Parents (well one really loud parent) are now demanding that Mars Candy, the makers of M&Ms, do a candy makeover to reduce the after-effects of hyperactivity in children who eat M&Ms. By "simply" changing the kind of dye used for the various colors, the hyperactivity outcome of indulging in M&Ms can be reduced. Or so the theory goes.
I have a much simpler, more cost effective change to propose: don't give your children M&Ms if it causes them to be hyperactive. We cannot change the world to accommodate poor parental decision-making.
Wednesday, January 8, 2014
Saturday, January 4, 2014
Going Too Far
I'm tired of anyone who is involved with a government agency screaming "racial profiling" and demanding ... a person's head on a platter. This time, it's the parents and "interested parties" who want an elementary school principal fired because she directed the school secretary to call "9-1-1, the police" when a young boy came to the office with a gash in his forehead from a playground accident. The principal has apologized to the parents, as well as the "interested parties," but that was not good enough: the media has added coverage of a public meeting involving anyone who wanted to attend it to hear the principal apologize publicly and then accuse her of trying to "cover up" a blatant issue of racial profiling.
The hue and cry leads one to believe that it was indeed with evil intent that the principal directed school personnel to call the police -- and there is absolutely no reason to believe it was simply a wrong word choice in the heat of the moment. This same site principal had to deal with a major automobile accident that involved a car breaking through the safety fence surrounding the school and hitting school children out for recess. It could have been that the principal misspoke in the heat of the moment as her brain flashed back to the children injured in that incident.
Okay, so maybe the principal should have said call "9-1-1, the paramedics," but I seriously doubt that the school personnel were thinking, as the parents allege, that the child was quite possibly in the country illegally, so call the police and have the child detained until the parents get there and immigration status can be verified. If this is the only way people can get their 15 minutes of media fame, we need to work to find other more appropriate ways to use time on the evening news.
The hue and cry leads one to believe that it was indeed with evil intent that the principal directed school personnel to call the police -- and there is absolutely no reason to believe it was simply a wrong word choice in the heat of the moment. This same site principal had to deal with a major automobile accident that involved a car breaking through the safety fence surrounding the school and hitting school children out for recess. It could have been that the principal misspoke in the heat of the moment as her brain flashed back to the children injured in that incident.
Okay, so maybe the principal should have said call "9-1-1, the paramedics," but I seriously doubt that the school personnel were thinking, as the parents allege, that the child was quite possibly in the country illegally, so call the police and have the child detained until the parents get there and immigration status can be verified. If this is the only way people can get their 15 minutes of media fame, we need to work to find other more appropriate ways to use time on the evening news.
Friday, January 3, 2014
Debris Field
The City of Desert Hot Springs, CA is about $3 million over its revenue, a plight that is causing panic and rampant talks about bankruptcy. Ironically, Code Enforcement and Animal Control have been plunged into the breach, checking door-by-door for unlicensed dogs (mine are not only licensed, but also vaccinated) and sending letters of non-compliance to residents for public nuisance violations.
The letter of non-compliance must be a form letter into which each resident's identifying data is merged because it refers to both visible trash cans and unsightly easements, both of which cause "visual blight." The letter implies that a Code Enforcement Officer actually looked at the easement at the back of my property and deemed it representative of "visual blight"; hence, the non-compliance order. However, the only way for anyone to visually inspect the easement at the back of my property is to access it through my property or by climbing up on two wooden fences and/or a brick wall that blocks access to the easement because my neighbors have created barriers to deny access to the easement.
Had an officer actually looked at the easement, s/he would have seen that "my half" of the easement is already clean and has been kept clean for the 13 years I've lived on the property. The "other half" of the easement features debris from wooden fences, a brick wall, and party remnants adjacent to the other properties that share the easement with me. Of course, once these residents toss their junk over their fence, it creates "visual blight" that they cannot see over their fences/wall.
I am the one who contacted Code Enforcement to question the complete blockage to access of the easement as there is a utility pole with a transformer at one end behind my house, and a telephone junction box at the other end. Utility personnel who have come to my door to ask me how to access this equipment have been allowed to cross my property to do so. I have recommended that they do NOT climb over my chain-link fencing as they could be injured in the process, but there is no other way into the easement. Because I give permission, it also means I assume liability in case of accident.
When I complained to the Code Enforcement Officer about the blockages, he told me that yes, there is a law that prohibits blocking access to the utility easement; yes, the people who create the blockage "should" be told to remove it; and yes, the bottom line is that there are not enough manhours to enforce the code. How about sending out another form letter into which you can insert property owners, one by one, accusing them of the infraction and giving them 3 weeks to correct the non-compliance or pay fines for failure to comply?
I may be a nice person, but I'm not nice enough to clean up after my neighbors who have tossed trash over their fences while I was in my backyard cleaning up dog poop. I paid to have an eyesore on my property hauled off, so they can pay to have their visual blight hauled off. I'll even recommend the hauler, George, who cheerfully loaded his truck with my little load and wished me a nice day in the process.
The letter of non-compliance must be a form letter into which each resident's identifying data is merged because it refers to both visible trash cans and unsightly easements, both of which cause "visual blight." The letter implies that a Code Enforcement Officer actually looked at the easement at the back of my property and deemed it representative of "visual blight"; hence, the non-compliance order. However, the only way for anyone to visually inspect the easement at the back of my property is to access it through my property or by climbing up on two wooden fences and/or a brick wall that blocks access to the easement because my neighbors have created barriers to deny access to the easement.
Had an officer actually looked at the easement, s/he would have seen that "my half" of the easement is already clean and has been kept clean for the 13 years I've lived on the property. The "other half" of the easement features debris from wooden fences, a brick wall, and party remnants adjacent to the other properties that share the easement with me. Of course, once these residents toss their junk over their fence, it creates "visual blight" that they cannot see over their fences/wall.
I am the one who contacted Code Enforcement to question the complete blockage to access of the easement as there is a utility pole with a transformer at one end behind my house, and a telephone junction box at the other end. Utility personnel who have come to my door to ask me how to access this equipment have been allowed to cross my property to do so. I have recommended that they do NOT climb over my chain-link fencing as they could be injured in the process, but there is no other way into the easement. Because I give permission, it also means I assume liability in case of accident.
When I complained to the Code Enforcement Officer about the blockages, he told me that yes, there is a law that prohibits blocking access to the utility easement; yes, the people who create the blockage "should" be told to remove it; and yes, the bottom line is that there are not enough manhours to enforce the code. How about sending out another form letter into which you can insert property owners, one by one, accusing them of the infraction and giving them 3 weeks to correct the non-compliance or pay fines for failure to comply?
I may be a nice person, but I'm not nice enough to clean up after my neighbors who have tossed trash over their fences while I was in my backyard cleaning up dog poop. I paid to have an eyesore on my property hauled off, so they can pay to have their visual blight hauled off. I'll even recommend the hauler, George, who cheerfully loaded his truck with my little load and wished me a nice day in the process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)