Yesterday we went to a store and procured an item. After bringing it back home, we noticed the warning label on the back:
To prevent serious injury: 1. Wear ANSI-approved safety goggles and heavy-duty work gloves during use. 2. People with pacemakers should consult their physician(s) before use. Electromagnetic magnetic fields in close proximity to heart pacemaker could cause pacemaker interference or pacemaker failure. 3. Position batteries in proper polarity and do not install batteries of different types, charge levels or capacities together. 4. Inspect before every use; do not use if parts loose or damaged. 5. Use as intended only. 6. The brass components of this product contain lead, a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm. (California Health and Safety Code 25249.5)
What monstrous, evil, huge device could warrant these warnings?
The essence of comedy is being critical, says Cleese, and that means causing offense sometimes. But we shouldn’t protect everyone from experiencing negative emotions by enforcing political correctness, he says.
Students are prohibited from possession of firearms in or on college property except by law enforcement officers, judges and district attorneys. The possession or use of any other offensive weapons is prohibited.
So why is the school apologizing?
Because the student who was escorted from the classroom was a police officer in full uniform.
You can’t make this stuff up.
You would think that a teacher would want a law enforcement officer in their class in case something did happen, but the fear of a gun attached to the hip of a police officer overrode any logical thought process the teacher had – if they ever had a logical thought process to begin with.
The Palm Bay City Council got what we think they expected last night – a lot of people commenting on the so called “Human Rights Ordinance.”
The issue started around 8:05 PM and it started with a bang. Councilwoman Michele Paccione was the person putting the ordinance forth. She decided to change the ordinance and allow an exemption for churches and all schools. Because of the change, Mayor Capote said that the ordinance should have been workshopped before coming to the Council. It is a good point and a point that would be heard later. Paccione had arranged, with Mayor William Capote’s blessing, to have a the first speakers give a presentation on why the ordinance was needed and the legal issues behind it that was going to last 15 minutes, well over the 3 or 5 minutes other speakers were going to have. Deputy Mayor Jeff Bailey raised the point that by allowing some speakers more allotted time than others, the Council was effectively limiting the speech of some. Because Paccione had packed the front of the speakers with supporters while the people against the ordinance were not accorded the same opportunity, Bailey called for a vote on the time limits.
His motion to limit all people to 3 minutes was passed by the Council and immediately decried by Paccione who kept yelling “you don’t want to hear the truth!”
Interestingly, she kept yelling that while other Council members were trying to speak, thus depriving the of the same right to be heard that she was demanding.
We wrote of our concerns on the “discussion on parking on private property” prior to the Cocoa Beach City Commission of last night.
One of the things we were worried about was that the Commission was looking to discuss taking people’s property rights to park cars on their own property absent of any harm to the rights of others.
Mayor Tumulty had placed the item on the agenda without much (actually any) information on what was going to be discussed. We gave two possible thought and we got it right: Tumulty wanted to talk about limiting people’s property rights.
There were several comments that caught our ear.
City Manager Ron McLemore said that the home he is trying to sell now lost value because of people parking on their property. We find that very difficult to believe. It just doesn’t make sense that people say “that house isn’t worth as much because there are three cars parked there!” We would be interested in knowing if there were other issues such as crime rates, drug issues, taxes, fees, etc, all of which affect property values.
The other comment that intrigued us came from City Attorney Skip Fowler who said a man in another city had been arrested for having tons of garbage in his back yard and he claimed it was a violation of his property rights to demand he remove the garbage. It boggles the mind that someone can think that garbage – and the accompanying vermin, bugs, and health hazards that can affect the health of others – is the same thing as having working cars on the property? (more…)
While the City of Palm Bay is having their meeting, the City of Cocoa Beach will be holding a CRA meeting starting at 6:00 PM and a regular meeting starting at 7:00 PM. The agenda / support packet for both meetings can be found here.
There is one item that has caught our eye and has done so for a couple of reasons. Item I-2 is to “discuss the matter of parking on privately owned property.” the item is cryptic (which concerns us) because the support document only says:
In response to the Mayor’s request, this item is being placed on the agenda for purposes of discussing parking on privately owned property.
Complaints received regarding parking multiple cars on residential property.
There is no explanation as to what the complaints are and that is troubling as people have no idea what the real issues are and whether they should show up and speak in support or against whatever complaints are being lodged.
Florida Statutes also cover automobiles that are leaking fluids into the ground as such fluids can get into the water systems. So once again, what is the Mayor looking to discuss here?
We fear that some resident or residents have gotten upset with people parking multiple vehicles they own on their own property. Unable to talk to their neighbors or convince them they should not do with their property what they want and instead demand that the property owner do what the neighbor wants (even though there is no demonstrable harm to the neighbor) the neighbor wants the City to take action against those who are using their property as they see fit. (more…)
The City of Palm Bay will host a regular City Council meeting tonight starting at 7:00 PM.
The elephant in the room is going to be Ordinance 2016-08, which ends “discrimination based on age, race, color, religion, national origin, disability, marital status, familial status, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity and expression.”
For your convenience, we have uploaded the pages of the agenda / support packet that cover this resolution. You can get those pages here.
While the ordinance has high and lofty goals of “equality,” it cannot and will not achieve equality in any sense of the word. If anything, it creates more inequality.
There is always trouble when the rights of people clash. It is one of the things that we have written about here on this site before. Theoretically, when resolving disputes between the rights of two people, the government should take the path of least resistance or the path that causes the least amount of harm to either party.
Here, the City of Palm Bay is saying “your rights as an individual or company are not equal to the rights of now ‘protected class’ of citizens. You must acquiesce to their desires even at the expense of your rights.”
For example, assume for a moment that you are a worker in a company and a transgendered individual comes into the bathroom. You are female, and the transgendered person is male. While in any other situation if a male came into the women’s bathroom, women would have a legitimate claim of sexual harassment under the theory of a “hostile work environment.”
However, under the Palm Bay ordinance such a claim cannot be made when a male transgendered person comes into the woman’s bathroom: (more…)