The Hershey's Corporation has placed in the market a breath mint under the name "Ice Breakers". What makes this breath mint particularly interesting is the packaging. The mint flavoring is contained within two squares of paper vacuum sealed together. (OK - maybe they aren't technically vacuum sealed, but that is how it looks). Here is the address of a link to two pictures of the breath mint from the website of Miami radio station Power 96. (Since it's my first time trying to post a link on this blog, it obviously isn't working - I'll get better at it).
http://power96.com/index.php?page=311
Admit it, it looks like drugs. You can freely admit that here, it's OK.
Can't you just hear the protests starting? I can! "Some kid is going to misconstrue actual drugs for Ice Breakers, and take them, with injurious, and possibly fatal results". (I know because we already heard this once before with candy cigarettes). The only difference is that unlike in the past, where cigarette companies may have owned parts or all of companies that produced candy, Hershey's doesn't make and sell illicit drugs. (Please note - I didn't actually investigate the corporate ownership of all of the candy companies that formerly sold candy cigarettes, I am just trying to make a point). Hershey's has found a nice, and profitable, niche in actually selling candy.
Now I understand the argument that selling candy cigarettes to children may give them the illusion about how cool it was to be seen with a cigarette, and it might have made the decision to smoke easier as those children aged. I would hesitate to use that argument in this case. Do people actually believe that teenagers may want to carry around Ice Breakers so that they look cool, and that it might make it easier psychologically for those kids to move on to actual drugs? I would think not.
So the main problem that people might have with Ice Breakers is that unwitting children might mistake them for drugs. Now, I am all for the protection of our young, innocent children, but would a protest of Hershey's lead to protection of our children in this case? I don't think so. Children, if they are going to be exposed to drugs and drug use in their lifetime are not going to be exposed because of the packaging of Ice Breakers. They are going to be exposed to drugs because of their family, friends, neighborhoods and generally through people and places they see everyday. Yes, I wrote "Family". An astronomically high percentage of children start using drugs because they see their parents using, or because they find their parents' stash or because they hear their parents or older siblings glorifying drug use. (Please note that I did not ask every drug user why and where they first started using).
The best way to protect your children is to speak to them about drugs like they are Chicago mayoral voters - early and often. It is incumbent upon you, as parents (or grandparents or aunts and uncles) to give as much information as you can, and to keep them out of situations where drugs may be present. Does this always work? No. Is any system perfect? No. But it starts with you. Show them the way you want them to grow up, teach them how to grow up and hope for the best. Now, I have no children of my own, and I do not profess to be an expert on child rearing as I haven't even completely matured myself. Nevertheless, I know that this starts at home, not with protests of Ice Breakers.
Is it possible that some Hershey's marketing guru said, "Hey, kids think drugs are cool so let's market this new packaging to look like drugs. Kids and teenagers will eat it up." If so, then we have some sick bastards working in marketing and this entire entry was a waste of my time. My first impression is that such a scenario did not occur. I can't imagine that druggies are a big market for Hershey's - at least not for mints. I can only assume that the packaging allows for some type of "release" of the freshening elements of the mint as the paper dissolves. (Again, just a guess, I am not an scientist). If it isn't the former, then we should not protest against Hershey's simply for selling Ice Breakers.
The answer, as the answer always should be in a market society, is don't buy it. If enough people do not buy the Ice Breakers in this packaging, it will soon exit the market, costing too much money to produce while reaping little revenue from sales. A company-wide protest is too much. Why do I say this? (Some may ask the question differently - what is the entire point of this blog entry)? Well, I wrote this entire entry to say this ...
Why should we punish legitimate business entities for legitimate products, because others in our society place illegal and/or dangerous items into the marketplace? A protest, or even public outcry, over this product will harm the legitimate business, Hershey's, without affecting the illegal businesses, the drug dealers, one iota. Such a protest will not take any drugs off our streets and away from our children. Such a protest will in effect act as a type of trade infringement case against Hershey's for daring to use packaging similar to illicit drug packaging. Why do we give so much power to the illegal businesses while regulating the legal businesses?
Protests and public outcry should be reserved for companies whose actual product does harm our children, whether through the size of the objects (choking hazards), the elements in the product (lead paint) or worse (illegal drugs themselves). Ice Breakers themselves do not do any harm to the users.
Of course, I haven't actually tried Ice Breakers in this form. They could simply be horrible and off the market in two months. That, is how the market system is supposed to work.
[Ed. Note - Unless it is contained in any mutual or insurance funds that I own, I do not have an ownership interest in Hershey's Corporation].
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Thursday, November 29, 2007
SAG 'EM AND BAG' EM
The mayor of the city in which I live, Riviera Beach (the city which immediately abuts West Palm Beach to the north), has a tremendous new idea to combat the increasing crime in the city - ban people from wearing saggy pants. (Please note sarcasm). [Ed. note - this isn't necessarily the reason Mayor Thomas Masters uses to justify the proposed referendum, but follow my logic to see why I think it might be the real reason].
Mayor Masters has launched a petition drive to have the saggy pants issue placed on the March 11 ballot. Should he receive enough signatures, the city's voters will decide whether or not to "ban" saggy pants. The provisions include a $150 fine or community service order for a first offense, and $300 fine for a subsequent offense, and jail time of up to 60 days for failure to pay the fine or complete the community service.
Have we really come to this?
Now, as I mentioned before, I live in Riviera Beach, and it disturbs me that violent crime, especially what seems to be violent crime with specific targets (i.e. - possibly gang related), seems to have increased since I moved here in 1999. I have yet to do the research on the actual crime statistics, but I base this belief on what I see happening in the streets, on the news and in the newspaper, as well as discussions with people I know in law enforcement. The predominant race, gender and socioeconomic class of most of the purported criminals, as well as the victims, of the increased violence are young, poor, black males. In the city this should be expected according to the numbers, as the 2000 United States Census reports that 67.8% of the 31,733 residents are black. As also increasingly reported in our local news outlets, gang activity has increased dramatically throughout the County. Thus, a lot of the increased crime has been attributed to gang activity, most of the members allegedly being young, black males (at least in Riviera Beach).
Now, a lot of younger people of all races have fallen into the trend of wearing baggy clothing, of which saggy pants are included. Some people have even attributed the urban look which includes saggy pants as itself being gang related. [Ed. note - I do not specifically attribute this attitude to anyone specific - including Mayor Masters. It is just a blanket statement put together from the attitudes of a lot of people around town]. The saggy pant look is widely recognized as having been started in prisons and jails around the country. In fact, many people believe that having saggy pants is an identifying mark in prison, a fact that I cannot personally attest to knowing, so I will just leave that point purposefully hanging for those that want to look into it further. Regardless of origin, the saggy pants craze caught on after being worn by hip hop artists, and has now spread to practically every young community - urban and suburban (think sports jerseys).
So, if my political math is correct here, we have: Increased violence and gang activity, especially among young black males + an increase in young black males wearing saggy pants + a community desire to stop the violence (whether gang related or not) and to increase the safety of all of the city residents (including the young black males) = a ban on saggy pants to keep young black males (the potential criminals and victims in this equation) on the proper path in society. Apparently, those in power believe that a ban on saggy pants will decrease the violence in the community. I don't see how this works in reality.
What does happen is this: (1) The police, most of whom are responsible, respectful members of the community, are being forced to hassle other members of the community, primarily young, black males over something incredibly trivial; (2) a subjective take on what is and what isn't saggy enough to police, at least increasing the opportunity, if not the likelihood, of racial profiling; (3) increased distrust of the police by young black males, and perhaps all young males, which hurts the community in a lot more ways than just the saggy pants issue; (4) forces those who wear predominantly baggy clothing to use money they may not even have to purchase different, "acceptable", clothing; and (5) push more and more young kids and adults away from society - including voting and participating in the community. Just what we need at this time. And don't even get me started on the possibility of jail time.
With regard to point number 3 above, this may have the most dramatic affect on crime in our area. The distrust of the police, and government in general, could make today's youth less likely to cooperate with the police who are diligently trying to solve cases and capture the actual criminals. If the police are required by city law to hassle all people wearing baggy clothes, even those that are otherwise law abiding, how can we expect those youths to respect the authority of our police officers, something with which our police officers struggle anyway. This is costly to our community because we are losing our youth, and our law enforcement officers are losing some of the best weapons they have to combat crime, the law abiding people in the neighborhoods where crime occurs. Further, being a law enforcement officer is a tough enough profession as it is, not to mention the danger inherent in being "on the job". Why would the city willingly make the job of the officers more difficult, and in turn create more distrust of those same officers by the public? That is going to be results of this ordinance.
In addition, the city, which has its own economic problems, will now be forced to pay legal fees for the inevitable ACLU challenge to the referendum if it passes. In the 1960's, plenty of cities and towns tried to regulate hair length, supposedly to legislate against the subversive element from entering their town. The courts struck down those laws as unconstitutional. Mayor Masters believes his plan is different because the city council didn't pass this law, but its citizens may pass it as a referendum. Doesn't work. A bad law is a bad law no matter the source, and an unconstitutional law is an unconstitutional law, no matter the source. And the city is going to spend its citizens' money to find this out.
Now, you may be wondering how a self-proclaimed Republican not only agrees with the ACLU on this issue, but is writing about the issue on his blog. Why should I care about my city leaders trying to make its citizens look "normal". First and foremost everyone should be against this ban. It isn't just a political issue between parties, it is an issue between those governing thinking they have more power than those being governed. Secondly, race is not an issue split along party lines. (In fact, for those not from this area, Mayor Masters is black). So called race issues affect everyone, and a law such as the "saggy pants ban", which is so blatantly directed at a certain socio-economic (and even racial) class, should disgust all, and should be protested by all, regardless of party.
In addition, this IS a republican issue, with a little "r" intended. Why is our government telling us what to wear? Why is our government trying to force us to buy products that it wants us to buy, to purchase and wear clothes that the government finds acceptable? What is next, that we can only purchase a certain type of automobile? (No SUV's because someone thinks they are bad for the environment. - No sports cars because they aren't made in America). This is simply a governmental control issue. Why do I believe it is starting with the baggy pants? Well, simple - it targets the young (and black?), who are generally politically voiceless in our community, so it can easily pass. Who knows what the government thinks they can accomplish next.
As a republican, again with a lower case "r", I am also alarmed that the city would take on such an issue that it should know would be defeated. I am sure that the city's attorneys' have done their research on this issue in order to prepare for the inevitable legal challenges. I would hope that at least one of the attorneys has told the mayor and city council that at best they are in for a long legal battle about this ordinance, and at worst, it would be shot down by the courts as being unconstitutional. Why is my local government spending my money, neigh, wasting my money, on this? Couldn't they use the inevitable $250,000 plus on additional officers? Or, if not, lower taxes so that the $250,000 is returned to its citizens? This doesn't even mention the wasted police officer time in arresting all of the new "criminals", including all of the paperwork. Think of the man-hours lost in this endeavour. Governments try to take extra money from its citizens in order to use that money for things it believes are necessary for the citizens. Is a saggy pants ban necessary - at least in comparison to better roads and more police officers? I would suggest not.
Mayor Masters believes that he is trying to legislate against indecent exposure - and that may indeed be his true intentions behind this ban. But indecent exposure laws are already on the books, and I would hope they would clearly define "indecent exposure". If they don't, they need to do so. But please, don't confuse this referendum with the city trying to keep all public exposure "decent". That is not what this is about. It is about the city trying to legislate public morality in an arena in which morals have nothing to do with the issue. A lot of people wear baggy pants - blacks, whites, Hispanics, young, old, kids, adults, males and females. The choice of clothing may be a specific expression that individuals want to make, but it isn't a moral decision. Criminals wear baggy clothes and law abiding citizens wear baggy clothes. Criminals wear form-fitting clothes as do law abiding citizens.
Now, spandex? That is something against which we need to legislate.
Mayor Masters has launched a petition drive to have the saggy pants issue placed on the March 11 ballot. Should he receive enough signatures, the city's voters will decide whether or not to "ban" saggy pants. The provisions include a $150 fine or community service order for a first offense, and $300 fine for a subsequent offense, and jail time of up to 60 days for failure to pay the fine or complete the community service.
Have we really come to this?
Now, as I mentioned before, I live in Riviera Beach, and it disturbs me that violent crime, especially what seems to be violent crime with specific targets (i.e. - possibly gang related), seems to have increased since I moved here in 1999. I have yet to do the research on the actual crime statistics, but I base this belief on what I see happening in the streets, on the news and in the newspaper, as well as discussions with people I know in law enforcement. The predominant race, gender and socioeconomic class of most of the purported criminals, as well as the victims, of the increased violence are young, poor, black males. In the city this should be expected according to the numbers, as the 2000 United States Census reports that 67.8% of the 31,733 residents are black. As also increasingly reported in our local news outlets, gang activity has increased dramatically throughout the County. Thus, a lot of the increased crime has been attributed to gang activity, most of the members allegedly being young, black males (at least in Riviera Beach).
Now, a lot of younger people of all races have fallen into the trend of wearing baggy clothing, of which saggy pants are included. Some people have even attributed the urban look which includes saggy pants as itself being gang related. [Ed. note - I do not specifically attribute this attitude to anyone specific - including Mayor Masters. It is just a blanket statement put together from the attitudes of a lot of people around town]. The saggy pant look is widely recognized as having been started in prisons and jails around the country. In fact, many people believe that having saggy pants is an identifying mark in prison, a fact that I cannot personally attest to knowing, so I will just leave that point purposefully hanging for those that want to look into it further. Regardless of origin, the saggy pants craze caught on after being worn by hip hop artists, and has now spread to practically every young community - urban and suburban (think sports jerseys).
So, if my political math is correct here, we have: Increased violence and gang activity, especially among young black males + an increase in young black males wearing saggy pants + a community desire to stop the violence (whether gang related or not) and to increase the safety of all of the city residents (including the young black males) = a ban on saggy pants to keep young black males (the potential criminals and victims in this equation) on the proper path in society. Apparently, those in power believe that a ban on saggy pants will decrease the violence in the community. I don't see how this works in reality.
What does happen is this: (1) The police, most of whom are responsible, respectful members of the community, are being forced to hassle other members of the community, primarily young, black males over something incredibly trivial; (2) a subjective take on what is and what isn't saggy enough to police, at least increasing the opportunity, if not the likelihood, of racial profiling; (3) increased distrust of the police by young black males, and perhaps all young males, which hurts the community in a lot more ways than just the saggy pants issue; (4) forces those who wear predominantly baggy clothing to use money they may not even have to purchase different, "acceptable", clothing; and (5) push more and more young kids and adults away from society - including voting and participating in the community. Just what we need at this time. And don't even get me started on the possibility of jail time.
With regard to point number 3 above, this may have the most dramatic affect on crime in our area. The distrust of the police, and government in general, could make today's youth less likely to cooperate with the police who are diligently trying to solve cases and capture the actual criminals. If the police are required by city law to hassle all people wearing baggy clothes, even those that are otherwise law abiding, how can we expect those youths to respect the authority of our police officers, something with which our police officers struggle anyway. This is costly to our community because we are losing our youth, and our law enforcement officers are losing some of the best weapons they have to combat crime, the law abiding people in the neighborhoods where crime occurs. Further, being a law enforcement officer is a tough enough profession as it is, not to mention the danger inherent in being "on the job". Why would the city willingly make the job of the officers more difficult, and in turn create more distrust of those same officers by the public? That is going to be results of this ordinance.
In addition, the city, which has its own economic problems, will now be forced to pay legal fees for the inevitable ACLU challenge to the referendum if it passes. In the 1960's, plenty of cities and towns tried to regulate hair length, supposedly to legislate against the subversive element from entering their town. The courts struck down those laws as unconstitutional. Mayor Masters believes his plan is different because the city council didn't pass this law, but its citizens may pass it as a referendum. Doesn't work. A bad law is a bad law no matter the source, and an unconstitutional law is an unconstitutional law, no matter the source. And the city is going to spend its citizens' money to find this out.
Now, you may be wondering how a self-proclaimed Republican not only agrees with the ACLU on this issue, but is writing about the issue on his blog. Why should I care about my city leaders trying to make its citizens look "normal". First and foremost everyone should be against this ban. It isn't just a political issue between parties, it is an issue between those governing thinking they have more power than those being governed. Secondly, race is not an issue split along party lines. (In fact, for those not from this area, Mayor Masters is black). So called race issues affect everyone, and a law such as the "saggy pants ban", which is so blatantly directed at a certain socio-economic (and even racial) class, should disgust all, and should be protested by all, regardless of party.
In addition, this IS a republican issue, with a little "r" intended. Why is our government telling us what to wear? Why is our government trying to force us to buy products that it wants us to buy, to purchase and wear clothes that the government finds acceptable? What is next, that we can only purchase a certain type of automobile? (No SUV's because someone thinks they are bad for the environment. - No sports cars because they aren't made in America). This is simply a governmental control issue. Why do I believe it is starting with the baggy pants? Well, simple - it targets the young (and black?), who are generally politically voiceless in our community, so it can easily pass. Who knows what the government thinks they can accomplish next.
As a republican, again with a lower case "r", I am also alarmed that the city would take on such an issue that it should know would be defeated. I am sure that the city's attorneys' have done their research on this issue in order to prepare for the inevitable legal challenges. I would hope that at least one of the attorneys has told the mayor and city council that at best they are in for a long legal battle about this ordinance, and at worst, it would be shot down by the courts as being unconstitutional. Why is my local government spending my money, neigh, wasting my money, on this? Couldn't they use the inevitable $250,000 plus on additional officers? Or, if not, lower taxes so that the $250,000 is returned to its citizens? This doesn't even mention the wasted police officer time in arresting all of the new "criminals", including all of the paperwork. Think of the man-hours lost in this endeavour. Governments try to take extra money from its citizens in order to use that money for things it believes are necessary for the citizens. Is a saggy pants ban necessary - at least in comparison to better roads and more police officers? I would suggest not.
Mayor Masters believes that he is trying to legislate against indecent exposure - and that may indeed be his true intentions behind this ban. But indecent exposure laws are already on the books, and I would hope they would clearly define "indecent exposure". If they don't, they need to do so. But please, don't confuse this referendum with the city trying to keep all public exposure "decent". That is not what this is about. It is about the city trying to legislate public morality in an arena in which morals have nothing to do with the issue. A lot of people wear baggy pants - blacks, whites, Hispanics, young, old, kids, adults, males and females. The choice of clothing may be a specific expression that individuals want to make, but it isn't a moral decision. Criminals wear baggy clothes and law abiding citizens wear baggy clothes. Criminals wear form-fitting clothes as do law abiding citizens.
Now, spandex? That is something against which we need to legislate.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Hello and Welcome
Hello everyone and welcome to Sunshine and Storms - Politics in Florida.
As a primer, and in the interest of full disclosure, I want to let everyone know a little about me, so that you can understand my innate biases in my writing. I am from West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, where I live and work. (Go ahead and laugh now - since I know that some people believe that Palm Beach County should take a breather from the political process altogether). Although obviously interested in politics, I do not work in the political arena at all, so I have no specific affiliations or loyalties to which I must adhere. I am male, in my 30's and professional (at least in a technical, employment sense). I am a registered Republican, although I do not adhere to any strictly specific party line if my own brains, beliefs, research, knowledge and ideas lead me in other directions. I am opinionated, but I respect the opinions of others, so long as those opinions are based upon some semblance of reason, and are not strictly a regurgitation of "talking points". This is true even if someone agrees with my opinions. I would hope that any commenters that may disagree with me would at least respect my opinions as well.
Now that I have introduced myself, let me introduce my blog. It is titled "Sunshine and Storms - Politics in Florida". This title is supposed to indicate the proposed content of the blog, as well as a metaphor to the type of blog I am planning. Sunshine means: (1) Florida is the Sunshine State; (2) generally means a positive outlook on things - so I will positively comment on things that I think deserve such comment; and (3) open - so I will try to place into the open things that may be somewhat hidden from direct public view. Storms comes from: (1) The propensity for summer storms and/or hurricanes in Florida; (2) the opposite of sunshine - so I will negatively comment on things that I think deserve such comments; and (3) well - basically anything I want. I will attempt to make this a positive and negative blog - meaning writing about positive developments as well as highlighting things I feel need to be improved, changed, or just outright stopped. Hopefully this is more than just a "bitch" blog, which only complains, without highlighting positive aspects of our government, or at least offering alternatives.
In addition, this blog will mainly focus on local and state politics, although national issues and elections that affect Florida will also be included. At least that is the intention. With the upcoming Presidential election, I am sure that this may be skewed in the national direction, at least for a little while. However, I can tell you that I already know the first couple of entries and they are predominately local in scope - although certainly these issues could, and have, occurred in other areas of the country.
Since I have mentioned the Presidential race, I will not (in this blog anyway) specifically endorse any candidate, as it is my primary goal to focus on issues. However, issues from time-to-time do become intertwined with candidates that support or oppose them, so it will be necessary to discuss candidates and their positions. This does not mean that I support any specific candidate with any specific post. Please do not confuse a positive review of a candidate's specific issue with an overall recommendation of that candidate.
I also plan on posting at least a couple of times a week, however, there will be times where work, family and social obligations may keep me from posting as often as I would like. Please forgive me during those times, but rest assure that I will be posting as often as possible, and as often as topics appear to need my comment.
Thank you for paying attention to this blog, and feel free to comment should you feel inclined to do so.
As a primer, and in the interest of full disclosure, I want to let everyone know a little about me, so that you can understand my innate biases in my writing. I am from West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, where I live and work. (Go ahead and laugh now - since I know that some people believe that Palm Beach County should take a breather from the political process altogether). Although obviously interested in politics, I do not work in the political arena at all, so I have no specific affiliations or loyalties to which I must adhere. I am male, in my 30's and professional (at least in a technical, employment sense). I am a registered Republican, although I do not adhere to any strictly specific party line if my own brains, beliefs, research, knowledge and ideas lead me in other directions. I am opinionated, but I respect the opinions of others, so long as those opinions are based upon some semblance of reason, and are not strictly a regurgitation of "talking points". This is true even if someone agrees with my opinions. I would hope that any commenters that may disagree with me would at least respect my opinions as well.
Now that I have introduced myself, let me introduce my blog. It is titled "Sunshine and Storms - Politics in Florida". This title is supposed to indicate the proposed content of the blog, as well as a metaphor to the type of blog I am planning. Sunshine means: (1) Florida is the Sunshine State; (2) generally means a positive outlook on things - so I will positively comment on things that I think deserve such comment; and (3) open - so I will try to place into the open things that may be somewhat hidden from direct public view. Storms comes from: (1) The propensity for summer storms and/or hurricanes in Florida; (2) the opposite of sunshine - so I will negatively comment on things that I think deserve such comments; and (3) well - basically anything I want. I will attempt to make this a positive and negative blog - meaning writing about positive developments as well as highlighting things I feel need to be improved, changed, or just outright stopped. Hopefully this is more than just a "bitch" blog, which only complains, without highlighting positive aspects of our government, or at least offering alternatives.
In addition, this blog will mainly focus on local and state politics, although national issues and elections that affect Florida will also be included. At least that is the intention. With the upcoming Presidential election, I am sure that this may be skewed in the national direction, at least for a little while. However, I can tell you that I already know the first couple of entries and they are predominately local in scope - although certainly these issues could, and have, occurred in other areas of the country.
Since I have mentioned the Presidential race, I will not (in this blog anyway) specifically endorse any candidate, as it is my primary goal to focus on issues. However, issues from time-to-time do become intertwined with candidates that support or oppose them, so it will be necessary to discuss candidates and their positions. This does not mean that I support any specific candidate with any specific post. Please do not confuse a positive review of a candidate's specific issue with an overall recommendation of that candidate.
I also plan on posting at least a couple of times a week, however, there will be times where work, family and social obligations may keep me from posting as often as I would like. Please forgive me during those times, but rest assure that I will be posting as often as possible, and as often as topics appear to need my comment.
Thank you for paying attention to this blog, and feel free to comment should you feel inclined to do so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)