I Agree with Jarrett Barrios?
What gets the blogosphere, headline-seeking state reps. and radio talking heads on the same page?
A fluff issue. Or, at least, a Fluff issue.
Former Mayor Jordan Levy, faced with what must have been a slow news day, jumped on the pro-Fluff bandwagon this afternoon, assailing state Sen. Jarrett Barrios for daring to suggest that Fluff be banned.
And then there's state Rep. Kathi-Anne Reinstein's counterproposal that the Fluffernutter be made the official state sandwich (which, the Herald recently reported, Barrios has agreed to cosponsor ... curiouser and curiouser).
Support of Reinstein and condemnation of Barrios out here in cyber-Taxachusetts has reached the point that our favorite local aggregator has carved out a Fluff entry category at Universal Hub.
I'm going to be labeled a hater for this, but Levy, Reinstein and most of the pajama scribes are off their rocker on this one.
Full disclosure: I did not grow up on the North Shore, where apparently babies are vaccinated with Fluff and indoctrinated about its key role in America's struggle for independence, its mystic qualities as a miracle cure and its true nature as the earthly manifestation of the Holy Spirit. Fuller disclosure: I, too, am wearing pajamas as I write this, so I haven't gone too far off the reservation.
Holy overreaction, Batman ... here's what El Globo says:
Let's get this straight: Fluff is pure sugar. It has absolutely no redeeming qualities. It's questionable as a condiment and positively sinful as the main element (don't tell me peanut butter, also a spread, can be considered the "meat" of the Fluffernutter sandwich). No sane person, as far as I'm concerned, would feed a child a steady diet of these things. Not having gone to school here, I'm shocked to discover (not being sarcastic) that such a "food" is served as school lunch. What's the entree tomorrow? Fried Pixie Stix? Peeps and strawberry jam? Twinkie-filling pie?
"A ban on fluff is a ban on freedom!" says one blogger. Yeah, you got my attention ... this is the point during this entry when the little Libertarian angel on my shoulder starts whispering distressing things in my ear. Before we go too far off the deep end, let's keep in mind that under the putative "Fluff ban," the following are still acceptable:
1. Bringing Fluff to school in a brown bag.
2. Eating Fluff after school.
3. Feeding your children Fluff outside school hours, you crazy person.
4. Putting ketchup on hot dogs (although it shouldn't be ... idiots).
As an aside, I'm also not convinced by Hub Politics' argument -- the old "don't they have better things to do" canard. If that's your criterion, every legislative body in the country would be spending 100 percent of its time on terrorism. For those of you on the right: we have better things to do than debate the meaning of marriage; better things to do than pass an anti-flag burning amendment; better things to do than regulate stem cell research. For those on the left: we have better things to do than debate minimum wage; better things to do than conduct gun buyback programs; better things to do than remove all Indian names for sports teams. Not buying it.
Back on topic: what we're talking about, as the Globe points out, is a ban on Fluff in school lunches analogous to the ban on soda machines in schools. Nobody is trying to take your Fluff away, you brainwashed bloggers. We're just asking that the school cafeterias, which exercise an almost pedagogic influence on kids' eating habits (or so nutritionists would have us believe), reserve dessert for dessert and serve something at least vaguely nutritious for an entree.
A fluff issue. Or, at least, a Fluff issue.
Former Mayor Jordan Levy, faced with what must have been a slow news day, jumped on the pro-Fluff bandwagon this afternoon, assailing state Sen. Jarrett Barrios for daring to suggest that Fluff be banned.
And then there's state Rep. Kathi-Anne Reinstein's counterproposal that the Fluffernutter be made the official state sandwich (which, the Herald recently reported, Barrios has agreed to cosponsor ... curiouser and curiouser).
Support of Reinstein and condemnation of Barrios out here in cyber-Taxachusetts has reached the point that our favorite local aggregator has carved out a Fluff entry category at Universal Hub.
I'm going to be labeled a hater for this, but Levy, Reinstein and most of the pajama scribes are off their rocker on this one.
Full disclosure: I did not grow up on the North Shore, where apparently babies are vaccinated with Fluff and indoctrinated about its key role in America's struggle for independence, its mystic qualities as a miracle cure and its true nature as the earthly manifestation of the Holy Spirit. Fuller disclosure: I, too, am wearing pajamas as I write this, so I haven't gone too far off the reservation.
Holy overreaction, Batman ... here's what El Globo says:
The bill in the Massachusetts Senate would prohibit most candy bars and potato chips, as well as soft drinks, from vending machines in elementary schools. Barrios felt that as long as they were removing junk food from vending machines, lawmakers should also restrict Fluff -- a concoction of corn syrup, sugar, dried egg white, and vanilla flavoring -- from the lunchroom.
Let's get this straight: Fluff is pure sugar. It has absolutely no redeeming qualities. It's questionable as a condiment and positively sinful as the main element (don't tell me peanut butter, also a spread, can be considered the "meat" of the Fluffernutter sandwich). No sane person, as far as I'm concerned, would feed a child a steady diet of these things. Not having gone to school here, I'm shocked to discover (not being sarcastic) that such a "food" is served as school lunch. What's the entree tomorrow? Fried Pixie Stix? Peeps and strawberry jam? Twinkie-filling pie?
"A ban on fluff is a ban on freedom!" says one blogger. Yeah, you got my attention ... this is the point during this entry when the little Libertarian angel on my shoulder starts whispering distressing things in my ear. Before we go too far off the deep end, let's keep in mind that under the putative "Fluff ban," the following are still acceptable:
1. Bringing Fluff to school in a brown bag.
2. Eating Fluff after school.
3. Feeding your children Fluff outside school hours, you crazy person.
4. Putting ketchup on hot dogs (although it shouldn't be ... idiots).
As an aside, I'm also not convinced by Hub Politics' argument -- the old "don't they have better things to do" canard. If that's your criterion, every legislative body in the country would be spending 100 percent of its time on terrorism. For those of you on the right: we have better things to do than debate the meaning of marriage; better things to do than pass an anti-flag burning amendment; better things to do than regulate stem cell research. For those on the left: we have better things to do than debate minimum wage; better things to do than conduct gun buyback programs; better things to do than remove all Indian names for sports teams. Not buying it.
Back on topic: what we're talking about, as the Globe points out, is a ban on Fluff in school lunches analogous to the ban on soda machines in schools. Nobody is trying to take your Fluff away, you brainwashed bloggers. We're just asking that the school cafeterias, which exercise an almost pedagogic influence on kids' eating habits (or so nutritionists would have us believe), reserve dessert for dessert and serve something at least vaguely nutritious for an entree.
The Legal Limit
... is .08, and that's the law, but there's gotta be a limit to the number of times I can agree with any blogger affiliated with the state Democratic blog establishment-slash-Deval Patrick ... Now, Steve (the writer of .08 Acres and a Donkey) seems to offer a reasoned explanation each time, but twice last week he had me believing.
First this, a rational look at the non-prescription needle legalization bill, the most salient fact in which, I believe is this:
It was a couple of Tuesdays ago that Peter Blute got me really worked up blowing hot and cold on this subject. The following arguments I understand, even if I don't agree with them:
1. Over-the-counter needles will make new people take up a drug habit.
2. Over-the-counter needles will be discarded and become a public nuisance.
3. Over-the-counter needles will be used by addicts as weapons.
All of which Steve manages to dispatch with experience from other states in his post.
The argument I can't bear is the one Blute put forward: "Why should we make the lives of addicts any easier? They're scum of the earth and there's no reason to make anything easier for them."
Any supporter of Second Amendment rights, or any libertarian principle, should see the ridiculousness of this argument. What it amounts to is an unreasoning pandering to the law-and-order mob (what a pleasant oxymoron ...).
And then this, where it's really more the commenters than .08 Acres Himself that I agree with. The two-party system don't happen without a second party, folks. We've got a couple of state reps fighting the good fight, but how do you not challenge a blowhard like Kennedy? A wacko like McGovern? At least make it interesting!
When the Democrats lament the absence of strong Republican leaders, you know you've got a problem.
First this, a rational look at the non-prescription needle legalization bill, the most salient fact in which, I believe is this:
what the bill's opponents don't ever seem to mention is that 47 other states (emphasis his) already have this law on their books. If it were a public safety disaster, you would think that fewer than 94% of the US would allow over-the-counter sale of these needles.
It was a couple of Tuesdays ago that Peter Blute got me really worked up blowing hot and cold on this subject. The following arguments I understand, even if I don't agree with them:
1. Over-the-counter needles will make new people take up a drug habit.
2. Over-the-counter needles will be discarded and become a public nuisance.
3. Over-the-counter needles will be used by addicts as weapons.
All of which Steve manages to dispatch with experience from other states in his post.
The argument I can't bear is the one Blute put forward: "Why should we make the lives of addicts any easier? They're scum of the earth and there's no reason to make anything easier for them."
Any supporter of Second Amendment rights, or any libertarian principle, should see the ridiculousness of this argument. What it amounts to is an unreasoning pandering to the law-and-order mob (what a pleasant oxymoron ...).
And then this, where it's really more the commenters than .08 Acres Himself that I agree with. The two-party system don't happen without a second party, folks. We've got a couple of state reps fighting the good fight, but how do you not challenge a blowhard like Kennedy? A wacko like McGovern? At least make it interesting!
When the Democrats lament the absence of strong Republican leaders, you know you've got a problem.
Where Are the Fish?
Having woefully neglected this blog for too long (again), and being at somewhat loose ends tonight, I told myself I'd scan "The People's Forum" and treat you to another edition of Shooting Fish in a Barrel, an in-depth look at the fools who write letters to the Wistah T&G.
Sadly (for me), the letters today seem more or less well reasoned, even the paean to Massachusetts' neanderthal received wisdom on seat belts, and I stupidly threw out yesterday's letters page (along with the rest of the paper) with the recycling this morning. This forces me to glance at the Telegram's second editorial, risking severe damage to what's left of my brain after an afternoon listening to Howie Carr.
Yes, there it is, in 10-point font (I think it's 10 points. Looks like. It's larger than all the other text type in the paper -- what do the editorialists think this stuff is, revealed wisdom?) ... a classic not-yet-ready-for-primetime editorial, basically restating The Research Bureau's recent survey of Wistah residents.
So we like our city services and we think it's a "good place in which to live" and a "good place to raise children." Agreed. This is one heckuva big small town, right down to the free parking, in all the good ways. People are nice (well, as nice as you'll find this far east of the Hudson River). Traffic, except I-290 at rush hour, the RMV parking lot during business hours, Park Avenue at any set of lights and Kelley Square during daylight, is ridiculously thin. There's actually open space -- Green Hill, Newton Hill, Airport Hill (ha!), the two big Catholic college campuses, the lake -- and, to top it all off, there's stuff to DO. Two minor league sports teams. Concerts. Bars. Decent restaurants. And (yes, it must be said), easy commute to Boston or Providence.
So nothing new in the editorial, but there's a bit more analysis in Hitch's cartoon. I like his work, but it's a sad day on Franklin Street when a cartoonist gives you more insight than an editorial writer. Well, anyway, here's Hitch's caption: "Worcester Residnets Give City Good Grades -- Except for Image."
That's right, folks. We all love Wistah but we don't like its image. Allow me to suggest where the fault lies: Boston.
Yeah, that hit a nerve, didn't it? Who stole all the fun from Wistah? The giant succubus by the sea, the Eugene P. "Tip" O'Neil Amorello's Folly Liberty P. Zakim Bunker Hill Fitzgerald Memorial Bechtel-Brinkerhoff-Hathaway Third Harbor Crossing Cracked Concrete Ain't Jordan Mad Now Tunnel, Bridge, Tollbooth, Tunnel and Patronage Expo Center itself, BOSTON. Rah, rah, Wistah, boo, boo, Boston.
Because isn't that what being from Wistah is all about? Talking about Boston the way rednecks talk about The North? The way the most annoying Europeans talk about America? The way Howie Carr talks about every politician?
I submit to you: It ain't Boston's fault. If Boston didn't exist, us Central Massholes would have to invent it (and would probably end up comparing ourselves to New York ... so count your blessings). It's our problem, not theirs.
So The Research Bureau (What was wrong with having the name "Worcester" in the title? I notice the Website is still wrrb.org -- Worcester Regional) says we all love Wistah. OK. So do something about it.
Cut out this "What Wistah needs to be a truly class city, a Boston, is ..." and stick to the "What Wistah needs to be the best Wistah it can be is ...." Let's see a ban on the following idiotic opinions:
1. "Well, CitySquare has to have paid parking lots, becuase that's what you do in real cities. Ever tried to park in Boston? You have to pay, don't you?" -- Yeah, let's strip Wistah of all that makes it Wistah, like how they took all the charm out of Auburn and made it one big strip mall. That worked out well, right?
2. "I'm from Shrewsbury, a suburb of Boston." -- Go run into traffic. Yeah, you're from Shrewsbury, a suburb of Boston, a suburb of New York, a suburb of Europe. If the daily paper doesn't cover your town, you're not a suburb of that city.
3. "I'm from Worcester, it's a small city near Boston." -- No, Quincy is a small city near Boston. Or maybe you can make a case for Lowell or Brockton. Wistah is the third-largest city in New England. At least call it a large city near Boston.
For once, I'd like to hear, "I'm from Wistah (or Woosta, you weirdos), a city near Springfield" or "... a city soi-distant from the unincorporated village of Podunk, Mass." Anything but Boston. Quit worrying about Boston.
Sadly (for me), the letters today seem more or less well reasoned, even the paean to Massachusetts' neanderthal received wisdom on seat belts, and I stupidly threw out yesterday's letters page (along with the rest of the paper) with the recycling this morning. This forces me to glance at the Telegram's second editorial, risking severe damage to what's left of my brain after an afternoon listening to Howie Carr.
Yes, there it is, in 10-point font (I think it's 10 points. Looks like. It's larger than all the other text type in the paper -- what do the editorialists think this stuff is, revealed wisdom?) ... a classic not-yet-ready-for-primetime editorial, basically restating The Research Bureau's recent survey of Wistah residents.
So we like our city services and we think it's a "good place in which to live" and a "good place to raise children." Agreed. This is one heckuva big small town, right down to the free parking, in all the good ways. People are nice (well, as nice as you'll find this far east of the Hudson River). Traffic, except I-290 at rush hour, the RMV parking lot during business hours, Park Avenue at any set of lights and Kelley Square during daylight, is ridiculously thin. There's actually open space -- Green Hill, Newton Hill, Airport Hill (ha!), the two big Catholic college campuses, the lake -- and, to top it all off, there's stuff to DO. Two minor league sports teams. Concerts. Bars. Decent restaurants. And (yes, it must be said), easy commute to Boston or Providence.
So nothing new in the editorial, but there's a bit more analysis in Hitch's cartoon. I like his work, but it's a sad day on Franklin Street when a cartoonist gives you more insight than an editorial writer. Well, anyway, here's Hitch's caption: "Worcester Residnets Give City Good Grades -- Except for Image."
That's right, folks. We all love Wistah but we don't like its image. Allow me to suggest where the fault lies: Boston.
Yeah, that hit a nerve, didn't it? Who stole all the fun from Wistah? The giant succubus by the sea, the Eugene P. "Tip" O'Neil Amorello's Folly Liberty P. Zakim Bunker Hill Fitzgerald Memorial Bechtel-Brinkerhoff-Hathaway Third Harbor Crossing Cracked Concrete Ain't Jordan Mad Now Tunnel, Bridge, Tollbooth, Tunnel and Patronage Expo Center itself, BOSTON. Rah, rah, Wistah, boo, boo, Boston.
Because isn't that what being from Wistah is all about? Talking about Boston the way rednecks talk about The North? The way the most annoying Europeans talk about America? The way Howie Carr talks about every politician?
I submit to you: It ain't Boston's fault. If Boston didn't exist, us Central Massholes would have to invent it (and would probably end up comparing ourselves to New York ... so count your blessings). It's our problem, not theirs.
So The Research Bureau (What was wrong with having the name "Worcester" in the title? I notice the Website is still wrrb.org -- Worcester Regional) says we all love Wistah. OK. So do something about it.
Cut out this "What Wistah needs to be a truly class city, a Boston, is ..." and stick to the "What Wistah needs to be the best Wistah it can be is ...." Let's see a ban on the following idiotic opinions:
1. "Well, CitySquare has to have paid parking lots, becuase that's what you do in real cities. Ever tried to park in Boston? You have to pay, don't you?" -- Yeah, let's strip Wistah of all that makes it Wistah, like how they took all the charm out of Auburn and made it one big strip mall. That worked out well, right?
2. "I'm from Shrewsbury, a suburb of Boston." -- Go run into traffic. Yeah, you're from Shrewsbury, a suburb of Boston, a suburb of New York, a suburb of Europe. If the daily paper doesn't cover your town, you're not a suburb of that city.
3. "I'm from Worcester, it's a small city near Boston." -- No, Quincy is a small city near Boston. Or maybe you can make a case for Lowell or Brockton. Wistah is the third-largest city in New England. At least call it a large city near Boston.
For once, I'd like to hear, "I'm from Wistah (or Woosta, you weirdos), a city near Springfield" or "... a city soi-distant from the unincorporated village of Podunk, Mass." Anything but Boston. Quit worrying about Boston.
Day by Day
Quotidian quips of four sharp wits with bad posture ... © by Chris Muir.
