Category: Chris Freind

Lazy Media Gets “F” For Heat Wave Coverage

Lazy Media Gets “F” For Heat Wave Coverage

By Chris Freind


Gary Kirkpatrick runs Ned’s Bar in
Tahlequah, Ok. If you stopped in for a cold one recently, Gary
would have gladly given you the rundown of all things happening in that
part of the Sooner State. As home to the Cherokee nation, and sitting on
the boundary of the wild and scenic Ozark Mountains, Tahlequah is never
dull. With so much going on around him, Gary had lots to say.

But
there was one thing he didn’t mention: the weather. Which, come to
think of it, was amazing. Not just because he was one of the few who
didn’t get sucked into the nauseating, 24/7 news coverage of the
“nation’s heat wave,” but because, if anyone is entitled to blabber on
about the summer temperatures, it’s folks like Gary Kirkpatrick.

You
see, in Gary’s neck of the woods, it wasn’t 95 degrees for just a few
days like on the East Coast, spiking past 100 for several hours (with
the media hyping a “heat index” of 105, whatever the hell a heat index
is). It was a tad hotter.

As in, over 100 (real) degrees – for
over 30 straight days. That’s a solid month of topping the century mark.
And was there complaining? Few and far between.

Maybe that’s
because many mid-westerners still exhibit the salt-of-the-earth,
tough-as-nails pioneering spirit that built the nation. And maybe it’s
because East Coasters are getting increasingly soft.

But one
thing is certain: the media vastly over-sensationalized the story, to
the point where the heatwave was the only topic of conversation for
millions of Americans. Their scare tactics petrified seniors, made
parents of young children frantic, and otherwise consumed a nation,
forsaking many other far more important stories.

The media’s
abdication of all things related to doing its job has it fast
approaching the esteem level held for lawyers, politicians and the
cockroach –  with the cockroach being held in higher regard, of course.

You
could take any TV segment from a decade ago about summer heat and air
it today – and no one would know the difference. It is, quite literally,
the exact same storyline with the exact same verbage. The only thing
different is that the hype factor has increased exponentially.

And
it’s not just that the stories are mundane, but they’re produced in a
way that would offend a third-grader’s intelligence. That’s not to
suggest that they should appeal only to Ph.D’s, but come on… the
American people are not that stupid. They don’t require the media’s
condescending, dumbed-down approach, but in fact deserve solid and
relevant reporting.

“Place the metal fittings of the seatbelt
into the other, and tighten by pulling on the loose end of the strap.”
“Pour shampoo into wet hair. Lather. Rinse.” “When it’s hot, drink
plenty of liquids, don’t exert yourself outside, and seek air
conditioning.”

Really?

The airlines and shampoo companies
have those ridiculous instructions for liability reasons, since trial
lawyers (see “cockroach” category above) sue for every reason, even
inconceivable ones.

So what’s the media’s excuse? Let’s be
honest. If folks don’t know that they should avoid excessive heat, drink
water, and not resurrect a jogging regimen after 20 years (and 80
pounds ago) when the mercury hits 95, then nothing the media tells them
will make a bit of difference. Idiots will be idiots. But the vast
majority of people have common sense, so the ridiculous stories airing
nonstop serve no purpose.

And really, what do we expect? It’s
July in America. It gets hot. Philadelphia, Washington, and New York
routinely see temps in the mid to upper 90’s during this time. How is
that news? The fact it breaks a one-day record from a whopping five
years ago is newsworthy? And when it breaks 100, you’d think it was the
end of the world. Is there any real discernable difference between 96
and 100 anyway? Or 93 with high humidity versus 100 without it?

So
extensive was the media’s coverage that it took significant channel
surfing to find any details on the horrific massacre in Norway. In fact,
just a day after the shooting which left scores of children dead and a
government building in shambles, a national network dedicated less than
one minute to the story. And that was only after at least 12 minutes of
coverage dedicated solely to the heat.

Is it any wonder why so
many around the world view America disdainfully? Here we have a major
terror attack against a close ally (Norway has a military contingent in
Afghanistan, and has been threatened by al-Queda in the past), and the
identity of the perpetrator(s) and possible connections to other
terrorists had not been fully determined.

Yet we give those
tragic events nary any coverage, instead incessantly rolling the same
tape on something that happens every year — a hot spell during a
typical American summer.

Compare that to the outpouring of
support from overseas and their in-depth coverage of hurricanes hitting
America, the Alabama tornadoes, our flooding rivers— and terror
attacks, including the Oklahoma City bombing, to which many experts
likened the Norway attack.

The media has reinforced what so many
overseas already think: Americans are arrogant and self-absorbed, caring
not about the troubles of others. And that’s the biggest tragedy,
because the reality is so very different.

The American people, as
individuals, and their government (to a fault) comprise the most
generous nation the world has ever known. Money, logistics, care
packages, and yes, their prayers, are immediately sent around the globe
whenever a crisis erupts, with no expectation of payback. We do this not
for calculated future gain, but, trite as it sounds, because it’s
simply the right thing to do.

Unfortunately, the media
overshadows the true American spirit by ignoring the gripping stories of
the day in favor of recycled garbage that focuses on 1) things we
already know, and 2) things we cannot change.

In the same way
that we were treated to the Year of the Shark several summers ago (when
shark attacks were actually down), this has become the Summer of Record
Heat. Both are codespeak for media laziness.

The biggest irony is
that the media hasn’t changed its ways, content to sensationalize the
mundane while ignoring the real stories (READ: the ones which require an
honest day’s work), yet its ratings continue to plummet. Call me crazy,
but there might be a correlation there.

Sounds like a great story. Just don’t expect to see it on TV — or this column in many papers.


End Of Space Shuttle

End Of Space Shuttle — Chris Freind has an interesting but sad column on the demise of our space program under President Obama.

He notes that  we are in “the peculiar situation of having to rely on the very same folks who less than two decades ago were our archenemy — the Russians.”

He wonders how a parent could explain such a thing to his child.

“Dad, how do we get astronauts to the space station?”

“Well, uhhh… since we put all of our space ships into museums and don’t have any new ones, we now have to hitch a ride with the Russians.  But there’s good news.  They used to be our enemy, but now they’re run by the Mob.”

Check out his column here.

 

End Of The Shuttle

Texas Don’t Mess With; Pa. Is A Mess To Begin With

Texas Don’t Mess With; Pa. Is A Mess To Begin With — Columnist Chris Freind has just got back from Texas and tells me that there is a world of difference between that state and ours — and not in our favor.

Chris notes that Pennsylvania ranks 43rd in economic performance while Texas is number one. He notes that Pennsylvania is dead last, in fact, with regard to labor competitiveness due to the influence of unions and trial lawyers.

Texas, on the other hand, is a Right To Work state, has no state income tax and has aggressively passed legal reform measures reducing litigation costs to historic lows.

This means that 40 percent of all new jobs created in the current “recovery” have been in Texas and that Texas is only one of three states to have gained jobs since the recession began in December 2007, which not coincidentally, is not long after the Democrats took over control of Congress.

Check out Chris’ column at PhillyMag.Com

Corbett Gives Unions Sweetheart Deal

Corbett Gives Unions Sweetheart Deal —  This article by Chris Freind is being republished with his kind permission.


By Chris Freind


State workers in Pennsylvania just got an 11 percent raise.

In case you have been living under a rock, here’s a newsflash: We are experiencing one of the most severe recessions in our history, and there are no greener pastures in the immediate future. Common sense dictates that with high unemployment, decreased tax revenues, large deficits and, most significantly, massive pension obligations, governors would take whatever steps were necessary to ensure that their states, and citizens, remain solvent, especially when it comes to negotiating public-sector union contracts.

That happened in places like Wisconsin, Indiana and Ohio, where true Republicans are in charge. Governors Scott Walker, Mitch Daniels and John Kasich took the heat and did what they had to do, reeling in the out-of-control taxpayer largess afforded to these unions.

But most amazing of all is New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s remarkable success. Just last week, he pushed through a monumental union pension and benefit-reform package that will save taxpayers over $120 billion—and did so with heavily Democratic, pro-union legislative majorities. So effective was Christie that alongside him at the bill-signing was the Senate President—a longtime union member.

Contrast that to the deal just reached by Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett with the largest state unions. Instead of acting in the best interests of the taxpayers footing the bill, he simply continued the Rendell legacy of keeping the cash register door wide open.

It’s bad enough the Governor rolled over on all the sweeping concessions he was seeking, but he ended up giving the unions a sweetheart deal.

Over the next four years, unionized state employees will receive an almost 11 percent raise and a guarantee of no furloughs. And remember, this significant bump is in addition to their three percent raise two years ago, four percent raise last year—and three annual step increases which averaged 2.25 percent during that time.

Cha-ching!

How do these pay raises compare to those in the private sector? With such high unemployment and underemployment rates, do you really have to ask? Most people are receiving no raises at all, not even cost-of-living adjustments. And those fortunate enough to still have a job have no choice but to hang on for dear life, praying they survive the next round of layoffs. Making matters worse, many have to also shoulder ever increasing healthcare costs, if they have coverage at all.

In addition to substantial retirement benefits, state workers have guaranteed healthcare, too. And while they will pay a bit more with this new contract, it’s still at a level way below many in the private sector.
It used to be that working in the public sector was a trade-off. You wouldn’t make as much money as in the business world, but the benefits were good and contracts were guaranteed. But all that changed as union contracts exploded upward—at the expense of taxpayers.

Now, in many cases, unionized public employees make more than their peers in the private sector, and retire on pensions and benefit packages that would make Wall Street financiers blush with envy. Of course, that has come with a price, especially in Pennsylvania, and now it’s time to pay the piper. State pension obligations go through the roof over the next several years, as annual taxpayer-funded contributions to the two state pension funds increase exponentially, ballooning from $800 million now … to billions per year.

The last Governor and legislature kicked the can down the road last year, but that only gets you so far and, in the process, devastates the future of our children and grandchildren.

By caving in to the unions, giving them a contract that would be way too generous even in a strong economy, this Governor has chosen not to address the reforms necessary to keep Pennsylvania on solid ground, which will eventually lead to higher state borrowing costs and push the state closer to the abyss.

While we’re on the subject of the state’s finances, let’s set the facts straight about the current budget. Reducing the budget by four percent is a good thing, but was inevitable after the loss of federal stimulus dollars. Had he won the governorship, Dan Onorato would have signed a budget almost exactly the same as the one Corbett did. For that matter, even Governor Spendell, who never saw a spending increase he didn’t like, would have been forced to reduce the budget to close the $4.2 billion budget deficit—which, in reality, is closer to $7 billion because no one in Harrisburg wants to address the real fiscal situation.

The budget, which is constitutionally required to be balanced, was passed last year on ghost revenue: $400 million from the tolling of Interstate 80 (which never got tolled); $800 million raided from the MCARE fund (used to offset high medical malpractice rates) which, in all likelihood, will be ordered repaid by the State Supreme Court; federal Medicaid dollars that were budgeted to be $800 million but actually amounted to $595 million; and a $1.1 billion revenue shortfall after 10 months of last year’s fiscal year.

This shortfall seems to have simply vanished off the books. Of course, do that with your own business and you go to jail. So with the looming pension bomb and the real state deficit, it’s not a pretty picture for Pennsylvania’s future.

There was a way to address these issues and begin to reverse the state’s decline. Governor Corbett could have mandated a situation whereby union members would negotiate with their prospective employer individually, and free market-type incentives would allow for a fair offer—fair for the employee, and fair for the “employer” (the taxpayer).

So an offer would be made—salary, healthcare, benefits—and the individual could choose to accept or decline it. Which is exactly how it’s done in the free market. And for those who would claim it wouldn’t be “fair” to the state worker, you know what? There would be a line a mile long of qualified individuals ready and willing to accept such an offer. Accountability and efficiencies would increase, and unmotivated, bureaucratic sloths would be eliminated in favor of those willing to be good stewards of taxpayer money.

Sound simple and fair enough? It is, and it’s called the elimination of collective bargaining. It’s something successfully implemented in other states, but was incomprehensibly taken off the table by Corbett three months ago—while getting absolutely nothing in return.

The result: No pension reform and a lucrative union contract that the Governor says will be a net cost to the taxpayers of $164 million (which means that figure can be safely doubled).

The Wall Street Journal just labeled Corbett as leader of Keystone Cops. After this latest debacle, it’s hard to disagree.

 

Corbett Gives Unions Sweetheart Deal

Should Illegal Immigrants Get a Break On College Tuition?

This article is being republished with permission of Chris Freind

 

By Chris Freind

“College is becoming a pipe dream for too many children, not because
they aren’t talented or willing to work hard, but because they can’t
afford it.”

That’s a true statement, as tuition costs have far outpaced
inflation. So the elected official who said this must have a clue,
right? Not a chance.

In an act that simply defies comprehension, State Representative Tony
Payton (D-179)  of Philadelphia has just unveiled a bill that “would allow
undocumented immigrant students to pay in-state tuition at any
Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education school, community college
or state-related university.” (This is similar to the proposed federal
law known as the DREAM Act).

Hey Tony, nice to stick it to all the law-abiding Pennsylvania
residents who want to attend college. And who says good constituent
service is hard to find?

Why the handout to those who least deserve it? Because, as Tony
explains, “undocumented students are not eligible for federal financial
aid, (so) college is often extremely expensive and simply out of reach
for many of these students.”

Oh, the tragedy.

Of course, there is something that apparently hasn’t occurred to Tony
as to why federal financial aid — political codespeak for American
taxpayer dollars — is not available to these folks. They’re ILLEGAL. As
in, they have broken the law to get here and are breaking the law being
here. Every single thing they do hurts American citizens and throws
our nation deeper into the red.

Yet not only are we supposed to feel guilty, but if Tony has his way,
we should compensate them for their plight by sacrificing our children —
so that theirs can have an education courtesy of the taxpayers.

Let’s set the record straight with facts — not rhetoric. Illegal
immigrants depress wages and take American jobs (and please, spare us
the tired argument that “they only take the jobs Americans don’t want” —
completely false). They cost taxpayers hundreds of billions (thousands
directly out of each American family’s pocket) through healthcare costs,
education expenditures (in Pennsylvania, every illegal in our public
schools costs $15,000 per year, and that’s not including the extra money
needed for additional teachers and classrooms), prison expenses, and
yes, government services.

In the case of higher education, as addressed in Payton’s bill, it’s
important to remember that just because we are talking about state
universities, space is not unlimited. So one of two things is true: with
illegals in attendance, the college will either 1) close its doors to
new applicants after a given class is filled, thereby denying the RIGHT
of a legitimate Pennsylvania resident to attend that school, or 2) once a
classroom hits capacity, the need to hire additional professors and
expand school facilities is triggered — both expensive propositions
borne by the forgotten taxpayer.

The only saving grace is that, with Republicans in control of
Harrisburg, Payton’s bill should have no shot at passage. But that’s not
the point. The real question is how such a bill could even be
considered in the first place, and how 11 other states already passed
similar legislation.

And quite frankly, this author doesn’t know what’s worse: the fact
that a bill was introduced that empowers people to break the law, or the
almost complete silence of Payton’s colleagues and the media on such a
feat.

*****

When you cut right down to it, Tony Payton’s bill advocates the
commission of a crime, and there isn’t any way to spin that to the
contrary. (Federal law explicitly states that aiding an illegal
immigrant is a crime.) Among other things, it would aid and abet known
lawbreakers. Period. The fact that the feds do this on a regular basis,
along with states (such as issuing driver’s licenses to known illegals)
and municipalities just rubs salt in the wound. The government should
not be above the law.

But if this debate is to advance, it is important to focus on the
core issue. And that is not whether a wall should be built (or if it is
a racist barrier), or whether amnesty is a godsend (or a sell-out deal
to the pro-illegal immigration forces).

While these are important side discussions, the only relevant point
is that when individuals attempt to circumvent a law because they don’t
like it, the entire American system of justice — the very rule of law
that keeps us civilized — breaks down. Once elected officials start
picking and choosing what laws they will follow (setting the example for
their followers to do the same), we all take a hit.

There’s no getting around the fact that Payton’s legislation overtly
mocks the law. Under his bill, eligible students would have to attend a
public or nonpublic secondary school in Pennsylvania for at least three
years (an admission that we the people have already forked over at least
$50,000 in education costs), pay state income taxes for at least three
years prior to enrollment in college (how can you pay income taxes if
you are here illegally, and how can the state abdicate its
responsibility to apprehends these known lawbreakers), and provide an
affidavit to the institution of higher education that the student will
file an application to a become a permanent resident (giving a sworn
legal document to a state entity that attests that one is here
illegally, without fear of repercussion, is just insane).

Since the illegal immigration debate lends itself to easily getting
off track, here’s the bottom line: For those who believe illegals should
have rights, change the law to accommodate them — don’t break it.
Lobby for amnesty and fight to change the definition of “illegal
immigrant,” but do not cavalierly pick and choose what laws you want to
follow because you happen to disagree with some.

That’s what they do in places like Iraq. It is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

On behalf of Rep. Payton’s real constituents, shame on you, Tony.

 

Should Illegal Immigrants Get a Break On College Tuition?

Will Philly Finally Pull Itself Up by the Bootstraps?

This article is being published with the kind permission of Chris Freind

By Chris Freind

You have to give credit where it’s due.

Thanks to Mayor Nutter, folks have laughed more over the last two
weeks than at any time in recent memory. If laughing is good for the
soul, Philadelphians are in great shape.

What was so funny?

Watching Nutter keep a straight face while proposing another 10
percent hike in property taxes (which would be in addition to last
year’s “temporary” 10 percent increase and the 100 percent increase in
the city portion of the state sales tax), higher parking fees, and yes,
the resurrected sugary drink “soda” tax, which would impose a two-cents
per ounce tax on sugary drinks.

But Philadelphians’ collective rage at the Mayor’s ideas was downright priceless.

If it wasn’t so funny, it would be pathetic.

*****

The fact that there is any outrage or surprise is inexplicable. What did these people expect?

“These people” being the 80 percent who just voted for Nutter in last month’s primary election.

No, that’s not a typo. A whopping eight of ten Philadelphia voters
ushered Nutter back into the Mayor’s office (a done deal, since he
cannot lose in November), welcoming him back for a second term with open
arms.

To those folks, a suggestion: stop doing drugs. They make you hallucinate.

What part of The Nut’s sham did you buy? That he would make the
city’s business climate better so that it could attract more companies,
thus creating more jobs? Freindly Fire is no economist, but it knows
that when you want less of something, you tax it. That’s fact, not
opinion. So based on the crushing levies being proposed, how exactly
the Mayor plans to incentivize companies to stay in the city, much less
locate here, remains a mystery
.
But how could anyone oppose the soda tax, since its objective is to
combat obesity? Oh wait, that was last year’s pitch, which was so
disingenuous that the proposal landed in the drink.

This time, the Mayor is taking a different tack, presciently pointing
out that no businesses — even the beverage retailers — will really be
harmed by the tax.

“These are individual business people who will make individual business decisions,” Nutter said.

Of course, the Mayor failed to explain how paying a mandated soda tax
— a certifiable job-killer — would be an “individual business
decision,” since failure to comply would unleash the city’s Gestapo Tax
Squad.

When asked if businesses would leave the city, he stated, “No, that’s
laughable. I mean, that’s just a cruel joke… they’re trying to scare
people with these tactics.”

Spoken like a career politician who has never held a private-sector
job in his life, and has absolutely no clue how devastating the soda tax
would be on the city’s businesses.

Here’s what the Mayor doesn’t want you to know: a soda tax, while a
burden to all, would be especially harmful to the poor, who can least
afford another tax. Remember, these people are already living in what
is, cumulatively, one of the highest-taxed cities in the nation.

More important, there’s no such thing as a “tax on soda.” It’s a tax on people. Period.

Which is why the Mayor is dancing the Philadelphia Two-Step, doing
everything in his power to distract the voters and avoid the real
issues.

Mayor Nutter incorrectly believes that government and “government
money” creates jobs and wealth, when in reality, the exact opposite is
true.

Government creates nothing, nor should it. Rather, it’s free people
in a competitive environment who are the engine of a thriving democratic
society. Government should be there to serve the people, not the
other way around. Nowhere is that more apparent than in once-great
cities like Philadelphia, where the economic lights are on their last
flicker.

Math doesn’t lie. Two plus two will always equal four — whether one
chooses to admit that or not. Out-of-touch politicians like Michael
Nutter can promise an empty bill of goods to our citizens. But just
because he chooses not to acknowledge the real problems doesn’t mean
they’re not there.

*****

The ball is now in City Council’s hands. They have the sole power to
approve or reject the Nutter tax proposals. While conventional wisdom
says the votes aren’t there for passage, nothing is certain, especially
with so many retiring Council members with “nothing to lose” if they
anger the voters.

Sure, the city is facing fiscal problems, but breaking the backs of
citizens to fix problems not of their making is simply wrong. Retiring
or not, what politician really wants his or her only legacy to be a
tax-raiser who presided over a violent, insolvent city with vastly
deteriorated city services?

It is rare that a City Council vote holds so much importance. In
this instance, the significance is not just whether a sugary drink tax
is passed or defeated, but the message behind that vote:

Will Philadelphia continue its decline by engaging in more of the same failed policies?

Or will it finally turn the corner, firmly stating that it will no
longer look to the state and federal governments for bailouts which only
serve to pass the buck on accountability? And that, instead, it will
pull itself up by its own bootstraps, embracing the spirit of its
citizens rather than crushing it?

*****

Here’s the truth. Residents are leaving Philadelphia in droves — some
to make purchases across county or state lines to avoid city taxes, and
hundreds of thousands who are just leaving altogether.

If Philadelphia is to ever put the brakes on this exodus, and begin
the long road back to respectability, it is mandatory for City Council
to step up and resoundingly reject the Mayor’s sugary drink tax
proposal.

Anything else will just be “sugar” coating a tragic situation — forcing residents to pour a drink much stronger than soda.

City Council, your 15 minutes are upon you.

Ban Sushi, The Time Has Come

Ban Sushi, The Time Has Come


This article by Chris Freind is being republished with his kind permission.

Sorry to disappoint, but the 2012 presidential election may prove to be anti-climatic, since it appears the federal government has solved all its problems, from illegal aliens to drug smuggling, from energy independence to protecting the environment. They must have even found a way to eliminate the $14 trillion debt.
Why? Well, based on all the resources the feds are putting into the eradication of a mammoth problem, one that strikes fear in the heart of all citizens, it would seem that all its other troubles have been solved. It’s an issue of such importance that pollsters surely find it at the top of every survey:
The production, sale and voluntary consumption of raw milk.
The threat is so great that armed federal officials find it necessary to routinely raid farms that produce that product. And rightly so, since the incidence of bovine malfeasance has obviously surpassed that of drug dealers, rapists, child predators, and murderers.
*****
The latest saga involved armed federal agents who, after months of “investigation,” raided an Amish farm in Pennsylvania, whose owner was allegedly selling raw milk across state lines. After assessing civil penalties, the government is now trying to shut down the farmer’s operation in federal court.
It’s another example of a government out of control, with gun-toting storm troopers swooping down on a farmer’s property. And there’s little doubt it came about because the extremely powerful dairy lobby once again flexed its political muscle, demanding that this increasingly popular practice be squashed. Given that there are over 10 million raw milk drinkers in the U.S., why else would so much attention be given to such an innocuous business?
At issue is whether raw milk is dangerous for human consumption because of the potential presence of E. coli, salmonella and other bacteria, as opposed to the pasteurized milk that kills such germs and is common on store shelves. Raw milk advocates, both producers and consumers, claim that milk in its raw, natural form, free of chemical treatment, helps the human body maintain an overall level of healthiness. They state that during the pasteurization process, key proteins are destroyed that help promote digestion and improve the immune system.
Even though federal officials counter that the bacteria in raw milk can be deadly, people across the country go out of their way to obtain such milk, sometimes paying in excess of three times the price of regular milk. Not only have they lived to tell their story, but most claim they and their children are significantly healthier. In the past decade, only two deaths have been officially linked to raw milk, and even they were suspect, as the contaminated substance in question was Mexican cheese.
Given that raw milk is legal to sell in 29 states, and in the other 21 there are many legal loopholes to do so (such as labeling the milk for animal consumption, and selling “cow-shares” so that owners are entitled to a percentage of the cow’s yield as opposed to buying milk outright), such heavy handed conduct on the part of federal officials is troublesome.
*****
Here’s the rub. If government is going to interfere in people’s lives and threaten their livelihoods, then they should be consistent. It certainly wouldn’t make their decision right, but at least they would avoid the appearance of favoritism. If the major issue in the consumption of raw food is the possibility of it containing “harmful” bacteria, then many more businesses should be concerned about being shut down by government agents.
Fair is fair.
So why aren’t the feds closing all restaurants that serve sushi, or at least banning it from the menu? Sushi, a delicacy loved by millions, is simply raw fish. And the best sushi is categorized as being from the “highest grade” fish.
Sounds like class warfare in the pelagic community.
The reality is that the “highest grade” fish is still served raw and can contain both bacteria and parasites. As an added bonus, the concentration of mercury in many of these fish is quite high because of their status as apex predators, meaning that, since they are at the top of the food chain, they often have the highest concentration of mercury.
Isn’t mercury bad for us, too?
And what about the significant risk of contracting hepatitis from eating raw seafood? It is a very real possibility, even when eating in a five-star restaurant.
While we’re at it, let’s ban steak tartare (made with raw beef) from all restaurants, as well as Caesar dressing concocted with raw eggs.
Come to think of it, the citrus and vegetable industries have problems too, given the occasional presence of E. coli on those products, due in part to manure laden irrigation water and fertilizer.
So let’s ban tomatoes, too. Oh wait, the FDA did exactly that several years ago after announcing a salmonella outbreak, throwing countless Americans out of work. Only one problem. There was absolutely no evidence that tomatoes were the offending food, and, after completely decimating an entire industry, the FDA (Federal Destruction Administration) cavalierly announced that it didn’t actually know what caused the outbreak.
If only the FDA was red-faced and apologetic after its misstep, willing to make amends, some of the animosity towards government would have been mitigated. But it was as arrogant as ever.
The specter of bureaucrats who are 52 cards short of a deck yet hold the power to destroy Americans’ lives — with no repercussion when they are wrong — is simply un-American. And the fact that Congress and presidential administrations allow such intrusion to go unchecked simply makes the sin mortal.
*****
Government clearly has more important priorities than trying to put raw milk producers out of business, especially when it operates in such a frightening manner. If people want to drink raw milk for its perceived health benefits, they should be able to do so without fear, and without being forced to act like rumrunners during Prohibition. And if government is so concerned about the safety of these individuals, it could make them sign a waiver of liability.
Of course, then we would be sifting through pages of litigious material every time we entered a restaurant, which would just thrill the bureaucrats.
Or maybe our taxpayer-funded government could actually try to hold up its part of the bargain by enforcing the laws that are designed to keep us safe and secure, but are routinely ignored. Spending no more than it takes in and sealing the border are just two that come to mind.
A wise man once wrote that government should be “…of the people, by the people, for the people”.
Well-funded lobbies controlling an ever-intrusive government is not what Mr. Lincoln had in mind.

 

Ban Sushi, The Time Has Come

Why Did Corbett Punt On Privatizing Booze In Pa.?

Why Did Corbett Punt On Privatizing Booze In Pa.? — This article by Chris Freind is being republished with his kind permission.

Last November, Pennsylvanians elected Tom Corbett to solve the state’s problems. But instead of leadership, they’ve received task forces and blue ribbon panels. In just three months, commissions have been formed to deal with Marcellus Shale natural gas (with a whopping 31 members), explore the core functions of government and figure out how to privatize liquor.

Sorry, but isn’t that why people elect politicians? Isn’t it their job to solve these problems?

Commissions and task forces are simply code for passing the buck and kicking the can down the road. We might as well just hang a sign that reads, “Welcome to Pennsylvania, Blue Ribbon State.” And if GOP leaders don’t start following through on campaign promises, the only “Red” they’ll see is voter anger when the state turns Democratic Blue.

*****

Since privatizing liquor is one of the only issues which enjoys a large consensus, and since it would provide billions to balance the ballooning budget deficit, it’s baffling why Corbett would punt away such political capital when he needs it most. Delaying the privatization initiative by instituting yet another study commission was a move that left many observers scratching their heads — and state store union employees punch-drunk with elation.

Even more perplexing is that Corbett has a solid ally in House Majority Leader Mike Turzai, who had been spearheading privatization legislation for years. Turzai had a right to expect that, with strong GOP majorities in both houses, the Governor would come charging out of the gate on an issue that was a cornerstone of his campaign. Instead, Corbett felt compelled to reach into the “Business As Usual” drawer and pull out another meaningless commission, which looks increasingly like a bad political calculation.

*****

Sometimes you have to walk out your door to realize that the grass really is greener somewhere else. For Pennsylvanians, that “green” is all the money saved by consumers in other states because they aren’t gouged when purchasing alcohol.

For the uninitiated, following is a primer for how the Pennsylvania alcohol monopoly works:

Pennsylvania is the largest purchaser of booze in the world. The state government, through the Liquor Control Board (LC, controls the purchase, distribution and sale of all wine and liquor. You might think that with such immense purchasing clout, its citizens would have outstanding selection and competitive pricing. But as any Pennsylvanian knows, that’s clearly not the case.

Interestingly, the LCB is charged with two distinct, and inherently contradictory, roles. While it’s responsible for raising revenue through the sale of wine and liquor, it’s also charged with controlling the sale of booze throughout the state. By definition, if the LCB is succeeding at one, it must be failing at the other.

Every bottle of liquor bought in the state comes with an added bonus: an 18 percent “temporary” tax, in addition to the 6 percent sales tax. So a $10 bottle jumps to $11.80 before the sales tax is calculated, totaling a whopping $12.50. In all fairness, the 18 percent tax was well intentioned—it was passed by the legislature to rebuild Johnstown after a devastating flood that destroyed the town.

In 1936. So much for “temporary” taxes.

Anyone who’s traveled outside Pennsylvania knows how refreshing it is to enter a grocery store and, remembering that you need a bottle of wine for dinner, walk two aisles over to the plethora of vino at your fingertips. Since others accomplish this with little difficulty, it’s incomprehensible that the nation’s sixth largest state can’t—or, more accurately, won’t—do the same.

It is infinitely more efficient when a private company, responsive to the needs of the free market (instead of bureaucrats), stocks its shelves with items that consumers want, at a fair market price. It is the core principle on which America was founded.

But Pennsylvania remains stuck in the Dark Ages, and what makes the sin mortal is that it chooses to remain there. It hasn’t dawned on the politicos in Harrisburg that they are losing untold revenue because of their Draconian system, with millions of residents crossing state lines to fill their liquor cabinets. (No offense to Governor Christie, but anytime New Jersey offers a better alternative, you know you have major problems).

And despite the Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, if you’re caught bringing alcohol into Pennsylvania, it’s a criminal offense. In fact, such “criminals” used to have their cars confiscated for doing so.

To be fair, today’s LCB has made substantial progress in its operations and “customer service.” Not too long ago, all of its locations were “counter” stores, meaning that customers had to know exactly what they wanted before placing their order, since browsing was not permitted. The clerk would then disappear into the bowels of the store, only to return five or 10 minutes later, more often than not stating that they were “out of stock” and asking for a second choice. Now imagine this scene playing out at Christmas time, with 25 people in line.

But that’s not all.

Nothing in the store was chilled. No ancillary items, such as tonic water, were sold. No employees were permitted to offer advice. And no LCB stores accepted credit cards.

And all this because former Governor Gifford Pinchot, who as a young man became violently sick while imbibing in Germany, became bound and determined to make alcohol as difficult as possible to obtain.

But the LCB’s improvements amount to being valedictorian of summer school. The whole system has to be scrapped.

The ultimate irony is that the Keystone State, birthplace of American democracy and cradle of liberty, continues down the path of state control and government regulation, to the detriment of its twelve million citizens.

And what are liquor privatization’s chances? Dead for the spring session, possible in the fall and virtually nonexistent for 2012. With the makeup of the legislature sure to change next year, the time to take a “shot” is undoubtedly now.

The people have awakened from their stupor, demanding change. Instead, all they get is a (Pabst) “Blue Ribbon” commission.

Time for another drink.

NFL Players Slaves?

This is being republished with the permission of Chris Freind.

Talk about a political football. At a time when most municipalities are running in the red, another line item must now be factored into budgets: new history textbooks.

That’s right. It turns out that the real reason for fighting the Civil War was the North’s desire to steal the incredible wealth of the slaves. Apparently, despite subjugation by their owners, the majority of slaves were millionaires, and those who weren’t still received a guaranteed minimum of $310,000 per year.

Shocking as this recent historical find seems, it was certified by Minnesota running back Adrian Petersen, and as we all know, anything a National Football League player says must be true. Petersen’s plethora of antebellum knowledge was revealed as he enlightened the nation by comparing the NFL labor dispute to “modern-day slavery.”

At issue is how to divvy up $9 billion in revenue between owners and players. Talks have broken off and management has locked out the players.

Summing up how the players were being treated during the negotiations, Peterson said, “It’s modern-day slavery, you know?”
He added, “People kind of laugh at that, but there are people working at regular jobs who get treated the same way, too.”
That brilliant Petersen Principle, though, remains a bit unclear. Were those “regular” people — those not involved in the NFL negotiations — average Americans who will work the first four months of this year just to pay their local, state and federal tax burden?

As in, a “slave” to the government? A government, by the way, that “regular” Americans send more money to than they spend on food, clothing and shelter combined.

Or was Petersen’s defense of regular people referring to the poor and disadvantaged NFL saps who only make seven figures a year, compared to Petersen’s $10.5 million, and whose six-year contract is worth almost $41 million? And for those making the league minimum of $310,000, well, they should probably pick cotton in the off-season just to make ends meet.
It must be tough being an NFL slave.

*****

The Petersen case underscores just how hypocritical some “leaders” have become regarding race relations. As a result, we aren’t the color-blind country we should be, but instead see the gulf between black and white only widen.

Take the pathetic defense of Petersen’s remarks from his agent Ben Dogra (who obviously has a financial interest in seeing this flap go away). Rather than condemn the statement for what it was, he defends it with meaningless rhetoric. “I think anybody that knows Adrian knows that (he) is a very strong-willed and passionate individual,” Dogra said. “The game means an awful lot to him.”

Gee, thanks for clearing that up, Ben. In other words, because he makes eight figures a year and is “passionate,” it’s okay to equate his situation to slavery, which, by the way, is still rampant in parts of the world.

But it gets better: “People should not just take his statements per se word by word. It’s a difficult time. He would love to play. I’m sure that everybody would love to see football continue in the NFL… nobody should really look at those words and take them out of context.”

Nice try, Ben. But how exactly are they “out of context?” He compared his situation to slavery. That’s a fact. It wasn’t a slip of the tongue, and there’s no gray area here. His “passion” and “love of the game,” while admirable, have absolutely nothing to do with his racist remarks. He shouldn’t get a free pass for outrageously disrespecting the misery that slaves in America endured. A life, by the way, that they couldn’t walk away from, unlike Petersen, who at 25, could quit his work today and live comfortably for five lifetimes.

But he has been given a free pass. And that is the real — and wholly unreported — story.

Adrian Petersen will come and go. He’ll probably make some half-hearted apology written by PR specialists and appear at events to make him seem more racially-sensitive (although he has yet to do so). And he’ll dazzle on the gridiron for seasons to come (especially if he learns to stop fumbling). But in the big picture, Petersen is irrelevant.

No, the biggest frauds of all need to be exposed. Through the whole flap, nary a peep was heard from the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the world. And where was that bastion of cowardice, the NAACP?

Conspicuously silent, but what else is new?

And this is precisely why they have no credibility left. Condemning racism of all kinds and promoting equality should be their goals, but instead, it’s the polar opposite. To them, separate and unequal trumps unity, and the condemnation of racism is done on an extremely selective basis. Translation: jump on the bandwagon in cases involving a “racist” white person, but go on vacation when the person is black.

The list of being on the wrong side is long: the Duke lacrosse team falsely accused (who were innocent), the Tawana Brawley case which Sharpton enflamed with racial rhetoric (where rape allegations by white men of a black girl were proven false), the ridiculous firing of Don Imus, and the Jena Six case in Louisiana, when Jackson reportedly ripped then-presidential candidate Barack Obama for “acting like he’s white.”

But when a situation like that of Adrian Petersen comes along, providing a perfect opportunity to explain why slavery comparisons are so hurtful and destructive, their silence is deafening. And their credibility, whatever is left of it, crumbles.

The conversation at kitchen tables and watercoolers around the nation is that Jackson and Sharpton are worthless, and the NAACP promotes racism far more than it fights it. But fear of being labelled racist and bigoted keeps most people — and most media commentators — from taking on these hypocrites, and speaking the truth.

Racism still exists in America, albeit to an infinitely smaller degree than it once was. Perhaps the greatest example of that progress was illustrated when a black President — itself a remarkable feat — gave the eulogy of Senator Robert Byrd, a former member of the KKK.
Unfortunately, that progress has come in spite of, not because of, people like Sharpton and Jackson. But there is a silver lining. Their blowhard political grandstanding and blatant hypocrisy have become such trademarks that they not only lack credibility, but more important, relevance. No one cares what they have to say anymore because their platforms have been built on a house of cards.

The biggest tragedy of all is that, had these men — dynamic orators of great charisma — truly fought the good fight, America’s racial divide would be measurably smaller.

What a shame. Leaders who preach color-blindness but really only see black-and-white…are a terrible thing to waste.

 

NFL Players Slaves?

U.S. Involvement In Libya Is All About Oil

Chris Freind has kindly given permission to republish this article.

Recently on “Good Morning America,” Congresswoman and presidential contender Michelle Bachmann was asked, “What is America’s number one vital interest in the Middle East?”
She answered, “…our safety and security of people in the United States is always number one.”

Not only was Bachmann’s response a non-descript talking-point, but it didn’t even answer the question. Unfortunately, Bachmann missed a softball that she could have, and should have, knocked out of the park, one that would have separated herself from her colleagues.

Here’s the correct answer:
America’s vital interest in the Middle East can be summed up in three words: oil, oil and oil. That’s it. If that region wasn’t sitting on such huge reserves, America wouldn’t give it a second thought, with the exception of its security guarantee to Israel.

As a Republican and Tea Party leader, Bachmann should have instinctively talked of America’s unholy reliance on foreign oil, much of it from hostile nations in the Middle East, and aggressively pushed for energy-independence.

She could have talked about how the largest natural gas deposits in the world remain virtually untapped (the Marcellus and Utica Shale); the vast oil reserves in Alaska that are closed to drilling; the Bakken Formation in North Dakota that holds more than four billion barrels; the petroleum reserves under the Rockies that could well be the largest on the planet; the fact that we’re not drilling offshore , and that production has not yet resumed in the Gulf.

She could have then explained that, if we focused on these domestic sources, we wouldn’t be paying $4/gallon and watching inflation rise, nor would we be fretting about the Middle Eastern uprisings, and who we should be supporting.

But she didn’t. And that’s too bad, because otherwise, Bachmann’s voice on the national stage is an important one.

The fact is that if a leader doesn’t understand, or can’t articulate, solutions to the single-biggest problem facing America—being bent over a barrel because of our energy dependence—then their effectiveness is extremely limited.

And because neither Party, nor current and past Administrations, have done anything to achieve energy independence, America is now involved in yet another Middle Eastern conflict with no clear objectives. The only things being accomplished are creating more uncertainty in world markets and placing American military personnel in danger. And for what?

Several points to consider:

  • There is no question why the U.S. is involved. It’s not about stopping a brutal dictator, nor is it about civilian deaths. And it’s not about democracy and freedom for the Libyans. It’s simply because Libya produces a lot of oil. If it was really about any of the aforementioned reasons, we’d be forcefully engaged in most countries around the globe, since democracies are the exception. Just look at the Rwandan conflict: 20 percent of the population was slaughtered, but it had no oil. Result: no intervention. A little truth for why we are in Libya would go a long way.
  • So much for Obama’s campaign pledges of “no more wars of choice,” and “no blood for oil.”
  • Gaddafi, while certainly no angel, has not been the thorn in America’s side he once was. He admitted complicity in the Pan Am 103 bombing and paid reparations, dismantled his nuclear weapons program and, understanding the new world order after the 9/11 attacks, stopped harboring terrorists. As a result, Libya was taken off the U.S. government’s State Sponsor of Terrorism list by the Bush Administration, with then- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stating Libya was being rewarded for its “renunciation of terrorism and the excellent cooperation Libya has provided to the United States” in the war on terror. And the flow of Libyan oil has been unimpeded. So much for the brutal dictator theory.
  • Who exactly are the rebels we are supporting by bombing the country and establishing the No Fly Zone? Are they all James Madison-types looking to establish a democratic Republic? Or are they the Muslim Brotherhood—or worse? Given many Middle Easterners’ track record of viewing the United States as the Great Satan, the odds probably aren’t favorable that we’ll be singing Kumbaya with them a few months from now. UPDATE: Reports now state that eastern Libya (home of the rebels) sent more fighters to engage the U.S. in Iraq than anywhere else.
  • A No-Fly Zone does not make a democracy. Okay, we are preventing Gaddafi from using his aircraft. But what happens when he starts whipping the rebels anyway? Do we bomb his troops and tanks? Do we send in Special Forces? What happens when a pilot is shot down? More important, what happens when a similar situation arises in Saudi Arabia, and civilians get mowed down — as they will, since the King isn’t going quietly. Do we establish a No Fly Zone over The Kingdom? Do we bomb them, too? Not a chance in the world. Despite all the questions, there are no answers, and the coalition, if you can call it that, has already begun splitting apart.


We lose no matter how you slice it. The majority of Libyan oil is sold to Italy and France, yet America has been roped in to do their heavy lifting. Why? And as more Libyans die from allied airstrikes, America will get blamed on the Arab Street. Gaddafi’s claim of another “Crusade ” against a Muslim nation will hit home to millions of Muslims across the world, vastly undermining any goodwill that may have been generated over the last several years and bolstering terrorist recruitment. And the support of the worthless Arab League, whose officials are already back-tracking, means nothing. It’s not their planes doing the bombing, but ours. We get all the negatives and none of the positives while the Arab League gets the best of both worlds.

The United States’ involvement in Libya, a nation that in no manner attacked America or caused it harm, sets an extremely dangerous precedent. Ironically, this effort, executed with no foresight and one that has absolutely no endgame, further endangers our national security. Playing into the mentality of millions of Muslims that the U.S. seeks to dominate their countries will only enflame anti-American feelings.

George Washington could not have been more right when he advised against foreign entanglements and intervening in the internal affairs of sovereign nations. That wisdom is proof that modern advances will never be a substitute for old-fashioned common sense.