"Now Is Not The Time." WRONG!

Say what you will about New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, but he is not afraid to take on hot-button issues, whether it be his proposal to ban over-sized sugary soft drinks to combat obesity or his advocacy of stricter gun control laws made all the more pressing in the wake of the Aurora massacre. 

One is left to wonder about the leadership potential, the guts, the independence, of such politicians as New Jersey governor Chris Christie who lamely hewed to the Republican/National Rifle Association party line that now is not the time to have a discussion of gun control. To which I would answer (for Mayor Mike): If not now, when? (The full quote from the Jewish sage Hillel is,  “If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? And if I am only for myself, then what am I? And if not now, when?”)

Okay, perhaps it is too soon to digest the full context of Aurora. But what about Columbine? That was in 1999. Or what about Virginia Tech (2007)? Or the shoot-em-up in Tucson (2011)? Just when will it be the right time to talk about appropriate gun control?

Both political parties have abandoned any pretense of relevancy when it comes to protecting our citizens. With almost unanimous support by our nation’s police chiefs for stronger gun control laws, ex-prosecutor Christie’s failure to speak out forcefully about this life and death issue shows him to be a gutless politician. Where is his outrage that a special interest group has co-opted our nation’s safety? 

Christie is no worse than President Obama or his mind-numbing challenger Mitt Romney. It is not enough to be healer-in-chief. When will we come to our senses and realize no one needs semi-automatic guns and large ammunition clips? These are not sporting gear. They are tools by which to kill and maim in the extreme. 

It’s time we abandoned the pretense that restricting these sales somehow violates the Second Amendment right to bear arms. It’s time we corrected our course and choose to go forward into the second decade of the 21st century instead of lurching backward into the 19th century when carrying firearms into a saloon was standard practice. We’re making it easier, not harder, for people to carry weapons, even concealed weapons. 

The height of absurdity will be seen next month when Republicans gather in Tampa for their nominating convention. Tampa won’t allow anyone to carry a water pistol near the convention center, but will permit the carrying of concealed weapons. 

According to a Monday NY Times article, “In May the city adopted a temporary ordinance that will clamp down on protests in dozens of blocks near the Tampa Convention Center. Among other things, the ordinance requires a permit for groups of 50 or more to gather in parks; sets a limit of 90 minutes on parades; and bans an array of items, including glass bottles, aerosol cans and pieces of rope longer than six feet. It also provided for an official parade route for protesters along with viewing areas.

“During public debates, some Tampa residents and City Council members opposed the rules, calling them excessive. Others complained that while the ordinance outlawed water pistols, actual pistols were allowed for those with permits to carry a concealed weapon. Although Tampa's mayor, Bob Buckhorn, had asked the state's governor, Rick Scott, to ban firearms during the convention, the governor has refused.”

New York’s Mayor Bloomberg vented his frustration today by suggesting police departments across the country go on strike to express their support of tougher guns laws, a work stoppage action by public servants hardly in line with the position he or any other mayor would sanction in normal times. Which leads one to wonder, do we have to suffer through a disastrous shooting at the GOP convention for our politicians to separate their act from the yahoos at the National Rifle Association?

Home Rule Blues

Happy 4th of July.

Since it's the day our nation celebrates its freedom, I thought I'd talk a little politics for a change (stop smirking).

It's mostly a truism that Republicans and conservative-leaning citizens believe the best government is the smallest, one that is as local as possible. In other words, federal statutes should not take precedence over state laws, state laws should not supercede municipal ordinances, for after all, who knows better than the people closest to the ground what is right and appropriate for them. The corrollary is Democrats prefer big government—the greater the scheme, the more universal the import, the happier liberals and progressives are, for the common folk cannot be trusted to know, much less do, the right thing.

For example, Democrats believe in universal health care. Republicans want to limit at the local level federally sanctioned abortions.

At least that's how I've always seen government explained. The GOP wants less big government and more local home rule, Democrats want more, period. But now, it seems, Republicans are caught up in a seemingly hypocritical position. They are working against home rule when it comes to home fries and other fattening foods. GOP-controlled state houses and governorships are passing laws restricting a municipality's freedom to regulate food within its borders to control obesity and other health-related concerns (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/01/business/01obese.html?ref=health).

It's a classic sop to business interests that moan the burden of regulations, some of which may differ from one community to the next, thus driving up the cost of adherence. It's a logical argument to make, but it really flies in the face of the grassroots-knows-best mantra the GOP normally espouses.

I guess it's another example of Republican thinking that business knows better than local citizens or their representatives. Business, it seems, can fatten its wallet by fattening up the rest of America.

OK, enough speeches from my soap box. Get out and enjoy the day. Hot dogs for everyone.

Public Service Announcements

History Lesson: For those who didn’t see it the first time it ran, there’s a great documentary series on Turner Classic Movies this week. The hour-long segments air 7 pm daily through Sunday and are entitled “Moguls and Movie Stars: A History of Hollywood.” Tonight is Episode 2 (sorry, but I didn’t realize the series started yesterday).

Anyone who has ever been to the movies will find this documentary fascinating and illuminating. Have fun watching it.


Healthy Diet: Gilda and I recently committed to eating more healthy, not that we weren’t already doing so, but we agreed we’d eat more fish, at least two or three times a week.

Last Friday night my gourmet-cooking wife prepared a delicious feast of roasted tilapia with herbs, one of the recipes Mark Bittman recently promoted in the NY Times Magazine section. Delicious. And healthy, too. Or so I thought.

Imagine my consternation when I opened Monday’s Times and came across “Another Side of Tilapia, the Perfect Factory Fish” (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/02/science/earth/02tilapia.html?scp=1&sq=tilapia&st=cse). Tilapia offered the lowest amount of omega-3 fatty acids per 100 grams of fish than any of the 19 varieties studied by the National Fisheries Institute, according to the article. It was lowest by far, providing just 135 mgs vs. roughly 2,000 mgs for farm-raised salmon. Moreover, farm raised tilapia can be detrimental to the life of a lake.

We’ll still eat tilapia, as it still is healthier than eating meat or chicken, but it sure is disappointing to know even when I try to do the right thing someone, in this case, Mother Nature, is not very supportive.


Drink Up: Here’s another of my dietary dilemmas. Drinking too much Coca-Cola the first four decades of life elevated my blood sugar levels, so I switched to Diet Coke. Trust me, Diet Coke has gotten much better. No more aftertaste. I’ve managed to keep my sugar levels in check, but there still is some uncertainty about the long-term healthiness of sugar substitutes. Oh well...

Anyway, I bring this up because of Mayor Bloomberg’s campaign to receive federal government permission to restrict the use of food stamps to purchase sugar-sweetened beverages in New York City. Mayor Mike believes they contribute to obesity and diabetes (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/30/us/politics/30food.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Food%20Marketing%20Institute&st=cse).

I support him. Yes, I know this is another example of government getting into our pantries, but just as Bloomberg championed no smoking in restaurants, plus less salt and fat in fast food fare, it is proper for government to mandate behavior when the population at large (and getting larger) won’t take care of itself.

This is not a classic example of Big Brother telling us what to do, or not do. If you want to spend your own money to buy sugared drinks, fine. But don’t spend my money, my government money. Not when our collective health care system is overburdened by the overweight and the diabetic. We all wind up paying higher insurance premiums, and waiting longer in emergency rooms, because of it. We need to begin controlling the root causes of the health care crisis. Prevention should be paramount. Stopping the flow of sweetened liquid down our gullets is one of the quickest ways to have an impact on our collective waist line, blood line and bottom line.


Matza Meal II: My experiment giving birds leftover egg and whole wheat matza has produced less than spectacular results. A few birds, some grackles and even some cardinals, have nibbled at it. But by and large, the birds have ignored the religious offering.


Warm Feet: On the other hand, or foot, so to speak, I am thoroughly enjoying a toasty bed, thanks to the electric mattress pad installed last week. Normally, spring weather would have negated the need for a bed warmer. But this has been anything but a normal spring. I can favorably report my endorsement of this product.


Picture Perfect: Some people ask me why I never include pictures with my blogs. Here’s a reason why: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/business/media/03righthaven.html?src=rechp. I surely do not need to become penpals with copyright lawyers.


Dead, Again: Does it matter that the description of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden has been officially revised to say he was not armed when shot, but was still resisting capture? To me, no. He showed no mercy to the innocents he murdered here and around the world. I have no problem with his execution, with targeted assassinations. Let's get the next guy on the list!