Texsox

Welcome to May and your first win.

People buy a house in a neighborhood without sidewalks. The city allows the neighborhood to be built. Leave it alone.

Couple points Nuke, it wasn't a "bunch of people" it was a recognized student group on campus, who I am certain agreed to obey certain University policies. I would be shocked that those policies did not exclude these ethnic slurs. I agree that we take this stuff too seriously at times and it gets way out of scale, the Imus firing is the most recent example. But I believe the University acted in the appropriate manner with this, A school's honor society should not be encouraging this type of behavior. This is a public school, supported by tax dollars. There were apologies offered that were accepted, and the University isn't taking any further action. Sounds like it was handled well by everyone.

In general you buy insurance for when you screw up and make a mistake. If your insurance will not pay off, then the other guys might have to. Also, if you aren't wearing a helmet, but the accident is not your fault, should you lose out? I do like the idea of a rate increase. We have asked our government to keep us safe. We ask them for military protection, police and fire protection. We ask the government to check out our food production, keep us safe from fraud, test equipment to make certain it will not harm us. We ask them to regulate everyone from the local barber to our Doctors. We are the government. We ask companies to continuously improve safety, we ask auto manufacturers to reduce emissions. We demand stricter laws on behavior. We've dropped the definition of drunk to .08. That doesn't prevent someone from getting drunker, but it stops some people sooner from drinking and driving. So now we are asking them to keep us safe from cigarettes, cigars, and other tobacco.

I was considering quality of life issues and it seems her quality of life is better off now than without the surgery. Looking at history, and possibly not specific to this case. We have developed the medical technology to keep people alive that may not have survived before. We accept that intervention and generally believe it is a good idea. Now when we want to alter the life that medicine saved with more medical intervention, we balk. You are right, the doll reference is what creeps me out.

Their child will never be able to make decisions for herself. The parents made a decision that would improve her quality of life. She will never know the difference. I have a difficult time criticizing and seconde guessing her parents or the Doctors who performed the operation. It was probably the kindest thing they could have done for her. Yet, I am uncomfortable with this and can not figure out why.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/05/08/ashle...ling/index.html • Sterilization of profoundly disabled Washington girl violated law, investigation finds • "Ashley's treatment" removed girl's uterus, breast buds, at parents' request • Treatment has raised ethical questions, angered disability advocacy groups

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ May 9, 2007 -> 12:26 PM) I voted straight ticket democrat in yesterday's local Michigan City elections. No Republicans running?

Put up speed limit signs and people can still speed. That doesn't mean that speed limits are bad. Limit the hours and alcohol content and people can still get drunk. That doesn't mean limits on drinking are bad, or wrong. You do need to question those studies. On both sides and analyze what happens. If second hand smoke is not a risk, all we've done is stopped a smelly nuisance. If second hand smoke is dangerous, we've helped everyone's health. I am certain we all believe that cops no longer care about drunk driving laws. Bottom line, nice arguments, I hope you find a nice smoke filled environment, too bad it won't be in Illinois public places.

QUOTE(Cknolls @ May 9, 2007 -> 12:18 PM) At one point in time statistics showed silicon breast implants affected the health of the woman. They were banned, lawyers got rich, companies went bankrupt, people lost jobs. Silicon breast implants are now said to be safe for the woman. Who was/is right? At one point we thought asbestos was safe. Lead was a great additive in gasoline and paint. Etc. Who was harmed while silicon was off the market? When it comes to health, shouldn't we be conservative?

Fair enough. How do you answer those studies that show a significant health risk? Are you dismissing those as well? Show me the correct way to respond when statistics show something that goes against your point? Is the bar inspected by the government to assure it complies with public safety laws? Occupancy? ADA? Bathrooms? Emergency exits? That sounds like a public building that has to conform with public safety laws, including no smoking. There is rarely one solution to a problem, generally, especially in complex issues, it takes multiple solutions, all contributing a little. Using your convoluted logic, since it can't be one solution, we must not do anything. But in your world eliminating restrictions on alcohol wouldn't make a difference.

Yes! Please. While I pray that both parties are open to anyone who wishes, I am usually embarrassed to think we probably pull the lever for the same candidates. Just as I am certain that our GOP faithful here are embarrassed for some of their lesser advocates.

But how can you call a bar "private"? That is the biggest misnomer in all this. Bars are public places and subject to laws. I will agree that a true private club should be exempt from this.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ May 9, 2007 -> 06:27 AM) That is the only even closely related to the second hand smoke and trans fats debates. Aren't they all about the government knowing what is best for you and taking away your liberty? After all. no one is forcing you to work or play in an unsafe place at an unsafe job?

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ May 8, 2007 -> 10:31 PM) The over-reaction can be directly attributed to our over-litigous society. Just look at the VaTech reactions. Everyone looking for someone to blame. School didn't do enough. Gun laws too lax. Fire the school president. Sue the school. The schools are damned either way. Do nothing, and the kids goes Rambo, not only do people die but they get sued as well. Do something, school gets vilified for being to jumpy. Common sense isn't too common anymore, and lawyers are like Cubs fans, annoying and everywhere, so this reaction doesn't suprise me. It saddens me, but doesn't suprise me. On a side note, I wonder who ratted him out? I wonder if he/she is a bit afraid right about now. If it saves one life, we're safer from these terrorists.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ May 8, 2007 -> 10:30 PM) You must also be in favor of New York banning trans fats as well. It's your health and your liberty, but who cares about freedom? The Government always knows what's best for us Seatbelts, minimum safety standards, restaurant health inspections, product safety laws, OSHA, it's your health and liberty.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ May 8, 2007 -> 05:08 PM) Hell is getting colder, because I agree with that. It seems like an obvious concept to me. But I don't demand perfection. I know that my impact will be less than most any politician running for office. When I had one of my businesses, I needed a huge, fuel guzzling 10 cylinder truck to tow my equipment. When I sold the business, I threw in the truck, as much as I loved that Texas size, get out of my way, hybrid threatening, truck, I couldn't drive it in good conscious. Was I less green before or after, I don't think so.

Let's say for the sake of discussion that second hand smoke is a problem. By eliminating it as much as possible we have a benefit to the health of everyone, cleared the air, stopped people from going home smelling like and ashtray. Now let's say it isn't a health risk and we ban it in public places. We've helped the health of smokers, cleared the air, stopped people from going home smelling like an ashtray. If we don't ban it and it's harmful, we continue to harm our health.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ May 8, 2007 -> 02:48 PM) Where have I ripped him for trying to be green? I said I thought his request that the secret service drive green to be a stupid one for safety reasons. Sure they make hybrid SUV's, but if my safety was an issue, i don't care how many damn dionasaurs they have to burn up to get me outta there, just do it! Tex brought up the question, 'should the government be driving green?'. Well, sure, why not? When the current vehicles are due for replacement, green should be a big consideration. But if the currently do NOT have armored hybrid SUV's to guard Obama with, will he pay for it, or should the taxpayers foot a special expense because he wants to look good? Hell, if the DO have armored hybrid SUV's, are they as good as the non-hybrid ones? Can they go as fast as they may need to with all that extra weight? Are they as safe? I think we are responding to different issues and getting mixed up. I believe we should be using existing vehicles as much as possible, and if we are buying armored vehicles, performance outweighs any green consideration. It is also not "green" to replace perfectly working vehicles and sending them to the masher. Postal vehicles, etc. should be as green as we can.

As long as we continue to hold all leaders accountable, that's a good thing. When they are on the correct path they should be praised, not condemned. Small steps by everyone makes a greater impact than one person being 100% green.

QUOTE(Y2HH @ May 8, 2007 -> 01:17 PM) For the final final time...I do not, nor have I EVER smoked. Now to russle me up some cattle. I know you don't smoke, but you have spent a lot of time making certain that people are given the choice to work and play in a safe, smoke filled, ashtray. I understand tobacco companies have an economic incentive to prove second hand smoke isn't a health risk. They also funded studies that "proved" smoking was actually good for you. But who has the economic incentive to proven it is a risk and get smoking banned? Off to rustle an engineer who knows how to use a spell checker . . . I do find it easier to side with people who wish to breath fresh air and not smell like an ashtray and potentially take better care of their health. You prefer to trust Penn and Teller's scientific expertise and have people work and play in an ashtray. I'll agree to disagree.

QUOTE(Y2HH @ May 8, 2007 -> 12:50 PM) Ok I'm done. You are 100% right and I'm 100% wrong. FYI, there are "scientific" studies by the same "scientific" community that dispute second hand smoke studies, whether you accept them as existing or not, they do. Nice way to ignore the fact that cars are generally safer, after I pointed it out, which helped equate to less casualities due to drunk driving, too. And yes, they are magicians, quite the same as I'm a network engineer in the computer sector, but my knowledge or wisdom doesn't end there, either. Kinda like the same way I assume that just because you're from Texas, you're not automatically a cowboy rancher that knows nothing outside of that sector. Drunk driving fatalities have dropped further than overall. So vehicle safety, while helping, can not fully account for all the decline. But check with noted scholars Penn and Teller to see if they agree I hope you find a suitable smoke filled environment to satisfy your cravings. And the beauty of America is laws can be enacted when people create a public nuisance.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ May 8, 2007 -> 11:55 AM) But armored SUV's? I would assume that the secret service already has the current SUV's in available for use. So, would Obama be willing to pay for the new vehicle(s) for his detail, or is that an expense he wants to stick the taxpayers with?Better question, should the government be buying greener vehicles, buiildings, anyways?

Wow. I'm confused,. I thought Penn and Teller are magicians. You do know there have been hundreds of scientific studies, not just the EPA regarding second hand smoke. You may not understand this, but part of a study being accepted in scientific circles is it being repeatable. Peer review is a wonderful thing. When different scientists, in different experiments, come up with the same results, it is accepted as fact. Over the decades, with more and more studies and longer term research we are seeing all sorts of health issues with second hand smoke. Some of the studies take time because they are looking at long term exposure. But choose to believe the cigarette companies if you choose. Yes a determined person can drink until they are drunk. But bottom line alcohol related fatalities have been dramatically reduced over the past 25 years. Find a study that shows an increase over the same time period. There is a difficulty in comparing, the legal definition of drunk has changed, making people who were not deemed drunk under the old laws are now deemed drunk. This increases some of the stats. If we applied the same legal threshold, the results would be even more dramatic. (in many states, someone at .09 in 1990 wouldn't be listed as drunk driving, they would in 2007) Let's see, while complaining about apples and oranges arguments you bring in magicians, Yogi Berra, and global warming. QUOTE(vandy125 @ May 8, 2007 -> 11:48 AM) The discussion seems to be narrowing it down to just bars. Isn't it more than just bars that are affected by this? Won't it also affect places like bowling alleys? I would love to be able to go out for a night of bowling and not have to breathe in that stuff as well as not end up smelling like smoke when I get home. It is not just the places that serve alcohol that are affected. It appears to be all public places.