A Change in Direction – Inauguration 2017

And so the 2016 Presidential Election have finally came to an end. Donald J. Trump was elected by the Electoral College, beating Hillary Clinton despite her having more popular votes. Unfortunately for Clinton the president is selected by the Electoral College, not the overall popular vote.

Today I watched the inauguration for most of the day. I had to laugh a bit at all the people saying not to watch it, or coming up with ideas such as leaving their television sets on because it would “drive Trump crazy” over low ratings. Ignoring the fact that they efforts wouldn’t have had any bearing on the ratings,

I have news for them. Trump couldn’t care less. He was the one with his hand on the Bible. It he who took the Oath of Office. It is he who will be sleeping in the White House tonight.

People are already comparing photos of today’s crowds with those of Barack Obama’s first inauguration, using that as some kind of indication that  nobody was there.

It makes no sense to compare the two. First off, the weather was terrible compared to way back in 2009. But, beyond that, you cannot compare the inauguration of the first African-American president with today’s event.

The 2009 crowd, estimated to be around 1.8 million people was the single largest event crowd ever in assembled in the United States. But, let’s be honest. How many of those people were there because he was the first African-American president? I don’t say that to be mean or racist. It’s on honest question. Heck, if I lived on the East Coast I might’ve even made the effort to be there.

Don’t get me wrong. I was not a Trump supporter. But, I look at all these efforts to somehow diminish the situation, or even somehow reverse it, and shake my head. He will be the president of the United States for at least the next four years, unless he resigns or is impeached and removal from office. 

Let him have his day today. Tomorrow will be a new day, and the first day of the 2020 Presidential Election campaign.

So what did I take from today’s speech and festivities?

When Trump was inside the Capital he ha a glazed look on his face. The same look that he had back in November when it first hit him that he’d won the election. That night he seemed rather magnanimous in his victory speech, and more subdued. I was wondering whether he would repeat that today. Turned out to be not so.

The speech was less of an inauguration speech, and more of a campaign speech with some of the words tweaked for the occasion. I said that to myself just a few minutes in. None of the political commentators said the same thing until legendary Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward did a few hours later, which was reassuring.

The president usually uses the speech as an opportunity for reconciliation throughout the country. Not so with this speech.

Trump painted a rather gloomy picture of the current state of the American country, and went on to pledge to eradicate ISIS from the face of the Earth.

I’m hoping that I am wrong. But, after hearing that statement I’m going to predict there will be “boots on the ground” within Syria and western Iraq by the end of 2017. Those of you who voted for the man and have children of prime drafting age should be saying your prayers now because efforts to reestablish the draft cannot be far behind.

Trump has made known some of the goals during his first 100 days in office.

Obamacare, in its current form, will be going away. But, the question is what will be left? The Republican controlled government is ready to repeal Obamacare with nothing to immediately replace it. But, there are undercurrents that this might not happen immediately. In fact, the first executive order signed was to “ease the burden” of Obamacare. What that exactly meant is unclear, and nobody is talking tonight.

The item with the biggest impact on our nation for the long term is filling the vacancy in the U.S. Supreme Court created by the death of Anton Scalia.

As of last fall Trump had a list of twelve candidates he considered to be his short list. Hopefully, he has had unofficial conversations with those people so that the list is whittled down to two or three names, and we can move forward.

Mind you I’m not suggesting there should be a rubber stamp of whomever he places into nomination. But, I’m hoping the opposition can be mature enough to have their hearings, and then vote.

Tonight Trump took a few moments to rail on the press. I had hoped the rhetoric was going to slow down. But, it hasn’t. I can’t even blame it on a few too many celebratory glasses of champagne since Trump does not drink alcohol.

My prayers for the next few days is that protests will be peaceful. You have an absolute right to protest. But, you do not have the right to willfully take a baseball bat or ball pin hammer to a store front. If you do not want to police breaking up a protest then police yourself. It is the anarchists amongst you who are forcing them to react.

Asphalt for Parking, Sidewalks for Walking

Since I fell in December, I've been hobbling around with a little help. First with the aid of crutches; and since about January by the use of a hand-me-down cane that used to belong to my father.

Without health care my rehab and physical therapy has consisted mostly of walking around town. Our being blessed with such nice weather this season, has made it a no-brainer, except for when I developed a bit of arthritis in my good knee.

I'm not quite ready to put the cane back in the closet for the next time I wrench a knee. But, walking IS getting better with more and more mileage I add to my tally.

* * *

There've been a couple of things that I've observed the more I walk around town.

First off, the number of other people walking around with a third leg of some sort. We're not just talking about elderly either.

Before starting to walk with a cane, the most I'd really notice were those walking with a four legged walker. Now it seems like there are people with canes everywhere I go.

In fact, on one trip to church on Sunday, I saw no less then three other people in a span of three blocks of downtown Oakland walking with canes. All were in the 30-40 year range.

I'm hoping I'll shortly be at a point where I won't have to use it. But, having done so now for going on six months has created a fuller appreciation for those who are afflicted with permanent disabilities.

* * *

The other thing that I've noticed is the continued encroachment on sidewalks by parked vehicles, especially in residential areas.

Years ago, a family friend was visiting our house. One morning he came out to find a parking ticket on his front windshield for blocking the sidewalk.

Mind you this was probably 15 years before the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The driveway of my childhood home was pretty short by today's standards. However, it was also extra wide, with enough room for people to walk around the vehicle, with space to spare.

Flash forward to 2012.

Last year, Albany, CA's Planning & Zoning Commission took up a discussion about the narrow section of Washington Ave between Pierce Street and Gateview Avenue.

Not sure when it started. But, residents have taken to parking with the right wheels of their cars on top of the sidewalk.

The explanation given was that this was a narrow street, and if cars on both sides of the street parked legally, then there would barely be enough room for a vehicle to get through (especially a large SUV). People were basically concerned about their cars getting hit.

As I remember it, several options were to be studied. Making the block one way; keeping it two-way, but eliminating the parking on one side of the street; possibly others. I don't remember all of them off the top of my head.

That study must've went by the way side. Either that, or they've decided to continue to allow people to park illegally, because it seems like nothing has changed.

Being that this block of Washington is extremely steep the chances of someone using a wheel chair to go through are probably not great.

The same CANNOT be said for Pierce Street.

At least a couple of times a week I walk the full length of Pierce Street. For the most part people park legally. However, there's a narrowing of the street, north of Washington Avenue, right around Calhoun Street, where there are more than a handful of vehicles which seem to constantly park over the sidewalk.

Sometimes only a little. Sometimes taking up over half the sidewalk, leaving only enough space for a person to walk crabwise through. (Heaven help anyone who might be in a wheel chair. They would simply be out of luck!)

Big SUVs, vans and trucks, I might understand an owner's rationale. But, once there was a Mini Cooper which had more car on the sidewalk than in the street!

No matter how you try and rationalize it, illegal parking is…illegal.

The next time you pull your vehicle up over that curb ask yourself what it would be like if you, yourself, had a disability, and were forced to ride a wheel chair everywhere you go. (And also, check into Uninsured Driver coverage on your auto policy.)  

* * *

In case anyone is wondering where I've been, I haven't given up blogging. I just decided to take the month of May off to recharge my batteries. Then I looked at a calendar today and realized I'm almost half way through June as well!

Hopefully, look for at least one new entry a week. More, if things come to mind.

All Tubes run through Berkeley?

At a recent Berkeley City Council meeting, Gordon Wozniak (District 8), floated an idea that perhaps a huge chunk of of the United States Postal Service's financial woes could be resolved by taxing email.

My first reaction upon reading the New York Daily News article (which they picked it up from Berkeleyside!) was is this guy serious??…which was closely followed by wondering whether he is any relation to Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak? In fact, he is The Woz's brother!

The Woz can certainly be accused of Thinking Outside the Box, so I suppose The other Woz could be expected to as well.

Years ago, Berkeley had a reputation of butting heads with the national establishment. But, I'd suggest that has been ratcheted back a fair amount since the days of the Gus Newport.

That's why I was surprised to see the post on Facebook promoting the Daily News' article about Wozniak's idea.

* * *

There's no arguing with the fact that Internet communications decimated the USPS' pocket book with its ability of near instantaneous communications.

Just yesterday I mailed two First Class letters. These were the first letters I'd mailed in probably six months. I honestly, can't remember.

In that same time, I've probably sent hundreds of emails. But, even more prevalent have been posts made on Twitter and Facebook, not mention this blog.

Beyond that I do my banking on the Internet. Make many of my purchases over the Internet, and the first library I seek out is the Internet.

None of that activity requires a physical piece of paper be stuck inside an envelope with a stamp affixed to it.

* * *

Just for argument's sake let's take a look at this idea.

On its surface, it sounds like a really simple and practical idea. After all, If you send a physical letter, you put a stamp on it. Why not If you click the Send button in your email client, you pay a very small tax of a centipenny. (Don't bother looking up that term. I made it up since there's no such denomination as 1/100th of a penny).

However, that's where the simplicity and practicality ends, and the futility of the idea begins.

When a normal piece of mail is sent, it must go through the USPS. Even all that Third Class junk mail we get too much of is counted, calculated, and charged postage.

With email, your computer connects with any of a number of service providers, who then route it through, as the late Ted Stevens (R-AK) famously suggested, nothing more than a series of tubes to its final destination. Your email provider doesn't even have to be physically located within the boarder of the United States.

Because of that global presence, there is no single gatekeeper, and trying to create one would be harder than making the 20,000 miles of the USA's border* 100% secure.

If you were to examine all the email sent to you, not just what gets by your service provider's SPAM filters into your inbox, you'd probably find a great portion of it is SPAM and Phishing schemes that originate outside the American borders.

Even if they are legit mailings, many of the senders change IP addresses and email addresses more often than the Santa Ana winds change direction in August, so it's impossible to get be removed. Does anyone really expect them to pay their taxes?

According to a Pingdom Internet research group study the average number of emails sent per day (Worldwide) during 2012 was 144 BILLION (try imagining Dr. Evil's voice as you read that figure!) and of that nearly 70% is unwanted SPAM.

The same study says this was generated by 2.4 billion internet users World Wide, of which only 245 million users are located within the United States. There is no breakdown of whether a user sends an occasional email, or 1000 in a bulk blast.

* * *

The idea of an email tax actually isn't new. Back in the 1999, a United Nations report suggested this might be a way to raise money and help improve emerging global societies. It never got beyond the discussion stage.

A year prior to that, the United States passed the Internet Tax Freedom Act, which among many things, put a moratorium on email bit taxes. This moratorium has been extended multiple times, and is the law of the land until next year, when the moratorium is set to expire.

With the ever expanding National Debt being estimated as nearing $19 Billion by 2014, I can imagine a taxation on the Internet might be discussed by Congress. Any effort to impose such a tax on email, or Internet usage as a whole (with a bandwidth tax), would need to be watched like a hawk.

It's one thing to suggest a tax on email, but once you start suggesting taxes on connectivity (i.e.: Facebook, Twitter, and other social media outlets), you are running afoul of restricting people's freedom of speech.

Better yet Congress, how about you forget this idea even came up and PERMANENTLY extend the moratorium?

* * *

*20,000 miles is the approximate mileage of the Canadian and Mexican borders, added to International water coastlines.

Adventures in SSA-Land

So today I experience the surreal world of the local Social Security Administration office, in Berkeley.

I know my Social Security card is somewhere in my room. i just don't know where. Since a replacement is free, it would be easier to get a replacement than to try and tear my bedroom apart!

Till now, I'd been used to the going to the office in downtown Richmond. However, when I checked online, it seemed to be sending me towards the Berkeley office as my only option.

I hopped on the AC Transit 25 bus, yet another first time event for me. It picks up across the street from my house, but it was soooooo slow compared to the ACTransit 18 route.

As I walked to the office I wondered exactly where it was. Turns out, I nearly walked past the front door. It reminded me more of the door to a morning deli/sandwich shop, than a SSA office.

Inside there was a self-serve kiosk where a person would select what they were in the office for today, and then it spits out a ticket with a number on it. Mine was D2. Then I saw the indicator on the TV screen…D98!!!

The waiting room is probably 20' x 30' in size, with three wows of chairs tied closely together. As people sat down, they tried to keep one empty seat between themselves, and their neighbor.

I'm sitting there, watching the only entertainment…George Takei on a large TV promoting the benefits of Social Security, and checking Twitter on my smartphone, when the guy that's sitting behind me arbitrarily blurts out, "Equalized Trigger!"

I have no idea what this meant, though it certainly got my attention.

About 10 minutes later my number is called. I'm thinking that wasn't too bad of a wait as I head towards the window.

As I try and hand the woman the form which I'd downloaded off the Internet, she stops me dead in my tracks to tell me she's only checking me in. I'll have my name called later!!

Mind you my form is completely filled out, and all I'm wanting is to get a replacement card!

Returning to my seat Mr. Equalized Trigger exclaims "Jesus is coming back!" I don't know if this was in reference to my overly long hair and beard, or what, so I don't say anything. Someone sitting behind him said, "Man, I want some of whatever they gave you!!" Others chuckle a little. Mr. E.T is oblivious to the humor at his expense.

One by one, they are continued calling numbers. I had an incredible urge to yell, "You sunk my battleship" each time they called a new number. However, I refrain, figuring they wouldn't appreciate the humor. Over 20 minutes passed before I finally heard my name called.

I handed my form to the girl who called me. She informed me that she'd be asking me questions (actually called it an interview) and also mentioned the whole penalty of perjury thing. (But, she did it with a smile!).

After asking me about three basic questions, which were filled out on the form, she printed off a receipt, handing it to me. She then tossed my neatly filled out form into a shred bin!! At no time did she actually look at it.

And with that we were done. I made a hasty retreat from the building towards the bus stop.

* * *

We've all heard the comments about the government being so inefficient, especially the Social Security Administration and Medicare.

Without getting into a nasty political debate on the whole situation, I do have to ask just WHY couldn't the first person that called me to "check me in" ask me the three or four simple questions the second person did, thereby sending me on my way after a  short wait?

After all, both women were in the same position - first calling people to check them in, later calling names to deal with whatever brought them into the office that day.

I also have to wonder why, in this day and age of small desktop printers  and plastic card imprinters, couldn't they have got me a card on the spot, rather than having to wait ten days for a small piece of paper printed in Sacramento?

And on an even more basic level, why couldn't the self-serve kiosk have been my "check-in" point for services? Why didn't it take three points of contact to turn in a simple application for a replacement card?

Just one of the things with the government that makes you go "Hmmmmm."

A Community Tragedy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recently our small community of Albany experienced a string of tragic events which have shaken our town to its core.

• 9/24 AUSD learns of allegations of inappropriate actions between teacher and student. Places teacher on leave
• 9/26 morning APD arrests teacher
• 9/26 AUSD notifies parents about classroom shuffling and announces parent-only meeting
• 9/26 8:17p Teacher formerly booked into Custody
• 9/27 morning Teacher released on bail
• 9/27 5pm  AUSD parent meeting addressing events
• 9/28  Teacher's 2pm hearing  postponed until 10/24
• 10/1 10:30a Sheriff receives call about teacher's death; body discovered along road in San Lorenzo
• 10/1 3:14p AUSD notifies parents of death, indicating would not inform students till next day
• 10/2 8:30a AUSD holds press conference regarding teacher's death

James Izumizaki, 28, was a teacher and counselor at Albany Middle School. Judging by the many comments left on Albany Patch articles by students and parents he was well liked and admired.

Interspersed with those positive comments were others vilifying the school district, police and Albany Patch - who was the news outlet which initially broke the story.

Many comments suggested AUSD was at fault for not investigating further before reporting to the police. It is NOT the responsibility of the school district to decide if police notification is warranted.

California Penal code places teachers and administrators among professionals REQUIRED to report such allegations to the police. (Penal Code § 11165.7). Furthermore, they could be held liable for not reporting (Penal Code §§ 11166(c); 11166.01).

* * *

Many comments suggested APD hastily arrested Izumizaki and that the plea for others to come forward was nothing more than efforts to fabricate a case.

At this point the public does not know what information police had prior to arresting Izumizaki. What should be assumed is there WAS enough Probable Cause to bring charges. Probable Cause does NOT equate guilt. It only means the police have something needing further investigation.

Izumizaki was obviously not considered a flight risk, or else bail would have been higher than the statutory minimum. Or a judge could have denied bail outright.

In fact, Izumizaki was released by the next morning, with notice to appear Friday. That hearing was then delayed three weeks. Having formal charges brought within seven days would have been unusual without damning evidence so a delay was not surprising.

* * *

Comments have suggested that by Albany Patch providing ANY coverage at all it ruined Izumizaki's life. That this private matter was none of our business.

Arrest records ARE a matter of public record.

For right or wrong, teachers are held to a higher standard because of their contact with children. They are placed in a position of trust.

The mere reporting of a public arrest in no way takes a side, guilty or innocent. Are there news outlets which purposely drive an agenda? Absolutely. Do I believe Albany Patch was guilty of that? No. It ONLY reported what HAD happened, without editorial comment.

To see what reporting with editorial comment looks like, check out footage of Nancy Grace's coverage of the Casey Anthony Trial. For me she clearly biased even before formal charges were filed.

* * *

Might Izumizaki's tragic end been prevented if things had been handled differently by Patch, AUSD or APD? Possibly. It's currently impossible for the public to say what Izumizaki's final act was motivated by. But, that does not make them libel for that act either.

Was the Albany Patch headline referring to "Lewd Acts" really necessary? Patch did not come up with that legal definition. It was merely citing the official wording used by the government. (At no time has Patch written a headline about Izumizaki with the word "molestation" as one commentator stated).

Was that a charged-sounding headline to use? Yes.
Was it deliberately used to imply Guilt? No.
Could the headline have been reworded to not include "lewd?" Perhaps.

However, the fact remains those were publicly available charges which any responsible reporter would have included, at the very least, in the body of the article.

Should commenting have been turned off on articles? Hind sight is 20/20.

I can understand the rationale on why public comments were allowed - To allow people an outlet to express feelings on a very serious situation.

In retrospect, comments seem to have accomplished nothing more than vilifying Patch, APD, AUSD, or the person alleging the improper relationship.

* * *

I've personally known two people who have committed suicide. One was because they were in the final stages of terminal cancer. That reason, though extreme, could be comprehended.

The other had been fighting an ongoing battle with mental illness. From what I understand intimate friends saw no outside appearances treatment wasn't working. Then one morning they simply found them dead. Two weeks before that I'd seen them smiling and happily dancing around.

No matter what drove him, the ultimate responsibility for the decision to take his life lies with Izumizaki.

One commenter would have liked to have heard Izumizaki's side of the allegations. By taking his own life, Izumizaki chose to remain silent, except for any parting comments he put in the note found inside his car.

It now rests with the Alameda County judicial system on whether they will release any contents from that note. Doing so could provide some closure to everyone involved, and it would be coming from Izumizaki.

My heart goes out to Izumizaki's family and co-workers. They will have to live with the knowledge of these events for the rest of their lives.

My heart also goes out the student who brought the allegation to light, as well as the students who are now confused after having nothing but good memories of the man.

I'm afraid this chain of incidents will be with us for weeks to come.

The Intolerance of Tolerance

Is anyone else getting really concerned about the polarization of society lately? I'm not talking only in the political sense, but the way people treat each other in general.

Clearly, we're not going to agree on everything. But, everything seem so be a hot button issue.

The most heated example surrounds the debate on homosexuality and same sex marriage.

Most people are familiar with the Holy Bible. Perhaps not the contents, but at least by name.

Leviticus is the third book of the Bible, and can be described as a Conduct guidebook. Some consider Leviticus 18 and 20 as specifically addressing same-sex relationships.

This blog entry isn't to tell you which way you should think. People believe what they believe, and I'd hazard a guess that most people are tolerant of others having viewpoints that don't jive with theirs. But, then there are groups like the Westboro Baptist Church.

WBC goes out of their way to practice a form of extremism in professing their beliefs, and are eager to offend those who don't share those beliefs 100%. I guess the hope is that shock value will make people change.

WBC's intolerance is obvious in their actions. But, what about the opposing side where the most common goto statement is to label anyone in opposition to the same-sex lifestyle as being full of hate regardless of whether they really do hate them, or not.

* * *

Look at the political climate in the United States.

Since the early to mid 1800s, most Americans have been in one of two major parties, the Democratic and Republican. (it may surprise you to know there are currently five major and 33 minor parties nationwide; along with all sorts of regional parties.)

It's fair to say that Democratic and Republican controlling interests have polarized this country to a point not seen previously in our lifetime.

Four years ago, Barack Obama was elected President. He is the first African-American to ever hold the post. Obama is also a Democrat.

Within a week's time we started seeing distasteful things like Obama Monkey and Moo-chelle Obama. Clearly those have overt racial implications and were aimed at the first family because of their race.

In 2010, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) famously proclaimed,  "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." It's one thing to say that after codifying social issues that would lead to how that would be accomplished. However, more than once, it was stated as being the top priority, and seemingly the only priority, with anything else happening along the way being gravy.

There's no denying that many comments were only because of the color of Obama's skin, but I think it can be said that much of the anti-Obama behavior can be summed up as a lack of respect for the man, with no consideration for his position.

It's become more important to tear down those in the opposition than it is to support your own position.

During the recent political conventions, actor Jason Biggs lashed out with a string of vulgar tweets about Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, and their wives. Not to be outdone, commentator Ann Coulter followed the next week, smearing Bill Clinton and Sandra Fluke.

WHY???????

* * *

Even deep within the heart of liberal and progressive Northern California, our little community of Albany isn't immune to the intolerance of tolerance.

We have a small core of people that regularly comment on things. One of the vocal individuals is Ulan McKnight. (In full disclosure, Ulan and I graduated from high school in the same class, though we didn't run in the same circles.)

Over the past couple of years we've had two very contentious issues make their way to the forefront of local politics; a proposed medical marijuana dispensary and the development of the University of California's Gill Tract.

Ulan was very vocal on the pro-dispensary side during the VitalGen application, and I think it is fair to say he agrees with the Occupy the Farm movement. While he and I may have been on opposite ends of the spectrum in many of our comments on Albany Patch articles, I've never felt the need to personally attack him.

Unfortunately, that cannot be said for some others who seem to relish any opportunity to disparage him by bringing up things from the past, which have no connection to the topic at hand - even to the point of belittling him based on his choice of clothing captured in a Patch photo.

* * *

Recently, I experienced this myself.

On a photography forum I sometimes visit, someone started a thread about the need for photographers to be more conscious about labeling some of their photos "NSFW," the acronym for Not Safe for Work. It's usually used as a warning for images where there's a good chance someone somewhere might find something objectionable.

I supported his argument because, as of late, there seems to be more and more photos with less and less clothing in them.

Many of the comments were along the lines of, "It's fine for my workplace" or "why were you surfing a photo gallery at work anyways?"

If those were the only comments, I'd ignore them. Unfortunately, there was someone feeling the need to start labeling people as babies and whiners. Then, when I said it was sad about the comments being left, I was told I was seriously lame. Yes, these are childish, but when said over and over they are obviously meant to be hurtful.

* * *

I'm not suggesting we should all sit down around the drum circle, bang on the bongos, and sing Kumbaya. What I AM suggesting is that it should be OK to have differing views, and to feel free to express them without resorting to Over the Top behavior, or being subjected to it. People MUST think about HOW we treat each other when expressing those feelings, no matter how distasteful we may find them.

Sometimes it takes a Child to raise a Village

Non-violence (Håkan Dahlström) / CC BY 2.0

As have many many Americans, I've seen the news coverage of the horrific events in Aurora, Colorado. I think pretty most everyone are asking many of the same questions

• How could it happen?
• Why did it happen?
• What could be done differently to prevent it?

The very first question is clearly the easiest to answer of the three. We know someone walked into a theater, threw some smoke grenades and then opened fire, killing at least 12 people and injuring 59 others.

The second question does not have an answer right now. So far the authorities have said that the shooter was not crazed. He left no manifesto with reasons on his action. He did not have a vendetta against the theater chain. He did not personally know any of the victims. Had any of those been true, it would have been far easier to rationalize his irrational actions for general consumption.

One of the things they've said is he had been planning this for months. And if his actions at the movie theater weren't bad enough, he booby trapped his apartment so that anyone coming in would get a big, and fateful, surprise.

Hopefully, some explanation will eventually became known so we can get a better understanding on what, if anything, makes this different than any of the previous rampages by gunmen in the United States.

The third question is the most contentious of the three; and one of the most fiery issues in this country.
On one side is the pro-gun lobby which makes the basic argument that if we make owning a gun illegal, only criminals will own guns. On the other side you've got the anti-gun lobby which says we should make it a crime to own any type of fire arm because limiting their availability will cut down on crime.

I will agree with organizations, such as the National Rifle Association, that making gun ownership illegal for law abiding Americans won't do anything to take guns away from the criminals. Anyone arguing against that basic statement is misguided. With that said, that's about as far as I'm willing to publicly agree with their gun control stances.

The basic thorny issue is the meaning of Amendment II of the Constitution.
In 2008 the United States Supreme Court ruled 5-4, in District of Columbia vs. Heller, that citizens CAN own guns regardless of whether they're in the National Guard (i.e.: militia), or not. Obviously, this was a very close decision, and one vote the other way would have changed gun laws in a major way.

if you want to really get a handle on what the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was, you need to look at what the Founding Fathers wrote.
There should be NO question what James Madison intended when you read his original wording:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

The placement of that semi-colon is important as it, grammatically, separates gun ownership from the militia membership. That semi-colon got changed to a comma along the way by a Congressional typesetter, NOT by Madison, or the Congress. When the Bills of Rights were ratified, the semi-colon was not returned.

Getting past the intent of ownership issue, the next subject is regulation. It would take a novel the size of War and Peace to summarize all the court cases on whether there should be any, what type.
With all that said, I ask you to consider something. When the Founding Fathers were around, the leading edge technology was the Flintlock Musket. It could be fired at an Earth shattering rate of four shots a minute if you were using premade cartridges! It would be around 100 years after the Revolutionary War before the first fully automatic rifle was developed by the Mexican military.
In the next 100 years we have seen semi and fully automatic rifle and pistol manufacturing made common.

Beyond the question of how fast a bullet can be delivered, there's also the advancement in quality of the projectile. During the Revolutionary War, mini balls were individually cast by hand. No two were alike, and by 1800 standards they were expensive. Today, bullets are stamped out by machines thousands at a time allowing people to access a virtually unlimited supply with a simple phone call.
In fact, the Aurora assailant purchased 6000 rounds over the past few months. What justification can there be for an individual to buy that many rounds during that short a period of time?

Anti-gun control proponents say there should be no limit on gun types or ammunition purchases. Do people really need to the ability to buy a 50 caliber rifle capable of blowing a hole through 2+ inches of bullet-proof glass just because they might want to go moose hunting?

A Facebook friend recently commented on how people should be allowed to openly carry guns wherever they want to, and about how it would be a deterrent to anyone that might want to go on a shooting spree.

Had that been the case I can only imagine many of those 59 others wounded would have ended up at the morgue instead of the hospital, due to crossfire amongst the clouds of smoke and darkness; and that doesn't even take into account it was a fully packed theater for a hugely popular film.

I'm not asking for an outright prohibition on gun ownership. I think people should have the right to have firearms if they wish to enjoy hunting, or for protection in certain circumstances. However, it's time for a more robust regulation on some types of weaponry, such as assault rifles; and some type of system to track ammunition.

To be most effective this control needs to start at the time of manufacturing, not the sales. Some guns just don't need to end up in the hands of the general public.
Additionally, registration should be considered for anything more than the basic rifle/pistol that uses something above the smallest of calibers. The argument is that this violates a person's right to privacy. But, I suggest your right to privacy is already abrogated when you filled out that form to buy that firearm. If you didn't, you've ALREADY violated the law.

* * *

Some will find the title I chose offensive, suggesting I was sensationalizing the death of a young girl just to attract more readers.

Quite the contrary. I used it to illustrate the need to do something to turn the growing violence, and the availability of far more dangerous weapons that are being mass manufactured.

As of when I'm writing this blog,  12 people have lost their lives in the Aurora theater shooting. Fifty-nine others have been injured, so that first number might go up.

With the exception of her family and friends, Veronica Moser-Sullivan may not be any more, or less, important than any of the other people cut down that day. To me, I look at a photo of a smiling six-year-old girl and I cry a bit inside. In the first decade of her life, she was enjoying life. In fact, she just learned how to swim.

I can think back to when I was six-years-old. My cares in life would have been watching baseball or going camping with my family. One of the first grade art projects I had that year in Mrs. McQueon's class, was to make a drawing of what I wanted to do when I grew up.

With the typical vision of a six-year old it didn't stay the same for long. At that point I wanted to grow up and be a park ranger. A few months later it would to be a police officer, which was followed a short time later by something else. Obviously, I didn't know what I wanted to be at that tender age, but I had a vision.

I wonder what Veronica wanted to grow up to be? It's a shame that she wasn't given that opportunity to fulfill whatever her dreams might have been.

And I ask shouldn't society do SOMETHING to make sure other Veronicas (…and Tommys and Glens and Patricias, etc.),  have every opportunity to live a long life and find out if they reached their dreams?

Your Government at Work II (DC version)

Rep. Al Green (R-TX) compares the Obamacare Act with the alternative being offered by opponents (in his right hand) during Congressional debate.  - CSPN

* * *

Over the past couple of days I've had the opportunity to watch the House of Representatives in action, courtesy of CSPN, the cable network which televises the United States Congress, as well as other governmental and historical programming. If you have cable, but have never availed yourself of this source, you really need to. And I hope that high school political science classes use this tool that's available to them. It's one thing to crack open a dusty text book, but another thing to watch them in action.

However, perhaps I should have said "House of Representatives in INACTION" in the previous paragraph. It's not a well kept secret that we have one of the most gridlocked federal government ever, but the last two days makes me shudder. It seems the word compromise is a four letter word as of late.

To be fair, both sides of the aisle seem to have issues, though the more conservative side seems to have an extra hard edge to grind. What they seem to forget is that while extra sharp steel may cut quickly, it also gets ground down a whole lot faster and needs more maintenance.

I'm sure by now you've figured out I was watching the debate and voting on HR 6079, a bill to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act 2010. (Though it's usually used as a derogatory term, I'm going to refer to it as Obamacare for the rest of this blog out of expediency).

Obamacare was passed in March 2010, after nearly two years of discussion in the House and Senate. Almost immediately, efforts were brought forth by Tea Party members Rep. Steve King (R-IA), Rep. Michelle Bachman (R-MN) and Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) for repeal. None of those bills made it out of committee.

You would think that after dying in committee they might get the message. NOPE! That was during the 111th Congress. During the current 112th Congress, there have been THIRTY-ONE bills introduced for repeal, including the one voted on today. What was not introduced was a reform alternative at the same time.

And there were several Republican Congressmen who were only too happy to exclaim that if they did nothing other than repeal Obamacare, they'd be very satisfied. If my Congressman said he'd be happy with only accomplishing one thing during his two year term, I'd be looking for someone else to vote for.

I think the most perfect illustration of this was from Rep. Al Green (D-TX) who compared a five inch thick copy of Obamacare with an invisible copy of the proposed alternative.

While today's House vote was for repeal, it was a hollow victory because it will never pass muster in the U.S. Senate, nor is President Obama likely to sign it, should it actually reach his desk.

Both sides of the aisle say that healthcare reform is necessary. Obamacare was passed, and has been ruled Constitutional by the United States Supreme Court. People are certainly within their rights to try and repeal it. However, a more rational effort would be to propose alternatives to parts of the Act, rather than simply going back to the status quo; and doing it over and over and over when it's obvious their efforts will not succeed.

What is fascinating is there ARE common traits between Obamacare and Massachusetts healthcare, which was passed under Mitt Romney. I'm not going to say they're carbon copies, but there are things that both sides of the aisle can agree on, if they can get past the partisan bickering.

Massachusetts has a penalty if you don't buy insurance. So does Obamacare. Massachusetts requires companies with 11 or more full-time employees to provide insurance. That requirement doesn't kick in until 50 full-time employees with Obamacare. Both plans prohibit denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions. Both plans prohibit insurance companies from arbitrarily canceling coverage.

The biggest issue that needs to be worked on is exactly how to pay for it. This is not as easy to answer as comparing a state insurance program vs. a federal one.

Obamacare is basically being paid with new taxes. The sooner proponents admit that, the sooner they can move on to other discussions. Some of the taxes are minimal at best, and won't be noticed. Some are definitely going to hit people more the closer we get to 2018. This is where discussion would be helpful, rather than just sticking their heads in the sand, hoping it will go away.

On the surface Obamacare opponents exclaim they can't be made to buy health insurance. That was my initial reaction. But, then I have to ask how the states can require drivers to buy automobile insurance? You will certainly face a penalty if you're caught driving without it!!

Opponents say people won't be able to keep their current insurance. That's not true. The only way they don't have that option, is if their employer decides to cancel their employee's coverage.

* * *

One of the more egregious things mentioned today were stories of children that had life threatening illnesses before they were born, or immediately after, and had to get treatment just to survive birth. After receiving that treatment they were told they were uninsurable due to pre-existing conditions. How rational is that?

While I'm not personally familiar with those cases I can speak from personal experience.

Many years ago, I was covered by a national HMO under my parent's plan. After graduation, I was able to enroll in the same HMO through my first job after graduating college.

Like millions of other Americans I was diagnosed with high blood pressure, and was prescribed medication. Unfortunately, after the company went bankrupt I was laid off. I chose to use COBRA to continue my plan, and paid out of pocket.  When I first started paying it was $187/MTh. Over the next four years, there was a steady increase EVERY year until it was $488/MTh, which I couldn't afford so let it lapse.

What's somewhat ironic is my HMO claimed to be a non-profit, yet every year they finished in the black financially, and every year they constantly built new facilities around the Bay Area to the point of being one of the area's larger real estate owners.

As bad as that price increase looks on paper, it wasn't the most incredible part of the whole thing. My new employer happened to offer the exact same HMO for their coverage. I filled out the paperwork to apply. However, I was denied due to a pre-existing condition. They denied me for being treated for high blood pressure.

It would have been interesting to have had a blood pressure cuff on when I heard the reason. I explained to the person on the phone how ridiculous that was since it was their HMO which had diagnosed my situation and had prescribed the medication. There was silence and then a bit of telling me that's the way it was.

After multiple phone calls to multiple departments and mangers they finally woke up and gave me health care. I shouldn't have had to jump through all those hoops and loops to get care; and under Obamacare I wouldn't have.

* * *

It's a shame we have came to a point where we're basically required to get government regulated health insurance. Unfortunately, the emphasis on profit vs. society and legalistic treatment of individuals has driven us to it.

Gill Tract: Seems like a no-win situation for everyone in the immediate future

(comments in this blog are the feelings of the author, and not the publication which this appears in)

Tuesday's Planning & Zoning Committee Meeting has the potential to change Albany in many ways. There are two items which will be up for discussion. Normally, I would have expected the AT&T tower application to have been pretty contentious. At least that was until yesterday, when a group called Occupy The Farm came in and set up in the University of California's Gill Tract agricultural fields.

At first this looked like a spur of the moment get-together in concert with Earth Day 2012. However, organizers have issued a statement that this has been in the works since last November. Honestly, Their ability to keep it under wraps is admirable no matter what you feel of their actions.

The major action item at the P&Z meeting will be action on the university's "Whole Foods/Senior Housing" development. This project has been in the works for over four years and is the largest project to come to our sleepy little town since Target. This project develops about two-thirds of the un(der)developed land. However, does not include the agricultural fields immediately north of the University Village. This area is what Occupy The Farm is fighting over.

When you look at everything said by all sides, pro and con, there are basically three points of discussion.

• Opening of Whole Foods Market
• Development of the last agricultural land in Albany
• Legality of the occupation

* * *

Whole Foods Market is a corporation, based out of Austin, Texas, and has been around since 1980. They have over 300 stores in the United States and Europe. The nearest store is in the Lake Merritt district of Oakland. Additionally, they tout themselves as a leader in wholesome and organic products for the home. As my church is located in Oakland, I've purposely stopped by Whole Foods on my way home Sundays.

There are two groups which are attacking Whole Foods coming to Albany. First off are those that deny WF's claim to sell organic products. A recent comment on the Albany Patch said Whole Foods primarily sells Genetically Modified Foods. Another person labeled them as "creepy corporate." In fact, I saw only one comment from an anti-WF point where the person actually admitted to setting foot inside a Whole Foods. I don't know exactly what percentage of WF's products contain GMO, and what percentage are certified organic and I seriously doubt the other person does as well. They did not mention their sources to that claim. I will say that their produce section, which a good portion of it claims to be organic is one of the best quality-looking sections in the area. Another comparison would be Berkeley Bowl West.

Another of the complains is their "overpricing" of foods. Their prices are comparable to BBW, and I have to be honest and say the prices I have seen at Farmer's Markets are not cheap in any stretch of the imagination. Lucky and Safeway food pricing is up and down comparable to WF, depending on what sales are on that week. While my family has been a Safeway Family for years, I've found the Albany Safeway is looking more dreary every time I go through there, especially with the amount of water they seem to spray on their vegetables on 15 minute basis. Hopefully, that's to change when/if a new store is built on Solano Avenue.

If you can get past the GMO/Organic and pricing issues, it gets down to politics, union vs non-union. They may be union, but workers at WF seem to be happy with their work and are always helpful when you ask them for/about something. Generally, if people are unhappy with their work it shows in way their carry themselves at work. This boils it down to those that have a union-only mentality vs those that look at it on a case by case basis.

* * *

The second question is regarding development of the open space boarded by Jackson St, Buchanan Street, San Pablo Avenue and Village Creek. Annually, this area is used by the UC agricultural department for experiments. It's probably not really obvious as you usually don't see people working the field, and most of the year the land is vacant, except for the yellow carpet of wild mustard, the famous Albany Turkeys and the flights of Canadian Geese who stop by on their way through on their migration. While not a part of the current proposal, It had been in the past, with varying degrees of development.

The worst possible option was to bring student housing all the way to the Marin extension fence line. I know of nobody that wanted that. My immigrant grandmother called the forest "ViennaWald" because it reminded her of the forests of her native Austria. She would be saddened over the cutting of the diseased trees, and the idea of it being covered with houses. As of right now, its future is nebulous at best. If I had a gut feeling, it is destined as open space with planted grass.

This option is not acceptable to the Occupy The Farm organization, who would like to see this area turned into a community farm. The idea certainly should be looked at. The idea of turning this area into a working farm is not original to Occupy The Farm. Gilltract.org is an organization that would like to do that, in concert with UC and the Albany Unified School District.

A perfect example of a community farm in the San Francisco Bay Area urban area would be Fremont's Ardenwood Historic Farm. Ardenwood is 200+ acres of rural goodness. You can buy organic produce. They have farming demonstrations. Could something similar be done with Gill Tract? Well, yes and no. Having a community garden would be great. However, we're only talking several acres. If it's a working garden, how would it be managed?

As mentioned earlier, the University of California DOES use this for agricultural studies, whether it looks like it to the average passer by, or not. At the present time they have not announced any intentions to discontinue that usage. Should a community garden go in here, an equal amount of acreage would need to be found elsewhere to make up for the loss.

Lastly, anyone who lives in the immediate area are familiar with the wild life that calls the area their's. You have Albany's famous Wild Turkey flock that calls the area home. I can only imagine what is going through their little heads as their see humans invading their area and setting up camp; tearing up their nesting area. Should this be turned into a farm what is to become of the turkeys? Will pens be built to domesticate them? Not a very happy proposition for the turkeys.

While we may have the ability to control the turkeys, how despicable that idea is, there is the question of the huge flocks of Canadian Geese that take stop in the Gill Tract fields, along with the ball park at Oceanview School and the small grassy area of the Agricultural Building, while on their migration. The like this area particularly because of the corn left over, and other edible plants. I'm lucky enough to live on the glide path, and if you're never had a huge V of 30 geese fly less than 10 feet over the roof of your house, I feel sorry for you. These geese are bigger than the average Beagle and make a unique honking noise. (We've had a couple not so happy experiences where they've hit the power lines and actually knocked power out to a six+ block area!!). What is going to happen when the it's fall harvest time and the flocks return on their way South? Will they be unmolested while they sample the farm goods?

* * *

The last question is about legality of the occupation. Plain and simple it's not. It really amazes me the way people who support something gloss over the illegality because they feel their cause is just, or that they are fighting something. The property in question is owned by the University of California. The rebuttal argument is that this is a public institution and I am a member of the public. Well, sure, you're a member of the public, and the State of California owns the Gill Tract. But does that give a group of Californians the right to usurp the land because they think it should be used a different way? If you say "Yes" then you also support someone moving onto park land and doing with it what they wish. How about looking at it another way. Say me and my buddies want to build an ice rink because downtown Oakland is just too far to drive. There are a couple hundred of us who want to form our own league. There's this property owned by the city and we're just going to break the lock, go in and set up some ice equipment (free electricity courtesy of the city after all!!). Are we trespassing since we didn't negotiate to use the property? Absolutely! On a basic level, what's the difference between my ice rink and your farm on property that does not belong to you? Nada.

* * *

The biggest retort from Pro-Occupy people is you just want the status quo and are fearful of change. If you don't like this, what's your suggestion? So here are some suggestions for the City of Albany, University of California and the citizens of Albany to consider.

The agricultural area was taken out of the University Village project (I think) because it was a political fight that wasn't necessary for their immediate cause. Smart on their part. If the City of Albany wants to continue to have the most leverage over the area they need to reintroduce it back into the conversation. They delayed the project by insisting the little league ballparks were protected for another 10 years. Right or wrong, UC considered that and worked with Albany Little League to come to some sort of a resolution. The City of Albany should get some type of a moratorium agreed to that would preserve this property from being developed for a period of 25 years. As an alternative option, and since Occupy The Farm insists it's so, an advisory ballot measure should be considered asking the voters of Albany whether they would support a Bond Measure to purchase the property outright, or at the very least lease it for 100 years, from the university. Price should be contingent on the undeveloped land price NOT the developed land price. The money would then allow UC to find suitable land elsewhere to continue their tests.

My gut feeling is the actual voting populace of Albany will not vote for it. The importance of doing this on a city-level is that it shows how the citizens feel, not an organization that probably does not contain a majority of people form Albany.

Here's another more radical thought. Has there EVER been a burrowing spotted owl that took up residence in the plateau area of the waterfront? It's been something like five years since the controversial project was put in as a compromise for the well used soccer fields south of Golden Gate Fields. How many years will that land sit without any owls before it's written off as a valiant try that just didn't work? There's certainly enough acreage up there to set up a working farm the size of the Gill Tract's agricultural area. The only question would be suited the climate is to vegetables and fruits as it's a lot closer to the Bay than the Gill Tract?

Your government at work!

Tonight I attended the Albany City Council meeting. On the agenda was a conditional use permit for a beer pub and package store on San Pablo Avenue.

Notice I did NOT say brew pub. It has been called that for months now in the media and documents, which drives me nuts. A brew pub is where they brew their own beer onsite. a beer pub is where they bring in kegs from others to serve. A package store is where you can buy bottles of beer to take home, just like you do from a liquor store or even Safeway these days.

Staff people gave their recommendations first and one of the comical things was that she said it was "beer to go" which the mayor had to ask what type of container it left in. I honestly think some of the city council thought it was being taken out of the store in 7-11 style go cups. No people, we don't live in Louisiana, home of the drive through daiquiri stands.

After Staff gave their recommendations, the owner of the property and the proposed businesses gave their quick presentations. Basically, they want to open a store like Beer Revolution (Oakland) or City Beer (San Francisco) where you can get upscale micros and European beers on tap, or purchase bottles to either take home, or consume on premise after paying a corkage fee. Apparently, their type of BATF license applied for will require them to serve light food along with the beer, which is a positive that Beer Rev and City Beer currently don't offer (although Beer Rev will allow places to deliver food for you!!).

The public comment period was interesting. All the people that went first were those that were against the pub/store. It was only after the half dozen, or so, people went, that the proponents of the establishment went. I had planned to wait to go very last because I had prepared my comments and wanted them to be be the last things the council heard. However, I was a couple from the last.

Everything had been timed so that I would fit into my three minutes of time (barely). Unfortunately, part of the way through I screwed up and the remaining two minutes were paraphrasing and adlib, which didn't come out nearly as good. (Lord knows I missed that teleprompter from my days at the University of Montana Radio-TV school!!).

Here are my comments, as prepared prior to the City Council Meeting:

Here we are again at the City Council with an appeal for the pub and package store on San Pablo Avenue. This has been before Planning and Zoning twice, and now the City Council twice. Hopefully, the situation gets resolved with tonight's meeting.

We have heard MANY MANY references to people stumbling to their cars and puking outside. Public urination and sex. This sounds more like an episode of The Simpsons set at Moe's Bar, than at a package store like what is being proposed. People are wanting the city to assure there will be no drug usage or public sex in parked cars in the area. That can probably be more easily assured on a major street like San Pablo than on a quiet secluded neighborhood such as Madison or Adams Streets.

The same people also keep bringing up the Hotsy Totsy, Club Mallard, the Ivy Room and Albany Bowl. Albany Bowl caters to youth and has absolutely part being in this conversation. As for the others mentioned, no disrespect meant, but that's like comparing Denny's to a Four Star restaurant. Those places are Depression Era bars that serve hard alcohol and cheap beer. If you want to compare the pub and package store to another locale in Albany I'd suggest looking at Solano Cellars with its upscale wine offerings from around the World. However, comparing Apples to Apples, I'd like to use Beer Revolution in Oakland as an example.

Beer Revolution also has high end domestic and imported craft brew available in bottles. Additionally, specialty beer is available on draft, which averages between $5 and $8 per 10 ounce pour.

Some people complain there are too many liquor stores in Albany. That's a red herring as if you look at the beer selection being offered at any of the liquor stores you're hard pressed to find any type of selection that comes anywhere close to what is being proposed. The closest competitor would be Beverages and More. However, there is very little crossover in selection if you compare what they offer to that of the new package store proposed.

There has been complaints about the parking waiver requested. I have to ask where was Planning and Zoning, and the City Council when that building was built? Whether it was three separate businesses, or one large business, it would still have zero off-street parking meaning no matter what business moved in they would have to apply for a waiver.

Regarding the litter and noise question. Look at places like Beer Revolution and Triple Rock, which is in Berkeley. While there may be considerable noise INSIDE the buildings, you are hard pressed to notice it from the street. Beer Revolution may appear to have unacceptable noise, but that's only because it has a large patio area that's used in the evening, such as what the Club Mallard has. There is no patio involved with the proposed pub and package store. As for litter, both places are clean outside despite being in Jack London Square and on Shattuck Avenue.

The applicants wanted to be open till Midnight on Friday and Saturday, while the police have recommended 10pm. I suggest a happy medium of 11pm, such as what city Staff have suggested. However, I would also suggest the hamburger side of the business should be able to stay open longer.

In closing I ask that the application be finally granted, and then the situation can be reviewed after one year.

After all was said and done, the City Council decided to approve the conditional use permit, allowing the business to stay open until 10pm Su-Th, and 11p Fr-Sa, with a review in front of the City Council six months after they open their doors. The opponents have now threatened to oppose the license at the licensing level. The inane part of this is it's apparently all over their staying open one extra hour on Fridays and Saturdays. We're not talking until 2am, like the bars in town do because they've been around so long.

Knock on wood, the new Albany Bottle Shop and pub will be open for business by the Fall.

* * *
You can watch a replay of the City Council meeting at http://www.albanyca.org/index.aspx?page=462

It should be posted sometime tomorrow, hopefully.

This contains cancer causing chemicals, but eat your potatoes!!

Kind of a short blog tonight.

I was at Andronico's Market, in Berkeley, today. I don't go there very often and really the only reason I sent there today was because I wanted to check out their frozen food section to see if it really was the place where Hall's filmed that goofy commercial where the drill sergent is chewing out this Asian stock clerk over her cold. (Turns out it wasn't as the shelves are different).

When I go there I usually make a serpentine route. First I go through the produce and frozen food, and then over through beer and soda area. Continue on to the prepared food section, and finish up by wandering through the isles to see if there's anything that looks interesting. This can be a dangerous way to shop, especially if you're hungry. But I digress.

One thing that caught my eye was over in the frozen food section. There was a Proposition 65 mandated warning sign in front of the frozen onion rings and french fries. It said,

WARNING: Cooked potatoes that have been browned,
such as potato chips, contain aacrylamide, a chemical
identified under California Proposition 65 as causing cancer.
Other cooked foods that have been roasted or browned
such as coffee, cereals, French fries, potato crisps, breads,
crackers, cookies and nuts, also contain acrylamide, but
usually at lower levels than in certain cooked potatoes that
have been browned.

Acrylamide is not added to these foods but is created when
these and certain foods are browned
The FDA has not advised people to stop eating potato chips
or any foods containing acrylamide as a result of cooking.
For more information, see FDA’s website at www/fda.gov.

Honestly, this is the first time I've ever noticed this warning. I kind of chuckled at it and moved along. Mind you I'm not chuckling because of what it says, but how it says it. Namely, the bad stuff wasn't put in there, but it's created when cooking. But we're not telling you to stop eating it.

In my wandering I went to buy some potato chips for some of the spaghetti sauce dip I blogged about on Sunday. Sure enough, there's that same sign!!

What's interesting is you DON'T see the warnings in the other isles by coffee, nuts, crackers, etc. Granted, they say it's in lower levels. But, poison is poison, isn't it? And while we're on that track, why aren't there warnings in the raw potato section telling us not to fry them?

In doing some further research, it turns out this whole "potato chip" warning stems back to 2005 when Attorney General Bill Lockyer filed suit against several companies to get these labels on packaging.

We're not talking cigarettes here, we're talking potato chips!! It reminds me of the person in New York State that sued MacDonalds because they didn't tell him their burgers contained saturated fats that would make him fat, and that the more he ate of it, the more obese he would get. Utter nonsense.

Anyways, that's it for the night.