Playing chess in the park? Must bring a child with you.

Police have issued summonses to chess players who are 'unaccompanies by minors' in New York public playgrounds.  The playgrounds have signs that say adults must be accompanied or they cannot be in the play area.  Chess players are incensed, saying "What is so harmful with chess?"

While chess isn't really the issue, the intent of the law is plain: the playground is designed for children and 'unaccompanied adults' are not welcome.

‘Police! Step Away From the Chess Table’ (New York Times)

While I feel for the chess players, if they want to play, they can find another area or get the law changed.  And the police cannot make exceptions.  Allowing one group and not another would not be a fair way of dealing with the issue.

In the meantime, the chess players are required to go to court before the end of the year where they may pay a $50 fine.  Nothing is listed in the article, but I would think that they would be given a warning before any summonses are issued since this is a minor infraction by anyone's measure.

Is that abstract art or a diseased lung?

No later than Oct 22, 2012, all cigarette packages must carry a new graphic on their packaging and in advertising.  The graphics will be of such things as a person smoking with smoke coming out of a hole in their throat or a corpse with their chest stitched up.  These new warnings will help "in protecting our children and the health of the American public.” (HHS)

It's not enough that we have education in schools telling children the dangers.  It's not enough that we have a Sin Tax on cigarettes to dissuade people from smoking.  It's not enough that there are currently warnings on cigarette packages stating things like "Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, And May Complicate Pregnancy."

Yes, smoking is dumb.  Yes, smoking makes your breath and clothes smell awful.  Yes, smoking kills people.  But as long as these adults are smoking of their own accord and it doesn't affect others, including children, there should be no laws or taxes to prevent or dissuade them from doing so.

Just one more step down the path of a police state.  Someone doesn't like that you do something they deem offensive, so they do everything legal to get you to stop.  What is the next one?  Photos of auto accidents on alcohol containers?  Cheese packages with photos of clogged arteries?

If people don't know that smoking is bad for you already, looking at a picture of a dying patient won't stop them from picking up the filthy stuff.  They smoke because they want to smoke or because they are addicted.  If they are addicted, and want to stop, they can seek help.  There are plenty of programs around to help smokers quit the disgusting habit (CDC).

Update: Last night as I was reading an Entertainment Weekly magazine, I came across an ad for USA Gold cigarettes (tagline: Your Spirit.  Your Smoke.).  How many children and teenagers will see the forthcoming ads with graphic depictions of dying and dead people?  Is this something you want your child to see?  These won't be 'movie corpses'.  These are real people.

Cigarette Packages in U.S. to Carry Images of Dead Bodies, Diseased Lungs (Bloomberg)

Proposed Cigarette Product Warning Labels (FDA)

Lots of good comments here:  Cigarette Warnings Go Gruesome: Did the Health Police Go Too Far?
Previous post on Sin Tax

Update: I did not realize other countries have photos on their cigarette packaging already. Cigarette Warning Labels: Brazil's More Shocking than Ours (CBSNews)

Free Speech rights at funerals comes to U.S. Supreme Court

Fred Phelps, who has a church with about 75 members, mostly his family, protest at funerals.  Really?  Are they protesting the way the funeral is held?  Or the funeral company?  Or an individual?

No, they protest because the federal government (and America in general) embraces gays.  And gays are bad.  And God is killing American soldiers because he's upset about the gay embracing.

They also protest at music concerts, sporting events and even a Holocaust Museum.  Reprehensible as their proclamations and signs are ("Fags Doom Nations") they have a right to Free Speech under the First Amendment.

As disgusting and anti-Christian as they are (God DOES love everyone), someone has died.  Whether you like or dislike the person, their attitudes, or actions, they have died.  Their family should be allowed respect to bury them; without anyone disturbing them.

Phelps and his religious family are smart about it, though.  They don't protest right next to the funeral.  They are some distance away.  They don't target any individual person (dead or alive).  They protest generically, holding up signs and chanting things such as "God Hates Fags"; and "God Bless IEDs".

This case isn't about simply protesting at a funeral, it is specifically about speech directed at an individual, in this case, the soldier's father. 

Having said all of this, I know the U.S. Supreme Court will fall on the side of Free Speech, as they should.  Fred Phelps and his followers will probably be allowed to continue their homophobic hate speech.  And gay soldiers will continue to die for our freedoms.  And America will embrace gays more and more over the years, just as they did with Civil Rights and Women's Rights. 

Maybe Fred Phelps will pass soon, and his followers will disperse, with no one taking the reigns.  Then there will be no more media coverage of this loony-toon.  One can only hope.

US weighs rights for anti-gay church (The Age)

Here is a good article on Fred Phelps and his beliefs:  Fred Phelps and Goodness (InSearchOfGoodness)

Even the hatefulness of Fred Phelps is protected by this country’s free speech (KansasCity.com)

Smoking? Not on my beach.

New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is proposing to ban smoking at New York beaches, parks, outdoor malls, and plazas.  Back in 2002, he has successfully banned smoking in restaurants and bars.

Indoor smoking bans are obvious, everyone is trapped with the smoke.  Outdoor smoking bans are a bit trickier.  The smoke isn't trapped and disappates more quickly.  But according to some studies, the smoke outdoors is still unhealthy for people nearby.

Study: Outdoor smoke gets in your lungs (USA Today)

Yes, while you can move upwind from the smoker or farther away, non-smokers shouldn't have to do so.  If you are enjoying your book at a park bench, having a smoker sit next to you, or even just waking past, is distracting, obnoxious, and unhealthy.  The smoke still travels and is easily enhaled by non-smokers.

I have heard arguments about music can be played too loud and should also be banned.  While I haven't checked all municipalities in the U.S., I know there are 'noise pollution' laws around the country that prevent people from playing their music so loud it disturbs others within certain distances.  And a big difference is that music isn't harmful to your health while smoke is.

Another argument is that barbeques and campfires do the same thing that smoke from a cigarette does.  But I don't recall the last time I was even mildly annoyed with barbeque smoke or campfire smoke from someone else.  If this was prevalent, I could see the same type of ban being put into place.

Lastly, walking around the beach, with cigarettes littering the area is unsightly, annoying, and a health hazard (think babies putting cigarette butts into their mouths) and I am all for a ban at the beach.

Original article:
City Wants a Smoking Ban on Beaches (New York Times)

Update:
When Citizens (Gasp) Are the Smoking Police (New York Times)

Selling Edible Underwear? Better have a food license in Texas.

Opening your own Lingerie store?  Have everthing you need for your Grand Opening?

Sexy Teddies?  Check.
Body creams?  Check.
Colorful condoms?  Check.
Edible panties?  Only if you have a Food Permit from the Health Department.

So says the Texas Health Department when they told Shades of Love in San Antonio.  If it's edible, they require the business to have a Food Permit.  Silly?  You bet.  From what I have read, this isn't a 'lets squeeze all the money out of businesses that we can," but simply the Health Department 'doing their job'.  While I appreciate they not sitting around eating donuts instead of ferreting out food slacking restaurants, edible panties aren't going to be a large part of anyone's diet.

Texas Lingerie Store Forced To Get Food Permit For Selling Edible Underwear (LAWeekly)

When is the word 'boy' derogatory?

My family is from Arkansas.  I don't recall ever hearing them refer to a black man as 'boy'.  But while visiting Arkansas for many family reunions, I know that the word 'boy' is not used in a good way, though usage has waned over the years.  It's not always meant in a bad way, but is part of the language spoken in the South and, when spoken to an adult, is exclusively used when talking to black men.  Some people say it because that is what their family and friends do.  Not an excuse, but rather what happens.  I'd like to believe that once most people hear that 'boy' is demeaning to a black man, they would stop using it.

Which is why I found this article about the use of 'boy' at a Tyson Foods plant in Alabama interesting.  The Supreme Court said there were 'no racial overtones' in using the term.  Read the entire article and see what you think.

Appeals Court in Atlanta Again Rejects Racial Discrimination Claim (NY Times)

My question would be, did the managers call any white men 'boy'?  If they did, then there is probably not much of a case.  If they did not, as seems the case, then the case is stronger.

Do new car stickers make the grade?

Because of a 2007 energy law, the government must change the 'stickers' that are affixed to all vehicles sold in the U.S.  These are the stickers that show the Miles Per Gallon of the vehicle on the Highway and in the City.  These stickers haven't been significantly changed in over 30 years.

The new stickers will probably be one of two designs.  The first has 'comparative information' to show how the vehicle MPG and Air Pollution compares to other vehicles in its class.  The second has the same information but includes a large letter, A thru D, to show from a distance, how the vehicle rates.

I am a person who believes people should be given information about their purchases.  But they shouldn't be spoon-fed the answers.  The letter sticker should not happen.  Give people the 'comparative information' and let them make up their own mind.  If they need more information, that's why we have Consumer Reports and other information (such as plenty of web sites).

The one problem that I can see, brought up in the article below, is that Hybrid and Electric cars will not take coal-burning power-plants into account when displaying the 'greenhouse gases' the vehicle spews.  The stickers will only show 'tailpipe only' data.  I am a proud Prius owner and if I was shopping for a new vehicle, I would want to see complete information.

Then again, I can always look it up on the web.

Updated Car Stickers to Include Environmental Data (AP News via Google)

Fuel Economy Label (EPA.gov)

Government has no part in who counselors can and cannot counsel.

I agree with this opinion piece that the government does not have a say in what a person can and can't study because the student won't apply the degree the way the schools wants them to.

Julea Ward was studying for her Masters in Counseling.   When the school found out she refused to counsel homosexuals, because of her religous beliefs, they expelled her.

As the article states, it would be impossible to expect all counselors to counsel everyone in all situations.  Sometimes their biases are so strong that they would be unable to give proper counseling for the patient.

An Attack on Religion and Counseling (NewsBlaze)

Are 'light cigarettes' better for you? Addicts rationalize 'yes'

The Feds have a new law that disallows tobacco companies from claiming one type of cigarette is 'better' for you than others; or more realistically, 'less bad' for you than others.

A colorful death by tobacco (LA Times)

I am of the opinion that if cigarettes are legal, they should be treated as any other legal product, with the exception that they should not be allowed to be purchased and used by those who are under-age.

However, if a company is claiming that one product is 'better for you' than another, they need to show this. But just because a regular cigarette is bad for you and a light cigarette is 'almost' as bad for you, isn't reason enough to prevent them from marketing them that way.

Companies who manufacture 'organic products' market their products as 'better for you'. And this isn't always the case.

I don't encourage laws that limit what people decide to do, but these organic labels make people who don't investigate to eat more. Organic Labels May Trick Dieters Into Eating More (Live Science). The problem with this article is the 'trick dieters'. People can investigate organic and read labels and make their own decisions. Taking 'organic' at it's word is the consumer's own fault.

People who decide to smoke can decide which cigarette to smoke. If tobacco companies have 'less tar' in one cigarette, they can market it as 'better' for the consumer. It's up to the consumer to make up their own mind. The only reason for the Feds to step in is if the claim is not valid. I don't see any evidence of that in this case.

Do you have 'privacy' for personal messages when using company phone or computer?

Imagine three scenarios:

1) You use your cell phone at work. 
You send a text message to your spouse. 
Your spouse sends a text message to you.

2) You are using your company cell phone at work.  
You send a text message to your spouse. 
Your spouse sends a text message to you.

3) You are using your company cell phone at home. 
You send a text message to your spouse. 
Your spouse sends a text message to you.

If you were never told of the company policy about cell phones, should you get in trouble for any of these?  Using your own phone at work, to make or receive a short text is not an issue.  And as long as you didn't use the company cell phone excessively, there probably wouldn't be an issue.  You send and receive a couple of text messages a day, no one cares.

Now, what if you were told the company policy.  And the policy states you cannot use the company cell phone for personal business.  Again, as long as you don't abuse the privilege, probably no one will care.

Now, you've been told the company policy stating you can use the cell phone for personal calls and text on your own time, but you need to pay for it.  Then there is no issue if you text during your off hours.  If you use it for personal calls and texts during business, you could, and should, get in trouble.

Lastly, you've been told you can use the company cell phone for personal calls and text during your off hours, but during your off hours, you send sexually explicit texts to your spouse.  Now what?  You are using it as instructed, you are paying to use it, should the company care what type of messages you are sending?

If you are using a company phone, don't expect to have everything you text as private.  It is there phone.  Even if you are paying for the texting you do during your off hours, it is their phone and the expectation should be that they will be monitoring communications.

Here is a news item before the ruling:  Justices hear case of Ontario police officer who sent risque messages (LA Times)

And here is a news item on the ruling:  Supreme Court allows reasonable searches of private texts on work-issued devices (Jurist.org)

Prop 8, don't discriminate

Lots of talk going on about Proposition 8 being being struck down.

Much anger about 'the will of the people' being subverted. Some say "why can't we decide on validity of propositions before they are put on the ballot?" The simple reason is that if the Proposition doesn't pass, no time or money is wasted.

And when a Proposition passes, that's when the legality is questioned. Just because a Proposition is popular enough to pass doesn't make it legal. Many 'unpopular rights' were still 'legalized' because of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Think Civil Rights and Women's Rights.

It's been over 40 years since Civil Rights legislation was adopted. 40 years from now, we'll be thinking the same thing about Gay Rights.

Someone on a site I have misplaced said the Government should give a Civil Union License to those who want to be together in the eyes of the Government and all of the legal implications. If they want to get married, they go to a church with all of the religious implications. Makes sense to me.  Separation of Church and State.

Here is an opinion piece from the Los Angeles Times with a little background on Judge Walker, who struck down Proposition 8, and some quick info on racial discrimination in the 1960's. Proposition 8, Judge Walker, and our short memories (LA Times)

And another opinion on why Republicans shouldn't stand on the wrong side of another civil rights issue.  My Fellow Conservatives: Think Carefully About Your Opposition to Gay Marriage (Fox News)

Lying to a woman to have sex is rape?

A court in Israel has declared that a man who lied to a woman to have sex, in fact raped her because of that lie. The implication is that it doesn't matter what he lied about but simply the fact that he lied.

Israeli Court Calls Lying for Sex Rape (New York Times Blog)

Seems to me that the issue is really Jewish/Arab based. If the man had said he was wealthy and was not, I don't think the woman would have taken him to court. Pure speculation, of course, but racial tensions are high in the region and it seems like this was the real reason.

If a woman will have sex with someone who tells her things about himself and doesn't check on them, then who is to blame? The man is at fault for lying, but the woman gave herself willingly. Should either of them be held 'legally responsible'? Should either of them be taken to court?

One area where this could go to court is if one partner asked the other if they were 'disease free', for HIV, for example, and they were not. Then the aggrieved party could take the person to court for endangering their life.

But going to prison for 'lying for sex'? Not even.

Does God approve of vandalism?

In 1892, Francis Bellamy wrote the Pledge of Allegiance (Wikipedia).  In 1954, Dwight D. Eisenhower signed a bill which inserted 'Under God' into the Pledge.

In recent years, some peoples and organizations have objected to the inclusion of 'Under God' and have tried to have it removed to no success.

Recently, a group called the North Carolina Secular Association paid for advertising on billboards around the state simply saying "One Nation, Indivisible" showing how the original Pledge of Allegiance was written.  A minister at the Trinity Baptist Church is having his own ads placed on billboards saying "One Nation, Under God".

A vandal spray-painted "Under God" on the Secular billboard.  The vandal(s) should be caught and prosecuted for their crime.   And if someone spraypaints a big X across "Under God" on the Religious billboard, they should also be prosecuted for their crime.

Both groups have the right to their Free Speech.  If someone disagrees, they can put out their own ads.  Or distribute flyers.  Or go on their local radio station to disagree.

Billboard Battle in Bible-Belt (ABC News)

Marriage: One of These and One of Those?

When it comes to 'the definition of marriage' I know I won't sway anyone by giving my opinion on the matter.  Those who have their mind made up on either side of the debate won't change their mind because of me.  I'm not so full of myself to think that I'll say X and someone reading this will say 'Wow, never thought of that.  Guess I'll change sides!'

But I will, for the record state my view.  And the reason for my view is what determines many of the opinions I do hold.  Simply stated, it is: if people are of legal age and aren't harming anyone else, let 'em do it.

Applying this to marriage, if a woman and a man want to get married, let 'em do it.  If a woman and a woman want to get married, let 'em do it.  And if a man and a man want to get married (wait for it...) let 'em do it.

In addition, if two women and a man want to get married, let 'em do it.  As long as everyone involved is of legal age and no one is being harmed, where is the issue?  If six women and fix men want to get married?  You know where I stand.

All of this just means that society, moving forward, will have to figure out how to handle these 'plus-sized marriages'.  Sure, a child will still have two biological parents, but if they are brought up in a large family, raised by everyone, how will we handle 'bring your father to work day?'  When filling out the emergency contact card at school, will extra spaces need to be provided?  Will 'Couples Retreats' need to be renamed 'Spouses Retreats'?

The possibilities are endless.

What brought this to mind lately was a judge striking down the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (Washington Post);  a place the federal government has no place to be.  (A future posting will discuss why the Federal Government needs to have their hands in so many issues.)

Let's raise taxes on sodas so less people will drink them.

This is America.  As long as you aren't harming anyone, you should be able to do what you want to do. Right? If you want to wear your hair very long and never wash it, you should be able to do so. Right? If you want to eat potato chips for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, you can do that. Right? If you want to smoke two packs of cigarettes each day, that's okay. Right?

What if your neighbor does these things? Long hair? No problem. Eat potato chips? No problem. Smoke? Now hold on. That's bad for them. They shouldn't do that. It will kill them. So let's raise taxes on cigarettes so it will be more difficult for them and we'll save their life!

That's the mindset of many people including politicians who have the power to increase taxes on 'sin products' like cigarettes, alcohol, and soft drinks.

Sin Tax (Wikipedia)
A Tax to Combat America’s Sugary Diet (New York Times)

Time to crack down on Big Tobacco (CNN)

There are many instances of people deciding something isn't good or good for people and attempt to get it outlawed or taxed.  These include same-sex marriage, smoking, abortion, stem-cell research, sugary drinks, and many more.  It's not enough that these people don't do it themselves.  They want to impose their beliefs on someone else.  As long as they aren't hurting anyone, leave them alone.  If they want to hurt themselves, that's their choice.  As a side note, smokers who do so with kids in the car should be liable, but that's another blog topic.

The most infamous attempt to regulate behaviour was Prohibition which caused large-scale bootlegging and a thriving black market.

Here is one current attempt to forestall sugary drinks that failed.  Failure of State Soda Tax Plan Reflects Power of an Antitax Message (New York Times)

UPDATE: The upside of raising taxes on alcohol - fewer deaths, researchers say (LA Times)

UPDATE - More than just the United States: Minimum pricing alcohol plan facing defeat (BBC News)

Online gambling isn't going away

Online gambling has been around for many years.  And trying to regulate what can and can't be done on the internet is a mostly futile attempt.  If the U.S. government tries to stop online gambling, the gambling establishments will just take their businesses offshore and the gamblers will still be able to gamble.

Better to embrace it and regulate/tax it.  Everybody wins.

And, yes, I'm not blind to the fact that some people are addicted to gambling.  People can be addicted to anything.

Online gambling: you bet (The Economist)

What? Me vote?

Current opinion: Voting should NOT be made easier

Voter apathy occurs for many reasons:

• "My vote doesn't count"
• "All politicians are crooks"
• "There are WAY too many propositions on the ballot"
• "I can't get to the poll in time to vote"
• "They make the voting process too hard"
• "I'm sick and tired of all of the negative campaigning"

To help fix the current voting system, many states have proposed various ways of changing the process:

• Allow registration up to voting day (Washington, North Carolina, and more)
• Register voters when they get a driver's license
• Voting on the internet
• Sending 'text messages'to remind voters to vote

As for 'corrupt politicians' and 'negative campaigning' no one has suggested a way to fix these. Bad as they are, they go with the territory. But are negative campaigns always bad? I'm of the opinion that if a person can't take the time to register to vote 45 days in advance (or whatever it is in your state), then they won't take the time to investigate the issues and candidates. While the registration process should not be many hoops to jump thru, registering x-days in advance is certainly not an inconvenience. I might even be fine with a 'test' that each potential voter needs to take that might ask things like 'who is your House Representative?' and 'who was the second president of the United States?'.

New opinion (unchanged): Voting should NOT be made easier

Ban the burqa?

Belgium is well on it's way to banning the burqa and niqab that many Muslim women wear. And other European countries may follow suit. Short Burqa Article(NPR)

Some issues I have heard in recent years are in France, in 2009, the French President said 'burqas are not welcome in France' because 'we cannot accept that women are prisoners behind a screen'. In 2005, in Florida, a woman's claim that she wants her drivers license photo taken while wearing her burqa was denied by a Florida court.

Women of Muslim faith are required to wear a burqa for religious reasons. Does this mean that her faith trumps law? We DO have a separation of church and state, but we also have laws that prevent people from doing harm, even if religion is involved. Terrorism is cited as the main reason for preventing women from having their faces covered in their photos. Should this be considered on a case by case basis?

What do you think? Should a woman be allowed to wear her burqa for her driver's license? Should she be denied her license if she refuses? Driving IS a privilege, after all, not a right.

An excellent article can be found here: Europe's Burqa Wars

Woman gets hit while following Google Maps 'walking directions'

Here we go again. Another "it's not my fault" suit.

A woman is suing Google because she got his on a busy highway while following 'walking directions' on Google Maps. It wasn't her fault that Google Maps make her walk onto the busy highway. They told her to do it!

This woman needs to read Ayn Rand's book "Fountainhead" and get a full understanding of accountability. "It's not my fault" should not be an excuse to file these worthless lawsuits.

Woman Follows Google Maps 'walking directions', Gets Hit, Sues (SearchEngineLand.com)

I know I do NOT have all of the pertinent information regarding the incident. Did the road look deserted and this one car came from behind her, not watching the road properly and hit her? Were there other people walking along the roadway so she assumed it would be safe to walk there also?

If anything I can see her suing the driver. The jury might find negligence or not. But to sue Google for their negligence is irresponsible. Common sense, people. Common sense.

Humor: Arizona and Mexicans. Now Minnesota and Canadians.

Arizona is in the news recently. You can't have missed it. They want to stop people on the street, at least those who look like undocumented workers, and ask them for their papers. But Arizona isn't the only state who has an immigration problem. We feel your pain Minnesota!

An Illegal Immigration Bill We Can All Love (Huffington Post:Comedy)