newenglandhyundai.com
  • Home
  • About New England Hyundai
  • About the Editors
  • Contact Us
KEEP IN TOUCH

Posts by patrick

“Look Out, He’s Got a Toy Gun!”

May25
2011
Leave a Comment Written by patrick

A 9-year-old student at Old Mill Pond Elementary School in Palmer, Massachusetts will be taken to Juvenile Court on the charge of bringing a weapon to school. The “weapon” in this case is an Airsoft TOY (let me say that again in case you missed it. A TOY!) gun to school. While on the school bus, the student realized that he accidently left the TOY gun in his backpack. But it was too late, a student saw that he brought the gun on the bus.

Police Chief, Robert  Frydrk said that ,”the boy then shot himself in the leg with the plastic gun to prove it wasn’t real” (http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/05/palmer_9-year-old_
headed_to_juvenile_court_for_bringing_airsoft_
gun_on_school_bus.html#incart_mcm). But even though the TOY gun only shoots plastic pellets that can’t do any damage, according to Frydryk the TOY gun is still considered a weapon because it “fires” (I guess that means that water guns are considered weapons since they “fire” water).

Even though Frydryk acknowledges that “No one was in danger. It had nowhere near the velocity of a BB gun. [And that] Nobody, neither us, or the school administration, thinks he brought it to school to harm anyone.” (http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/05/palmer_9-year old_headed_to_juvenile_court_for_bringing_airsoft_gun_on_school_bus.html#incart_mcm). Frydryk also says that “We have to file the charge because it is not appropriate to bring any kind of weapon on school grounds” (http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/05/palmer_9-year old_headed_to_juvenile_court_for_bringing_airsoft_
gun_on_school_bus.html#incart_mcm) and that the school is right in calling the police and taking the boy to juvenile court.

The reason that the school was right in calling the police and charging the boy with bringing a weapon to school is that the school has a “zero tolerance policy” and that the police have to respect the wishes of the school even if the school is acting inanely and ruining a child’s life (the last part is mine).

First of all, in my opinion the school acted reprehensibly and idiotically. My advice to any parent who cares about their children is to remove their children from Old Mill Pond Elementary School and find a school that recognizes the difference between a TOY gun and a real gun. To call in the police, send the student to Juvenile Court with a possibility of being convicted of bringing in a weapon to school will not only make the child have on his records as committing a criminal act (if found guilty), but this charge will impact his future in terms of employment (many jobs ask if one has ever been convicted of a felon and if the answer is “yes” will not hire such a person) and admissions into future schools. While the school might have a “zero tolerance” rule in order to make the school safe, the consequences of having such a rule can have a profoundly negative effect if the school views TOY guns that can’t cause harm as the same as REAL guns that can cause harm.

The school might justify their actions to call the police as a safety precaution, but this is really just an irresponsibility and a lack of concern for the 9 year old student.

There are plenty of things the school could have done other than call the police, such as calling the students parents and telling them that they have to go to the school to pick up the TOY gun and failure to do so will result in the child being sent home for the day. Or the school could have just used some common sense (which seems to be less and less common these days) and realized that a TOY gun that shoots plastic can’t hurt anyone.

“Zero Tolerance Policies” in general are destructive and are anathema to common sense. Zero Tolerance also means “Zero Thought” since the bureaucrats are just mindlessly following procedure instead of taking these as a case by case basis by using judgment, common sense and concern for the individual students.

The staff at Gary Rome Auto Group would to hear your thoughts. Where you as disgusted as us on how insensitively the school acted or do you think the school did the right thing?

 

VN:F [1.9.8_1114]
please wait...
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.8_1114]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
Posted in Holyoke, Local News - Tagged juvenile court, Massachusetts, News, toy gun

My Way Or the Highway

May17
2011
Leave a Comment Written by patrick

For the past three years, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick has proposed a bill which would add sales tax to soda and candy. The goal in this is not only to increase revenue but also to decrease obesity. For the past three years, everytime Deval Patrick tried to pass a soda tax bill, the lawmakers refused to go along and support this decision.

The Boston Foundation (the largest public charity in New England) is supporting a sales tax and is hoping that the lawmakers will end up supporting a candy and soda tax this year. According to The Boston Foundation, Massachusetts residents are in support of a soda and candy tax—thus making Deval Patrick’s proposal a likely law in the near future.

According to the New England Healthcare Institute (NEHI), 69% of Massachusetts voters support a soda tax if the tax money would be used to support local schools and programs whose aim is to reduce obesity in children.

When asked if voters where in favor of a sweet tax without having to decide what the tax money goes to, the voting was tied—49 % were in favor of a soda and candy tax and 49% were opposed.  This survey was done with a study of 501 people throughout Massachusetts and was conducted from March 20-April 2 by MassINC Polling Group (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2011/05/11/poll_finds_support_for_soda_tax/).

State officials say that more than half of adults and around 1/3 of children in middle and high-school are overweight. The hope is that having a tax on sweets will decrease obesity.

There is a law that considers soda and candy food products (who would have thought?) and thus exempts them from a 6.25% sales tax. Kay Khan, a Democrat from Newtown (along with the Boston Foundation) proposed a bill that would change this law (not of nature of course—candy and soda will always be comestibles). The bill does not say where the additional $50 million in soda and candy taxes would go to, just that such a tax would exist. Supporters of the bill say that they want to keep soda and candy affordable, but since they have little to no nutritional value, these food items should be taxed.

Hearing this news story of course would make a Libertarian like me fume. People say we live in a “free country” but this sounds like blind patriotic gibberish to me. If we live in a free country, then why can’t we decide what to put into our own body? Why is it up to some self-righteous people to tell others how to live their lives? To add additional expenses to people just because you don’t approve of their actions is not only self-righteous and arrogant, but is downright mean. There are plenty of things people do which I disapprove of (and vice versa), but so what? Just because I don’t like what people are doing (even if my justification is that such behavior leads to health risks) doesn’t give me the right to punish people for their decisions. If it’s true that soda and candy will cause obesity, then let nature punish people for the mass consumption of these products; it’s not the business of other people to tell people what to eat and drink.

Adding a sales tax to soda and other sweets isn’t only mean but is irrational. If one looks at the ingredients of the vast majority of sweets, one will notice that the main ingredient isn’t sugar but “high fructose corn syrup (HFCS).” HFCS is in the vast majority of food and has replaced sugar. Why you might ask? Because in 1977, due to increased TAXES for importing sugar, it became expensive to use sugar. Food manufacturers wanted to still make sweet and tasty products to eat, but due to the sugar tariffs, using sugar was not a good investment. Manufacturers were looking for alternatives to sugar to use in their products and discovered that corn is a good alternative to use instead (maybe that’s why people on Atkin’s can’t eat corn). Due to the sugar quotas, many, many products used high fructose corn syrup instead. In order to keep HFCS cheap, the farmers over-grow the amount of corn necessary. Since corn syrup has so many uses, the best way to make it cheap is for farmers to grow a lot of it.

The United States government subsidizes the mass production of HFCS. About $10 billion dollars of our tax money is spent every year on corn syrup. The same government that uses our tax money to make soda and candy cheap now wants to use our tax money to make sweets more expensive (without stopping spending of the subsidizing on corn syrup of course). Does this make any sense? It’s because of our taxes that sweets are so cheap and now we should spend even more tax money to make the sweets more expensive? How does any of this make sense?

While it’s certainly true that a mass consumption of sweets causes obesity and other health risks, if one wants to be obese and eat stuff that is bad for them, this should be their choice. How can we live in a free country if we are being punished by the government (through the use of a soda tax) by acting on our freedom (that doesn’t hurt anyone but ourselves). With freedom comes consequences from our actions and it seems that many people in American value “safety” over freedom. In fact:

“Spokesman Chris Gindlesperger said the association is less concerned with sales taxes applied to soda than it is with the excise tax targeted specifically to soda and other sugary beverages. “No industry wants their product to be singled out with a tax,’’ he said. “But, at the end of the day, the sales tax is broad-based, whereas an excise tax is discriminatory.’’ But Gindlesperger, of the beverage association, disputed that there is broad support for the tax. He pointed to a national Rasmussen poll conducted in March that asked 1,000 adults whether they support “sin taxes,’’ including those on soda and junk food. Fifty-nine percent said no.” (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2011/05/11/poll_finds_support_for_soda_tax/).

While 59% of people might be against a “sin tax,” the fact that 40% are in favor of taxing people for things they disapprove of seems to show there are still many people who don’t find punishing people just because they act in ways that others find “sinful.”

This news story reminds me of three quotes (well more, but I’ll just post three here) that I would like to share with you:

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” –Benjamin Franklin

“Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err.”  –Mahatma Gandhi

“Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.” –Abraham Lincoln

The staff at Gary Rome Auto Group would love to hear your thoughts on this issue.

 

VN:F [1.9.8_1114]
please wait...
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.8_1114]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
Posted in Holyoke, Local News - Tagged candy tax, Massachusetts, sin tax, soda tax

Subscribe

Subscribe To Our Blog

Bloggdigger

Feedage

Feedage Grade B rated

Recent Posts

  • Asperger’s And Automobiles
  • Gary And Jack Will Give You Gas
  • Hyundai Hope On Wheels To Surpass $57 Million In Total Donations To Support Childhood Cancer Research By Year-End 2012
  • March Madness
  • You Are What You Eat

Archives

  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011

Recent Comments

  • Sapphire Rings on Asperger’s And Automobiles
  • radon norwalk on Gary And Jack Will Give You Gas
  • Mike Hussey on The Genesis Of Dependability
  • Website Redesign on Sneak Peek: 2013 Hyundai Santa Fe
  • John Paul from SUV on Hyundai Has Huge Jump In Residuals And Brands As “Modern Premium”
Blog WebMastered by All in One Webmaster.

EvoLve theme by Blogatize  •  Powered by WordPress newenglandhyundai.com