The first place in the nation to limit the sale of sugary drinks? Possibly it will be New York City, where a proposed ban on selling drinks larger than 16 ounces would go into effect in March 2013.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/nyregion/bloomberg-plans-a-ban-on-large-sugared-drinks.html?_r=2&smid=tw-share
Now, America has banned a lot of things. Marijuana, cocaine, and methamphetamine all come to mind. But those are substances that alter the mind.
Not so, soda pop.
Tobacco? It doesn't alter the mind. And, although it isn't banned anywhere that I know of, the government does limit how much tar and nicotine cigarettes can contain. One could argue the limits imposed on tobacco, though, are not so low enough as to affect the traditional product, whereas the limit of 16 ounces will take away a commonly sold size of soft drink (other than that they can simply buy two 16 ounce drinks instead of one 32 ounce).
Another precedent would be drink limits on alcohol, which are already around, such as a two-drink limit. Alcohol, though, is a mind-altering substance.
Still, a limit on the size of sugary drinks, should it be enacted, would be notable, since it would mark a step towards government regulation of food not considered healthy. The move does mark an inroad into the right of the consumer to buy what product he or she wants and however much of it he or she wants.
The NYC proposal is expected to be enacted.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Suggestions for Reforming Our Lawmaking Process
Here's a quick stab at what a law reforming our lawmaking process might look like. I think many of us would like to see the injustices taken out of the lawmaking process.
In the name of reforming our lawmaking process, be it enacted that:
Article I
1. No rider shall be attached to a bill on a topic other than what the bill is about.
2. Should any member of the legislative body request a line-item vote, the bill will be broken down into parts as the legislator shall require, and a vote taken on each part.
Article II
1. Fillibusters will not be allowed. To ensure bills are not postponed by such political maneuvering, speakers shall be given time limits for each speech and for their responses to other speakers, say 15 minutes per bill being the limit for each speech, and 5 minutes a turn being the limit in responding to other speakers.
Article III
1. Bills will be introduced at the request of the legislator writing them, not needing to go through any committee before being introduced, nor needing approval from the leader of the legislative body. Bills will be introduced on the floor simply in the order they are filed.
2. The legislator can choose to hold off introducing a bill to allow it to go through a committee or through committees if he or she so desires. Those committees can recommend bills, but such recommendations shall have no binding force on the full legislative body.
3. A motion to close debate can be entertained as soon as the bill is presented, thus allowing the body to choose which bills are worthy of debate and/or discussion time.
Article IV
1. Bills shall not come to the floor except announced at least 24 hours in advance, with the the announcement including notice being posted on the Internet site hosted by the legislative body.
2. Matters of emergency, including declarations of war, shall not be subject to the above rule.
3. Whenever a bill has warranted discussion time on the floor, it shall not be voted on until 24 hours shall have passed after the close of that initial discussion, thus allowing legislators to review the bill before voting, and allowing the public to react to the legislation. The exception, again, will be for matters of emergency, including war.
Article V
1. The practice of having bills approved automatically, when they are not opposed, will end for bills that will result in laws. Resolutions (such as those honoring and recognizing people and organizations) that do not have binding power (are not laws) can be approved by voice vote.
2. Bills with binding power can be voted for electronically, allowing legislators to vote simultaneously without time-consuming roll call votes.
Article VI
1. Lawmakers will be encouraged, though not required, to write their own bills.
Article VII
1. In filing their bills, lawmakers shall disclose the names of organizations that have requested or encouraged the legislation.
2. If there was a petition requesting the legislation, it can included in the disclosure of those supporting the bill.
3. There shall be no punishment for not disclosing backers of a bill, but the legislator will be open to public criticism should it be brought to light that a significant influence was omitted in filing the disclosure.
Article VIII
1. Meetings of both the full body and committees and political divisions of the body shall be open to the public, with the exception being those where the discussion would jeopardize security of the state.
2. All meetings shall be video and audio recorded, with those not closed being posted on the Internet.
3. A court shall have access to the recordings of closed meetings. When the court finds meetings should not have been closed, the recordings of those meetings will be posted on the Internet.
In the name of reforming our lawmaking process, be it enacted that:
Article I
1. No rider shall be attached to a bill on a topic other than what the bill is about.
2. Should any member of the legislative body request a line-item vote, the bill will be broken down into parts as the legislator shall require, and a vote taken on each part.
Article II
1. Fillibusters will not be allowed. To ensure bills are not postponed by such political maneuvering, speakers shall be given time limits for each speech and for their responses to other speakers, say 15 minutes per bill being the limit for each speech, and 5 minutes a turn being the limit in responding to other speakers.
Article III
1. Bills will be introduced at the request of the legislator writing them, not needing to go through any committee before being introduced, nor needing approval from the leader of the legislative body. Bills will be introduced on the floor simply in the order they are filed.
2. The legislator can choose to hold off introducing a bill to allow it to go through a committee or through committees if he or she so desires. Those committees can recommend bills, but such recommendations shall have no binding force on the full legislative body.
3. A motion to close debate can be entertained as soon as the bill is presented, thus allowing the body to choose which bills are worthy of debate and/or discussion time.
Article IV
1. Bills shall not come to the floor except announced at least 24 hours in advance, with the the announcement including notice being posted on the Internet site hosted by the legislative body.
2. Matters of emergency, including declarations of war, shall not be subject to the above rule.
3. Whenever a bill has warranted discussion time on the floor, it shall not be voted on until 24 hours shall have passed after the close of that initial discussion, thus allowing legislators to review the bill before voting, and allowing the public to react to the legislation. The exception, again, will be for matters of emergency, including war.
Article V
1. The practice of having bills approved automatically, when they are not opposed, will end for bills that will result in laws. Resolutions (such as those honoring and recognizing people and organizations) that do not have binding power (are not laws) can be approved by voice vote.
2. Bills with binding power can be voted for electronically, allowing legislators to vote simultaneously without time-consuming roll call votes.
Article VI
1. Lawmakers will be encouraged, though not required, to write their own bills.
Article VII
1. In filing their bills, lawmakers shall disclose the names of organizations that have requested or encouraged the legislation.
2. If there was a petition requesting the legislation, it can included in the disclosure of those supporting the bill.
3. There shall be no punishment for not disclosing backers of a bill, but the legislator will be open to public criticism should it be brought to light that a significant influence was omitted in filing the disclosure.
Article VIII
1. Meetings of both the full body and committees and political divisions of the body shall be open to the public, with the exception being those where the discussion would jeopardize security of the state.
2. All meetings shall be video and audio recorded, with those not closed being posted on the Internet.
3. A court shall have access to the recordings of closed meetings. When the court finds meetings should not have been closed, the recordings of those meetings will be posted on the Internet.
Is There Such a Website as This?
Does such an organization, or website exist?
'Cause it sure seems there ought to be.
I want one that can tell me the truth about how harmful MSG is. Can I eat a little. Or must I abstain?
And, one that will tell me everything I might ever want to know about boiling nutrients out of feed. Do all foods lose value with heat? Or, do meats or wheat or some other foods retain their nutrients?
I want one that will settle all debate about Monsanto. I would guess there's at least some truth to the claims Monsanto damages our food. But, what are the truths? Is there an unbiased party that will tell me?
Give me a website that knows all about alkalinity. If the body maintains the proper alkalinity, will it be free from cancer and many other forms of disease?
I don't want just a website that discusses these topics. No, what I think would be neat is an organization behind the website that -- in an unbiased fashion -- rolls up its sleeves and does the scientific testing and studying necessary to give me more specifics on these health food health issues.
'Cause it sure seems there ought to be.
I want one that can tell me the truth about how harmful MSG is. Can I eat a little. Or must I abstain?
And, one that will tell me everything I might ever want to know about boiling nutrients out of feed. Do all foods lose value with heat? Or, do meats or wheat or some other foods retain their nutrients?
I want one that will settle all debate about Monsanto. I would guess there's at least some truth to the claims Monsanto damages our food. But, what are the truths? Is there an unbiased party that will tell me?
Give me a website that knows all about alkalinity. If the body maintains the proper alkalinity, will it be free from cancer and many other forms of disease?
I don't want just a website that discusses these topics. No, what I think would be neat is an organization behind the website that -- in an unbiased fashion -- rolls up its sleeves and does the scientific testing and studying necessary to give me more specifics on these health food health issues.
Monday, May 28, 2012
Undocumented Residents Help Prevent Jobs from Going Overseas
I don't believe I've heard this argument for undocumented residents before.
They save jobs from going overseas.
The greatest reason many of our jobs go overseas is that our own workforce does not work for such low wages. Well, the person from Mexico sometimes works at about the lowest wage we have, meaning he or she does as much as any American worker to keep jobs from going overseas.
Sometimes the undocumented person does not stay in the U.S., taking much of their earnings with them. But, even then, while they are here they are buying our food, entertainment and other products.
And, some do stay. So, the full benefit of keeping the job in the U.S. is a reality, with them.
They save jobs from going overseas.
The greatest reason many of our jobs go overseas is that our own workforce does not work for such low wages. Well, the person from Mexico sometimes works at about the lowest wage we have, meaning he or she does as much as any American worker to keep jobs from going overseas.
Sometimes the undocumented person does not stay in the U.S., taking much of their earnings with them. But, even then, while they are here they are buying our food, entertainment and other products.
And, some do stay. So, the full benefit of keeping the job in the U.S. is a reality, with them.
Sunday, May 27, 2012
Same-Sex Relations Defiled Non-Isrealite Nations
That scripture in Leviticus, of course, has surfaced as the nation has discussed same-sex marriage these past few weeks, and it has been wrongly dismissed by many.
Says the passage:
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (Leviticus 18:22)
Some are suggesting this law applied only to Israel, not to the non-Israelites. It might, then, be worthy to look down two verses, to where it says that for practicing homosexuality and bestiality, "the nations are defiled which I cast out before you."
That would be the non-Israelite nations, the one's whose land Israel was given.
1 Corinthians 11:11 seems enough for me, when wondering if same-sex relations are right. "Neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord."
And, in a previous post, I spoke of the creation, and how God noted it was not good for man to be alone, so woman was created (Genesis 2:18-24). God provided not another man, but a woman, that the man should not be alone.
Among other scriptures often quoted suggesting same-sex relations are wrong in the sight of God:
Genesis 19:1-11
When certain men wanted to bed with other men, Lot replied (verse 9), "I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly."
Romans 1:26-27
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
"And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet."
1 Corinthians 6:9
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind."
1 Timothy 1:9-10
"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murders of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
"for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, . . . "
Some who speak for same-sex relations would explain away each of these scriptures. They call use of these scriptures, "abuse of the Bible," and suggest that when read correctly, nothing in the Bible speaks against same-sex relations.
Oh, but the Bible does speak against it, and clearly so. I do not know but what there might be a way to explain away one or two of the verses, but if even per chance that should prove successful, there are too many verses for me to suppose they all could be explained away. And, having read their rebuttals, I am not convinced by a one, not by the rebuttals to any of the above scriptures.
They argue use of the above scripture is done to justify hatred. They refer to them as "clobber passages."
No, I do not hate the person who believes in same-sex relations. I have mixed thoughts on this, but part of me has even wondered if we should not allow them their marriages.
But, no, I do not think same-sex relations are right. I do not.
Says the passage:
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (Leviticus 18:22)
Some are suggesting this law applied only to Israel, not to the non-Israelites. It might, then, be worthy to look down two verses, to where it says that for practicing homosexuality and bestiality, "the nations are defiled which I cast out before you."
That would be the non-Israelite nations, the one's whose land Israel was given.
1 Corinthians 11:11 seems enough for me, when wondering if same-sex relations are right. "Neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord."
And, in a previous post, I spoke of the creation, and how God noted it was not good for man to be alone, so woman was created (Genesis 2:18-24). God provided not another man, but a woman, that the man should not be alone.
Among other scriptures often quoted suggesting same-sex relations are wrong in the sight of God:
Genesis 19:1-11
When certain men wanted to bed with other men, Lot replied (verse 9), "I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly."
Romans 1:26-27
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
"And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet."
1 Corinthians 6:9
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind."
1 Timothy 1:9-10
"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murders of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
"for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, . . . "
Some who speak for same-sex relations would explain away each of these scriptures. They call use of these scriptures, "abuse of the Bible," and suggest that when read correctly, nothing in the Bible speaks against same-sex relations.
Oh, but the Bible does speak against it, and clearly so. I do not know but what there might be a way to explain away one or two of the verses, but if even per chance that should prove successful, there are too many verses for me to suppose they all could be explained away. And, having read their rebuttals, I am not convinced by a one, not by the rebuttals to any of the above scriptures.
They argue use of the above scripture is done to justify hatred. They refer to them as "clobber passages."
No, I do not hate the person who believes in same-sex relations. I have mixed thoughts on this, but part of me has even wondered if we should not allow them their marriages.
But, no, I do not think same-sex relations are right. I do not.
Friday, May 25, 2012
Why, Again, can We not Give Them Work?
Why, again, cannot those receiving Food Stamps work for what they get?
I read yesterday's story, saying how Utah was going to return to allowing those on Food Stamps to collect Food Stamps no more than three months in three years. And, yes, I was surprised that that is all that is allowed.
But, for me, the news story has me once again wondering why people cannot work for the Food Stamps.
Why can't they?
I'm not talking anything oppressive. I'm not talking anything they cannot do.
I'm just asking, why can't we give them work? Why can't we require work? What was it? What is the reason?
I read yesterday's story, saying how Utah was going to return to allowing those on Food Stamps to collect Food Stamps no more than three months in three years. And, yes, I was surprised that that is all that is allowed.
But, for me, the news story has me once again wondering why people cannot work for the Food Stamps.
Why can't they?
I'm not talking anything oppressive. I'm not talking anything they cannot do.
I'm just asking, why can't we give them work? Why can't we require work? What was it? What is the reason?
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Would We Lace Our Sodas with Flame Retardant?
Would we take a flame retardant and lace it into our soft drinks?
"It begs belief that it should find its way into soft drinks," says a website covering the topic. Yet, 10 percent of America's sodas have this ingredient. Mountain Dew, Squirt and Fanta Orange are among them.
Let's look at it this way: What if you had a friend who was coming up with a nice little drink of his own, but having a problem keeping some of the ingredients from separating to the top. Somehow, he gets hold of a flame retardant, and puts just a wee bit into the drink, and -- presto -- the flavoring stno longer floats to the top.
You look on the ingredients to the flame retardant and find it has bromine, a toxic, corrosive, poisonous chemical.
Wouldn't you shake your head in amazement, tell him you by no means are going to drink any of his soda, and try to talk some sense into him?
And, if he said he was adding just a pinch -- just the wee-est of pinches -- wouldn't you refer to him in some derogatory term, and tell him that you don't care how much he was adding, that he shouldn't be adding it, period?
The drink makers do argue that with no more than 15 parts per million, the BVO in their drinks is not going to do any harm. I think we should tell them, No, you're not going to add poison to our drinks, period."
(Note: The link for the story on BVO and bromine is at
http://worldtruth.tv/toxic-flame-retardant-detected-in-popular-soda%e2%80%8f/
My sister Mary Stewart, who sells health drinks from Yoli, shared the link on her Facebook page.)
"It begs belief that it should find its way into soft drinks," says a website covering the topic. Yet, 10 percent of America's sodas have this ingredient. Mountain Dew, Squirt and Fanta Orange are among them.
Let's look at it this way: What if you had a friend who was coming up with a nice little drink of his own, but having a problem keeping some of the ingredients from separating to the top. Somehow, he gets hold of a flame retardant, and puts just a wee bit into the drink, and -- presto -- the flavoring stno longer floats to the top.
You look on the ingredients to the flame retardant and find it has bromine, a toxic, corrosive, poisonous chemical.
Wouldn't you shake your head in amazement, tell him you by no means are going to drink any of his soda, and try to talk some sense into him?
And, if he said he was adding just a pinch -- just the wee-est of pinches -- wouldn't you refer to him in some derogatory term, and tell him that you don't care how much he was adding, that he shouldn't be adding it, period?
The drink makers do argue that with no more than 15 parts per million, the BVO in their drinks is not going to do any harm. I think we should tell them, No, you're not going to add poison to our drinks, period."
(Note: The link for the story on BVO and bromine is at
http://worldtruth.tv/toxic-flame-retardant-detected-in-popular-soda%e2%80%8f/
My sister Mary Stewart, who sells health drinks from Yoli, shared the link on her Facebook page.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)