OPB --
Portland radio station KRSK and Les Schwab Tire Centers helped Julie with her second lemonade stand and managed to raise $1838.31, enough to send both her and her mother on a trip to Disneyland.
it is a shame that it had to make nationwide attention over this issue, however, kudos to the community for stepping in and local businesses for helping out.
I just have a gut feeling that the IRS and Oregon will now be asking for their share of the proceeds.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Saturday, August 07, 2010
Inspectors shut down child's lemonade stand in Portland Oregon
Robin's Commentary --
There's been quite an uproar over a seven-year-olds lemonade stand in northeast Portland at a monthly neighborhood event called "Last Thursday" which appropriately named is held on the last Thursday of every month on Alberta Street Arts District located along NE Alberta Street, where artists can come and display their arts and businesses stay open late to accommodate the function.
The back story is when seven-year-old Julie Murphy along with her mother Maria Fife had set up their lemonade stand and within 20 minutes, they were approached by the Multnomah County health Department inquiring if Murphy had a $120 temporary restaurant license to sell lemonade.
When they were informed that they could be facing a $500 fine, Julie and her mother started to tear down the lemonade stand.
People staffing the booths next to them started telling the inspectors that they had no right to kick them out of the neighborhood gathering and suggested that Julie and her mother give away the lemonade for free and only accept donations. Shortly after, two inspectors came back and according to Fife, "it was a very big scene."
The news of the event went national.
Chairman Jeff Cogan, Chief Diversity and Equity Officer commented that the inspectors were "following the rule book," however, should've taken into consideration that the food safety laws are primarily aimed at adults engaging in a professional food business, not kids running lemonade stands.
Cogan later spoke with Fife to apologize.
Michael Franklin, the man next to the lemonade booth, who also has his own blog talk radio show, Bottom-Up Radio Network (B.U.R.N) and who interviewed Fife on his show regarding the incident, is organizing a "lemonade revolt" for the last Thursday event in August. He is calling on as many people as he can to grab space for lemonade stands on Alberta between Northeast 25th and Northeast 26 streets.
Links to information --
Multnomah County chair Jeff Cogan
Portland lemonade stand runs into health inspectors -- the Oregonian
Multnomah County Chairman Jeff Cogan apologizes -- the Oregonian
There's been quite an uproar over a seven-year-olds lemonade stand in northeast Portland at a monthly neighborhood event called "Last Thursday" which appropriately named is held on the last Thursday of every month on Alberta Street Arts District located along NE Alberta Street, where artists can come and display their arts and businesses stay open late to accommodate the function.
The back story is when seven-year-old Julie Murphy along with her mother Maria Fife had set up their lemonade stand and within 20 minutes, they were approached by the Multnomah County health Department inquiring if Murphy had a $120 temporary restaurant license to sell lemonade.
When they were informed that they could be facing a $500 fine, Julie and her mother started to tear down the lemonade stand.
People staffing the booths next to them started telling the inspectors that they had no right to kick them out of the neighborhood gathering and suggested that Julie and her mother give away the lemonade for free and only accept donations. Shortly after, two inspectors came back and according to Fife, "it was a very big scene."
Eric Pippert, manager for the state's public health division said, "when you go to a public event and set up shop, you're suddenly engaging in commerce... the fact that you are small-scale I don't think it's relevant"
The news of the event went national.
Chairman Jeff Cogan, Chief Diversity and Equity Officer commented that the inspectors were "following the rule book," however, should've taken into consideration that the food safety laws are primarily aimed at adults engaging in a professional food business, not kids running lemonade stands.
Cogan later spoke with Fife to apologize.
Michael Franklin, the man next to the lemonade booth, who also has his own blog talk radio show, Bottom-Up Radio Network (B.U.R.N) and who interviewed Fife on his show regarding the incident, is organizing a "lemonade revolt" for the last Thursday event in August. He is calling on as many people as he can to grab space for lemonade stands on Alberta between Northeast 25th and Northeast 26 streets.
Links to information --
Multnomah County chair Jeff Cogan
Portland lemonade stand runs into health inspectors -- the Oregonian
Multnomah County Chairman Jeff Cogan apologizes -- the Oregonian
Thursday, August 05, 2010
Why there is high unemployment
Community Service Officer A - City of Eugene
Minimum Qualifications
Experience
One year of experience providing public assistance in a social service and/or criminal justice environment.
Education
High school diploma or GED.
Fluency in Spanish language is desirable; Preference may be given to
applicants with Spanish language skills.
Minimum Qualifications
Experience
One year of experience providing public assistance in a social service and/or criminal justice environment.
Education
High school diploma or GED.
Fluency in Spanish language is desirable; Preference may be given to
applicants with Spanish language skills.
Tuesday, August 03, 2010
YOU DON'T SPEAK FOR ME!
KEZI --
Members of the Oregon human rights commission appealed to Eugene city Council to boycott All-City business with Arizona.
According to numerous polls taken all over the nation by a variety of polling organization, the MAJORITY of the citizens polled approve SB-1070; in fact there are approximately 20 other states that are considering similar legislation.
In my own opinion, I think that before the city Council or any other type of governing body that makes a determination that represents my city and state, they should take it to a vote of the people FIRST!
Because I know for a fact that you don't speak for me when it comes down to boycotting Arizona, in fact, not only do I applaud Arizona, I would like to see a similar ordinance in Oregon. [not that that whatever happened, but it would be interesting to put it to a vote]
I also give Governor Jan Brewer kudos for having the guts to go up against the federal government for something that she believes in and what the people wanted her to do.
I also have to disagree with city Councilor Andrea Ortiz in regards to "There are multiple, on a daily basis, anti-immigration laws going around all through the United States." Because apparently she is confused on this issue.
First of all, let me point out that they are NOT anti-immigration laws.
NOBODY is trying to pass any laws against immigrants.
They ARE trying to pass laws to enforce those who violate immigration laws.
By definition,
Immigrant -- a person who has entered the country legally through proper channels.
Illegal alien -- a person who has entered the country ILLEGALLY without proper authorization to be here.
Simply put, the so-called "anti-immigration laws" as Ortiz puts it are the states that are trying to enforce the laws that the federal government fails to do.
However, if you want to talk about discrimination or racism...
how about the fact that citizens are being forced to become bilingual within our own country in order to find work. This is another example of something that would not even be an issue if our immigration laws were followed and enforced.
Members of the Oregon human rights commission appealed to Eugene city Council to boycott All-City business with Arizona.
"Eugene City Councilor Andrea Ortiz said, the council will look at passing a resolution, though it would likely be more moderate than other that have been passed by other cities."
According to numerous polls taken all over the nation by a variety of polling organization, the MAJORITY of the citizens polled approve SB-1070; in fact there are approximately 20 other states that are considering similar legislation.
In my own opinion, I think that before the city Council or any other type of governing body that makes a determination that represents my city and state, they should take it to a vote of the people FIRST!
Because I know for a fact that you don't speak for me when it comes down to boycotting Arizona, in fact, not only do I applaud Arizona, I would like to see a similar ordinance in Oregon. [not that that whatever happened, but it would be interesting to put it to a vote]
I also give Governor Jan Brewer kudos for having the guts to go up against the federal government for something that she believes in and what the people wanted her to do.
I also have to disagree with city Councilor Andrea Ortiz in regards to "There are multiple, on a daily basis, anti-immigration laws going around all through the United States." Because apparently she is confused on this issue.
First of all, let me point out that they are NOT anti-immigration laws.
NOBODY is trying to pass any laws against immigrants.
They ARE trying to pass laws to enforce those who violate immigration laws.
By definition,
Immigrant -- a person who has entered the country legally through proper channels.
Illegal alien -- a person who has entered the country ILLEGALLY without proper authorization to be here.
Simply put, the so-called "anti-immigration laws" as Ortiz puts it are the states that are trying to enforce the laws that the federal government fails to do.
However, if you want to talk about discrimination or racism...
how about the fact that citizens are being forced to become bilingual within our own country in order to find work. This is another example of something that would not even be an issue if our immigration laws were followed and enforced.
Friday, July 30, 2010
the "memo" for alternatives to comprehensive immigration reform
ABC news --
In a memo from the US citizenship and immigration services, subject: ADMINISTRATIVE ALTERNATIVES TO COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM,
it sounds like that no matter what the people want, the government is going to do what it wants to do regardless.
I am still baffled at why the US government is so adamant to not expel people who have entered this country illegally.
If you listen to the talk shows, they're stating that it's for the Democratic vote.
I'm not buying that excuse. I think that there's something more behind it that they're not telling us. Why else would they be defending it so heartily?
If it turns out that the whole reason for selling out our country is solely to try and gain the Hispanic vote for the Democrats, then we have a real serious problem on our hands in which case we need to SERIOUSLY think about dissolving the two-party system altogether as it has become detrimental to the health of our country.
If the security and sanctity of our country solely depends on elected officials trying to get reelected, then that would definitely lead to the downfall of our country in my opinion.
As the old rule of thumb says, "follow the money" there needs to be some serious investigation.
"Immigration-gate" might be the new word for congressional inquiries to the traitors of the US in the U.S. Constitution as well as our security.
In a memo from the US citizenship and immigration services, subject: ADMINISTRATIVE ALTERNATIVES TO COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM,
"this memorandum offers administrative relief options to promote family unity, foster economic growth, achieve significant process improvements and reduce the threat of removal for certain individuals present in the United States without authorization...
…To promote family unity, US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) could interpret two 1990 general counsel options regarding the ability of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) applicants who enter the United States without inspection to adjust or change status. this would allow thousands of individuals in TPS status to become lawful permanent residents... where no relief appears available based on an applicants employment and/or family circumstances, but removal is not in the public interest, USCIS could grant deferred action. This would permit individuals for whom relief may become available in the future to live and work in the US without fear of removal… "
it sounds like that no matter what the people want, the government is going to do what it wants to do regardless.
I am still baffled at why the US government is so adamant to not expel people who have entered this country illegally.
If you listen to the talk shows, they're stating that it's for the Democratic vote.
I'm not buying that excuse. I think that there's something more behind it that they're not telling us. Why else would they be defending it so heartily?
If it turns out that the whole reason for selling out our country is solely to try and gain the Hispanic vote for the Democrats, then we have a real serious problem on our hands in which case we need to SERIOUSLY think about dissolving the two-party system altogether as it has become detrimental to the health of our country.
If the security and sanctity of our country solely depends on elected officials trying to get reelected, then that would definitely lead to the downfall of our country in my opinion.
As the old rule of thumb says, "follow the money" there needs to be some serious investigation.
"Immigration-gate" might be the new word for congressional inquiries to the traitors of the US in the U.S. Constitution as well as our security.
government once again thinks it knows what's best for you
Herald and news --
ORS 471.403 is having an effect for a local home brewers of beer and wine. Under the new ordinance, home brewers are allowed to "brew" their own beverage however, you are not allowed to take it outside of your home unless you have a license.
with everything that's going on in the state of Oregon, including the recession... when and why did this become major concern?
one of the things that I really love about our glorious state... is that instead of addressing issues of more importance such as, oh I don't know, creating jobs in a recession may be... they spend their time on stupid issues like this and making the Dungeness crab the State crab.
In Oregon, as Ray Stevens puts it in his music video, we need to "throw the bums out" and get people in office that will actually help the state instead of hurting it.
We also [as I've been preaching] we need to put a system in similar to Parliament whereby the legislature can get rid of a governor or other elected official simply by a vote of no confidence.
I feel that having such a system would make our elected officials more accountable to the people and get rid of the attitude of saying anything to get elected without any consequences after being elected.
ORS 471.403 is having an effect for a local home brewers of beer and wine. Under the new ordinance, home brewers are allowed to "brew" their own beverage however, you are not allowed to take it outside of your home unless you have a license.
"Earlier this month, the Oregon State Fair had to cancel their decades-old beer and wine home-brewing competition after the Oregon Department of Justice deemed the competition violated an 80-year-old liquor law."
with everything that's going on in the state of Oregon, including the recession... when and why did this become major concern?
one of the things that I really love about our glorious state... is that instead of addressing issues of more importance such as, oh I don't know, creating jobs in a recession may be... they spend their time on stupid issues like this and making the Dungeness crab the State crab.
In Oregon, as Ray Stevens puts it in his music video, we need to "throw the bums out" and get people in office that will actually help the state instead of hurting it.
We also [as I've been preaching] we need to put a system in similar to Parliament whereby the legislature can get rid of a governor or other elected official simply by a vote of no confidence.
I feel that having such a system would make our elected officials more accountable to the people and get rid of the attitude of saying anything to get elected without any consequences after being elected.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Federal program expanding fingerprinting of illegal aliens
AP --
467 jurisdictions in 26 states have joined a federal government program called Secure Communities to identify illegal immigrants using fingerprints from arrests for anyone who was booked into a jail for a crime and compared with FBI criminal history records and the Department of Homeland Security immigration records to determine their immigration status.
ICE will be using biometric identification technologies currently in use by the FBI and other parts of DHS which is designed to accurately and efficiently identify illegal aliens and to prioritize them based on the severity of their crimes.
... "inherently flawed and should not be implemented." Am also a 100% sure that by checking EVERYBODY that the system is also a racist.
467 jurisdictions in 26 states have joined a federal government program called Secure Communities to identify illegal immigrants using fingerprints from arrests for anyone who was booked into a jail for a crime and compared with FBI criminal history records and the Department of Homeland Security immigration records to determine their immigration status.
"It has the potential to revolutionize immigration enforcement,said Sunita Patel, an attorney who filed a lawsuit in New York against the federal government on behalf of a group worried about the program.
ICE will be using biometric identification technologies currently in use by the FBI and other parts of DHS which is designed to accurately and efficiently identify illegal aliens and to prioritize them based on the severity of their crimes.
"
The Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition said in its letter to the governor that the Secure Communities is "inherently flawed and should not be implemented." CIRC said one of its main concerns is that in cases of domestic violence, where both parties may be taken into custody while authorities investigate a case, victims may feel reluctant to report a crime out of fear that their illegal status will be discovered."
... "inherently flawed and should not be implemented." Am also a 100% sure that by checking EVERYBODY that the system is also a racist.
Thanks to judge Susan Bolton, illegal immigrants are temporarily claiming a victory
US District Judge Susan Bolton issued a temporary injunction to halt key parts of Arizona Senate bill 1070 that would have required police to check immigration status of anybody suspected of being an illegal alien if they are stopped by police.
"... burdened federal resources and redirect federal agencies away from the priorities they have established."
What the heck does that mean? I mean I am "assuming" that their PRIORITY is the protection of the United States and its citizens. But I digress.
What the judge is basically saying is that we do not have enough resources to protect our own country from foreign invaders.
Think about that statement for a moment before you make your decision about this issue. Even the Secretary of Homeland security has indicated that Arizona's borders are too "big" to protect.
Now doesn't that just make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside as you think about the security of our country against foreign invaders.
consider this...What if every one of these people that cross the borders were actually armed and their primary purpose was to take over this country by force? Think about it.
In my opinion, I think the judge's decision has opened up a Pandora's box because it will literally come down to a battle between "them" and "us".
The federal government's argument against the Arizona law is that [listen carefully] "states are not allowed to go beyond federal law."
If that were true, then there are other issues ranging from college requirements on the administrating student loans to California going beyond the EPA requirements on emissions.
But for those who are jumping up and down with joy over the judge's decision, don't break out the champagne just yet. This is ONLY a stay of execution and this issue will be challenged all the way up to the Supreme Court.
Although the judge put on hold the major portions of the Arizona law, one provision that she is allowing is penalties permitting civil suits for sanctuary cities.
For a list of the judges determinations can be seen here at Fox news.
I also have to admire Arizona Governor Jim Brewer for sticking to her guns and standing up to the federal government for what she and the people of Arizona believe in.
"the number of requests that would emanate from Arizona as a result of determining the status of every arrestee is likely to impermissibly burdened federal resources and redirect federal agencies away from the priorities they have established," Judge Bolton wrote
"... burdened federal resources and redirect federal agencies away from the priorities they have established."
What the heck does that mean? I mean I am "assuming" that their PRIORITY is the protection of the United States and its citizens. But I digress.
What the judge is basically saying is that we do not have enough resources to protect our own country from foreign invaders.
Think about that statement for a moment before you make your decision about this issue. Even the Secretary of Homeland security has indicated that Arizona's borders are too "big" to protect.
Now doesn't that just make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside as you think about the security of our country against foreign invaders.
consider this...What if every one of these people that cross the borders were actually armed and their primary purpose was to take over this country by force? Think about it.
In my opinion, I think the judge's decision has opened up a Pandora's box because it will literally come down to a battle between "them" and "us".
The federal government's argument against the Arizona law is that [listen carefully] "states are not allowed to go beyond federal law."
If that were true, then there are other issues ranging from college requirements on the administrating student loans to California going beyond the EPA requirements on emissions.
But for those who are jumping up and down with joy over the judge's decision, don't break out the champagne just yet. This is ONLY a stay of execution and this issue will be challenged all the way up to the Supreme Court.
Although the judge put on hold the major portions of the Arizona law, one provision that she is allowing is penalties permitting civil suits for sanctuary cities.
For a list of the judges determinations can be seen here at Fox news.
I also have to admire Arizona Governor Jim Brewer for sticking to her guns and standing up to the federal government for what she and the people of Arizona believe in.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
It's 137° outside and no air conditioning
Could you work and sleep in these conditions?
Robin's Commentary --
Would you work in an office when it's 137° outside with no air conditioning?
How about sleeping in those conditions?
More than likely not.
Most people are unaware or even care that for the over the road truck driver, these are the type of unhealthy living and sleeping conditions that the driver must endure almost every day.
The no idle rule.
Every truck driver knows what it is.
It is a law that was enacted by states in order to cut down on air pollution and limits idling no matter how hot or cold it gets. Violation of the rule could cost the driver $100 to $300 in fines depending on the state. (Some cities and counties in Colorado the penalty is fines up to $1,000 and/or 1 year imprisonment.)
In addition to these laws, some companies have enacted their own anti-Idle rule in order to save money. Violation of the rule differs from company to company. Some companies make the drivers reimbursed the company for the fuel used; others threaten to write up the driver with threats of termination.
One option for driver relief was a company called IdleAire that offers an in-truck climate control alternative located at most truck stops which provides both heating and air-conditioning, plus electricity through a large tube with an adapter that attaches to the passenger side window for $20-30 dollars a night. Spendy, but worth it on those hot nights.
Unfortunately, IdleAire went out of business this year leaving drivers with no other option for relief from the weather.
You would think that OSHA or other work force protection agencies would be there to protect the driver's health from these type of working conditions. Unfortunately, most OSHA regulations do not protect the driver from heat exhaustion or heat stroke, and lack of sleep also contributes to driver fatigue.
For more information on anti-Idle regulations, please check out the information below.
EPA anti-idle regulations by state
idling laws by state (full page)
idling laws by state (Card)
update on IdleAire -- July 12 2010, IdleAire is making progress to restart services in the near future. More information, go to their website at www.IdleAire.com.
are we really looking at the big picture here?
Robin's commentary --
As I'm checking some of the headlines just before going to work this morning one of the headlines that caught my attention was the following...
so the question that I'm asking, is why do these other countries care if we check to see if somebody is legally authorized within our own country?
what is the real reason behind it?
Or more importantly... what is it that they have to hide?
The only thing that the Arizona law does is it gives the state the authority to question somebodies immigration status when they are lawfully stopped by a local police officer.
Big deal... I got pulled over the other day for not using my turn signal in a lane change.
Not only did the police officer check my ID, but they also checked the ID of my passenger.
[maybe it was gender profiling since were both female]
so how is the Arizona law any different?
I guess my point is, with so many people that are upset over Arizona and now other countries who are wanting to join Mexico's lawsuit against Arizona...
What is really going on and what is it they have to lose?
As I'm checking some of the headlines just before going to work this morning one of the headlines that caught my attention was the following...
"AP- PHOENIX – Seven other Latin American countries want to join Mexico in supporting a lawsuit challenging Arizona's immigration enforcement law.
Bolivia, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Paraguay and Peru filed separate, nearly identical motions to join Mexico's legal brief supporting the lawsuit filed by U.S. civil rights and other advocacy groups"
so the question that I'm asking, is why do these other countries care if we check to see if somebody is legally authorized within our own country?
what is the real reason behind it?
Or more importantly... what is it that they have to hide?
The only thing that the Arizona law does is it gives the state the authority to question somebodies immigration status when they are lawfully stopped by a local police officer.
Big deal... I got pulled over the other day for not using my turn signal in a lane change.
Not only did the police officer check my ID, but they also checked the ID of my passenger.
[maybe it was gender profiling since were both female]
so how is the Arizona law any different?
I guess my point is, with so many people that are upset over Arizona and now other countries who are wanting to join Mexico's lawsuit against Arizona...
What is really going on and what is it they have to lose?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)