SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: puborectalis who wrote (773875)3/9/2014 11:35:35 AM
From: longnshort  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1570753
 
yeah gore try to cheat and steal that election, like the way Obama won his 2nd term. at least we stopped that pervert gore, hell even his wife left him because he was a pervert, asking maids to rub his inner thighs. And you voted for this pervert, says a lot about you.................................PREVERT

anyone who voted for gore should be put on a sex registry



To: puborectalis who wrote (773875)3/9/2014 12:54:20 PM
From: Brumar891 Recommendation

Recommended By
FJB

  Respond to of 1570753
 
The first of two stories showing just how dumb CA Dems are:

A law so stupid California legislature seeks to repeal it two months after it took effect
Thomas Lifson
See also: California legislative stupidity (continued)

California’s state legislature is seeking to repeal an idiotic law that took effect January 1st. It turns out that some feel-good regulatory efforts generate enough blowback that they can actually be reversed. Stacy Finz reports in the San Francisco Chronicle:[iframe name="aswift_1" width="300" height="250" id="aswift_1" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" vspace="0" hspace="0" style="left: 0px; top: 0px; position: absolute;" allowtransparency="true"][/iframe]
State lawmakers have passed a new food safety law that they wish they hadn't.

Anyone working in a California restaurant or bar who prepares ready-to-eat food - from bagels to sushi to fruit salad to cocktails - has to wear gloves or use deli tissue, spatulas or tongs. But the new rule, which went into effect Jan. 1, has had so much blowback that lawmakers are already trying to repeal it.

"It had unintended consequences," said Assemblyman Richard Pan, D-Sacramento, a physician and chairman of the Assembly's Committee on Health, which carried the bill in the first place. "There was not a specific incident that led to the new rules. The statute was intended to make minor changes to the California Retail Food Code, because food safety is something we have to take very seriously. So we wanted to make sure that the bill was consistent with other food safety regulations, including minimizing bare-hand contact with food."

Unfortunately, Pan said, the legislation failed to take into account that workers might have a good reason to touch food with their bare hands.

The "glove law" was supposed to be a consensus bill, Pan said. It was agreed upon that if aspects of the bill had opposition at any time in the process, those provisions would be removed from the proposal. But there was no resistance, and AB1252 sailed through both houses of the Legislature with unanimous approval in 2013 and was signed by the governor.

Oh the good intentions were there, all right. But nobody with any real experience in the real world of restaurant and bar operations was consulted. That is par for the course in California, especially when bureaucrats write the regulations. So what has gone wrong?

Under the new provision, food and beverage handlers would have to change gloves every time they change tasks or touch another ready-to-eat food. Even then, they still would be required to wash their hands between glove changes. The concern is that amid multitasking, food and drink handlers might resist or forget to change gloves repeatedly.

"A dirty glove is worse than a clean hand," Pan said. "Gloves don't inherently guarantee safety."

Okay, so it might make things worse. Anything else?

If the law isn't rescinded, Remy Nelson, owner of Mojo Bicycle Cafe in San Francisco, estimates he'll go through 50,000 gloves a year just for bagels.

"It's not that we don't use gloves," he said. "But this means we have to change gloves for every food that's not going to be recooked. We're not Noah's Bagels. We do a really small number, and it takes 20 seconds to get the gloves on and off. People may not want McDonald's, but they want some speed. They have to get their food and get out the door."

Aaron Smith, executive director of the U.S. Bartenders' Guild and co-owner of 15 Romolo, a bar in North Beach, figures he'd lose $80,000 a year in revenue from the cost of gloves and inefficiency.

"The gloves would slow us down by about 8,000 drinks a year," he said. "We would have to accommodate more bartenders to make up the difference."

Holy smoke! Fifty thousand plastic gloves a year going into landfills, just for bagels and just at one establishment. Who could have predicted that? Anybody who knew something about the real world and bothered to think for a moment, naturally. But that would exclude the Democrat-controlled California State Legislature and Governor Brown.

Any other problems?

That doesn't take into account the dexterity that cooks and bartenders would lose for tasks such as preparing sushi or garnishing a drink with a lemon twist, which they say is nearly impossible when hands aren't bare. In fact, some sushi chefs have argued that part of the skill that goes into raw fish preparation is the temperature of one's hands. And then there's the concern of broken glass.

"Glass breakage is already an occupational hazard," Smith said. "We think wet gloves will make it worse."



But at least, the gloves are more sanitary, right?

"All our prep is done with public health in mind," he said. "But there is no science that I know of that says food-borne illness is more likely to be spread with bare hands than latex gloves."

Bartenders have already gathered 11,500 signatures on a petition to repeal this idiotic law. And one thing Califoirnia legislators are good at is eating and drinking at restaurants and bars, often with lobbyists picking up the tab. So there is actually a decent chjance that this law will be repealed.

See also: California legislative stupidity (continued)

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/03/a_law_so_stupid_california_legislature_seeks_to_repeal_it_two_months_after_it_took_effect.html




To: puborectalis who wrote (773875)3/9/2014 12:54:45 PM
From: Brumar891 Recommendation

Recommended By
FJB

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1570753
 
OMG. San Fran Dems actually kill people over plastic grocery bags: "After San Francisco introduced its ban on non-compostable plastic bags in large grocery stores in 2007, researchers discovered a curious spike in E. coli infections, which can be fatal, and a 46% increase in deaths from food-borne illnesses, according to a study published in November 2012 by the University of Pennsylvania and George Mason University."

This is the home of the koanhead, wharf rat, 2mars pelosicrat Democrats, the state tejek & bentway wish they were still living in if it weren't for all those darkskinned folks.


California legislative stupidity (continued)
Thomas Lifson
Having screwed up restaurants and bars so badly that it seeks to repeal a new 2014 law that is generating plastic refuse for the state’s landfills, the California state legislature is contemplating new regulatory legislation in the name of reducing plastic waste going to landfills. Humorist Judy Gruen explains in a hilarious Wall Street Journal piece titled “Cecoming a Bagless Bag Lady in Los Angeles”:

Limiting the number of plastic bags that can litter the landscape or clog the oceans is a worthy goal, but laws that begin with good intentions often have unintended consequences.


[iframe name="aswift_1" width="300" height="250" id="aswift_1" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" vspace="0" hspace="0" style="left: 0px; top: 0px; position: absolute;" allowtransparency="true"][/iframe]
Consider what's unfolding in Los Angeles. On Jan. 1, the city became the largest in the nation to outlaw the use of free plastic bags in retail grocery stores. Customers who arrive at the market bagless are charged 10 cents for each plastic bag to hold their purchases.

But apparently going after grocery-store bags wasn't enough: A California State Senate bill (SB 270) is now attempting to outlaw free single-use plastic bags in convenience stores, pharmacies and liquor stores statewide. While the bill needs to clear both state houses and get Gov. Jerry Brown's approval, it would impose the same dime-a-bag fee on customers throughout the state beginning July 1, 2015. Larger stores would also be required to set up recycling bins for those bags made of polyethylene and other materials that begin with the prefix "poly." One wonders: Why would customers recycle bags when they need them for shopping?

So what’s the problem? Isn’t it a good thing to eliminate plastic waste? After all, that other new law is generating huge numbers of plastic gloves that must be thrown away by restaurants and bars. Well, it turns out that food put into bags that are re-used (in place of one-time only plastic bags) often dposits bacteria and other nasties in the bags, where it sits and festers, and contaminates the next bit of food put into the bag.Who could possibly have predicted that? Certainly not the state legislators:



A potential profit center for supermarkets

After San Francisco introduced its ban on non-compostable plastic bags in large grocery stores in 2007, researchers discovered a curious spike in E. coli infections, which can be fatal, and a 46% increase in deaths from food-borne illnesses, according to a study published in November 2012 by the University of Pennsylvania and George Mason University. "We show that the health costs associated with the San Francisco ban swamp any budgetary savings from reduced litter," the study's authors observed.

Affirming this yuck factor, a 2011 study from the University of Arizona and Loma Linda University found bacteria in 99% of reusable polypropylene bags tested; 8% of them were carrying E. coli. The study, though it mainly focused on plastic bags, also looked at two cotton reusable bags—and both contained bacteria.

Bag-ban boosters counter that consumers just need to wash their bags and use separate bags for fish and meat. If only my washing machine had a "reusable bag vinegar rinse cycle." A paltry 3% of shoppers surveyed in that same 2011 study said they washed their reusable bags.

I have been living under this same set of rules thanks to the geniuses that run Alameda County, California, where I live. And I have a clue to offer. Those damn multi-use bags that they sell the stores tend to fall apart after you wash them a few times. And calculations of the ecological impact of manufacturing and distributing these multi-use bags show that the net environmental impact requires a few hundred uses before you are better off than simply using the one-use bags.

But who cares? It is all about feeling good. Ed Lasky points out that George Will calls this “gesture liberalism.” A self-righteous feeling trumps reality when it comes to the environment and regulations.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/03/california_legislative_stupidity_continued.html