Bottled water is going to be an incredible help to our community in the coming weeks and our Attorney General is even stepping in to try to keep the prices reasonable.

Meanwhile, in Massachusettes a city has just banned the product.

“Water is something we can get from the faucet. You can’t turn your faucet on and get soda,” said Selectwoman Virginia McIntyre, explaining why other plastic bottles would not be banned.

I’ve always loved this argument. Water, one of only two things that is absolutely essential for life, should be outlawed in a bottle, but that high calorie, teeth rotting soda loaded with high-fructose corn syrup is a-okay. That’s just silly.

This is huge trend around the country.

A Nashville university banned bottled water sales last year. I love this tidbit:

In addition, drinking water in Davidson County… exceeds all federal and state standards standards (sic.) for safety…

A few FAQs later:

Actually, purifiers are being placed on water fountains that do not already have filters to ensure Belmont’s drinking water is as safe and refreshing as possible.

I don’t have an issue with the right of a private college like Belmont or a company or whatever prohibiting bottled water sales. I just think it is really stupid. Especially now since we are seeing how helpful it can be.

As for me personally, I don’t even buy bottled water. I have a little aluminum canteen I carry around and refill from the water cooler at work. This saves me a ton of money and I didn’t even have to infringe on anyone’s purchasing rights to do it!

But I think tomorrow I will go buy a bottle of Dasani. My $1.39 economic stimulus just may help save Nashville’s water supply.

Arizona just passed a new Immigration law that everyone is calling the toughest in the country. And everyone from President Obama to some guy in Iowa has an opinion on it. What does the law do?

The law would require the police “when practicable” to detain people they reasonably suspected were in the country without authorization. It would also allow the police to charge immigrants with a state crime for not carrying immigration documents. And it allows residents to sue cities if they believe the law is not being enforced…

Most police agencies or jails here already check the immigration status of people charged with a crime, in consultation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, but the new law would expand that power and allows the police to stop people on the suspicion of being in the country without documents…

Some people say this will lead to racial profiling.

Policies do not lead to racial profiling. Prejudices do. If a police officer is going to pull someone over for being Hispanic, which accounts for 25% of the population of Arizona, they’ll do it regardless of any policy. What this law does is say “That’s ok.” And something tells me that if this legislation was endorsed by the AZ-FOP, then those cops would be pulling them over anyways.

Immigration is obviously a National Issue and the Federal government has ignored the immigration “problem” for a very long time. Arizona is one of many states that is doing what they consider necessary to “protect their state” or whatever.

Does that make the law good? Of course not. But is it unreasonable to think that states with vast numbers of undocumented workers would want to try to ensure that their own citizens don’t get the proverbial shaft when it comes to jobs, public services, etc? I don’t think so.

If the President is serious about the law being “misguided” then he needs to do something about it. Bring Immigration to the forefront of debate and sell the case, because it really is a human rights issue. The fault of illegal immigration does not lie on the immigrants but on the government for making them criminals.

Open borders means free trade and free trade means prosperity. You will be hard pressed to find an economist that doesnt hold that stance. And for a country that likes to tout our free market principles, we certainly do not show them when it comes to labor.

Ever hear anyone complain about getting a job outsourced to India or Mexico? When American labor gets to be “too expensive,” a company can either raise its consumer costs or cut its internal costs by finding cheaper labor. The only reason that we have outsourced jobs is because it is actually CHEAPER for Company X to lease out space in a warehouse in Country Y, purchase computers and supplies and ship internationally with Company Z, hire foreign employees A-V, and ship supplies back to our own country, than it is to employ American Worker W. And it’s cheaper to do that over a long period of time. Not to mention the opportunity costs wasted because managing an overseas branch has to be a pain in the ass. So I don’t think companies outsource jobs just for the sake of pissing off a few line workers.

I’m willing to bet that it would be better for business AND better for American workers to fix immigration laws that would actually ALLOW the business to move Employees A-V and their families from Guatalawherever to the states like some companies already do. But the costs of immigrating and a visa are ridiculously expensive and a bigger pain in the ass. Try to get a green card here. This is another barrier for entry that the government imposes on workers, no different than requiring a license to cut hair or answer a telephone.

But I think that the President will pursue a path that is preferred by voters. And by voters, I mean one of the fast growing voter demographics. I’ll bet money that the bill he or Congress proposes will be slanted towards hispanic immigrants, while ignoring people from the rest of the world, which is exactly what a “path to citizenship” does when it does nothing to generally loosen immigration restrictions as a whole.

So Democrats will appear to be the welcoming and embracing party who will ignore the real issue and Republicans will appear to be the racists who will also ignore the real issue. Sounds like politics as usual.

UPDATE: A group has vandalized Arizona’s capitol building by spearing refried beans in the shape of swastikas on the windows.  Sorry, but that’s kind of funny.

I don’t mind Meatloaf’s new stuff and I really liked the Who’s halftime performance at the Super Bowl. I don’t mind night-time baseball games. I love Mork and Mindy AND Happy Days. I’m not a Vegan.

However, there is still one area of my life which I refuse to allow modernization ruin my fun. I have found that as technology evolves and this ”thing” becomes more popular, the changes have come to really dilute its value. And it seems recently that I’m the only one who feels this way.

I am a loyalist to Captain James T Kirk and the original crew of the United Star Ship Enterprise.

I did not grow up watching Star Trek: The Next Generation the way most people of my generation did, so I don’t have this weird nostalgic connection to the otherwise lame and boring spin-off.

Since the new movie came out last year, there has been a rise in debate in my personal life over which was the better series. This has extended to many sub arguments over character comparisans, villain comparisans, ship comparisans, and even over the philosophical firepower of individual episodes.

Alas throughout these discussions I have conceded that my wealth of knowledge on TNG is not remotely comparable to my exposure to TOS. So therefore I have decided to give Captain Jean Luc Picard — the bald, French captain with an English accent who allowed a Klingon to serve on his bridge — another chance.

I added all 7 seasons of TNG to my Netflix and am mentally preparing myself. God help me.

For a list of reasons on why Jim Kirk beats the crap out of Piccard and gang, click here. Some reasons include:

81. Kirk was NEVER infiltrated by the Borg and used against the Federation…
72. When Kirk was Picard’s age, he retired from Admiral and took to climbing rocks…
37. Kirk once made a cannon out of bamboo, sulphur, potassium nitrate, charcoal and then fired diamonds into the hearts of his enemies…
13. Kirk can infiltrate Gangsters, Nazis, and even the Pentagon — easily…
4.  Kirk traveled through The Great Barrier, met God, and wasn’t even impressed.

Note that the link is branched off Duke University’s site.

President Andrew Jackson allegedly made this famous statement in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling that a state could not impose its laws on Indian tribal lands (Worcester v. Georgia).

Earlier this week, President Obama issued a similar response to a US District court which ruled that a National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional.

In a Tweet, the White House said that regardless of the ruling, the president still “intends to recognize a National Day of Prayer.” The decision does not ban the president from issuing a proclamation, the White House said.

The President’s decision could serve as an opportunity for the Tea Party movement to prove itself as the non-partisan and purely ideological movement that it claims to be. From what I’ve gathered, one of the primary themes of the movement is constitutionalism, or even strict constructionalism.

How the tea party reacts to the President’s decision will help reveal what it really is. If it slams the President’s decision and sides with the Court’s interpretation of the constitution (which is now precedent until it is appealed), then then the movement may very well be as dedicated as it claims to be. If it praises the President’s decision, it may very well just be part of the religious arm of voters who doesn’t like bailouts, but doesn’t really know why.

If it makes no statement regarding the decision, then it really is dedicated to economic issues like it initially claimed and sees the National Day of Prayer as a non-issue, which would be my preference as a Tea sympathist.

——

As for my take, the President may be right when he says the decision does not ban him from proclaiming May 6 as a National Day of Prayer, as the First amendment speaks specifically of Congress.   The Judge who made the ruling said:

It goes beyond mere ‘acknowledgment’ of religion because its sole purpose is to encourage all citizens to engage in prayer, an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function in this context,” wrote Judge Barbara Crabb, who said the Day of Prayer violates the First Amendment’s establishment clause, which bans the creation of a “law respecting an establishment of religion” in the Constitution.

So the Court’s ruling is that the statute that orders the President to issue the proclamation is unconstitutional, which can easily be remedied by the President making the proclamation on his own free will. I am pretty sure the 1st amendment does not apply to the executive branch. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong.

Read the Court’s opinion here.