Warning: include(/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/001883.php on line 91

Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening '/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/001883.php on line 91
March 16, 2005
Lunch Break (30 minutes)

I think some people need to have the concept of reasonable doubt explained to them before they direct the state to commit murder.

I found a hint about where to invest my retirement funds.

Stocks of publicly traded companies on Fortune's annual list of "100 best places to work" collectively beat the broader market by more than 300 percent over a seven-year span, according to a new study.

I'm disappointed in the Universal Press Syndicate. If for no other reason than to keep their name from being associated with wingnut bigotry, they should have pursued the copyright problem.

And speaking of racism. Or maybe it's not, I don't know, but the lack of diversity in positions of influence in the Federal government is sad.

The NPR report I heard about mercury poisoning in children differed from this one in at least one significant way. It said that the most common source of mercury poisoning in children is in the fish they eat, or the fish their mothers eat while carrying them. And that that fish is usually one of the less-expensive "deep sea" varieties. Ever since I heard that, I've been waiting for someone to think about it and to point out that if deep sea fish are that polluted, we're likely on the verge of having waited too long to take some real action about environmental pollution.

The Navy protested torture at Guantanamo Bay in 2002. (And a real danger exists in that pursuing investigations of torture allegations may result in perceived "persecution" of ordinary soldiers. Of course, that wouldn't be possible if the higher-ups weren't all running for the hills, but still.)

No, I'm not advocating we drop the investigation, low-level as it is. Not do I, thanks to Andrew, underestimate how serious the "administration" punishments are for the soldiers involved. I just doubt that an Administration intent on covering up having (at least tacitly) encouraged torture is going to give up any significant principal. And I really wonder if any serious investigation will be sponsored in Congress.

There are hints and rumors and suggestions that it's all the CIA's fault. Well, why not? According to some, the CIA has been a whipping boy for "hawks" for a long time. I guess they don't recommend war often enough or something. I don't know who's lying, but I know the Bush Administration created their own "intelligence" department when they didn't like what they were hearing on Iraq, which is very suggestive....

No link, but it's good to know that the $250 tax deduction for K-12 educators who have to buy some of their own classroom supplies is remaining intact here in Colorado. I mean, it would be a shame if educators couldn’t afford to buy their own supplies and We, the Taxpayers started have to fund them, wouldn't it?

Federal Judicial nominees. The fight isn't over. I understand the potential consequences, but I didn't understand how much damage Republicans really are willing to do to the system in order to get their own way. This is appalling...and all the more so because party pressure, as we all know, is forcing some Republicans into line over this when they really don't approve of the nominees.

I support a "smoking ban" in restaurants, etc., but not all of this article made sense to me.

"The banning of smoking is inevitable city by city, and that creates inequities," said Denver restaurant consultant John Imbergamo of The Imbergamo Group. "Whereas, a statewide ban creates a level playing field for everyone."

That's just gibberish. Who are they leveling the playing field for? The places with or without smoking bans?

Who suffers if City A has a smoking ban and City B doesn't? Because if City B suffers because they don't have a smoking ban, they can just enact one, right?

So...logically it seems they must be saying that City A has a smoking ban and no one wants to eat/drink/whatever there because of it? One wonders why they enacted such a ban. (I do support smoke-free areas, especially restaurants. But the bar thing has always struck me as odd. Seriously. I have to think that if there was that much call for smoke-free bars, there would be smoke-free bars. But I know too many people who smoke only when they drink to believe there's really that much call for it. Seems to me that what's at stake here is the right of some people to poison their livers without poisoning their lungs, too.) (Okay, maybe I should take that back. I'm having a bad day.)

Headline of the Day: Democracy is more than a soundbite

Posted by AnneZook at 04:16 PM