Nanny Bloomberg Again: NY Mandatory Composting!

Big Apple “Voluntary” Composting Idea Stinks; Carries Health Risks, Says New York-Based Risk Expert

New York, NY – Mayor Bloomberg is planning on creating a “voluntary” composting program that will eventually become mandatory, the New York Times reported on Sunday.

“This is a rotten idea for the Big Apple,”says Jeff Stier, the New York City-based Director of the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Risk Analysis Division.

The National Center for Public Policy Research supports voluntary composting. “In fact,” says Stier, “we already have voluntary composting where residents can send their kitchen scraps to gardens around the five boroughs.”

So why the need for a new program? A Bloomberg official admitted to the New York Times that while initially voluntary, the goal is to require all residents of the city to save their kitchen scraps for a government-administered composting program. Those who don’t compost would be subject to fines.

“We live in a big city, not on a farm, and while composting is a great idea in certain circumstances,” says Stier, “it doesn’t make sense to mandate that all New York residents save their rotting food.”

Stier says the Mayor’s view is skewed in favor of anything labeled “green.” “If they mayor applied his risk-averse trans-fat banning, soda-size limiting science to the risks of composting in NYC he wouldn’t be making it mandatory, he’d be banning it,” exclaims Stier.

“Consider the increased risks from disease-carrying vermin (a problem the city still hasn’t conquered), from all of the pre-compost material sitting around our dense living spaces, not going out with the trash each night,” says Stier.

Stier wonders why Nanny Bloomberg isn’t worried about greenhouse gas emissions from the extra “compost trucks” that’ll have to be deployed. “Perhaps they’ll be carrot-peel powered,” chides Stier.

“There’s no way food scraps can be picked up from every home throughout the city without greatly increasing the number of trucks, traffic, and tyranny.”

Mayor Bloomberg has banned smoking and trans fats from New York bars and restaurants, required calorie counts on restaurant menus, banned smoking in city plazas, parks and beaches, and banned private food donations to city homeless shelters in an effort to monitor the fat, salt and fiber content of foods eaten by the homeless, a story broken by Stier’s reporting.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than 4 percent from foundations, and less than 2 percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Google Apologizes for Easter Snub; Explains Gun Policy

Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt Publicly Apologizes for Insult to Christians Worldwide by Celebrating Violence-Linked Union Leader Cesar Chavez with Google Doodle on Easter Sunday; CEO Larry Page Seconds the Apology

In Response to Question from Shareholder Activist Group, Google’s David Drummond Says Decision to Restrict Guns from Google Shopping Platform is NOT Linked to President Obama’s Push For More Gun Laws, Despite Coincidental Timing

Mountain View, CA / Washington, DC – At Thursday’s annual meeting of Google shareholders in Mountain View, California, National Center for Public Policy Research Free Enterprise Project Director Justin Danhof, Esq. asked Google’s leadership to explain the company’s decisions to ban gun sales from Google Shopping and its decision to honor left-wing union organizer Cesar Chavez with a Google Doodle on Easter Sunday.

The exchanges can be viewed on YouTube at http://youtu.be/K5kwaMzMm60

In response to whether the gun restriction was intentionally contemporaneous with President Obama’s push for more restrictive gun laws, Google senior vice president and chief legal officer David Drummond said Google was merely extending its previous policy banning gun advertisements to the new Google Shopping platform, noting “we have not allowed gun ads since almost the inception of our programs… so we’ve taken a position that it is best for Google [not to advertise guns] and that’s been our view, and we’ve been consistent… so I can assure you that it is a longstanding view that we’ve had, not any kind of a recent public policy [statement].”

Danhof also asked Google’s executive team about the company’s decision to honor labor icon Cesar Chavez this past Easter Sunday, concluding, “from a business point of view, what went into the company’s thinking in making this decision, and what did the company gain from unnecessarily offending so many customers?”

Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt responded with a sincere apology to all Christians who took offense to the company’s decision. Schmidt said that it was never the company’s intent to insult Christians or their faith, saying in part, “…there was no intent to slight anyone… there was certainly no intent, and if there was offense, it was certainly not intended and I do apologize.” Google CEO and Co-Founder Larry Page then endorsed Schmidt’s apology.

“While I am thankful for Schmidt’s apology, this is a situation that never should have occurred,” said Danhof. “Chavez is a divisive figure who draws out strong emotions; I hope the company learns from this mistake.”

“Cesar Chavez is an iconic figure among leftists and ‘Chicano’ activists, a man whose life has become shrouded in political mythology,” notes Project 21′s Joe Hicks. “As a doctrinaire Marxist during the 1970s, I often crossed paths with Chavez and trained with many of his United Farm Worker organizers in ‘revolutionary theory’ classes. Despite today’s depictions of him as a man of peace and nonviolence, the tactics used by UFW organizers against resistant field workers often included intimidation, threats and violence. Even among the farm workers Chavez claimed to represent, his leadership was viewed as controversial. When examined closely, a darker side of Chavez and his movement emerges.”

In 2007, Hicks testified before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands concerning H.R. 359, “The Cesar Estrada Chavez Study Act,” where Hicks explained that Chavez was “a labor leader that presided over an organization that harbored deep hostility and resentment about the American nation.”

After learning about Google’s decision to honor Chavez on Easter, Project 21′s Bishop Council Nedd, the presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Missionary Church, said, “I now will much prefer to receive the points from Bing Rewards in the future rather than dealing with a company that clearly seems to have gone out of its way to be offensive to Christians on the most important day on the Christian calendar.”

“Easter is a sacred day during which Christians celebrate the resurrection of our Savior, Jesus Christ. Google’s management showed extreme callousness in their decision to honor a leftist icon on this holy day,” said Danhof. “I am not suggesting that Google choose a religious affiliation, but Google’s decision to honor a socialist ideologue on the day of Christianity’s most sacred celebration is unconscionable.”

Justin Danhof also was critical of the company’s gun restrictions following the meeting.

“Hypocrisy, thy name is Google,” said Danhof. “Google’s ‘Freedom of Expression‘ proclaims that the company has ‘pressed governments to make combating Internet censorship a top priority in human rights and economic agendas,’ yet the company is using its Internet market power to censor searches in an active effort to limit Second Amendment rights. More than just a Constitutional guarantee, the Second Amendment allows Americans to protect themselves and their families from harm. According to Gary Kleck, a highly respected criminologist at Florida State University, Americans use guns in self-defense more than two million times per year.”

In May 2012, Google announced that it would begin censoring guns, gun parts, ammunition and other weapons from its Google Shopping platform. Read more about Google’s weapons policy here.

“I respect Google’s consistency in policy, but the policy doesn’t align with good business practices,” said Danhof. “If you want to end the life of your child by aborting him, Google will show you the closest abortion clinic. If you want to purchase the most violent video games and movies available, Google will help you comparison shop and find the best price. But if you want to purchase a firearm to protect your family, Google has no use for you.”

“Google’s decision is also highly hypocritical since its Shopping platform remains a bastion of violent and gruesome video games off of which Google profits. From Manhunt, where Google’s description explains, “[p]layers can fight back with hand-to-hand moves, guns, or perform stealth kills using such items as meat cleavers, plastic bags, and hammers to slice, suffocate, and bludgeon enemies,” to God of War: Ascension, where players engage in “another blood-soaked adventure full of grand vistas, environmental puzzles, [and] brutal hack-and-slash combat,” violence and perversion are in full supply on Google Shopping,” added Danhof.

“Google’s policy of infringing the Second Amendment aligns with the White House’s current anti-gun posture. Google executive Chairman Eric Schmidt worked closely with President Barack Obama’s political team during the last election and was even in the campaign’s ‘boiler room’ on election night,” noted Danhof. “But Google’s most recent ant-gun policy is apparently an extension of previous company policy, not a concerted effort with the White House.”

“Google’s decision is not only hypocritical, it is bad business. Google Shopping operates on a pay-for-play platform, meaning that merchants pay Google for the right to have products appear in searches,” explained Danhof. “Google is likely actively rejecting money from willing merchants for purely political purposes, this is a breach of management’s fiduciary duty to protect shareholder value. The fact that Google also limits gun advertisements, the main driver of Google’s revenue, should be a real concern for shareholders and investors. It is clear to me that Google’s management team has decided that promoting progressive policies is more important than sound business practices in this instance.”

The National Center has recently attended the annual shareholder meetings of Comcast, Time Warner and Amazon.com, where it asked the CEOs of each about its seemingly anti-Second Amendment policies even as they broadcast or sold extremely violent materials.

Since January 1st, the National Center has participated in free-market and conservative activism at 33 shareholder meetings.

A copy of Danhof’s questions at the shareholder meeting, as prepared for delivery, can be found here. Note that the questions, when delivered, were shortened to comply with Google’s request to keep questions to one minute. The questions as literally asked can be viewed on YouTube at http://youtu.be/K5kwaMzMm60

The National Center for Public Policy Research is a Google shareholder.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than 4 percent from foundations, and less than 2 percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Why Does Amazon Ban Guns, But Not Extremely Violent Videos

Amazon.com CEO Jeff Bezos Asked to Explain Why Amazon Bans the Sale of Legal Gun Parts to Adults, but Not Videos and Games Depicting Mass Murder and Torture to Young People

Seattle, WA / Washington, DC – At Amazon.com’s annual shareholder meeting, CEO Jeff Bezos attempted to duck a question from the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Horace Cooper about Amazon’s seemingly inconsistent policies toward the sale of violent media and guns, only to face two more shareholders, each of whom expected him to answer it.

According to a National Center analysis, Amazon.com sells all of the top ten most violent movies and the top ten most violent videogames, yet it refuses to sell guns, ammunition and some gun parts.

Noting that Google, Comcast, Ebay and Time Warner Cable have also limited commerce related to guns, Cooper asked Bezos to reconcile these two policies. If Amazon.com is opposed to violence, why sell the extremely violent videos and games? If it is following caveat emptor, why not sell the guns, gun parts and ammunition?

Said Cooper at the meeting:

Mr. Bezos, a research associate with our institution developed, using data from independent third-parties, a list of the ‘Top 10 Most Violent Video Games’ and another list of the ‘Top Ten Most Violent Movies’ of all time.

Having compiled the list, and having no idea which, if any, of these products would be for sale on Amazon, she then looked to see if Amazon sells them. Guess what? It sells not a third of them, not half of them, but each and every one of them.

I won’t even tell you what is in the film ‘Cannibal Holocaust,’ but if you’re curious, you are selling it for $22.50. If you want the most violent video game, ‘Manhunt,’ you’re in luck. What Amazon describes as an exploration of ‘the depths of human depravity in a vicious, sadistic tale of urban horror,’ is not only available on Amazon, you sell ‘Manhunt 2′ as well. Apparently it is the go-to game for people who want to, as Amazon’s product page puts it, ‘execute their kills in 3 deadly threats – Hasty, Violent and Gruesome.’

Mr. Bezos, many make the argument that selling an item does not make the seller responsible for it. If a teenager plays hundreds of hours of games that consist of never-ending gun massacres, becomes desensitized to the violence, and becomes a mass killer, that’s his fault, not the fault of the retailer.

I’m not here to argue with that philosophy, but to ask: how is Amazon.com deciding where its responsibility lies? Amazon bans the sale of legal gun parts to adults, but not videos and games depicting mass murder and torture for entertainment to impressionable minds?

Guns, as I’m sure you know, are often used in self-defense. The NRA says 2 million times a year; the NRA’s opponents say the number is closer to 67,000. Either way, that’s a lot of people protecting themselves. But who benefits from learning how to strangle an enemy in a toilet while playing Manhunt?

Mr. Bezos, we do not dispute Amazon’s right to sell any of these items, but as staunch defenders of the Second Amendment, we would like to know how Amazon made this decision: Selling legal guns and ammo to adults, no; selling vicious, sadistic torture and murder depictions to adolescents, yes. What is your thinking?

Bezos thanked Cooper for his point of view, said he would keep it in mind, and otherwise ignored the question.

Other shareholders, however, stepped up.

As reported by CNET.com, “But when two other shareholders followed up with questions about violent products, Bezos responded that the company wants to improve its policing of controversial content. But he said it can’t come prior to the products, offered by third-party sellers on Amazon.com, hitting the marketplace. ‘It needs to be self-service,’ he said of the marketplace. ‘If it was gated, that would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.’”

Geekwire continues the story:

‘We have millions of millions of items,’ [Bezos] said. ‘It’s a difficult technical challenge, it’s a difficult organizational challenge to police those items.’ He promised that the company will continue working on it with the goal of making its processes ‘statistically indistinguishable from perfection.’

Unlike the labor protests faced by the company last year, the questions did not appear to be an organized effort. The third time around, a shareholder asked Bezos for the specific steps to be taken by the company. ‘Parents cannot always control what their children are doing, and I think that you hold some responsibility for this.’

Bezos pointed out the parental control features in the Kindle Fire tablets, including the ‘Free Time’ feature that lets parents control what their kids watch and listen to.

And then he told a personal story about hosting a sleepover for one of his four kids. He collected all the electronic devices before they went up to their rooms. One of the kids asked if he could keep his Kindle.
‘E Ink or Fire?’ Bezos asked him. It was E Ink, so Bezos let him keep it. ‘If he had said Fire I’d have said no,’ he said.

He concluded, ‘Policing different content … people have a lot of different opinions and what is appropriate content, what is inappropriate. This is going to be an ongoing challenge for us, and we’ll do the best we can.’

Bezos did not, however, comment on Amazon.com’s policy regarding guns, gun parts and ammunition. Nor did he actually say that Amazon.com would remove any of the most violent games or movies once it reached “statistical perfection.”

The meeting took place May 23 in Seattle.

The National Center has challenged CEOs at 30 shareholder meetings so far this year.

A copy of Cooper’s question at the Amazon.com shareholder meeting, as prepared for delivery, can be found here.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than 4 percent from foundations, and less than 2 percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Government’s Job is to Protect Our Rights

And I will protect MYSELF!

“Square” Bans Sale of Guns Through Its Technology Devices

The startup changed the agreement signed by retailers, which includes a ban on sales from some business activities, like drug paraphernalia and escort services. (Shady, if not downright illegal, yes, but also two business models that could especially benefit from the customer-service revolution possible from better mobile payment options.) The relevant section was since amended to forbid sales from ”firearms, firearm parts or hardware, and ammunition; or… weapons and other devices designed to cause physical injury.”<<<Read More from Forbes>>>

FBI Wants to Tap Your Social Networks – Obama on Verge of Agreeing

From the New York Times:

The F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III, has argued that the bureau’s ability to carry out court-approved eavesdropping on suspects is “going dark” as communications technology evolves, and since 2010 has pushed for a legal mandate requiring companies like Facebook and Google to build into their instant-messaging and other such systems a capacity to comply with wiretap orders.

Cuban Communist Survivor Gives Lesson on Understanding Rights of People

Tells panel that they don’t know what liberty is because they have never lost it.

A Serious Threat is Unfolding in This Nation

Can we get control over this before it is too late? Should we consider emergency legislation to ban them?

Words of Communist Despot Michael Bloomberg

This is a quote taken from comments made by Michael Bloomberg, Big Brother mayor of New York City. I got news for Mr. Bloomberg. Watching the actions of the Gestapoesque police during the manhunt for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, someone(s) in law enforcement threw the constitution on the ground and pissed on it.

“The people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry,” Mr. Bloomberg said during a press conference in Midtown. “But we live in a complex word where you’re going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change.”

Move For Background Checks to Buy Black Powder in a Police State

New Jersey Senator, Frank Lautenberg, is proposing a bill to require full background checks in order to purchase black powder, because…………?

Let’s face it. The logic and reasoning ability of some people is quite flawed. If this is the mindset among men, like Frank Lautenberg, then it is time to expand this list of items that should necessitate a full background check and those items which should be banned by government “for our protection.”

Both lists, using the same level of reasoning, should include but not limited to: Backpacks, baseball hats, sun glasses, nails, ball bearings, glass, pressure cookers, garage sales, boats (where terrorists hide), cars, convenience stores, public events inside and out, planes, shoes, etc. I mean seriously, where do we stop? And for what reason?

Police State

When you consider that people lined the streets after the capture of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the younger of two brothers, already condemned to death by the police and media for blowing up people during the Boston Marathon, to applaud their work, one has to wonder: How willing are people to roll over and play dead and hand any or all of their rights to the government? How many of those people applauding the work of the police understood what was taking place in those door to door searches for the suspect? Why did the FBI not keep Tamerlan Tsarnaev under surveillance as promised? The questions go on and on.

I do not think that I am alone when I thought or assumed that when it was announced that the police in Watertown, New York were going house to house “sweeping” the area, it DID NOT involve illegal search and seizure. If you watch the video below, supposedly a video taken of a police “search” of a house in Watertown during the manhunt for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, one has to really wonder who it is that we should fear. Are we at greater risk from a fleeing criminal and murderer or a dozen or more heavily armed law enforcement personnel treating you like a terrorist, evicting you from your home and I am assuming they police DID NOT have a search warrant to enter this home. One move by any one of these people would not have been a pretty sight.

One has to wonder if the police were so intent on getting into lawful citizens’ homes to see what they could find and flex their authoritarian muscle, that they simply missed finding the suspect who later was found holed up in a tarp-covered boat.

I think it is time that people woke up and began to understand that if they want to believe what the government and law enforcement is telling them, that this kind of terrorism is the “new normal”, then we should NOT be so eager to give up our arms, especially the assault weapons, and cast our rights to the ground, to appease the police, all in the trumped up cause of national security.

Listen carefully to what law enforcement and government is suggesting that we need to do “to make our communities safer.”

Next Page »