Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Why boycott Products from China

Should parents boycott all toys made in China? Are your kids' toys safe? Or could there be lead in them?

A scary prospect, indeed. As you know, the focus has been on lead-tainted toys manufactured in China. So, to all of us in the upcoming holiday shopping bazaar that is about to strike for Christmas: Should we ask ourselves about boycotting all toys made in China?

Most recently House Speaker Nancy Polosi has asked the Director of Consumer Product Safety Commission to resign because it seems as if they were not accepting the increased budget, as well as not doing their job. The Director, as well as the past Director has had some misleading actions regarding paid travel. Travel and trips paid for by the companies they are to product us from.

Anyhow, I feel we are placing the blame on the wrong people for not protecting the American people from poor products. Yes, I agree the Consumer Product Safety Commission needs more funding and should be seen more at our ports for investigating goods coming into the country. Still we are not looking at the source of the problem with poor products.

The problem lies with the businesses outsourcing the orders to factories that are not being watched by the ordering companies. They only place an order and there is no follow-up while it is being produced. They do not provide appropriate checks and balances and verify this is being followed. Before the product leaves the factory, it should of been verified as Safe by the ordering company (Mattel, I understand is now doing this - no proof of this shown as of this date.).

Do not boycott toys or other products from China. No, make companies ordering products from China responsible for the products they are asking China to produce.

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

A Creed for the Disabled

Acceptance and Gratitude

Adlai Stevenson sent a prayer as his Christmas card after he was defeated by Eisenhower. One of the people who received the Christmas card was the famed Dr. Howard Rusk, founder of the "Rusk Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine" in New York City. Rush had the prayer, which was then known as "The Prayer of an Unknown Confederate Soldier," placed in bronze and entitled it "A Creed for the Disabled." This creed has supposily been in the lobby of the Rusk Institute for over thirty years.

I ask God for the strength that I might achieve.
I was made weak that I might learn humbly to obey.
I asked for health that I might do greater things.
I was given infirmity that I might do better things.
I asked for riches that I might be happy.
I was given poverty that I might be wise.
I asked for power that I might have the praise of men.
I was given weakness that I might feel the need of God.
I asked for all things that I might enjoy life.
I was given life that I might enjoy all things.
I got nothing that I asked for, but everything I had hoped for.
Almost despite myself, my unspoken prayers were answered.
I am, among all men, most richly blessed.

Thursday, October 18, 2007

Letter Asking for Support of the ADA Restoration Act

Hopefully others will use the text below and forward to their representatives, or change the text, up to you.


As a disabled individual, looking for work and improved social involvement I am writing this letter to encourage your support for the Americans with Disabilities Restoration Act (H.R. 3195/S. 1881) to keep the promise that was done in 1990, but seems forgotten within our society and local governments.
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support and signed by President George H.W. Bush in order to give people with disabilities a chance to be judged fairly.
Unfair discrimination harms all Americans. People with disabilities want to work to their full ability and not have to turn to public assistance to live. The ADA creates a level playing field so everyone who wants a job has an equal opportunity to work.
Just as other civil rights laws prohibit employers from basing decisions on characteristics like race or sex, Congress wanted the ADA to stop employers from making decisions based on disability.
But this is NOT happening for people for people with disabilities.
The employment rate if people with disabilities has not improved.
Two-thirds of people with disabilities who do not have a job indicate they would work if they could find employment.
Courts decide against people who challenge discrimination 97% of the time, often before the person has even had a chance to show that the employer treated them unfairly.
The courts have created an absurd Catch-22 by allowing employers to say a person is “too disabled” to do the job but not “disabled enough” to be protected by the law. The case is thrown out of court and the individual is never given the chance to do the job. This is wrong!
There are other points that need much attention, such as even additional funding for creating better access and getting more disabled involved in making policies and choosing appropriate accessible tools.
The ADA Restoration Act (H.R. 3195/S. 1881) ensures the right to be judged based on performance. It restores the original intent of Congress, harmonizing the ADA with other civil rights laws and requiring the courts to interpret the law fairly.
As an individual and wishing to limit what I have to share to a minimum, hope you look deeper into supporting the ADA Restoration Act (H.R. 3195/S. 1881).

SUPPORT ADA RESTORATION (H.R. 3195/S. 1881)

Write your representatives regarding the ADA Restoration Act (H.R. 3195/S. 1881).

Keep the Promise to End Unfair Employment Discrimination
EVERY AMERICAN WANTS THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK AND TO BE JUDGED BASED ON PERFORMANCE.

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support and signed by President George H.W. Bush in order to give people with disabilities a chance to be judged fairly.

Unfair discrimination harms all Americans. People with disabilities want to work to their full ability and not have to turn to public assistance to live. The ADA creates a level playing field so everyone who wants a job has an equal opportunity to work.

Just as other civil rights laws prohibit employers from basing decisions on characteristics like race or sex, Congress wanted the ADA to stop employers from making decisions based on disability.

BUT THIS IS NOT HAPPENING FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES.
􀂾 The employment rate of people with disabilities has not improved.
􀂾 Two-thirds of people with disabilities who do not have a job indicate they would work if they could find employment.
􀂾 Courts decide against people who challenge disability discrimination 97% of the time, often before the person has even had a chance to show that the employer treated them unfairly.

STOP EMPLOYERS AND COURTS FROM TREATING PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES UNFAIRLY.
The courts have created an absurd Catch-22 by allowing employers to say a person is "too disabled" to do the job but not "disabled enough" to be protected by the law. The case is thrown out of court and the individual is never given the chance to do the job. This is wrong!

􀂾 People with conditions like epilepsy, diabetes, HIV, cancer, hearing loss, and mental illness who manage their disabilities with medication, prosthetics, hearing aids, etc. – or "mitigating measures" – are viewed as "too functional" to have a disability and are denied the ADA’s protection from employment discrimination.
􀂾 People denied a job or fired because an employer mistakenly believes they cannot perform the job – or because the employer does not want "people like that" in the workplace – are also denied the ADA’s protection from employment discrimination.

SUPPORT ADA RESTORATION (H.R. 3195/S. 1881)
The ADA Restoration Act (H.R. 3195/S. 1881) ensures the right to be judged based on performance. It restores the original intent of Congress, harmonizing the ADA with other civil rights laws and requiring the courts to interpret the law fairly.

http://www.c-c-d.org/task_forces/rights/TPs_FINAL_bill.pdf

Two Newspapers...

Here in Eureka, we have two newspapers, the Eureka Reporter and the Times Standard. The Eureka Reporter is published and distributed throughout Eureka free, though I believe you can have it delivered to your house for a fee. The Eureka Reporter is owned by the Arkley family and was started in 2003. The Eureka Reporter covers the Greater Eureka area and county news. It is independently and locally owned and features a local publisher/editor and writers. It has a daily publication in print and on the Web site, which is updated on a frequent basis throughout the week for articles of a timely nature.

As for the Times-Standard it has a much longer history and its distribution is throughout the county. it is now owned by a corporation that owns other papers and claims to servie the northcoast by covering local news because they’re a community newspaper — our community’s daily newspaper.

Well, be it true for either newspaper, I find the Eureka Reporter covers more local information/news and as for the Times-Standard local coverage is limited.

What are others thoughts?

http://www.times-standard.com/

http://www.eurekareporter.com/index.htm

Monday, October 15, 2007

Is Schwarzenegger On Drugs or Is the newspaper...?

It is not the legality of gay marriage or such, or that we should respect others sexual orientation, but saying it is okay for children to use the same bathroom at our schools. Taking the destinction of traditional familes out of textbooks, and etc. is crazy. Our Governor must not plan on being in office much longer, or the newspaper made up stories.

He, as well as other government officials seem to be losing it. I may be wrong, but read the following and develop your own thoughts.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58130

Saturday, October 13, 2007

In Two Peoples, One Place, Humboldt County...

The Humboldt County Historical Society will launch Two Peoples, One Place with a reception at the Humboldt County Library. This was done on October 13, 2007.

To read more of the book titled, "Two Peoples, One Place", go to this site:

http://www.northcoastjournal.com/101107/cover1011.html

Thursday, October 11, 2007

Need for Better Bus Stops

Social Service Transportation
Advisory Council of Humboldt County
427 F Street, Suite 220
Eureka, CA 95501

I am writing in regards to the access provided to the wheelchair user by the five new diesel-electric hybrid buses purchased and put into operation in May/June, 2007.

Recognizing the need for the buses and the future savings this provides the community of Humboldt County to its transit users, I feel they are very good investments. But, even though they have provided savings and eliminated the need for mechanized lifts for wheelchair passengers, they have developed poor access for the wheelchair user using manual chairs (Speaking with a couple others using power chairs, there also is some difficulty when first boarding.).

This difficulty appears at various designated bus stops. For at stops with little space for the bus to use the lift, the bus must pull away from the curb to allow the chair to have access. In doing this, the ramp is then at an unmanageable or difficult slope making it difficult to back on (I personally can not see how a person would board the bus at designated stops with no sidewalk or raised platform. Stops without sidewalks power chair users have difficulties because of the immediate incline of the ramp.).

I have also needed some assistance boarding the bus at a few stops. In all cases the driver has had no problem with this, but there has been a couple instances that the driver refused assistance.

The need for assistance would be eliminated if the bus could kneel lower, or the bus stops had appropriate space for loading chairs (There are stops that wheelchairs can not use independently.). There is a strong need to bring bus stops up to compatible use by individuals using manual wheelchairs and eliminate the need to having the drivers provide something as simple as a gentle pull onto the bus.


Charlie

Saturday, October 6, 2007

Humboldt County Supervisors Challenge PL Reorganization Plan

PACIFIC LUMBER FILES FOR BANKRUPTCY
Maxxam/PL Files Bankruptcy Reorganization Plan
PL has filed their plan of reorganization, seeking to sell the Marbled Murrelet Conservation Areas for the inflated price of $400 million, convert 21,800 acres for low-density development, sell the town of Scotia, and hold on to the remaining 181,000 acres. PL's plan tremendously overvalues these lands, sometimes by as much as 10 times the assumed value. PL had claimed that Maxxam would make a 'significant contribution' to the reorganization, but all that Maxxam offers is to forgive $40 million inter-company indebtedness (a claim by Maxxam against PL!) and to offer the company's real estate expertise, as well as shouldering some tax burden from future development. For more information on the Reorganization Plan click here.
Humboldt County Supervisors Challenge PL Reorganization Plan; Come Support them this Tuesday, Oct. 9th, 9 am
The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors has responded to Maxxam’s plan to convert 21,800 acres of prime timberland into 160-acre “kingdoms” (Maxxam’s term) by taking a very brave and powerful stand. Referencing California Government Code Section 65858, Supervisors Bonnie Neely and Jill Geist have brought forward an “urgency ordinance” which would place a temporary moratorium on any residential dwelling units on lands zoned TPZ. This moratorium would give the Supervisors 45 days in which to hold a noticed hearing on the issue, with the ability to extend the moratorium for up to 22 months, 15 days.
This issue will be heard by the Board of Supervisors this Tuesday morning, October 9th, some time after 9:00 a.m. This is the most courageous stand the Supervisors can take; they will need broad public support to go forward.
To declare this “urgency,” the Supervisor’s will need a 4/5 vote. We need to make sure that all of the Supervisors understand exactly how urgent this situation is. This is the single most critical land use decision that has ever faced Humboldt County: If Maxxam gets their way, it would convert an area larger than all of Eureka, Arcata, and Fortuna combined, from timber into unaffordable estates; and would dramatically and permanently alter the very nature of Humboldt County’s character and economy.
At its core, this is simply a question of whether the people of Humboldt County, through their elected officials, should have a voice in deciding such a pivotal issue, or whether it should simply be left up to Maxxam to do whatever they wish with this land, public interest be damned. Lacking public intervention, Maxxam’s reorganization plan could be approved by the bankruptcy court far in advance of the General Plan’s approval. Once such a plan is approved, then the ability for PL to emerge from Chapter 11 would depend upon their ability to carry out this planned conversion, subdivision, and development. If the County’s zoning were to not allow what the Court has approved, PL would likely be plunged back into Chapter 11 for a second time (or “Chapter 22.”)
The best path for PL to emerge from bankruptcy is to ensure that the company’s reorganization is based on a rational, realistic, and feasible plan. Maxxam’s proposal is not such a plan. The County can play a truly critical role in sending a strong message to PL, Maxxam, the company’s Noteholders, and the bankruptcy judge: this proposed plan is simply not in the interest of the community, and will not be tolerated.
The County has perhaps one card to play in this entire process, and this is it. We need to build the strongest possible base of support for the Supervisors for their meeting this Tuesday morning. Please distribute this message far and wide, and urge as many people as possible to be there.
Click here to see background documents:
Board of Supervisor's Staff Report
Board of Supervisor's Proposed Ordinance
Link to the Humboldt County Supervisor's Agenda
(Thanks to Mark Lovelace for this information.)

Monday, October 1, 2007

O'Reilly - Politically Correct (PC)

It must be difficult to be the center of attention every time you speak and to have the media, or anyone that recognizes you criticize what you say. Or, even go further than this; but stating you are ignorant or discriminatory because of something that was said, not having any true meaning outside of the conversation.

Bill O'Reilly of Fox News has been going through some of this because of a few statement he made after visiting a restaurant. The networks seemed to have a field day at cutting what was said into pieces and taking only parts of his comments and turned them into radical remarks or not "politically correct" comments. It is too bad that we have started to develop too much sensitivity to works and how they are used, especially when used in a conversation and only short versions of the text is used against you, not what was said before or after.


I was listening to the Arcata City Council meeting the other night. They were discussing the installation of cameras for better surveillance and such through the City (The Plaza and the City Hall Building and its parking area.). One council member mentioned the fact that there was an incident on the HSU campus involving a black man and a white man. After viewing the video from the surveillance camera, it was discovered that it was not the black man's fault, but the white man's fault.


My point here is: Why did either of the subjects mentioned here (O'Reilly or the council member) need to reference the race or skin color of the individuals involved? When speaking in either situation, could of the pronoun "they" or noun "individuals" been used instead?

In my opinion, I think that O'Reilly's only mistake was sharing his thoughts too honestly without considering how he represented himself to others. As for the council member, I think, because how she said it, she did not know she was making it a matter of fact type of thing that the one individual was saying.

How we speak and label others is important to think about, especially in today's society. We often forget about others' opinion or feelings!