Editorial: Fast Food Lawsuit
So try to understand this. An obese man files a lawsuit against 4 fast-food restaurants, and some Doctor’s group out of Washington, D.C. applauds him. Some how I have to believe these are the same kinds of doctors who support keeping mal-practice information confidential, so as to not injure the reputation of “ good ’’ doctors who might have made “a mistake’’.
I just have to wonder, what ever happened to personal responsibility? Could anyone possibly believe the fast food chains are healthy? Unless you order a salad ( and even then, be wary of most dressings ) you have to know it only tastes good. There is nothing healthy about it. When my customers asks for veggie burgers or the like, I tell ‘em right up front---we are cardiac city. I sell Hot Dogs, Fried Fish and Philly Steaks. Sure, the dogs are grilled, but that doesn’t mean much. We are a throw-back to the 50’s. Back then, I’m not sure cholesterol ( good or bad ) even existed.
The operative word is MODERATION!!! Nothing will kill you if you don’t eat it too often; if you do, you need a shrink, not a lawyer. And by the way, the biggest offenders are the judge who allowed the lawsuit, and the
T.V. talk shows who give this guy free publicity. He and his lawyer both claimed to be doing it for future generations of kids; however, neither was willing to donate the money if they win ( perish the thought ) to healthy causes. What does that tell you about this guy’s character?
Those people who want cradle-to-grave care should go live in Sweden. I thought the founding principle of our country was self reliance. That idea seems to have gotten lost along the way.
Thoughts---Comments---Need Me To Say It For You
inmyopinion@sbcglobal.net
Rock
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Monday, February 26, 2007
Saturday, February 24, 2007
So What’s The Point?
Last fall, the organizers of the Columbus Day Parade, in New York City, took great umbrage because the Mayor invited two cast members from the T.V. show, “The Sopranos” to march with him in the parade. This great indignation felt by the organizers was because the show stereotypes Italians in a negative way. Hmmm. Let’s think about this for a minute. The show basically illustrates life in the mob. Well, we all know that “ The Mob’’ really exists. Perhaps not as affluently or influentially as years ago, what with the crime-busting efforts of the government, and the many details exposed by a number of former mobsters, but it still exists. They say the show depicts most of the mobsters to be of Italian descent. What’s the issue? Most of the so-called Mafia WAS of Italian descent. We DID learn in high school that Sicily is considered to be part of Italy. By the way, I should mention here that my wife of 35 years is Italian, lest readers get the wrong idea. In fact, we celebrate Christmas ( in a laic way ) because I like Italian food better than the Jewish food at Chanukah.
Anyway---enough about that.
Now the story gets better. The parade organizers want to be factual. (They maintain that the parade should honor all the honest, hard-working, creative, inventive, and so forth and so on. ) But here’s the rub:
Columbus acknowledges nailing a ducat ( gold coin ) to the mast as a prize to the first crew member to discover land.Guess what? It was Rodrigo de Triana.
AND HE WAS PORTUGUESE!!!
( Credit to Larry Cale of Woodbury for this information. )
So maybe the Portuguese should organize a Triana Day Parade; I’m guessing they won’t care who gets invited. Back to the T.V. show.
I think the parade organizers missed the most important point: it’s JUST A SHOW. And a T.V. show has absolutely no reflection on real live Italians.
And, the actors are just trying to make a living, much as you and I try to do every day. And, they were invited by the mayor as friends, and supporters of New York City. Any of you watch The Shield? Personally, I don’t care for the show,
but that’s not the point. One show about a rogue cop is not an indictment against all of the good cops.
And then---to really drive home how ridiculous the whole situation was, the mayor was asked to UNINVITE the actors. Now really! It wasn’t even worth all the print in the newspapers. Personally, I applaud hizzoner for uninviting himself. He took his friends to lunch instead---at an Italian restaurant. Now that’s funny.
So what’s the point? The point is---in my opinion---get a life.
I truly have no patience for small minded people, and in my opinion, this is a very small-minded issue.
Pithy comments? Questions? Need me to say it for you?
E-Mail: Inmyopinion@sbcglobal.net
Rock
Last fall, the organizers of the Columbus Day Parade, in New York City, took great umbrage because the Mayor invited two cast members from the T.V. show, “The Sopranos” to march with him in the parade. This great indignation felt by the organizers was because the show stereotypes Italians in a negative way. Hmmm. Let’s think about this for a minute. The show basically illustrates life in the mob. Well, we all know that “ The Mob’’ really exists. Perhaps not as affluently or influentially as years ago, what with the crime-busting efforts of the government, and the many details exposed by a number of former mobsters, but it still exists. They say the show depicts most of the mobsters to be of Italian descent. What’s the issue? Most of the so-called Mafia WAS of Italian descent. We DID learn in high school that Sicily is considered to be part of Italy. By the way, I should mention here that my wife of 35 years is Italian, lest readers get the wrong idea. In fact, we celebrate Christmas ( in a laic way ) because I like Italian food better than the Jewish food at Chanukah.
Anyway---enough about that.
Now the story gets better. The parade organizers want to be factual. (They maintain that the parade should honor all the honest, hard-working, creative, inventive, and so forth and so on. ) But here’s the rub:
Columbus acknowledges nailing a ducat ( gold coin ) to the mast as a prize to the first crew member to discover land.Guess what? It was Rodrigo de Triana.
AND HE WAS PORTUGUESE!!!
( Credit to Larry Cale of Woodbury for this information. )
So maybe the Portuguese should organize a Triana Day Parade; I’m guessing they won’t care who gets invited. Back to the T.V. show.
I think the parade organizers missed the most important point: it’s JUST A SHOW. And a T.V. show has absolutely no reflection on real live Italians.
And, the actors are just trying to make a living, much as you and I try to do every day. And, they were invited by the mayor as friends, and supporters of New York City. Any of you watch The Shield? Personally, I don’t care for the show,
but that’s not the point. One show about a rogue cop is not an indictment against all of the good cops.
And then---to really drive home how ridiculous the whole situation was, the mayor was asked to UNINVITE the actors. Now really! It wasn’t even worth all the print in the newspapers. Personally, I applaud hizzoner for uninviting himself. He took his friends to lunch instead---at an Italian restaurant. Now that’s funny.
So what’s the point? The point is---in my opinion---get a life.
I truly have no patience for small minded people, and in my opinion, this is a very small-minded issue.
Pithy comments? Questions? Need me to say it for you?
E-Mail: Inmyopinion@sbcglobal.net
Rock
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Editorial: Fast Food Lawsuit
So try to understand this. An obese man files a lawsuit against 4 fast-food restaurants, and some Doctor’s group out of Washington, D.C. applauds him. Some how I have to believe these are the same kinds of doctors who support keeping mal-practice information confidential, so as to not injure the reputation of “ good ’’ doctors who might have made “a mistake’’.
I just have to wonder, what ever happened to personal responsibility? Could anyone possibly believe the fast food chains are healthy? Unless you order a salad ( and even then, be wary of most dressings ) you have to know it only tastes good. There is nothing healthy about it. When my customers asks for veggie burgers or the like, I tell ‘em right up front---we are cardiac city. I sell Hot Dogs, Fried Fish and Philly Steaks. Sure, the dogs are grilled, but that doesn’t mean much. We are a throw-back to the 50’s. Back then, I’m not sure cholesterol ( good or bad ) even existed.
The operative word is MODERATION!!! Nothing will kill you if you don’t eat it too often; if you do, you need a shrink, not a lawyer. And by the way, the biggest offenders are the judge who allowed the lawsuit, and the
T.V. talk shows who give this guy free publicity. He and his lawyer both claimed to be doing it for future generations of kids; however, neither was willing to donate the money if they win ( perish the thought ) to healthy causes. What does that tell you about this guy’s character?
Those people who want cradle-to-grave care should go live in Sweden. I thought the founding principle of our country was self reliance. That idea seems to have gotten lost along the way.
Thoughts---Comments---Need Me To Say It For You
inmyopinion@sbcglobal.net
So try to understand this. An obese man files a lawsuit against 4 fast-food restaurants, and some Doctor’s group out of Washington, D.C. applauds him. Some how I have to believe these are the same kinds of doctors who support keeping mal-practice information confidential, so as to not injure the reputation of “ good ’’ doctors who might have made “a mistake’’.
I just have to wonder, what ever happened to personal responsibility? Could anyone possibly believe the fast food chains are healthy? Unless you order a salad ( and even then, be wary of most dressings ) you have to know it only tastes good. There is nothing healthy about it. When my customers asks for veggie burgers or the like, I tell ‘em right up front---we are cardiac city. I sell Hot Dogs, Fried Fish and Philly Steaks. Sure, the dogs are grilled, but that doesn’t mean much. We are a throw-back to the 50’s. Back then, I’m not sure cholesterol ( good or bad ) even existed.
The operative word is MODERATION!!! Nothing will kill you if you don’t eat it too often; if you do, you need a shrink, not a lawyer. And by the way, the biggest offenders are the judge who allowed the lawsuit, and the
T.V. talk shows who give this guy free publicity. He and his lawyer both claimed to be doing it for future generations of kids; however, neither was willing to donate the money if they win ( perish the thought ) to healthy causes. What does that tell you about this guy’s character?
Those people who want cradle-to-grave care should go live in Sweden. I thought the founding principle of our country was self reliance. That idea seems to have gotten lost along the way.
Thoughts---Comments---Need Me To Say It For You
inmyopinion@sbcglobal.net
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Today’s News
I am always amazed at the simple solutions to problems in the newspaper that elude those involved. Take Monday’s local paper.
Starting with the lead story re: where sex offenders may or may not live, it obviously doesn’t matter where they live, for they can travel anywhere. No conversation or discussion needed. When convicted, automatic castration. And don’t cry about their rights. They gave up their rights
when they committed the heinous crime against children.
Next is the story of the Waterbury immigrant arrested in Vermont because he lives here illegally. ( He went to Vermont to help his workers, who were arrested for immigration violations. ) In all the years living and working in Waterbury, ( and paying taxes ) why could he not find time to become a citizen? Forget the sympathy and the “ tsk tsk---he’s such a nice guy. ” He should have, and could have, done the right thing: apply for citizenship, and lived happily ever after.
Moving to the lead story in section B. Members of a condo association, showing a serious lack of intelligence and empathy, change the rules, no longer allowing new or replacement pets. Patently unfair. Maybe don’t allow pets for future residents, but for people who bought their condos after being told pets were allowed, the associations’ actions are abhorrent and should be illegal.
Finally, how about the family suing a hotel in Savannah Ga. for 10 million dollars, because their family member, drunk to the level of twice legal limit, crawled into the air conditioner blower room, and died from wounds after being struck by metal blades. Any judge who accepts this garbage suit should be removed from the bench, and any lawyer who represents the family should be disbarred. How could any person in his right mind blame the hotel?
I think I need a new closing for my commentaries on today’s societal woes.
“ Let’s All Cast A Vote For Common Sense. ”
Sorta like Andy Rooney, if I may be a bit presumptuous. After all, he is far and away, my favorite curmudgeon.
Rock
Thursday, February 8, 2007
Business Decisions Should Be Made
By Business Owners
In my local paper there was a story of a New Hampshire Karaoke bar owner who banned a designated driver because she didn’t drink. She went to the liquor board and the police, only to be told it was a management decision.
A stupid decision, in my opinion.
I would happily accommodate one non-drinker to bring in the groups of friends, but that’s not the issue. The issue is the state-controlled liquor board did the right thing. It stayed out of it. Business owners should be able to decide for themselves things like non-drinkers, smokers etc.
If I were willing to risk losing business by allowing smoking in my restaurant. that should be my decision. (Interestingly, I decided Doogie’s would be non-smoking while I was still a smoker ). And if I decide to prohibit obscene tee-shirts from my establishment, ( which I do ) that should also be my decision. You DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to eat in my restaurant. YOU HAVE THE PRIVILEGE. But you do have the right to make the decision whether to patronize my business, based on my business policies, quality, cleanliness,etc. It’s an agreement between you and me. NOT THE GOVERNMENT. Furthermore, your free speech rights do not
include offending me or my customers in MY PLACE OF BUSINESS.
The other half of the same argument is the employees.
They have the right to choose whether or not to work any place that allows smoking. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that second hand smoke is unhealthy. But it’s not the business of the government to tell us what to do. If, in fact, I am wrong, then let the government step up to the plate and ban smoking, shut down the tobacco companies, and kiss the lobbyists bye-bye.
I do agree with no-smoking policies in public buildings and other places where people must go to perform mandated actions, such as the D.M.V. You have to go there to renew your license. Or City Hall.Private businesses are a totally different situation. Or should be.
By Business Owners
In my local paper there was a story of a New Hampshire Karaoke bar owner who banned a designated driver because she didn’t drink. She went to the liquor board and the police, only to be told it was a management decision.
A stupid decision, in my opinion.
I would happily accommodate one non-drinker to bring in the groups of friends, but that’s not the issue. The issue is the state-controlled liquor board did the right thing. It stayed out of it. Business owners should be able to decide for themselves things like non-drinkers, smokers etc.
If I were willing to risk losing business by allowing smoking in my restaurant. that should be my decision. (Interestingly, I decided Doogie’s would be non-smoking while I was still a smoker ). And if I decide to prohibit obscene tee-shirts from my establishment, ( which I do ) that should also be my decision. You DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to eat in my restaurant. YOU HAVE THE PRIVILEGE. But you do have the right to make the decision whether to patronize my business, based on my business policies, quality, cleanliness,etc. It’s an agreement between you and me. NOT THE GOVERNMENT. Furthermore, your free speech rights do not
include offending me or my customers in MY PLACE OF BUSINESS.
The other half of the same argument is the employees.
They have the right to choose whether or not to work any place that allows smoking. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that second hand smoke is unhealthy. But it’s not the business of the government to tell us what to do. If, in fact, I am wrong, then let the government step up to the plate and ban smoking, shut down the tobacco companies, and kiss the lobbyists bye-bye.
I do agree with no-smoking policies in public buildings and other places where people must go to perform mandated actions, such as the D.M.V. You have to go there to renew your license. Or City Hall.Private businesses are a totally different situation. Or should be.
Monday, February 5, 2007
Rock
The Down Side of Zoning
A while back, my local paper published a story about an application from David Mecca for a variance being sought to build a pool at a home in Watertown. Despite a signed document from four neighbors, supportive of building the pool, one neighbor, David Messina, was opposed to the variance.
He was quoted as saying, in part, “ the luxury of a
16 by 28 foot pool hardly constitutes a desperate need and falls far short of fitting the bill for a special exemption because of hardship. ’’ Really now.
And what is Mr. Messina’s problem? Is he a zealot for enforcing rules? Is there bad blood between the two neighbors ( his property abuts the applicant’s )?
Or perhaps he is just jealous because he can’t afford a pool. Not that it really matters. What matters is that a case like this clearly demonstrates the absurdities and negatives of zoning. As trying as life is on a day-to-day basis, what could be more unfair than to deny a person the right to maximize his pleasure in the privacy of his own home?
Remember the old cliché “ A Man’s Home Is His Castle”? Well, it seems the moat is being overrun by the holier-than-thou, who think they have all the answers as to what’s best for the street, and the neighborhood, and the community-at-large.
I am opposed to zoning for the simple reason that I do not want to be told what to do with my own property, ( especially since I am the one paying the taxes ).
I do, however, recognize the value of one aspect of zoning; ie: no businesses in a residential zone.
Frankly, even that’s subject to a lot of discussion, in my mind; however, another day, another blog.
Friday, February 2, 2007
Interesting article in the paper recently re: death penalty cases and which cases the Supreme Court will and will not review. Once again the age-old battle between the conservatives and the liberals rears its ugly head.
Shortly thereafter the paper printed a terrific column by Lee Grabar which reflects my own thinking. My compliments to Mr. Grabar.
I would guess that the right-to-lifers ( aka anti-abortionists ) are the same people in many instances who cry out against the death sentence. I have a different take on the similarities. There aren’t any. The right-to-life for an unborn baby may make sense, because one of the most troubling questions is when does life begin? If it’s at conception, then perhaps it is wrong to abort a baby. If it is at the time the baby leaves the womb, perhaps it should be only the mother’s right to choose. If it’s somewhere
in between the nine months of those two periods, then who knows?
But one thing we all know. The baby has done no wrong. Of course, that is not in any way the whole answer. There are many issues on both sides of the question. It is only part of the equation. Now, this column isn’t about abortion. I cite the abortion issue merely to point out some people against abortion might be in favor of execution. Or the reverse.
I am 100% in favor of executing those who commit murder. For those opposed, would your feelings change if one of your relatives were killed by the sniper in the Maryland area? Or if you lost family in the 9/11 tragedy
( as my in-law’s family did ) and we caught Bin Laden and his trial was here? The problem with our justice system is not the death penalty. It is the “ unjust ’’ lack of closure, due to the never-ending appeals that criminals are allowed. Now I recognise the freedom that DNA has brought to many wrongly convicted prisoners. And that’s obviously terrific. That makes a great case for not having the death penalty in cases where a death is not involved. ( Exception: See Below )
My philosophy is actually rather simple. If you take a life, you die. IF you are committing a lesser crime ( like robbery ) and it goes awry, and someone loses a life, you die. You should not have been committing the lesser crime in the first place. I agree that one needs to be convicted
( BEYOND THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT, WITH COMPELLING EVIDENCE ) but when you are, you die. Maybe you should be given a single appeal, within a short time period. Say 6 months. And then you die. Opponents argue execution is not a deterrent. Who cares? What it is, in fact, is closure.
Closure for the survivors of the victim, and closures for the justice system.
Shortly thereafter the paper printed a terrific column by Lee Grabar which reflects my own thinking. My compliments to Mr. Grabar.
I would guess that the right-to-lifers ( aka anti-abortionists ) are the same people in many instances who cry out against the death sentence. I have a different take on the similarities. There aren’t any. The right-to-life for an unborn baby may make sense, because one of the most troubling questions is when does life begin? If it’s at conception, then perhaps it is wrong to abort a baby. If it is at the time the baby leaves the womb, perhaps it should be only the mother’s right to choose. If it’s somewhere
in between the nine months of those two periods, then who knows?
But one thing we all know. The baby has done no wrong. Of course, that is not in any way the whole answer. There are many issues on both sides of the question. It is only part of the equation. Now, this column isn’t about abortion. I cite the abortion issue merely to point out some people against abortion might be in favor of execution. Or the reverse.
I am 100% in favor of executing those who commit murder. For those opposed, would your feelings change if one of your relatives were killed by the sniper in the Maryland area? Or if you lost family in the 9/11 tragedy
( as my in-law’s family did ) and we caught Bin Laden and his trial was here? The problem with our justice system is not the death penalty. It is the “ unjust ’’ lack of closure, due to the never-ending appeals that criminals are allowed. Now I recognise the freedom that DNA has brought to many wrongly convicted prisoners. And that’s obviously terrific. That makes a great case for not having the death penalty in cases where a death is not involved. ( Exception: See Below )
My philosophy is actually rather simple. If you take a life, you die. IF you are committing a lesser crime ( like robbery ) and it goes awry, and someone loses a life, you die. You should not have been committing the lesser crime in the first place. I agree that one needs to be convicted
( BEYOND THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT, WITH COMPELLING EVIDENCE ) but when you are, you die. Maybe you should be given a single appeal, within a short time period. Say 6 months. And then you die. Opponents argue execution is not a deterrent. Who cares? What it is, in fact, is closure.
Closure for the survivors of the victim, and closures for the justice system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)