give their children names deemed unsuitable by authorities.
Malaysia and China are two countries listed that have adopted the practice of banning names - adding them to lists that the National Registration Department will not allow to be given to children. While currently their lists are small, hopefully this sentiment can spread to America, where we exaggerate and overemphasize everything, and maybe finally put an end to OUR horrible parents and their victimized children.
Department spokesperson Jainisah Mohd Noor was quoted as saying the list was compiled following input from various religious and cultural groups. The names being banned in Malaysia include Zani (which means 'male adulterer') and Woti ('sexual intercourse'), in India we find Karrupan ('black fellow') as well as Sivappi and Vellayan (which denote 'fair skin') being banned, and banned in China are names like Chow Tow ('smelly head') and Sum Seng ('gangster').
The main list luckily goes farther than just racial slurs and inappropriate acts. The National Registration Department will also not allow parents to name their babies after colors, animals, insects, fruits or vegetables.
While in these countries, the NRD will allow parents usage of these names "if they are insistent even after knowing they are unsuitable", in the land of lawyers known as America, maybe we can start fines and/or jail time for offenders. The warning of a jail sentence might certainly open the eyes of bad parents and convince them to change their children's poor names on the spot as well as remind them to never again do such a foolish (and now illegal) thing.
And the first to be put on trial in America for such an offense?
Gwyneth Paltrow, for her now-illegally-named child, Apple.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060731/lf_afp/malaysianamesoffbeat_060730075808;_ylt=Ag.wq6dUokC.UDG1_U69ztis0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3NW1oMDRpBHNlYwM3NTc-
AaronBSam's Blog
As of 8/11/06:
My Over-300 Club:
Chicago Bans Food and PETA is to Blame - 315 Reads
My Over-200 Club:
"Jesus Christ Superstar" Moved From Nazi Camp Locale - 272 Reads
My Over-100 Club:
You Can't Spell 'Sweden' Without 'W' - 182 Reads
Too Skinny To Be Australian - 141 Reads
PETA says: "Wearing Dogs is like Wearing Fur" - 135 Reads
PETA and Their Seal-Clubbing Propaganda - 130 Reads
Pepper Spray Used On Little Girl - 124 Reads
Wonder Why DVDs Cost $20? - 123 Reads
Steve Jobs Made Little Girl Cry - 116 Reads
Nintendo Uses A Bad Word - 111 Reads
Bob Saget + Alcohol + Tampons = Comedy - 110 Reads
The Video Game Diet - 104 Reads
Why I'm Anti-Diet - 102 Reads Read more!
This is a special post, dedicated to all of the parents out there who give their children godawful names that will lead to ridicule and shame for the entirety of that poor child's life. A child is not a pet that should be given a cute and unique name that sounds humorous or inspiring (like "Humorous Smith" or "Inspiring Jones") - not that pets should be named thusly, either (see: How to Own a Pet (Part 1) for more info). In Asia, countries are finally setting forth on a mission to stop this aspect of horrible parenting once and for all - with quite an awesome method of doing so:
Malaysian parents will no longer be allowed to give their children names deemed unsuitable by authorities.
Malaysia and China are two countries listed that have adopted the practice of banning names - adding them to lists that the National Registration Department will not allow to be given to children. While currently their lists are small, hopefully this sentiment can spread to America, where we exaggerate and overemphasize everything, and maybe finally put an end to OUR horrible parents and their victimized children.
Department spokesperson Jainisah Mohd Noor was quoted as saying the list was compiled following input from various religious and cultural groups. The names being banned in Malaysia include Zani (which means 'male adulterer') and Woti ('sexual intercourse'), in India we find Karrupan ('black fellow') as well as Sivappi and Vellayan (which denote 'fair skin') being banned, and banned in China are names like Chow Tow ('smelly head') and Sum Seng ('gangster').
The main list luckily goes farther than just racial slurs and inappropriate acts. The National Registration Department will also not allow parents to name their babies after colors, animals, insects, fruits or vegetables.
While in these countries, the NRD will allow parents usage of these names "if they are insistent even after knowing they are unsuitable", in the land of lawyers known as America, maybe we can start fines and/or jail time for offenders. The warning of a jail sentence might certainly open the eyes of bad parents and convince them to change their children's poor names on the spot as well as remind them to never again do such a foolish (and now illegal) thing.
And the first to be put on trial in America for such an offense?
Gwyneth Paltrow, for her now-illegally-named child, Apple.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060731/lf_afp/malaysianamesoffbeat_060730075808;_ylt=Ag.wq6dUokC.UDG1_U69ztis0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3NW1oMDRpBHNlYwM3NTc-
AaronBSam's Blog
As of 8/11/06:
My Over-300 Club:
Chicago Bans Food and PETA is to Blame - 315 Reads
My Over-200 Club:
"Jesus Christ Superstar" Moved From Nazi Camp Locale - 272 Reads
My Over-100 Club:
You Can't Spell 'Sweden' Without 'W' - 182 Reads
Too Skinny To Be Australian - 141 Reads
PETA says: "Wearing Dogs is like Wearing Fur" - 135 Reads
PETA and Their Seal-Clubbing Propaganda - 130 Reads
Pepper Spray Used On Little Girl - 124 Reads
Wonder Why DVDs Cost $20? - 123 Reads
Steve Jobs Made Little Girl Cry - 116 Reads
Nintendo Uses A Bad Word - 111 Reads
Bob Saget + Alcohol + Tampons = Comedy - 110 Reads
The Video Game Diet - 104 Reads
Why I'm Anti-Diet - 102 Reads Read more!
Heterosexual Hate Crimes?
The "gay marriage debate" presses on, especially in Massachusetts. The state was the first to legalize gay marriages, and now the big hubbub is about state legislation that might ban gay marriage. But there's another side of things - one that you might not expect. With everyone paying attention to hate crimes against homosexuals who don't want to feel attacked or belittled or "made to feel uncomfortable", who's going to pay attention when stones are thrown in the opposite direction?
Don't heterosexuals have the right to not want to feel attacked or belittled or "made to feel uncomfortable"?
Since it's hard for many people to see heterosexuality as "under attack" (verbally, if not otherwise), I'll make reference to an article that caught my attention. It appears that the homosexual community has started slinging hateful terms at heterosexuals, including the popular term "breeder". For all of the plethora of hateful terms used to refer to homosexuals, it seems natural that terms would arise to insult and berate the originators. And white racial slurs now exist for just about every race under the sun, so will slurs against sexualities.
"Breeders", the new slur against heterosexuals (and possibly any couple/person with a child) should be treated just as severely as any other hateful word thrown about, shouldn't it? Shouldn't a homosexual verbally attacking a heterosexual be just as offensive as the other way around?
But it doesn't stop there. In Massachusetts, a gay man confronted a woman because she was circulating (and had signed) a petition to ban same-sex marriage in the state. The altercation lasted less than a minute, and the man later admitted regret that he "exploded" about the incident, but he could still be charged with disorderly conduct. The incident itself has sparked some debate (more than usual, I suppose) about what constitutes a "hate incident".
People siding with the gay man say that the woman committed a "hate incident" merely by SIGNING the petition. The Anti-Defamation League "considers the distribution and circulation of hate propaganda and information a hate incident when the action seeks to make a group of people feel uncomfortable". And yet there's a group of Catholics in the area who argue that by that logic, that is what's happening to THEM - being made to feel uncomfortable due to the approval of the same-sex marriages (and homosexuality in general) based on their faith and its disapproval of it all.
So what will come of this? Frankly, it seems we are at an impasse based on the terminology everyone is using. Since when did "feeling comfortable" become a right? Since when did being made to feel uncomfortable mean that liberties have been attacked and the incident is hateful? Well if that's how we're going to play the game, then I want to sue the article itself, because I feel uncomfortable with the whole gay marriage debate in general - and printing articles about the gay marriage debate would be considered "the distribution and circulation of hate propaganda and information", wouldn't it?
We all need to relax and be adults. It is NOT our right to feel comfortable. Anyone who's flown on an airplane certainly knows that. Skins need to be thickened, opinions need to be handled with a little more tact and diplomacy, and we need to stop hating as much as we currently do (and accuse others of doing). I'll leave the last thought to a quote in the article made by Provincetown, Massachusetts board of selectmen chairwoman Cheryl Andrews:
"I don’t know anyone who hates heterosexuals. We wouldn’t be here without them."
http://www2.townonline.com/brewster/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=537521
AaronBSam's Blog
As of 8/11/06:
My Over-300 Club:
Chicago Bans Food and PETA is to Blame - 315 Reads
My Over-200 Club:
"Jesus Christ Superstar" Moved From Nazi Camp Locale - 272 Reads
My Over-100 Club:
You Can't Spell 'Sweden' Without 'W' - 182 Reads
Too Skinny To Be Australian - 141 Reads
PETA says: "Wearing Dogs is like Wearing Fur" - 135 Reads
PETA and Their Seal-Clubbing Propaganda - 130 Reads
Pepper Spray Used On Little Girl - 124 Reads
Wonder Why DVDs Cost $20? - 123 Reads
Steve Jobs Made Little Girl Cry - 116 Reads
Nintendo Uses A Bad Word - 111 Reads
Bob Saget + Alcohol + Tampons = Comedy - 110 Reads
The Video Game Diet - 104 Reads
Why I'm Anti-Diet - 102 Reads Read more!
Don't heterosexuals have the right to not want to feel attacked or belittled or "made to feel uncomfortable"?
Since it's hard for many people to see heterosexuality as "under attack" (verbally, if not otherwise), I'll make reference to an article that caught my attention. It appears that the homosexual community has started slinging hateful terms at heterosexuals, including the popular term "breeder". For all of the plethora of hateful terms used to refer to homosexuals, it seems natural that terms would arise to insult and berate the originators. And white racial slurs now exist for just about every race under the sun, so will slurs against sexualities.
"Breeders", the new slur against heterosexuals (and possibly any couple/person with a child) should be treated just as severely as any other hateful word thrown about, shouldn't it? Shouldn't a homosexual verbally attacking a heterosexual be just as offensive as the other way around?
But it doesn't stop there. In Massachusetts, a gay man confronted a woman because she was circulating (and had signed) a petition to ban same-sex marriage in the state. The altercation lasted less than a minute, and the man later admitted regret that he "exploded" about the incident, but he could still be charged with disorderly conduct. The incident itself has sparked some debate (more than usual, I suppose) about what constitutes a "hate incident".
People siding with the gay man say that the woman committed a "hate incident" merely by SIGNING the petition. The Anti-Defamation League "considers the distribution and circulation of hate propaganda and information a hate incident when the action seeks to make a group of people feel uncomfortable". And yet there's a group of Catholics in the area who argue that by that logic, that is what's happening to THEM - being made to feel uncomfortable due to the approval of the same-sex marriages (and homosexuality in general) based on their faith and its disapproval of it all.
So what will come of this? Frankly, it seems we are at an impasse based on the terminology everyone is using. Since when did "feeling comfortable" become a right? Since when did being made to feel uncomfortable mean that liberties have been attacked and the incident is hateful? Well if that's how we're going to play the game, then I want to sue the article itself, because I feel uncomfortable with the whole gay marriage debate in general - and printing articles about the gay marriage debate would be considered "the distribution and circulation of hate propaganda and information", wouldn't it?
We all need to relax and be adults. It is NOT our right to feel comfortable. Anyone who's flown on an airplane certainly knows that. Skins need to be thickened, opinions need to be handled with a little more tact and diplomacy, and we need to stop hating as much as we currently do (and accuse others of doing). I'll leave the last thought to a quote in the article made by Provincetown, Massachusetts board of selectmen chairwoman Cheryl Andrews:
"I don’t know anyone who hates heterosexuals. We wouldn’t be here without them."
http://www2.townonline.com/brewster/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=537521
AaronBSam's Blog
As of 8/11/06:
My Over-300 Club:
Chicago Bans Food and PETA is to Blame - 315 Reads
My Over-200 Club:
"Jesus Christ Superstar" Moved From Nazi Camp Locale - 272 Reads
My Over-100 Club:
You Can't Spell 'Sweden' Without 'W' - 182 Reads
Too Skinny To Be Australian - 141 Reads
PETA says: "Wearing Dogs is like Wearing Fur" - 135 Reads
PETA and Their Seal-Clubbing Propaganda - 130 Reads
Pepper Spray Used On Little Girl - 124 Reads
Wonder Why DVDs Cost $20? - 123 Reads
Steve Jobs Made Little Girl Cry - 116 Reads
Nintendo Uses A Bad Word - 111 Reads
Bob Saget + Alcohol + Tampons = Comedy - 110 Reads
The Video Game Diet - 104 Reads
Why I'm Anti-Diet - 102 Reads Read more!
Friday, June 16, 2006
Britney Spears and Namibia
Britney Spears is currently considering giving birth to her second baby in Namibia. Don't feel bad if you don't know that Namibia used to be known as "South-West Africa" - or that its major export is minerals (5th largest supplier of uranium in the world, not to mention the diamond mines) - or that its President is currently Hifikepunye Pohamba. Heck, you might not even know that the capital of Namibia is Windhoek, but don't feel too bad...
Britney Spears probably couldn't locate it on a map...
One can only speculate as to WHY she would want to give birth in a place so far from home. One would naturally guess that if she gives birth in Namibia - what the hell kind of paparazzi is going to want to hang around in Namibia waiting for a possible photo opportunity? (Even though we're all aware that the answer would be "several"...) One could also guess that the female "pop star" would want to make it a mission of goodwill, or some other hokey way of saying it's a form of charity or spreading peace or something saintly. After all, that's the reason most people who have been in the spotlight travel to such places - publicity in the face of "being a good role model" and "spreading cheer/money/peace to the less-fortunate".
Since when did celebrities decide they had to be role models?
Is anyone else as sick and tired as I am with pop stars and movie stars trying to be all "holier than thou" with their donations to things and goodwill missions to places that we don't want to be in? The only reason they try to pretend to be role models is because they have the cash to put up such a front in the first place.
Given the options, I don't really blame them. A rich "pop star" with $50 million who DOESN'T donate or fly to poor countries looks like a spoiled bitch. And a rich "pop star" with $50 million who donates to charities and does benefit concerts for peace in the Middle East looks like a self-righteous bitch.
It doesn't change the fact that we're all jealous of your fucking $50 million.
So since we already see you as a money-grubbing whore who takes in our hard-earned cash because there are people who actually enjoy listening to the things that come out of your sing-hole, why don't you just stick with that?
Don't pretend to be something you're not, and don't try to convince us that you're not what we say you are. Just open up your sing-hole and keep singing. Be glad you found something you're almost good at and can make a living by doing.
Just keep fucking dancing, monkey. Dance, monkey, dance.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Music/06/16/people.spears.namibia.ap/ Read more!
Britney Spears probably couldn't locate it on a map...
One can only speculate as to WHY she would want to give birth in a place so far from home. One would naturally guess that if she gives birth in Namibia - what the hell kind of paparazzi is going to want to hang around in Namibia waiting for a possible photo opportunity? (Even though we're all aware that the answer would be "several"...) One could also guess that the female "pop star" would want to make it a mission of goodwill, or some other hokey way of saying it's a form of charity or spreading peace or something saintly. After all, that's the reason most people who have been in the spotlight travel to such places - publicity in the face of "being a good role model" and "spreading cheer/money/peace to the less-fortunate".
Since when did celebrities decide they had to be role models?
Is anyone else as sick and tired as I am with pop stars and movie stars trying to be all "holier than thou" with their donations to things and goodwill missions to places that we don't want to be in? The only reason they try to pretend to be role models is because they have the cash to put up such a front in the first place.
Given the options, I don't really blame them. A rich "pop star" with $50 million who DOESN'T donate or fly to poor countries looks like a spoiled bitch. And a rich "pop star" with $50 million who donates to charities and does benefit concerts for peace in the Middle East looks like a self-righteous bitch.
It doesn't change the fact that we're all jealous of your fucking $50 million.
So since we already see you as a money-grubbing whore who takes in our hard-earned cash because there are people who actually enjoy listening to the things that come out of your sing-hole, why don't you just stick with that?
Don't pretend to be something you're not, and don't try to convince us that you're not what we say you are. Just open up your sing-hole and keep singing. Be glad you found something you're almost good at and can make a living by doing.
Just keep fucking dancing, monkey. Dance, monkey, dance.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Music/06/16/people.spears.namibia.ap/ Read more!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
