Archive for January, 2010

Post-Avatar ratings

Saturday, January 30th, 2010

Colorado Statesman

1/29/2010

There’s an amazing synchronicity in the timing of the release of Avatar and the election of Scott Brown to the vacant Massachusetts’­­ Senate seat. Senator-elect Brown’s win may portend the death of health care legislation, which means that we are left with the status quo — a system where private insurance companies are essentially free to call their own shots regarding coverage without the meddling of government rules, regulations and requirements.

Similarly, Avatar seems to have engendered a debate regarding government meddling versus self-regulation in the film business. Just like the insurance industry, film ratings (and thus who is allowed to receive film coverage and who gets left out on the sidewalk) are a matter of self-policing. And, just like the complaints about health care, people are wondering if Hollywood’s self-regulation is working given the release of Avatar.

So far, Hollywood has rebuffed efforts by the government to tinker with its rating system, even though, like health care, the rating system is subject to loads of criticism as to its fairness and effectiveness. But, with the release of Avatar and the critiques it has received, maybe we will see some reforms to the rating system.

That is, in addition to the current G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17 ratings, Avatar could engender the following new, additional ratings so as to voluntarily avoid government interference:


No one who is offended by tobacco shall be admitted. The film may contain characters who smoke cigarettes, including “tough as nails” scientists played by Sigourney Weaver; however, pipe smoking, by characters like Sherlock Holmes, shall be exempt and not be subject to this rating. Nebraskans are also exempt.


Those who are offended by depictions of respect for the environment or suggestions that the natural world may possess spiritual meaning for humans or humanoid species (e.g., paganism) must be accompanied by a Christian or someone who does not harbor such beliefs; this rating shall be affixed even if the film depicts that the “soul” of humans or humanoid species are simply transfigured into the natural realm as this treads
dangerously close to paganism, even though there is no outright paganism involved, but animals are respected.


This film may contain sex and gender issues that may offend some viewers. The film may contain depictions of sexual differences between males and females whereby even though the females are depicted as strong, smart, and capable, they may still be depicted as females, which may offend some viewers — especially as some males are depicted as physically bigger. In addition, the film may lack depictions of the full range of gender and sexual identities, such as homosexuality, transvestitism, cross-dressing, even the lack of visible genitalia. Nevertheless, such depictions should not be construed as “preexisting” conditions.


Those offended by situations involving imperialistic actions will be allowed admittance only when accompanied by someone who propounds a “neo-con” philosophy in order to provide the requisite alternative perspective.


Not to be confused with the former “M for mature” rating, this rating stands for “militarism” in that the film depicts a stereotypical militaristic mindset where armed forces are happily deployed by and subject to the whims of nefarious influences. “M-18” means that no one over the required age of military service is allowed to question the motivations of such military depictions, even if those military actions might be conducted under false pretenses.


No one who is an employee of a large corporation may be admitted unless that person is ready to be subjected to the depiction of heartless business interests that seek profit over all other values, including environmental or humanistic (or alien species) interests. If after viewing the film despite this warning, a patron who is offended may invoke their recently recognized First Amendment rights and have the corporation who they work for lobby governmental entities to censor or edit the film to conform to depictions of their corporation’s interests in the best possible light.


Not only are all ages admitted, but all ages are required to gain admission in order to help make this film, King of the World!

Doug Young is The Statesman’s outstanding film critic. He works for U.S. Sen. Mark Udall as an environmental policy advisor.

Hillbilly Bass

Thursday, January 28th, 2010

Once again, I’m pressed for time, so I thought I’d share this amusing artwork with you. :)


Hillbilly Bass by ~oddlead on deviantART

Cop Talk: Just how does the CHP patrol from the air?

Wednesday, January 27th, 2010

redding.com

Posted January 23, 2010 at midnight

Q: What are the rules these days about smoking in cars? I know there is a law where people can’t smoke with children in the car, but can a smoking driver be pulled over on that alone? Also, what about tossing butts out the window? What kind of fines and penalties exist for that? I knew a guy who chose to do community service and clean up the highway rather than pay a pretty high fine.

Remember those good ol’ days when you were stuck in the backseat of the family sedan and your mom and dad were smoking up front, but mom had the wing window open so the smoke wasn’t so bad that they could see out the windshield. No one was concerned about secondhand smoke. The Marlboro Man was the man.

Well, thankfully someone stepped up on behalf of California’s children and said, “Smoke all you want. Just don’t do it with kids in the car.”

The Health and Safety Code states: “It is unlawful for a person to smoke a pipe, cigar, or cigarette in a motor vehicle, whether in motion or at rest, in which there is a minor.” For the purposes of this section, “to smoke” means to have in one’s immediate possession a lighted pipe, cigar or cigarette containing tobacco or any other plant.

The code further goes on to state: “A law enforcement officer shall not stop a vehicle for the sole purpose of determining whether the driver is in violation of this article.”

Like most code violations, it is up to the officer to take enforcement action. If I had observed a vehicle in which there were small children and someone was smoking, I’d be checking for gloves in the glove compartment or fuel cap on too tight, whatever it takes to correct that problem. Probably a good thing I’m retired.

For purposes of this section, a minor refers to someone under the age of 18, but can be used in certain areas (such as gambling and the consumption of alcohol) to define someone under the age of 21.

As far as throwing a cigarette out the window of your vehicle, the code states: “No person in any vehicle and no pedestrian shall throw or discharge from or upon any road or highway or adjoining area, public or private, any lighted or nonlighted cigarette, cigar, match, or any flaming or glowing substance.”

The fine for this offense is $390. I personally believe that the violator should have to work an entire fire season on the front lines on their first offense – but then again, it’s probably a good thing I’m retired. The courts do offer the violator the opportunity for community service in lieu of most of the fine, but that has to be worked out with the probation department and approved by the court.

So keep your eyes and attention on the roadway. Don’t worry about the bear in the air. And if you must smoke in your vehicle, please take into consideration the health of your passengers and while doing all of this, please go out and enjoy the ride.

Monty Hight is a retired CHP officer. He can be reached at coptalk@charter.net.

New La Crescent shop offers discount tobacco

Wednesday, January 27th, 2010

WinonaDailyNews.com

By Käri Knutson | Lee Newspapers | Posted: Saturday, January 23, 2010 12:15 am

stocking

Employee Moe Wazwaz stocks filtered cigarette tubes at Smokes 4 Less on the pike between La Crescent, Minn., and La Crosse, Wis. Erik Daily/Lee Newspapers

LA CRESCENT, Minn. – Mark Wazwaz has simple advice for smokers who want to save money: Quit smoking.

But if you’re going to smoke, he invites you to Smokes 4 Less, his new store at 103 Twilite St in La Crescent.

“It’s all about location, customer service and price,” Wazwaz said. “If you have that, you have a formula for success.”

His cigarettes cost less because of the huge difference in tobacco taxes between Wisconsin, which charges $2.52 a pack, compared with Minnesota at $1.50 a pack.

Wazwaz also takes pride in his shop’s selection of products, which include cigars, pipe tobacco, chewing tobacco and smoking accessories. The store has a walk-in humidor as well.

Wazwaz, 28, lives in Brooklyn Park, a Twin Cities suburb, and opened his first Smokes 4 Less shop in 2004 in Mankato, Minn. The La Crescent location is the sixth for the Maplewood, Minn.-based chain.

His cousin Mike Wazwaz is opening a Winona location next month.

Business has been booming since the La Crescent store opened Dec. 29, with people looking for a less-expensive way to support their habit. A bag of tobacco can cost $23, allowing someone to roll almost three cartons’ worth of their own cigarettes, Wazwaz said.

Wazwaz has entrepreneurship in his blood. His father was born in Palestine, moved to Edina, Minn., and opened several grocery stores that Wazwaz and his six brothers worked at.

Wazwaz wanted to be a dentist but dropped out of college to run his businesses. The days can be long; he recently logged 14 hours one day at the La Crescent store. But he’s getting to know his customers, many of whom already are regulars – like Mugs and Zeke.

“I like dealing with people. I’ve been doing it for so long,” Wazwaz said. “A simple smile goes a long way.”

Wazwaz recently started smoking but said his father – aptly nicknamed “Chimney” – is the family’s real smoker, going through five packs a day.

Wazwaz says he isn’t in business to promote smoking, just providing a product people want for less money.

“I wouldn’t call it recession proof,” Wazwaz said, “but people need their smokes.”

Holy Jumpin’ Jesus! Stop a 775% Tax Increase on Pipe Tobacco!

Tuesday, January 26th, 2010

Pipes Magazine

January 23rd, 2010

No Pipe Tobacco Taxes!H.R. 4439, the Tobacco Tax Parity Act of 2010 was introduced on January 13, 2010 and would raise the tax on pipe tobacco 775% from $2.8311 to $24.78 per pound.

As a service to the pipe smoking community and the industry of pipe makers and pipe tobacco producers we have set up a free service that will automatically send emails to your Senators and Congressmen.

In 15 seconds – Email Your Senators and Congressmen for FREE
Stop a 775% Tax Increase on Pipe Tobacco!

- We have already typed the letter for you. The system does everything. Just enter your address, we find the right contacts and send them your opposition to the tax increase.

In 15 seconds – Email Your Senators and Congressmen for FREE
Stop a 775% Tax Increase on Pipe Tobacco!

- You can add your own comments too!

In 15 seconds – Email Your Senators and Congressmen for FREE
Stop a 775% Tax Increase on Pipe Tobacco!

- Really make an impact by having a real letter printed on paper and hand-delivered. (This cost $3 per letter and is optional. You are given the choice at the end.)

A tax increase of 775% on anything is ludicrous. This will kill many small businesses and an historical tradition.

Download the bill here