Go Free Yourself

As you may remember, I was just in Los Angeles for an excellent grant writing training program through the Grantsmanship Center. I had a great time, learned a lot, saw some sites, etc.

I did not, however, stumble upon the black market of bacon dogs. Unfortunately. That would have been really cool. (As a consolation, though, I am still nearly convinced I saw three members of the Hills cast in Beverly Hills.)

Anyway, the point is—because of stupid government nannying, bacon-wrapped hot dogs have been made taboo. This is from Reason.tv today:

Amid the hustle and bustle of downtown Los Angeles, there exists another world, an underground world of illicit trade in—not drugs or sex—but bacon-wrapped hot dogs. Street vendors may sell you an illegal bacon dog, but hardly anyone will talk about it, for fear of being hassled, shut down or worse. Our camera caught it on tape. One minute bacon dogs are sold in plain view, the next minute cops have confiscated carts, and ordered the dogs dumped into the trash.

Elizabeth Palacios is one of the few vendors willing to speak publicly. “Doing bacon is illegal,” she explains. Problem is customers love bacon, and Palacios says she loses business if she doesn’t give them the bacon they demand. “Bacon is a potentially hazardous food,” says Terrence Powell of the LA County Health Department. Continue selling bacon dogs without county-approved equipment and you risk fines and jail time.

Palacios knows all about that. She spent 45 days in the slammer for selling bacon dogs, and with the lost time from work, fines, and attorney’s fees, she fears she might lose the house that bacon dogs helped buy. She must provide for her family, but remains trapped between government regulations and consumer demand. Customers don’t care about safety codes, says Palacios. “They just want the bacon.”

In “Food Fight: Battle of the Bacon Dogs,” reason.tv host Drew Carey takes a long look at the human cost of trying to prohibit trade in oh-so-tasty treats.

Check out the video here.

And next time you’re in LA, fight the system and look for the bacon dogs. We just want the bacon!

If you’re an Australian and you hear someone clunking around your garbage cans in the middle of the night, you better hope you’ve been recycling. Because the man wearing the head lamp on his helmet and digging through your trash isn’t a burglar—it’s the recycling police.

Let’s hope the American nanny state doesn’t find out about this.

In case you weren’t aware, sniffing Sharpies is gross. It’s also cause for suspension from school if you attend Adams School District 50 in Colorado.

That’s what happened to eight-year-old Eathan Harris, who colored a small area of his sweatshirt sleeve with Sharpie and smelled it periodically during class. His reasoning?

“It smelled good,” Harris said. “They told me that’s wrong.”

School administrators, however, suspended him because “smelling the markers could make him high”—and they also removed all other markers from school premises to prevent this from happening again. Never mind the fact that a toxicologist with the Rocky Mountain Poison Control Center confirmed that getting high by smelling Sharpies is an unfounded theory.

This is all very alarmist and nanny state-y. (It’s Friday and I’m making up words. Roll with it, please.) But my question is why the hell was this kid smelling a Sharpie? I can think of few things that smell worse than a Sharpie. And you can’t even get high! I mean, at least when I was a kid we had markers that made you light-headed and actually smelled good—cherry, blueberry, black licorice (although that one smelled more like death doused in motor oil and sprinkled with battery acid, now that I think about it).

Anyway, my point is that this is insane on two levels: 1) the obvious alarmist aspect of it, and 2) the fact that this child actually thinks Sharpies smell good.

It’s a crazy world we live in.

Beware the Sunshine Police!

As a way to “protect young people from skin cancer,” Maryland legislators are considering a bill that would prevent minors from using tanning beds without written consent from a parent or guardian on the premises. On the premises. If passed, this bill would mean teens would have to drag their parents down to the salon every time they wanted to tan. Violators could be subject to fines, too: up to $250 for the first offense, $500 for the second, and up to $1,000 thereafter.

(No one tell them about going outside to get some sun; they might ban that, too.)

I don’t know Adriana Nebbeling, owner of Chicago’s Orbit Room, but I think we could be friends. In an article today about how Chicago’s new smoking ban will affect the alfresco dining scene, Nebbeling told Metromix that while she doesn’t light up herself, she’d “rather have smoke in her hair than the government down her throat.”

Ditto. And while the fight against smoking bans appears to be a lost cause, it’s a sentiment that deserves repeating.

Nebbeling’s the Orbit Room is one of the city’s alfresco dining spots working to accommodate smokers—they’ve added a tent on the deck. (Remember, the law bans smoking in all indoor public places, as well as within 15 feet of any entrance, exit, window that opens, or ventilation intake that serves an enclosed area where smoking is prohibited.)

Sheffield’s, and the Pontiac Cafe & Bar are also working with smokers…but at Take Five, Sidetrack, and Moonshine, the government’s never-ending nannying has made accommodating smoking customers impossible.

Read the rest of the article here.

I don’t know about you, but a haircut that comes with a complimentary beer sounds like a pretty good deal to me. That’s what Thomas Martin (owner of Jude’s Barbershop in Grand Rapids, Michigan) thought, too—as did his many satisfied customers—until authorities ordered him to stop serving beer since he didn’t have a liquor license.

Martin challenged the case in Lansing, but Attorney General/Senior Government Killjoy Mike Cox ruled yesterday that Martin would have to get a license to continue offering customers free beer.

Puh-lease. It’s one complimentary beer. This is overregulation at its worst. Besides, what happened to Gov. Jennifer Granholm pushing her “Cool Cities” plan to help Michigan retain a “young, hip” workforce? Someone should mention to Jenny that regulating businesses to death is very much the opposite of cool.

Do you roll your eyes at your boss’s comments? Do you glare at your coworkers? Do you let loose dismissive snorts at dumb tasks assigned to you?

If so, you might be a workplace bully. And, if you live in New York, you could soon be breaking the law because the New York State Legislature is considering an antibullying bill. (New Jersey and Connecticut have also attempted such “healthy workplace legislation” without much success so far—but don’t think that will stop them from trying again.)

Good thing they don’t have this law in Scranton, Pennsylvania, where Dunder Mifflin’s Jim Halpert would be in a world of trouble for his many pranks on Dwight:

Well, that is, if he were real.

Readers, I have been remiss. Apparently, the third week of March is American Chocolate Week, and I missed it. So, a happy belated Chocolate Week to all of you.

In other candy-related news, candy bans on school campuses (like the one in Connecticut who suspended a student for buying a bag of Skittles) have inspired “sugar pushers” to peddle their wares in a black market of sorts. I love it!

Way to fight the system, kids.

This story is a few days old, but it just grows more ridiculous with time: last Tuesday, voters in Riviera Beach, Florida approved a ban against sagging pants (which reveal skin or your underwear), violation of which will earn you a fine. $150 or community service for the first offense; $300 or more community service for the second. Oh, and regular violators could spend 60 days in the slammer.

Now, it should be mentioned that this ban was overwhelmingly approved by Riviera Beach voters—I’m talking 72 percent—many of whom are elderly. But no matter how badly these whippersnappers dress, there’s no reason the government should be getting involved in something this ridiculous. I mean, at least they’re WEARING pants.

Don’t get me wrong: I don’t like the Buttcrack & Boxer Shorts Parade any more than anyone else. But all I have to do to avoid it is close my eyes, or turn around, or yell insulting comments (public humiliation is one of the best catalysts for change)—I don’t need to go tattling to the police.

So, let’s hear it: how many times have you gotten stuck in a public bathroom stall without toilet paper?

It’s annoying, for sure. But do we really need to get the government involved?

Well, according to State Senator Victor Crist (R-Fl.), we do. Crist feels so strongly about “wiping away the problem,” (I couldn’t resist!) that he’s pushing SB 836, which will ensure that all restaurant restrooms have ‘enough toilet paper’ and will also regulate the cleanliness of these restrooms.

Sadly, he’s not the only one who thinks this is a good idea—the Senate Regulated Industries Committee approved the bill on Monday. But it has two more stops before the Senate floor, so someone please stop the madness!