The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[alphabassettgrrl]

I know our local food bank takes some secondhand, prepared food, bread in particular, so there is a precedent for handling such things.

I would think something like bagels would be especially easy to track. They're not that complicated.

[Alex]

Not hard to track, but if you've also established regulations such as "City managed food kitchens must provide meals that are nutritionally balanced to meet requirements X, Y, Z" then not knowing the actual nutritional content for Neighbor Larry's Famous Clam Chowder Popsicles is an issue.

[alphabassettgrrl]

Feeding people who are homeless should be a high enough goal that a little effort is worth it. I mean, do you want to help them, or do you want to follow your guidelines and help them less? If I were homeless, I'm not going to care about the nutritional content. Food, bring it on, even if it's marginal. Beats eating out of trash cans.

[Alex]

One question would be: will anybody go hungry because of this. Is it a question of feeding people or not or just a question of what you feed them?

Again, I have no real idea if it a good rule or not. I just have a strong suspicion that the news story isn't accurately representing it.

[innerSpaceman]

I'm glad you come here to link to all the things I think of linking to, SM.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Bleh, I am not pleased to see Obama appealing to "judicial activism". It's a stupid concept and will be easily taken advantage of by conservative pundits.

This whole thing could have been avoided if he and congress had the political fortitude to pass this thing the right way in the first place. If they had implemented the individual mandate as a tax instead of a fine (i.e., vote in a new tax for which you can receive a credit by purchasing health care) there would be no case against it. Functionally equivalent, but unquestionably within Congress's power. But of course, calling it a "tax" would have guaranteed it never got passed to begin with (despite being an identical end result).

[SzczerbiakManiac]

I most certainly do not.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Wait, someone who was the CEO of the RIAA is an arrogant idiot? Color me unsurprised.

[Moonliner]

U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood is proposing to ban all cell phone use while driving.

SAN ANTONIO, April 26 (Reuters) - U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood called on Thursday for a federal law to ban talking on a cell phone or texting while driving any type of vehicle on any road in the country.

Tough federal legislation is the only way to deal with what he called a "national epidemic," he said at a distracted-driving summit in San Antonio, Texas, that drew doctors, advocates and government officials.

I think I agree with Gary Biller, president of the National Motorists Association who said:

Originally Posted by Gary Biller

laws banning specific actions like talking on a phone or texting are not necessary because those actions are already covered by existing distracted-driving laws. It would be more productive, he said, to invest resources in campaigns that discourage inattentive driving in general.

[Strangler Lewis]

The National Motorists Association? I had a lobbyist out there, and I didn't know it.

I know nothing about them, but somehow I'm guessing that, much like the NRA, they exist in part to find legalistic, reasonable sounding cover for people to act like belligerent a**holes.

But the campaign sounds like a good idea. I envision a series of billboards featuring topless women and big letters saying "Now that we've got your attention . . . put down that phone and watch the road."