Tennessee woman denied to display her love of tofu

Tofu – some love it, some hate it. For those who don't know, tofu originated in China and is a staple in many Asian dishes. It's made by pressing coagulating soy milk into block-shaped forms, and it's high in protein and low in calories and fat. Hence, it's standard fare for many vegetarians.

Sounds pretty good, huh? A PETA employee named Whitney Calk from Tennessee is apparently a big fan of the bean curd, and she says she wanted to proclaim her love of tofu on her license plate. Unfortunately, the State of Tennessee decided that I-LV-TOFU looked eerily similar to I-LV-TO-FU...

Look closely at the two possible spellings and it's easy to see why the authorities decided to lay down the law. In fact, Tennessee points out that it's not the only state to ban that plate – it's also verboten in Colorado, Florida and Virginia.

For its part, PETA has issued a press release asking Tennessee to reconsider. Cynics might argue that the whole shebang was merely an attempt to generate press for the animal rights organization, which may certainly be the case.

Press Release

'ILVTOFU,' a Reference to Food, Is Rejected by the Department of Revenue

Murfreesboro, Tenn. -- Whitney Calk, a PETA employee who had just moved to Tennessee from Virginia, needed to get new Tennessee license plates and wanted to inspire conversation about the benefits of a vegan diet in the process. But after the Murfreesboro resident submitted her application to the Tennessee Department of Revenue, Taxpayer and Vehicle Services Division for a personalized license plate reading, "ILVTOFU," the division rejected the plate because of "vulgarity." Calk can only assume that the Department of Revenue missed the intended message, "I-LV-TOFU," and misread it as the far steamier "I-LV-TO-F-U."

"Tofu is wholesome-what's 'vulgar' is the way that animals used for food suffer on factory farms, in slaughterhouses, and on the decks of fishing boats," says PETA Executive Vice President Tracy Reiman. "The Department of Revenue could help animals, the planet, and human health by reconsidering its decision and allowing more people to discover the joy of soy."

Before the Department of Revenue decided to censor Calk's message, she was excited about the chance to use her license plate to convince motorists to choose beans over beef. Not only does a healthy vegan diet lower the occurrences of some of America's top killers-including heart disease, strokes, diabetes, obesity, and cancer-every vegan also saves more than 100 animals a year from the horrors of factory farms and slaughterhouses. And since raising animals for food is a leading cause of greenhouse-gas emissions, water pollution, and land degradation and consumes vast quantities of energy and resources, going vegan is one of the best ways to go green. In fact, researchers at the University of Chicago determined that switching to a vegan diet is more effective at countering climate change than switching from a standard car to a hybrid. The facts are absolutely clear: Eating meat is bad for human health, catastrophic for the environment, and a living nightmare for animals.

Bill Passes To Ban Sagging Pants In Florida

A new bill has passed in the House of Representatives that bans clothing worn in a "vulgar" manner

Yesterday, the Florida House of Representatives' K-20 Education Innovation Subcommittee unanimously passed a legislative bill targeting sagging pants.

"This pro-family, pro-education, pro-jobs bill provides each school district ... adopt a student dress code of conduct, a policy that explains to each student their responsibility," said Rep. Hazelle Rogers, who introduced the bill. "This would make for a better school district and more productive students."
The bill prohibits students from wearing clothing that "exposes the underwear or body parts in an indecent or vulgar manner."
This is not the first time that sagging pants have become a legal issue. In 2008 Riveria Beach in Florida passed a by-law that said anyone caught with sagging pants would be subject to a $150 fine or community service, and habitual offenders faced the possibility of jail time. The law was later abolished when it was deemed unconstitutional, this came after a teenager spent a night in jail for wearing his pants too low.

NYC Smoking Ban Signed Into Law By Mayor Bloomberg

NEW YORK — New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has signed into law a ban on smoking in city parks, beaches, public plazas and boardwalks.
The ban goes into effect 90 days after Tuesday's signing. That means that by this summer, those who break the law could face fines of $50 per violation, although the city has said it plans to rely on signs and social pressure instead of active enforcement.
Health Commissioner Thomas Farley says the law will protect people from dangerous secondhand smoke. But some health experts question whether the smoke poses a serious danger in open, outdoor spaces. Critics of the law say the city is trampling on civil liberties.
Bloomberg's administration banned smoking in restaurants, bars and other public indoor spaces in 2002.

NY Lawmaker Eyes Fine for Digitally Distracted Pedestrians

New York State Senator Karl Kruger, who represents the rough-and-tumble streets of Brooklyn, wants to make those streets safer by banning pedestrians' use of electronic devices while walking. That's right, New Yorkers, your elected officials are using valuable legislative time attempting to make it illegal to listen to your iPod, talk on your phone and send text messages while crossing the streets of NYC. We wish we were kidding, but we're not. Following in the footsteps of Ken Dunkin of Illinois and Jimmy Jeffress of Arkansas, Kruger is proposing to put an end to distracted walkers through legal means.

The law is being proposed in response to a number of incidents in which pedestrians have been struck by vehicles, fallen down manholes or tripped over mall fountains because they were distracted by their digital devices. While we're sure that cell phones and portable music players are helping to distract us and put us in harm's way, there is nothing about these technologies that actually prevents us from doing basic things our parents taught us as children -- like looking both ways before crossing a street. Besides, while injuries due to texting and walking may be on the rise, distracted pedestrians being injured as the result of their own carelessness does not an epidemic make. And any law banning the behavior would prove difficult, if not impossible, to enforce. Under Kruger's proposed law, each one of these individuals could be stopped and handed a $100 ticket. We're not saying it's an ignoble goal to encourage people to pay attention while walking. But, with a looming budget crisis, and with our public transportation, Medicare and Medicaid systems in disarray, perhaps there are more important things for the state legislature to bicker and deadlock over.

Cell Phones : New Jersey Bill Would Let Sexting Teens Avoid Child Pornography Charges

It seems that when little Johns and Janes hit that certain age when their bodies begin to undergo some changes, their thumbs start compulsively pressing the shutter buttons of their cell phone cameras, capturing themselves in various states of undress. These puberty-addled souls then feel compelled to send these photos to various friends and love interests, throwing parents and lawmakers into a tizzy over the villainous scourge of teen sexting. New Jersey state legislators, however, are preparing to vote on a bill that would allow judges to send teens caught up in sexting cases to a diversionary program. In order to be eligible for this lesser sentence, a teen would need to have no previous record, and prove to the judge that he or she was unaware of the potential consequences.

Many teens caught up in sexting scandals are charged under existing child pornography laws. But charging a 15-year old with creating and distributing child pornography because she took a topless photo of herself raises some problematic questions about whether or not a child can indeed be guilty of manufacturing child pornography. (And whether or not turning our youth into a generation of registered sex offenders is really such a great idea.) The bill was introduced after a 14-year-old girl was arrested for posting nude photos of herself on MySpace. Although the girl was charged under the state's child pornography laws, she was eventually sentenced to probation and counseling. The law, which enjoys surprisingly bipartisan support, would also require that the attorney general's office create an anti-sexting program.

FCC Passes Net Neutrality Regulations, Julius Genachowski Defends Decision

As expected, the FCC has voted in favor of a new set of highly controversial Net neutrality regulations. In a tweet, the New York Times' Brian Stelter confirmed: "Not a surprise: by a vote of 3-2, the F.C.C. supports a new framework for 'Net neutrality.' Framework has still not been made public."

Earlier, Stelter obtained a statement that chairman Julius Genachowski is expected to deliver later today, in which he defends the measures. "As we stand here now, the freedom and openness of the Internet are unprotected," the statement reads. "No rules on the books to protect basic Internet values. No process for monitoring Internet openness as technology and business models evolve. No recourse for innovators, consumers, or speakers harmed by improper practices... That will change once we vote to approve this strong and balanced order." You can find the full statement here.

The issue, however, seems far from resolved, and political backlash appears imminent. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell wasted no time in condemning the decision, which he described as "a first step in controlling how Americans use the Internet by establishing federal regulations on its use." Speaking on the Senate floor, McConnell later promised that the new Congress would seize upon the opportunity to "push back against new rules and regulations.

Kicking Sidewalk ATMs to the Curb

• • 

A bill Mayor Michael Bloomberg is expected to sign Monday will crack down on the countless sidewalk ATMs across the city, targetting building owners with thousands of dollars in fines for allowing the machines to be kept outside.

Non-bank ATMs placed outside of businesses have long been illegal for violating an existing law against sidewalk obstructions, but this new legislation would both raise the fines and centralize enforcement authority with the Department of Transportation. Several city agencies currently share enforcement responsibilities for sidewalk ATMs.

The Department of Sanitation, one of the agencies that now hands out fines for illegal ATMs, has issued 188 tickets for the violation since October, starting at $100 each, said spokeswoman Kathy Dawkins.

Under the new law, the Department of Transportation will be required to order all property owners to remove sidewalk ATMs within 30 days or face fines ranging from $2,500 to $5,000 for the first day, with an additional $5,000 every five days an ATM remains on the sidewalk. DOT officials will also be able to seize ATMs from the sidewalk if fines in excess of $50,000 go unpaid for more than 90 days.

“There’s no accountability for these ATMs,” said City Councilwoman Diana Reyna, the lead sponsor on the bill. “We have no idea how many there are and where they’re located.” She said sidewalk ATMs raise concerns over theft, vandalism and safety, in addition to blocking the sidewalks.

A study last year by Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer found that out of 950 ATMs sampled, 25.5% of them were non-bank sidewalk ATMs — most of them placed illegally.

For small business owners, however, the new measure means the loss of lucrative consumer fees from passersby using the outdoor ATMs.

Mike Stuto, the owner of HiFi Bar in the East Village, said he receives between 500 to 600 transactions each month from the ATM outside his bar. The proceeds from the fees are split with an ATM company and help boost his bottom line.

“It would get less than half the traffic,” he said of moving the ATM inside.

Stuto said the building owner has received tickets from the Department of Transportation in the past but the fines did not force him to remove the ATM. “If my ATM is an obstruction in the city of New York, than every garbage can in the city of New York is an obstruction.”

Reyna, who also chairs the City Council’s small business committee, said the bill simply provides enforcement for something that has long been illegal and “grown out of proportion.”

“If a business owner has an ATM machine than they should find the space appropriate to conduct business within their property line,” she said.

credit: Wall Street Journal