text:
New Reply |
What's the explination for why useless traits often disapear |
Share Thread |
Aug9-12, 06:05 AM | #1 |
What's the explination for why useless traits often disapear
1. I mean for example why can't a kakapo fly? You could say flying is a waste of energy, but there's nothing wrong with a kakapo wasting his energy, flying is not a disadvantage, since he lives on an island with an abundance of food. So much food that to stop them eating it all they have somehow managed to evolve a system which stops them reproducing too often.
Is there a Darwinian explanation for this? If not does it suggest epigenetics? I know quite often useless traits do not disappear. And I know sometimes you can evolve something that isn't necessarily helpful but that it keeps going anyway because it's not harmful. Then if you have a small population that turns into a large one (like with humans) you end up with lots of people having this useless trait because everyone is related to everyone else. 2. That's another question. How on earth do you manage to evolve not to have too many offspringwhen you would think that if one parrot came along and had lots of chicks and the other came along and only had 4 in his whole lifetime that the one with lots would be the one that ended up taking over.. even though that's a really bad idea. Edit: I was just thinking maybe sometime in the past there wasn't enough food and flying therefore because a big disadvantage. That's probably it. Thoughts? |
Aug9-12, 06:40 AM | #2 |
Homework Help |
Gudduy and welcome to PF;
Your examples suggest you are a kiwi :) Into each generation is born a range of characteristics and abilities ... it is not so much that some ancestor of the kakapo lost the ability to fly but more that there was no pressure to kill off those that were born with a reduced capacity to fly ... in NZ, a habitat existed that the lesser-abled flyers could exploit without getting killed off (until humans showed up). If you have a situation with few or no predators, then the creatures that can survive there will be those that do not reproduce so much that they exhaust their food supply. If they reproduce catastrophically - then the entire population is wiped out as well as anything else that is similar enough leaving an empty ecological niche for something else to radiate into. This creates a boom-bust cycle ... and the bust needn't wipe the animal out, that's just the extreme case. Over a very long time, the creature that ends up in that niche will be one that does not self destruct ... with lots of variety, many different strategies will end up being deployed and one of them is to be the one who reproduces slowly ... especially if there is something else which allows it to out-perform the faster breeders in the famine time like a slow metabolism say. Such a creature would be able to weather a lot of boom/bust cycles However, a low reproduction rate is not a likely thing to get selected for... and it is rare in nature. It is not a particularly successful strategy either - it looks to be in the process of being selected out of the creatures that employ it: they are going extinct remember? Predation and senescence are far more common approaches to the population problem ... and humans seem to be beating those restrictions. But I think the main conceptual problem here is the idea that creatures somehow "evolve into" other creatures. That is not what happens. What happens is, successive generations diverge (you look like your parents, but you are also different, and you are different from your siblings) and sometimes something happens to kill off a chunk of them or favor another chunk. |
Aug9-12, 07:14 AM | #3 |
Thanks that helped a lot!
I think part of what happened is I forgot about niches, I was probably thinking in extremes, like the people on Easter island who ate absolutely everything on the island and cut down all the trees so almost nothing could live there ever again. I forgot that the birds who fly and the birds who hop around would end up eating very different food so the birds that flew could wipe themselves out without it having any effect on the birds that didn't. It seemed like even if you did end up not flying and having small families that you'd still end up dying out because your neighbor was flying around having chicks all over the place and eating all your food and his grandchicks eating the food of your grandchicks. So long as they had different niches they could all make their own mistakes without effecting one another. Am I on the right track? I'm not a Kiwi, though it's a great thing to be, I heard about Kakapos from Douglas Adams :) I'm from Ireland. |
Aug9-12, 09:28 AM | #4 |
Homework Help |
What's the explination for why useless traits often disapear
Oh I always thought it would be better to be Irish because you get to be drunk all the time... or some such cliche ;)
You are on the right track - and even if the first species to show up did wipe itself out (and there must have been those that did... say they get to depend on a food supply that becomes scarce like Smilodon or Koalas?) those are not the only ones in the World ... other animals can migrate in. When Krakatoa erupted, it wiped out the entire wildlife on the island that had neglected to evolve traits for survival in red-hot flowing rock. But it was quickly repopulated. The Easter Island thing is a good example - the situation there was a big mystery for decades because nobody could figure out how it got like that. But it used to be very different and it got like that over a long time, then another long time intervened and everyone forgot. Evolution does stuff like that to us too ... there are loads of things that look weird when we see them today because something that used to be there is now gone. Dawkins talks about evolutionary scaffolding in his books. I think Stephen Fry got humped by a kakapo on camera. The local breeding program has taken off now that the researchers have realized that their mating behavior is not very instinctive: they have to be shown what to do! It's like they are trying to go extinct. |
Aug9-12, 09:36 AM | #5 |
Poor kakapo. Maybe they just want to lead a quiet, thoughtful existence free from carnal desire.
Thanks for your help! |
Aug9-12, 10:26 AM | #6 |
Homework Help |
Not if all the noise is anything to go by - their love songs can be heard for miles and miles. They are a bit like teenage guys down the pub - all bluster and bravado about how many birds they'll do and all shy and fumbles when it comes to talking to one.
For that matter it's a wonder human beings reproduce. And on that bombshell ... time for bed. Cheers :) |
Aug9-12, 10:37 AM | #7 |
I'm sure he thinks he's writing sonnets of true love that are beautiful in and of themselves. Good night! Thanks again.
Aug9-12, 03:49 PM | #8 |
The analogy with atrophy is misleading. Sometimes, muscle starts shrink in an individual due to disuse. However, populations dont lose the ability to grow muscles due to disuse. In general, evolution causes an unused feature to show more physical diversity. This was noted by Charles Darwin in Origin of the Species. Because the feature isnt used, the exact shape and size of the organ doesnt matter. So if the feature is truly harmless, but useless, there will be a wider variety of shapes for that feature. There is no natural selection of shapes and sizes. Therefore, a truly useless feature would show even more diversity than a useful feature. The useless feature doesnt really disappear from the population. Changes in size, proportion and behavior could make the physical feature useless for its original function. The changes in size, proportion and behavior could be useful for some other function. Regulatory genes affect many physical features at the same time. Random changes in these genes produce disadvantages with regards to some functions, but advantages with respect to other functions. Even if the total affect is an increase in fitness, some functions will be removed. A good example would be the kakapo. You didnt mention the important fact that the kakapo still has wings. The wings are useless for flying, but they are still there. The wings have reduced wing muscles, and diminished keels. However, the wings havent disappeared. The ancestors of the kakapo traded thermodynamic efficiency at the expense of flight abilities. With no predators, the main difficulty of a bird is finding food. Muscles use up energy, even when they are not being used. Wing muscles dont get used by the kakapo, but they still make the bird hungry. So the reduction of wing muscles was a distinct advantage on this formerly isolated island. Here is a link that shows you that the kakapo does have wings. However, evolution has changed its body so that it is more efficient in using the food it eats. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakapo The Kakapo is a large, rotund parrot; the male measures up to 60 cm (24 in) and weighs from 2 to 4 kg (4 to 9 lb) at maturity.[24] The Kakapo cannot fly, having short wings for its size and lacking the pronounced keel bone (sternum) that anchors the flight muscles of other birds. It uses its wings for balance, support, and to break its fall when leaping from trees. Unlike other land birds, the Kakapo can accumulate large amounts of body fat to store energy, making it the heaviest parrot. Its anatomy typifies the tendency of bird evolution on oceanic islands, with few predators and abundant food: a generally robust physique, with accretion of thermodynamic efficiency at the expense of flight abilities, reduced wing muscles, and a diminished keel on the sternum. You didnt mention that the kakapo needs a certain amount of land to call its own. The kakapo competes over land. They dont fight over food. However, they do compete over mates. Juveniles often have foraging areas that overlap. So the resources arent unlimited as you suggest. So it is better for kakatos to be born heavy, and to be metabolically efficient, then to fly. Here is an article that shows that kakapo do have home ranges. The males fight over track and bowl areas. There stick to their own areas, with a little overlap in feeding areas. The juveniles stick together within feeding areas. Therefore, there is competition between kakato. Kakato didnt have predators in the past, but they still had to compete for resources. Having loud voices to signal their location was obviously more important than flight, since this is how they mark out their turf. http://researcharchive.lincoln.ac.nz...ad_MSc.pdf.txt Home ranges An animals home range is not the whole area traversed in its life-time but the area used in its normal day to day activities that contains all the resources required for its survival (Krebs & Davies, 1996). Both male and female kakapo generally stay within similar home ranges much of the year, for a number of years, with some overlap occurring between feeding areas of individuals (Merton et al., 1984; Moorhouse & Powlesland, 1991; Powlesland et al., 1992). Kakapo are known to vocalise their whereabouts, perhaps to signal their presence to other kakapo, but they do not fight to defend their foraging areas so are not considered territorial (Powlesland et al., 1992). Some fighting does occur however between male kakapo over track and bowl mating areas (Powlesland et al., 2006). Kakapo are generally considered solitary (Higgins, 1999; Heather & Robertson, 2000) but recent evidence suggests that juveniles especially may forage in close proximity to each other with considerable overlap between home ranges (Farrimond, 2003). Adult males have also been observed roosting within short distances of each other (D. Eason, pers. comm.). You seem to imply that if there are no predators, then the animal has no problems. However, food gets seriously limited. Kakapo do sometime starve. They dont breed when the food supply is low. Therefore, you are wrong. Thermodynamic efficiency is more important than flight to the kakato. The extra energy needed for strong wings could very well cause a kakapo to starve or stop breeding when the food supply is low. Here is a link showing that kakapo stop breeding when their territories dont have food. http://www.nzes.org.nz/nzje/new_issu...col36_1_64.pdf Breeding variation in female kakapo (Strigops habroptilus) on Codfish Island in a year of low food supply Multivariate analysis illustrates female kakapo were effectively partitioning available habitat, as breeders foraging locations were positively correlated with high-abundance rimu forest with a tall canopy, described as optimal breeding habitat. Combined with the fact that juvenile kakapo have overlapping foraging areas, it is apparent that having small family sizes can be an advantage in terms of kinship selection. A gene that limits the size of a brood may have an advantage because the brood forages together. Competition between siblings could reduce the frequency of that gene in the population. There are a few exceptions where a feature disappeared in phylogenetic expression. However, very often the feature is still encoded in genes or chromosomes. The mutation may produce a regulatory gene that inhibits the growth of that feature, without changing the genetic code that contains the shape of the feature. The feature is hidden in the gene code, not eliminated. This is why there are atavistic mutations. A simple deletion of a regulatory gene can result in a physical feature coming back entirely. The genes didnt go away, their expression was suppressed. Ceteceans (whales, dolphins) are an example that I know well. Ceteceans evolved from a land based mammal sometime in the Eocene. The hind legs were a disadvantage in swimming, as they ruin the stream lining. Hind legs started to disappear. Some whales as late as the Oligocene had diminished hind legs. Today, no cetacean species normally has a hind flipper. There are some traces of a pelvis, but the pelvis is practically unnoticeable. The hind legs have vanished without turning into flippers. Or at least the hind leg phenotype has vanished. There are mutant cetaceans that have a hind leg. A dolphin (Trusiops truncates) was recently found with hind flippers. The hind flippers were movable. The dolphin was sent to an aquarium in Japan. There have been whales caught with hind flippers. Here is a link to an article on vestigial organs. Note that the majority of cetaceans no longer have hind legs or hind flippers. However, sometimes a cetacean is born with complete hind flippers. Evolution added genes to suppress the growth of hind limbs. The hind limbs didnt disappear because of disuse. The regulatory genes hide the hind limb code because hind limbs are a disadvantage. Sometimes, a single mutation can bring the hind limbs back. http://phylointelligence.com/bigbang.html In a few but well documented cases whales and dolphins have been found in the wild with larger hind legs.(Berzin 1972)(Hall 1984)(Sleptsov 1939)(Abel 1908)(Nemoto 1963)Some of these cases have even included feet and toe digits. To the left is a photo of the vestigial hind leg bones found in a humpback whale.(Andrews 1921) Additionally, as can be seen in the photo to the right, dolphins have also been found with full hind flippers. (Hidehiro and Ohsumi, 2008). Note that by my logic, the muscles could have disappeared altogether. However, that would be a very unlikely mutation. Once a complicated feature has evolved, it takes a lot of unlikely mutations to bring it back to the former state. So you see that there is no "evolutionary atrophy." Sometimes, a feature is reduced because a reduced feature makes the offspring more fit. |
Aug9-12, 04:02 PM | #9 |
Such a detailed response! That was fascinating, thank you! Maybe I am studying the wrong subject.
Aug10-12, 12:57 PM | #10 |
I had never heard of a kakapo before your original post (OP). However, the minute after I read you described the island of the kakapo as being "free of predators," I knew both that there were poor hungry kakapo's somewhere and that there would be these more fortunate land-grabbing kakapos. The Google search that followed merely validated my hypotheses. If there was no challenge to kakapo life, then we would soon be able to walk to their island on the backs of living kakapos. |
Aug10-12, 01:23 PM | #11 |
Aug10-12, 02:06 PM | #12 |
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_p...rs_of_penguins "When penguins are in the water their predators are, leopard seals, fur seals, sea lions, sharks, or killer whales. Their predators on land are, foxes, snakes, and introduced predators such as feral dogs, cats, and stoats, prey on eggs and chicks of some penguin species, including the yellow-eyed and Galapagos penguins." http://www.penguins-world.com/penguin-predators.html "There are quite a few types of predators out there that find penguins to make the perfect meal. It is due to these predators that not all of them survive to become adults. Others are eaten after laying their eggs so they never make it back to care for their young. What predators a penguin has depends on the species. The larger it is the better chance it has of getting away from certain predators. Also, the location where they live may or may not have certain predators within the vicinity. Most of the time the predators that are animals are a risk to the penguins in the water. They tend to be safer on land. However, the smaller species can be attacked by snakes and by lizards when they are on land. There are other land animals too that have been known to attack penguins. They include various types of birds and even ferrets. Generally they will try to get the young penguins or the adults that are sickly. They know they will be easily enough to win the battle with." http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_are_penguins_enemies "Well, penguins have pretty much ONE main predator: the leopard seal. Killer whales MAY eat a penguin, but only if they are really, REALLY hungry. Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_are_pe...#ixzz2rPCUesq2 " Penguins may not have many "land based predators". There are a few land based predators, but the real horrors in a penguin's life swim. Penguins have plenty of marine predators. Leopard seals love penguins. Not to mention sharks. Penguins don't have a good food source on land. Their food mostly comes from the open water. However, that is where their predators live! The predators include leopard seals and sharks. A lot of penguin parents, gathering food, are taken out by the predators. The predators live where the penguin food lives. There is no way for a penguin to obtain food without exposing itself to danger from predators. The predators are the reason their population hasn't exploded. Penguins breed on land despite the fact that there is no food on land. Emperor penguins have these elaborate migrations where they go to the most barren places on land. While they are breeding, they are starving. They wouldn't breed in such a barren landscape unless it provided protection from the predators. The kakapo is a slightly better example because they actually don't suffer much from predators. However, they have a mild competition with each other that makes up for their lack of predators. Penguins of all species have predators on the "open waters" where they hunt their food. Their population is kulled by marine predators. I suspect that is why they have social behaviors that involve cooperating with each other. If it wasn't for their predators, then penguins would quite possibly have evolved to be territorial. They would fight over mates, just like kakapo. Emperor penguins are on the verge of going extinct. They were in equilibrium with their predators for millions of years. Sadly, human beings are eating up their food supply. So at present, emperor penguins are over abundant in terms of the survival of their species. However, they were never free of predators. They are not breeding on a barren patch of ice for the scenery. They do not exchange care of the chicks because they think it is a fair thing to do. Their breeding behavior was shaped by the very real danger of predators. Penguins have existed for millions of years. If there was no check to their population in all this time, then we would be able to walk to the Antarctic on the backs of living penguins. |
Aug10-12, 07:51 PM | #13 |
I would say that the stability of the Antarctic penguin populations depends partly on predation, but would tend to be self limiting without predation because of fickle sea ice conditions and the challenges they face in reproducing in very cold conditions. http://www.penguinscience.com/clim_change.php |
Aug11-12, 10:51 AM | #14 |
Biological factors provide a negative feed back loop on penguin population because the agents of these limiting processes reproduce and die on their own. Biological factors that cause "self limiting" of a species include predators, parasites and internal competition within the species. When the penguin population goes up without any evolutionary changes, the populations of predator, parasite and other competitors increase. If the penguin makes some adaptation that prevents predation or parasitism, the predator or parasite can also make a counter adaptation. Therefore, there is never any danger of penguins filling up the seas with penguin bodies. As the population increases, the biological threats in penguin life increase. Suppose that penguins did not have any predators or parasites. Suppose that there was enough food to feed all penguins, no matter how many penguins there were. Suppose that the penguins only died of freezing in very cold winters or by being buried in ice avalanches. The penguins could adapt to the nonbiological threats by the standard evolutionary mechanisms. The penguin could evolve extra layers of fat to protect it from very cold temperatures. The penguin could develop a behavior where it avoids mountainous areas with avalanches. The nonbiological factor would not increase to limit the penguins growth. The winters won't get worse to check the penguins population. The mountains won't get less stable to check the penguins population. The penguins can make almost any adaptation necessary to adapt to nonbiological conditions. The penguin may be slowed down by extra layers of fat. However, there are no predators to run from. The penguin may avoid those mountains. However, there are no predators in the flat areas of the country to check the penguins. Very often, the nonbiological factors increase the threat of biological factors. If the ice melts due to global warming, the penguins will be more prone to predation. If there were no predators, the penguins could start reproducing in areas where there is food. The nonbiological factors provide a positive feedback loop on population. Every time the penguin makes an adaptation to nonbiological factors, the population goes up but the threat gets reduced. When a penguin makes an adaptation to a biological factor, the gain in population is temporary. The biological agent adapts to the penguins adaptation. Or the biological agent merely increases in numbers to make up for the new advantage the penguins have. Without a negative feedback loop, the penguin population would explode to the point that they are competing with each other. That will limit the penguin population. However, internal competition is a biological factor. It will produce another type of negative feed back loop. Therefore, I do not believe that the climate alone could cause the self limiting of the penguin population. If predators and parasites were completely eliminated, then the penguins would end up fighting each other. There is an episode of Futurama that makes that point. However, this probably isn't the forum to discuss it. |
Aug12-12, 01:44 PM | #15 |
http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v213/p301-309/ |
Aug12-12, 05:13 PM | #16 |
I admit that changing sea conditions, including the motion of ice, are the main factors that limit the population of penguins from different species. I may have been wrong in thinking that predation and parasites directly limits the size of the penguin population. I don't know what the situation was in the case of the distant ancestors of today's penguins, but today's penguins fear changing sea conditions. However, the issue of predation alone is only partly relevant to the OPs questions. The OP asked two questions. First, he asked how natural selection could remove a neutral trait like wings from a flightless bird. Second, he asked how natural selection could a limit the trait that determines the rate of reproduction, like the size of a birds brood. The OP referred to the specific example of a kakapo, a very large parrot that doesnt fly. He claimed that it had limitless food and no predators. You brought up the penguin as another example of a flightless bird with large amounts of food and no predators. Right or wrong, I interpreted both your statements as claiming that natural selection did not limit the size of the birds broods. If this is what you both meant, then you were both wrong. If this is not what you meant, then I was wrong. The OP did not take into account the fact that individual kakapo compete over territory. Individual mothers graze with their young on their own territory. The males compete over females. They may not compete directly for food, on a fruit by fruit basis. However, not all the territories are equally provided with kakapo food. Therefore, competing for land and competing for mates is operationally the same as competing for food. If the brood is too large, the kakapo family strips their territory. The family dies. The other kakapo territories are unaffected by the death of this family. When the land recovers, another kakapo takes over the land. If a kakapo were to fly away from her territory for any significant length of time, another kakapo will take over her territory. Fruit comes with territory. If a male flies away for any length of time, then he loses the chance to find a female. So energy is limited at certain times. Food is not unlimited all the time. Once can think of this as group selection. Each family, in its own territory, competes with other families in other territories. If a kakapo cant hold on to fertile territory, then natural selection removes its genes from the population. If a kakapo female has too many brood, her territory is stripped and her family dies. Another kakapo, that had a smaller family, takes over her territory. The kakapo hasnt escaped natural selection. Your example of the penguins is also an example of natural selection. According to your claim, the penguin is occasionally separated from the ocean by changing ice conditions. When this happens, the food is limited. The penguin can starve. So the wings didnt shrink to save energy. The wings adapted for better swimming. There was no evolutionary atrophy. The wings did not shrink from disuse. Brooding conditions change with the species of penguin. Therefore, I will focus on the emperor penguin. The female emperor penguin lays one egg at one time, and hands it off the male. The male juggles that one egg for months to keep it unfrozen. She comes back to take care of the chick. If she laid more than one egg at one time, the male would be unable to keep both eggs unforzen. The mother would be wasting energy on an egg that was doomed to die. If the egg freezes, then natural selection has not favored her or her mate. However, that does not change the chances of the other penguins. Evolution did not favor a one egg brood by anticipating global disaster. The family in penguins is like the territory in kakapatos. Atrophy is not part of evolution. Anticipation is not part of evolution. http://www.mrnussbaum.com/birds/printables/penguins.pdf Female Emperor Penguins lay a single egg in May or June. After the egg has been laid, the female must immediately feed in the ocean. First, the egg is carefully transported to the male, who incubates the egg under a brood patch that rests above the feet. Occasionally, the transfer is unsuccessful and the egg rolls onto the ice and instantaneously freezes. The male will incubate the egg for up to 65 days! During this time, he will not eat a single meal. On particularly cold days, hundreds of male penguins may gather together in a compact huddle to warm themselves in the pounding Antarctic winds. In about two months, the female returns and locates her mate and chick by sound. She regurgitates food stored in her stomach to feed the growing chick. The male then takes his turn feeding in the ocean and returns after about a month, at which point both parents tend to the chick by regurgitating food and keeping it off the ice. Once the chick is about seven weeks old, it joins other chicks in a creche (huddle) to keep warm. The above behavior probably started to avoid predators. The entire point of living in such an isolated area is probably to avoid predation. Penguins live in areas which are subject to changing sea conditions precisely because it is a way to avoid predators. Tell me why a penguin would be living on the edge of icy disaster if it wasnt to avoid predation. |
Aug12-12, 05:33 PM | #17 |
1) If kakapos want to be free of carnal desires, why to they fight over mates? 2) How come the wings of kakapos are still useful even for a flightless bird? 3) If their lives are so quiet thoughtful, how come evolution made these parrots so big? 4) If these parrots are so thoughtful, why do they acquire territory? http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-kakapo.htm The wings of the kakapo are also characteristic features. Their wings are relatively short in comparison to those of other birds, and are not used to fly in the traditional sense; however, they are still very useful to the bird. For instance, they use their wings to parachute from trees, to keep their balance, fight rivals, and attract mates. |
New Reply |
Tags |
darwin, kakapo |
Similar discussions for: What's the explination for why useless traits often disapear | ||||
Thread | Forum | Replies | ||
Traits all engineers share? | General Engineering | 6 | ||
Top traits essential for a physicist? | Academic Guidance | 4 | ||
Pick and choose your traits | Biology, Chemistry & Other Homework | 1 | ||
MOD x explination please | General Math | 1 | ||
Explination? | Introductory Physics Homework | 6 |


text:
TODAY | November 23, 2012
>>> back now at 7:43. tomorrow is a big day for small businesses all across the country. it is small business saturday, and many will be offering big discounts to get you to shop locally. american express chairman and ceo ken chenault is here to tell us more about it along with karen mills, part of president obama 's cabinet for the small business administration . ken, let me start with you. black friday, black thanksgiving night, cyber monday, why do we need a small business saturday on top of it?
>> i think the most important thing is we want to celebrate small businesses and celebrate the communities where small sinesses are, and what we've seen over the last two years, this is the third year of small business saturday. we've really built a tremendous movement, and small businesses have seen increased in sales, and that's what it's about. what small businesses want are more customers.
>> true though, ken, that small businesses kind of needed this holiday because they were getting pinched and squeezed out by things like cyber monday and black friday?
>> i think the most important thing is we wanted to celebrate small businesses . this is not big box retailers against small businesses or cyber monday, there's room for all three. what we really felt is we wanted to really put attention to small businesses , the importance that small businesses have to our economy, creating half of the private work force and two-thirds of the net new jobs.
>> karen , basic question but an important one for consumers going out today. what is a small business ? if i'm out shopping, how do i identify it?
>> as you walk down main street in the community, many peopl have people with whom they have relations. it might abdely, a cupcake shop but you can walk in that business on small business start, and they have been preparing for months now. at the small business administration we've had a web page , they have come on and gotten tips so you might see a sign in the door. you might see a shop local. you might see them right out on the corner saying please help us celebrate small business saturday. and we are saying thank you to those people in our community who have done so much. they create jobs, and they support the little league and the girl scouts , so right on saturday i'm going to be walking down main street inri roslindale in boston saying thank you to the community.
>> this is the third year you've done it. have you seen tangible results? is it actually helping beyond the one day?
>> i think we've seen an increase in sales and we've seen a carry over of people really understanding the importance of small businesses . i mean, this has real become a movement. you have over 300 community organizations that have supported small business saturday, elected officials in all 50 states . the senate passed a unanimous resolution. how often does that happen in washington?
>> that's right.
>> and last year we had the president and his two daughters shopping at a local bookstore in washington so i think what's important is, this is not just about small business saturday. it's really the kickoff for the holiday season and a kickoff for support of small business saturd saturday.
>> across the administration you're going to be seeing this again. many will be out shopping. many in my cabinet already have plans, and you probably have plans too.
>> absolutely. i'll be out tomorrow, guys. thanks so much and appreciate what you're doing, ken chenault and karen mills.
>> thank you.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
- Home >
- TOOC Events >
- Blue Cheese Stuffed Olives >
- Product Reviews
Customer Reviews
1 Item(s)
per page
- I just spent $22 for olives Review by Andrew McPhee
1 Item(s)
per page
My Cart
You have no items in your shopping cart.
Compare Products
You have no items to compare.
Community Poll


text:
Bean & The Boys (Walter Foots Thomas All Stars/Bean & The Boys/Stasch)
CD (Item 533801) Prestige, 1944/1946/1959 — Condition: New Copy
A great assortment of material from Coleman Hawkins – sides that nicely span the mid 40s and late 50s, showing some great growth in his technique! The first four tracks are from a record by the Walter Foots All Stars – a group led by Foots on tenor, but also featuring Hawk – also with Hilton Jefferson on alto and Jonah Jones on trumpet – on tracks that include "Out To Lunch", "Every Man For Himself", and "Look Out Jack". Next are four more tracks recorded in 1944 with backing by a quartet that includes Thelonious Monk – on titles that include "On The Bean", "Recollections", and "Flyin Hawk". A set with a more boppish lineup follows – with JJ Johnson on trombone and Fats Navarro on trumpet – on titles that include "Bean & The Boys", "Cocktails For Two", and "You Go To My Head". Last are some later sides from 1959 – the great album Stasch, played by a very hip group – with Jerome Richardson on flute and tenor, Pepper Adams on baritone, Idrees Sulieman on trumpet, Roy Gaines on guitar, and Ray Bryant on piano. Jerry Valentine did the arrangements – and cuts include "Stasch", "Trust In me", "Roll Em", "Skyrouk", and "My Babe". © 1996-2013, Dusty Groove, Inc. |
You might be interested in: |
Related searches:
Coleman Hawkins (aka The Hawk Swings) (Japanese paper sleeve edition): An obscure session that was nearly lost, because it was issued on a cheapo label – but which features some really great work from Coleman Hawkins! The format is small combo, with long tracks that ... read more Jazz (CD) 29.99 |
Bopland – The Legendary Elks Club Concert LA 1947 (3CD set): Way more than just a Dexter Gordon album – and instead, an important historic document of the bop scene on the west coast! The 3CD set features the complete recordings from an Elks Auditorium concert ... read more Jazz (CD) 9.99 | ||||
Portrait Of My Pals (with bonus tracks): A genius album from Swedish baritone giant Lars Gullin – and a set that's from a period that was much less documented on our side of the Atlantic! Gullin was one of the undisputed masters of the ... read more Jazz (CD) 6.99 |
Jazz Loves Paris (with bonus tracks): A hip little album from Buddy Collette – one that's ostensibly based around the then-popular idea of a set of Paris-inspired tunes – but which comes off with a sound that's a lot deeper than ... read more Jazz (CD) 3.99 | ||||
Soulful Drums Of Joe Dukes/Hot Barbeque: 2 of the greatest albums ever by Jack McDuff – back to back on one CD! Soulful Drums of Joe Dukes was originally issued under the name of McDuff's famous mid-60s funky drummer, Joe Dukes – ... read more Jazz (CD) 4.99 |
Buck & Buddy: Beautiful blowing from Buck Clayton and Buddy Tate – captured here in the relaxed, easy-going setting of the Swingville label! The album's got a lot more charm than some of Clayton's sides for Columbia ... read more Jazz (CD) 3.99 | ||||
Musings Of Miles (RVG remaster edition): A beautiful little record by Miles Davis – oft overlooked next to some of the better-titled Prestige sessions of the 50s, but a great one nonetheless! The session features Miles working with trio ... read more Jazz (CD) 3.99 |
Legends Of Acid Jazz – Black Rhythm Revolution/Peace & Rhythm: Two classics from the legendary Idris Muhammad! Black Rhythm Revolution is one of the first records ever as a leader from funky drummer Idris Muhammad – a set that was cut right at the same time ... read more Jazz (CD) 5.99 | ||||
Legends Of Acid Jazz (Blue Gator/Cookin' Sherry): Seminal early work from Willis Jackson – two classics back to back on a single CD! Blue Gator is a massive early Prestige set from tenorist Willis – and just the kind of record that set him ... read more Jazz (CD) 3.99 |
Blues The Most: Hampton Hawes isn't exactly the first pianist we think of when it comes to bluesy lines in his music – but there's definitely a blue-tinged undercurrent to most of the work in this set – a ... read more Jazz (CD) 3.99 | ||||
47th Street Ghost: Excellent work from Chicago reed player David Boykin – a much more straight ahead album than some of his earlier work, but done with an edge that keeps it in the ranks of the AACM tradition that ... read more Jazz (CD) 13.99 |


text:
Despite danger and little pay, a New York City bicycle courier explains why he loves his job.
For some, riding a bike through the streets of New York can be a treacherous affair reserved for when all other modes of transportation are out of service. But for Mike Pelletier, it's a source of exhilaration, as well as income.
Pelletier, 23, has been working as a bicycle courier since he moved to Brooklyn around three years ago and says the job is more than just a paycheck. It's a chance for him to make a living doing something he loves – biking through the often harrowing landscape that is Manhattan.
Sure, the job involves occasionally riding in bad weather and dodging some of the most aggressive drivers in the country, but Mike says it's all worth the freedom and excitement his job allows.
When Mike isn't delivering packages, he's participating in the underground world of illegal bike races – commonly known as alley cat racing. The races are a chance for couriers to show off their skills in front of their colleagues and earn some street credibility.
While Pelletier is prone to taking plenty of risks during work, he says the races are where bikers really go all out to earn respect and glory. He once famously hopped onto the FDR Drive for a few exits with cars whizzing by at 65 miles-per-hour just to better his chances in the race.
While his job is often a rush, Pelletier is well aware of the dangers associated with biking in New York City. He has sustained numerous injuries including one that caused him to miss work for a week. An oblivious driver opened a car door as he was cruising by, causing him to lose control of his bike and slam into the back of a garbage truck.
Still, despite the danger and the little pay he receives, Pelletier says he loves his job.
For me personally it's the most exhilarating thing you can do in an urban city like this where it's just all cement. You can't snowboard in the streets, you can't parasail on the beaches. I mean, you ride your bike as fast as possible through traffic. That's what we do.
My name is Mike Pelletier. I am a bicycle courier in New York City.
I think it's just being able to do pretty much whatever you want in the time of 9 to 5. You have to pick up your package, you have to deliver the package and you have to do it all in a certain amount of time, but you can go any route, you can yell at people, you can blow red lights. Not necessarily, but you can pretty much do anything to get to your destination. I think that's the most gratifying part. It's just so open, so free.
I put on a podcast or turn on my radio and listen to music and pretty much zone out. I'm always aware of the cars around me and the lights and the pedestrians because you have to be. It would be way too dangerous.
It's a lot of work for a little bit of pay. You can't call out on rain days, you can't call out on snow days. If you're sick, too bad, you got to rid your bike. So you kind of just have to work through that kind of stuff. But if you are a good messenger, you don't get into accidents, you deliver packages on time, you're trustworthy, you can make between $400 and $700 a week.
In one of my classes in college I had a friend that was a messenger and he came in sweaty, he had that giant backpack full of stuff, he had his bike gloves on. He just looked like a complete badass. And I just started talking to him and he told me he just rode his bike all day, made good money, he could pay rent. And at the time I was just looking for work, I was just working in a dead end busboy job somewhere and decided to try something new. Did really bad the first week, got a little better the second week, was dead tired the third week, but by the fourth week I kind of knew what I was doing, where I had to ride and stuff like that, and I think it's when you get to that point that the job becomes really, really fun.
There's just a lot of dangerous shit people do. It's one of those thi
Cool story man, I'm writing a book about bike messengers Are you up for an interview some day soon? just contact me at firstname.lastname@example.com or 862 222 43 00
Hell yeah man, alleycats all day every day
Monster Track spoke card boy !!
© 2013 Created by UCWNET.


text:
Most patients with mental illness are not violent, and when violent behavior does occur, it is usually transient.1 Nevertheless, violent behavior is a challenging problem. Swanson and colleagues 2 provided evidence that demonstrated that schizophrenia and major mood disorders confer an elevated risk of violent behavior, and that risk is augmented by comorbid substance use disorders and by comorbid personality disorders.
The clinical importance of this effect is underlined by the fact that risk for substance use disorders in schizophrenia is very high; lifetime prevalence of this comorbidity in schizophrenia is estimated at 47%.4 For these reasons, evaluation of comorbid substance use disorders is an important component of the clinical assessment of patients with schizophrenia. Management of comorbid substance use disorders must be an inherent part of the treatment plan.
Violent behavior is heterogeneous in origin, and its development is not limited to the context of mental illness.5 Therefore, management approaches that rely exclusively on psychopharmacology are frequently unsuccessful—not only because of incorrect societal context, but also because violent behavior in mental illness frequently results from nonadherence to treatment.6
Acute management of agitation and violent behavior
Agitation is a common reason for presentation to an emergency department (ED); it can tip the decision for in-patient care and can be an obsta-cle to hospital discharge. Agitation can easily escalate to aggression and violent behavior, and thus acute agitation is considered a behavioral emergency that requires immediate action. In addition to nonpharmacological interventions related to managing crisis situations, medication approaches are vital.5
Although oral medications can be effective, rapidity of onset of action is enhanced with the use of short-acting parenteral formulations that allow for maximal plasma levels to be reached more quickly. Lorazepam(Drug information on lorazepam) can be useful when the cause of the disturbed behavior is unclear and perhaps due to withdrawal from alcohol(Drug information on alcohol). It is reliably absorbed intramuscularly, has no active metabolites, and has a half-life of 10 to 20 hours; the usual dosage is 0.5 to 2 mg every 1 to 6 hours.7
Caution is required with lorazepam when respiratory depression is a possibility. In addition, lorazepam should not be used for long-term daily use because of the problems that are associated with benzodiazepine use—tolerance, dependence, and withdrawal.
What is already known about treating aggression?
■ Schizophrenia and major mood disorders confer an elevated risk of violent behavior, which is further raised by comorbid substance use disorders and by comorbid personality disorders. Intramuscular short-acting formulations of lorazepam, haloperidol(Drug information on haloperidol), aripiprazole(Drug information on aripiprazole), olanzapine(Drug information on olanzapine), and ziprasidone(Drug information on ziprasidone) are available for the management of acute agitation and aggression. All available antipsychotics as well as mood stabilizers and other drugs have been used for the long-term management of violent behavior in mental illness. Clozapine(Drug information on clozapine) has demonstrated superiority over other treatments.
What new information does this article provide?
■ We update information on efficacy and safety of medications used for acute agitation and aggression, particularly intramuscular formulations.
What are the implications for psychiatric practice?
■ Clozapine is the first-choice treatment for persistently violent patients with schizophrenia. It is not likely to be fully effective before an adequate dose (approximately 400 mg/d) is reached—often several weeks. Clozapine should not be prematurely discontinued during this escalation period. If necessary, another medication may be temporarily added to control violent behavior. If clozapine cannot be used, olanzapine may be a second choice. Other antipsychotics do not show any systematic differences in their antiaggressive effects.
The combination of intramuscular haloperidol with intramuscular lorazepam is also commonly used and is supported by a double-blind randomized clinical trial that compared intramuscular haloperidol 5 mg, intramuscular lorazepam 2 mg, or a combination of both in psychotic, agitated, and aggressive patients treated in EDs.8 However, continued use of haloperidol as a foundational antipsychotic would be suboptimal in schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. Consequently, there has been increased interest in intramuscular formulations of second-generation antipsychotics, of which 3 are available in the US: ziprasidone, olanzapine, and aripiprazole.9


text: The inaugural Global Community Market will be held Saturday, September 5, from 9am-4pm in the parking lot of Poinsettia Village Shopping Center to allow the community to support low-income artisans, microenterprise programs, and fair trade vendors from around the globe. Examples of goods include jewelry made by at-risk women in Thailand and Uganda Acholi women, and sweaters knit by imprisoned Peruvian women. Additional featured items include goods by Burmese refugees living in San Diego, carvings made by Kenyan orphans, crocheted items by women from the Tijuana Home for Abused Women, and more. Organizations such as Not For Sale will provide information regarding the local and worldwide slave trade, and Generation for Justice, a high school student group, will offer a face painting booth for children. Acoustic music will be provided by North Coast Calvary Chapel. One-hundred percent of proceeds will support causes around the globe. (www.globalcommunitymarket.org) JANE SHIOMI


text:
Cellular Proliferation Notes
These audio-format notes are perfect for revising on-the-go: whether getting up in the morning, travelling to lectures, cooking or getting ready for bed at night, audio-notes help you maximise your revision time for the most efficient learning experience.
Compiled immediately after each lecture, initially for my own personal use, I found great benefit in memorising familiar phrases which occur throughout the recording, and achieved several solid days more revision just from listening to these notes during the time taken up by everyday tasks. These notes assisted me in achieving the highest grades in my first year undergraduate studies at Cambridge University, and have complete coverage over all exam-based aspects of the course.
Topics covered in this module:
The Cell Cycle Viral Reproduction and its Effects on Cellular Controls Oncogenes and Cancer Cell Growth and Organelle Biogenesis
These notes are based on the lecture course presented by Professor Ron LaskeyProperties
Notes type | Audio Notes |
Year | 2007 |
Institution level | Undergraduate |
Institution | University Of Cambridge |
Country | United Kingdom |
Grade | 1st Class |
Reviews Of Our Notes
"The best place to start your readings as you can build a basic infrastructure out of them, rather than blindly dive into pages and pages." Student, University of Oxford
"I have found the Oxbridge notes to be a really effective aid to my revision, they were thorough, up to date and relevant to my subjects, and were the main contributing factors to my exam success, very powerful tool." Student, University of Manchester
"No unnecessary information... Oxbridge Notes cut to the chase and are more than sufficient to do well in exams." University of Southampton, Singapore
"The notes have really helped clarify points in a thorough but casual manner. In a non threatening format they are very user friendly and aid in the construction of an effective backbone. I used these notes frequently to make additional notes on and to explain topics in a clearer fashion. The bundle has an added bonus that it allows the student to dip into other topics apart from those of the curriculum, thereby cementing your knowledge more generally. " Psychology Graduate, GDL Student, University of London, London
"Oxbridge Notes have helped me greatly both over the course of the entire year with lectures and supervisions, as well as in preparation for the end of year exams. It really helps to have at hand notes that were written by a law student that was at one point in your exact position. The range, depth and quality of the material definitely made things easier to understand from a student point of view. Working alongside these notes is as close as you can get to working alongside a senior student at any time you wish." Law Student, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
Included inside this Cellular Proliferation revision package
Links to free sample(s):
Advantages Of Buying Audio Cellular Proliferation Notes
- Perfect For Revision On The Go! Whether getting up in the morning, travelling to lectures, cooking or getting ready for bed at night, audio-notes help you maximise your revision time for the most efficient learning experience.
- Great For Auditory Learners! Many students learn more effectively when information is explained to them compared to when they read it in a textbook. If you fit this bill then these notes are perfect for you.
Further Information
Special Offer: Biochemistry Bundle
Get great value by buying the Biochemistry Bundle instead
This pack includes: Development in Multicellular Organisms, Respiration, Photosynthesis and Molecular Biosynthesis, Cell Signalling, Modern Genetics, Macromolecules in the Cell, Genes In Action: DNA From Replication to Translation, Cellular Proliferation, Genetic Theory, and Cell and Organelle Membranes.


text:
November 22, 2010
And now, a series of posters filled with could've-beens
I'm not sure what's going on right now, but there are a ton of movies coming out (all direct-t0-DVD) with a ton of b-listers, or as I like to call them could've-beens. And they're all from the shady-sounding New Films Cinema. Like the one above, "Dead Awake." Nick Stahl. He totally could've been. Rose McGowan. [...]
Read More..>>


text:
Stadium parking lots open five (5) hours prior to kickoff. Parking in both the east and west stadium lots is reserved for members of the Ahearn Fund and requires a permit for entry, which must be displayed at all times. For information about reserved parking, contact the Ahearn Fund Office at 785-532-7715.Buy K-State Tickets | Visiting K-State | Visitor Parking Pass informationBill Snyder Family Stadium Fan Map | Interactive Campus Map | Manhattan MapK-State Parking Services | Parking Garage Policies
Public ParkingGeneral public parking is available in the grassy area (Lot 9) east of the stadium, in the paved lot of the Chester Peters Recreation Center or in satellite lots surrounding the stadium and other paved lots on campus. General public parking fees are $20 for cars and $30 for charter buses. Paid parking for fans with disabilities is available on a first-come, first-served basis in both the east and west stadium lots. To gain entry, guests must display a state-issued accessible license plate or hangtag and present a disability card along with a form of personal identification.
Parking for RV's, buses and vehicles with camper trailers is limited to designated parking stalls which must not exceed a maximum stall width of 11-feet, 6-inches and a maximum stall length of 55-feet. Vehicles parking in standard stalls and any attached accessories must not exceed a maximum stall width of 8-feet, 6-inches and a maximum stall length of 21-feet. Vehicles with pull-behind trailers and pull-behind smokers are prohibited. Charter bus parking is available in the east stadium lot only.TailgatingTailgating is a traditional part of K-State game-day activities. Guests are asked to comply with the following guidelines:
Public ParkingFor men's basketball, game-day general admission parking is available in either the east or west lots for $10 for cars and $25 for charter buses. For women's basketball, game-day general admission parking costs $5. Paid parking for fans with disabilities is available on a first-come, first-served basis in both the east and west lots. Guests must display a state-issued accessible license plate or hangtag and present a disability card along with a form of personal identification to access handicapped parking. Ahearn Reserved Parking – A reserved space for each home game. Members with basketball season tickets at the Victory Club level or higher are eligible to purchase one reserved pass. Reserved parking is the option with the closest proximity to Bramlage Coliseum. Most of the reserved parking is located on the West side of the Coliseum; however we do have a limited amount of reserved parking available on the East side of Bramlage Coliseum.VIP Parking – Non-reserved parking for each home game. Parking in VIP areas is available for Ahearn Fund members at the Royal Purple Club level and higher to purchase on a season basis. The VIP parking area is located on the West side of Bramlage Coliseum. VIP parking is limited to one pass per ticket account.GA Parking – A general admission parking pass is available for purchase to all men's basketball season ticket holders. GA parking is located in both the East and West lots of the Coliseum.Exiting the ColiseumPassout privileges are not permitted for events conducted in Bramlage Coliseum.
ConductGuests are expected to conduct themselves in an appropriate manner at all times during a game. K-State promotes the Big 12 Conference Code of Sportsmanship and encourages guests to treat visitors, players, coaches and officials with courtesy. Violators of stadium policies are subject to ejection and applicable legal action.
Subscribe to K-State Sports Extra


text:
DLC Map Pack Available July 2nd
Call of Duty®: Ghosts
Pre-order Now
New Personalization Packs are here!
Latest Intel
The best-selling first-person action series of all-time returns with Call of Duty®: Ghosts.
FAQ – Ending New Call of Duty Elite Premium Membership Subscriptions for Call of Duty: MW3
Posted 08-17-2012 3:06PMCollection 4: Final Assault Trailer - Official Call of Duty: MW3 Video
Posted 07-30-2012 5:11PMSeptember Call of Duty ELITE Premium Drops Detailed
Posted 07-30-2012 4:56PM


text:
Build the experiments YOURSELF! Use the parts kit to build the experiments in ARRL's Hands-On Radio*, by H. Ward Silver, N0AX. The experiments in the book cover a wealth of topics including basic radio fundamentals, components, circuits and design. You'll enjoy heating up soldering irons, plugging in components, learning what makes your radio work and more!
Enclosed is a list of parts included in the kit. The list is based on the
parts list provided in the back of the book. *Book not included.
Also available:
ARRL's Hands-On Radio Experiments (sold separately).
ARRL's Hands-On Radio Experiments Volume 2 (sold separately).
Produced for ARRL by Kanga US.
Temporarily out-of-stock!
Please note, the new parts kit will be based on the experiments in Volume 1 and 2.


text:
17 September, 2008
East Lynn Park @ Woodbine/Danforth - Canada
Tall, thin, blonde, female daycare provider - probably late '40s - frequents the park with a few young children in her care (toddler & pre-school) - SMOKING. Asked twice by a mom to put out her cigarette and ignored her. When she was finished smoking she yelled at the mother and threatened to hit her. All of this was in the middle of the playground where the kids were playing. Last summer I often saw this woman with another tall blonde woman (sister?) on the Danforth (Woodbine area) with kids in tow and cigarettes in their hands. One would push the stroller with a smoke and the other would have a child in one hand and a smoke in the other.
For sure they are daycare providers - they were not with their children. If only I had known this site existed I would have paid better attention to the details - but if you live in the Danforth/Woodbine area and your daycare provider is tall, thin & blonde, you might want to ask if she smokes around your child.
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
East Lynn Park @ Woodbine/Danforth
Monday, September 15, 2008
51 comments:
Smoking is not a CRIME and is really a petty thing to report. If I smoked (I don't), and someone asked me to put it out (if I was outdoors), I would ignore them as well.
No child is going to have any sort of symptoms of any sort if a wisp of cigarette smoke happens to go by their head. When I was growing up, half my friends' parents smoked -- in the car -- with the windows CLOSED!
This country has gotten so overprotective to the point of fanaticism. - Sep 17, 2008, 11:31:00 PM
I disagree allison. I was one of those kids who's parents smoked with the windows rolled up. I have chronic bronchitis due to it. I've been denied health care because of it. I agree people don't need to freak about a wisp of smoke but I believe children should have the right to breath clean air so put out your flipping cigarette!
- Sep 17, 2008, 11:48:00 PM
Smoking should be a crime. I think we should be allowed to slap anyone who smokes within 500 feet of us. I hate the smell of ciggarettes and it sticks to the smokers like stink on shit. They don't know it though, but yeah you stink like shit smokey smokerson.
And also, you're gonna die soon.
You won't be laughing then, will you smokey joe? - Sep 17, 2008, 11:50:00 PM
- nannyinmanhattan said...
Sara I love you.. I posted a sighting about a nanny I saw smoking recently and to my surprise the majority was quite OK with her smoking around the little girl, to which I was mortified. But people's opinions are their opinions; That, we can do nothing about. I too think smoking should be a crime and children should be allowed to breathe fresh clean air. The air around us is already polluted enough as it is to have smoking cigerettes adding to it.
Also we people seem a little uneducated about what second hand smoke could do, or have we forgotton?
It is a killer. A KILLER!!
We do not need smoking to be glamorized around our children people!
STOP IT! JUST STOP IT!! - Sep 18, 2008, 12:46:00 AM
While all of you are at it what other rights would you like to take away from people??
Maybe those who like to drink wine while out to dinner and get a little obnoxious?
Those who like to chew gum and crack it as loud as they can?
How about chicks who like to show off their new thong when bending over to tie their shoe?
All because you find it annoying?
Really..smoking can be harmful to your health and yes second hand smoke can be dangerous..but taking away the rights of people who smoke while outside? You people have gone too far.
These nannies are staying active with their charges. Not at home sitting on their asses and if they are smoking as much as you describe,there is no way in hell that mom and dad are not going to smell it on them!
I do not smoke.Nor do i like the smell. I also think it looks horrid!
My parents both do and did when we were kids.
We do not have any health problems because of it. Nor do my parents.
I am sorry for the person with the bronchitis. It sucks and I would not wish it on anyone.
They have taken smoking away from people while out to eat,when at the beach and in most indoor places here where we live.
Lets focus on real crimes. Gangs, drug sales,rapists and child abusers..quit acting as if smoking is a crime..until it is illegal(and I hope that day never comes)go after the real criminals! Smoking OUTSIDE is not harmful to a child unless you are blowing each puff directly into their faces!I doubt highly that these two smoking guns were doing that!
Silly,silly post! really - Sep 18, 2008, 1:35:00 AM
there is a lot of things wrong with smoking.
it is not a crime.
I do smoke, and I'm a nanny. However it comes down to COMMON SENSE.
you don't smoke on the job. period. If you want to smoke on the job, then don't take care of children. its their innocent right, being under 18 to not be subjected to smoke.
listen, I do smoke. not on the job. its wrong to smoke around a child. however, it is not a crime. - Sep 18, 2008, 9:44:00 AM
Sex isn't illegal either, but I bet you'll be arrested if you do it in a park full of children.
- Sep 18, 2008, 11:03:00 AM
Why do people keep using the argument that smoking isn't illegal? Well drinking isn't illegal until you get behind the wheel of a car and are now endagering the lives of people around you. Smoking should be the same way. It has been PROVEN that smoking is hazardous to the smoker and those around the smoke, so why do we have to keep begging you to stop harming our lungs along with yours? It's all about respecting others and being curteous.
Point: If you want to harm yourself...fine, but please leave me and my children out of it.
Thank you! - Sep 18, 2008, 11:08:00 AM
- kathleencares said...
Wouldn't the parents know if their child was around a smoker? I assume the child would smell like smoke, right? So maybe the parents are smokers as well and don't mind. That is just one thought, which could be way off base. But regardless, I do not think the nanny should be smoking around the child and she should know better. From what I understand, second hand smoke is really dangerous, especially for small children!
- Sep 18, 2008, 12:19:00 PM
"Sex isn't illegal either, but I bet you'll be arrested if you do it in a park full of children."
Ridiculous comparison. Nobody can get arrested for smoking in public. - Sep 18, 2008, 12:24:00 PM
The point I was making is that they should be arrested for smoking in a park full of children.
Even though it's not illegal to smoke (like sex), it's not appropriate to do in front of children. - Sep 18, 2008, 12:29:00 PM
Yes, smoking is harmful and disgusting. However it was not your place to ask the caregiver to put her cigarette out-unless there were signs saying no smoking in the area. It is her free right( as gros s as it is) to smoke wherever the law allows her. Would it have been nice for her to not expose small children to the toxins of her cigarettes? Yes. But unfortunately is really wasn't your place. What I would have done was removed my children/charges away from her. This is just my opinion though, and it is a good sighting because maybe the parents will see this and know their poor children are being exposed to smoke and a neglectful caregiver.
- Sep 18, 2008, 12:46:00 PM
It's a shame that someone would need to post a sign that say's NO SMOKING for people to know it's an idiodic thing to smoke in an area for kids.
I'm sick of hearing "my right to smoke, my right to smoke". Well what about my right to not be exposed smoked filled air. - Sep 18, 2008, 1:07:00 PM
No, smoking is not a crime. But, as a parent and an ex smoker, i do not want anyone smoking around my kids. Even when i myself smoked, i never, ever smoked when my kids were with me. i know how bad smoking is for you and it was my choice at that time to pollute my body with it, no need for my kids to suffer also.
I cannot stand people who smoke around kids! ugh, nasty!
That said, how could these parents not smell the smoke on the kids when they go home? My child used to go to a friend's house where the dad smoked in the kitchen and I could smell the smoke on him when he came home, drove me nuts! - Sep 18, 2008, 2:10:00 PM
haha. sarah, you're a spaz.
- Sep 18, 2008, 3:19:00 PM
I haven't been reading this thread, but had to look and see why somebody thought sarah was a "spaz"...hehe. Sara, you're funny.
And sydney white,
Since you asked, the rights I would like to take away from people are the "rights" that do actual harm to innocent bystanders in their vicinity. And the "rights' that cost taxpayers billions of dollars every year...totally needlessly. And the rights that cost thousands upon thousands of lives every year. Just those, thank you.
If we could get rid of smoking I would gladly look at your butt crack in your thong and listen to you pop your gum loudly...without complaint even. (Altough I may secretly snicker behind your back and point it out to my husband or friends so they can have a good laugh too if your butt hangs out too much, OK? But if it looks really gross, we'll make a pukey face instead and mutter amongst ourselves about whether you realize just how disgusting and NOT sexy it actually looks.) - Sep 18, 2008, 3:34:00 PM
Nah parents wouldn't know if you smoked. I used to smoke around my charge and even in the car. I realize now it wasn't the best choice but I was a selfish 23 year old. I used a lot of bodyspray. I made a concoction of Scope and tide and water and put it in a spray bottle and I would squirt me and the kid with it throughout the day. This was before the genius of febreeze, but I guarantee you there are nannies all over westchester febreezing your babies!
And ciggarette smoke is the least of what they are covering up. - Sep 18, 2008, 4:55:00 PM
- Janet English said...
People who smoke are just plain stupid. I personally want to run them over with my car and the government should compensate me for getting rid of them.
Seriously, smokers should be allowed to smoke but I wish they have to pay 3 times as much for health insurance due to all the damage they do to the innocent.
If you smoke you not only look stupid but you reek. Your breath is bad. Your clothes smell like a garbage bin and you annoy me.
I get satisfaction in the fact that you will have bad skin, nails, teeth and cellulite before me. That's the least you can get for annoying me.
That's just my opinion. So go ahead and light up.
For the record there are now companies that FINE their workers for smoking and being fat because it raises the cost of health insurance for them. Awesome. And thank you Cali for making it illegal for mommy and everyone else to smoke in the car with their kids. - Sep 18, 2008, 5:54:00 PM
That's true, Janet English. I forgot about all of the ways smoking makes poeple ugly before their time.
So much for "looking cool" by smoking if you have yellow teeth, excessive wrinkles, sagging skin,cellulite, lines all around your mouth, a voice like a 90 year old lumberjack, and a witch's hacking cough. Pretty....sexy , and cool. Now I understand why they do it. - Sep 18, 2008, 7:00:00 PM
I'm the original poster.
It wasn't so much that she wouldn't put the cigarette out when asked (while leaning on the play structure, no less), it was the fact that she screamed and threatened violence once she stubbed it out (on the ground of the play area, no less).
It's irritating enough when you're walking behind a smoker on the street and inhale lungfuls of their secondhand smoke, but I don't need it to drift into my toddler's face when she's playing in the sandbox!
Here it's illegal to smoke in a car with children in it, as well as in all workplaces, bars and restaurants. I would think that it's not unreasonable to expect a children's play area to be smoke-free. - Sep 18, 2008, 7:49:00 PM
Yep..I know of these ladies too...their daycare is just north of Woodbine and Danforth.
I have seen some of the parents having a cigarette with the daycare providers on more than one occasion. There is something so disturbing about seeing a women pushing a baby stroller or holding a toddlers hand while smoking at the same time.
I am NOT judging smokers...I have one every once and a while (was a regular smoker prior to kids) but never, NEVER would I ever smoke around my children! What is stopping these ladies from smoking indoors with these poor babies and kids?
They should be ashamed and so should the parents who knowingly drop them off there. - Sep 18, 2008, 7:56:00 PM
- smokers suck said...
People who smoke around children should be kicked in the head.
- Sep 18, 2008, 8:21:00 PM
smoking sucks. I agree.
But the over reaction on this thread is crazy.
Mom,The tax money that you are referring to has been spent on smokers dying from lung cancer..not people dying from second hand smoke.Which is what we are referring to when we speak of people smoking in the park and the fact that it bothers us.
In order for second hand smoke to cause any illness it would have to be ingested for 6- 8 hours daily in an enclosed area for years to have an affect.Following a smoker on the sidewalk and smelling the smoke while in the park are annoying at best. Rude on the smokers part..perhaps
Several of you are over reacting though and need to get your facts straight.
I do not smoke. I never have. I too think it stinks and is gross to watch. But those who choose to do it,have that right . They
should not be made to feel like a common criminal,they simply choose a vice that you don't.
janet english,your post regarding the joy and satisfaction you get from watching smokers teeth turn yellow,skin wrinkle up and so on was repulsive. I don't condone smoking.I choose not to do it. I do however have a vice in my life as most of us do. If I were strong enough or disciplined enough to give it up,I would be close to perfect. But I am human and none of us is perfect.(although in most of your posts you portray yourself as such)
How sad that you get off watching others struggles with their addictions. How sad that you find the effects of a smokers addiction gratifying because you hate smoking.
The park is big enough for all of us to get along and co=exist.
For the record,I agree,a considerate person would not smoke at a park in the immediate area surrounding children. The woman in the post was obviously crass and rude..no argument there.
Mom,though we don't agree,your remark about the thong and gum were funny and cleverly stated. - Sep 19, 2008, 12:46:00 AM
I don't know if it's statewide, but most playgrounds here that I can recall state that smoking is prohibited in tot play areas.
Since it was not specifically prohibited in the park the woman was in however, I agree that it was out of line for the other woman to ask her to put out her cigarette. That's like asking someone who is walking a dog on a leash to walk on the other side of the street from you on the chance that their dog MAY get vicious and MAY try to attack you, and because you hate dogs. But there is no excuse for belligerent behavior and threats, especially in front of children, and she should have been arrested for that.
For the people who ask why is it not your right to not have to breathe anyone's cigarette smoke? It is. Just stay away from areas where smoking is allowed. I don't smoke, and smoking is prohibited virtually everywhere in California now, but to make it illegal is about as silly as making it a law that everyone must exercise for 20 minutes every day and eat 5 servings of vegetables daily. (Not including potatoes or ketchup).
And I don't buy into the argument that people who smoke or who may be slightly overweight are responsible for the highway robbery that is the cost of health care now. That would be the insurance companies and lawyers gouging everyone, and doctors having to buy mega-million insurance policies to protect themselves against malpractice lawsuits from all the litigation-crazed idiots in this country.
In the UK, most adults smoke, and they somehow do not have the insane problem of astronomical health care costs, which they surely would if smoking were the root cause of our problem. - Sep 19, 2008, 1:42:00 AM
i don't think it's a good idea to smoke around anyone. i don't want to breathe anyone's second hand smoke either. it's bad for adults too, you know. but when it happens, at least i know it's a temporary situation and it's not everyday. no one should have to be in close contact with second hand smoke on a consistent basis.
- Sep 19, 2008, 2:04:00 AM
by the way Sydney White, you seem pretty smart.
- Sep 19, 2008, 2:10:00 AM
I agree pink nanny, I always love what Sydney White has to say.
"By the way, I'm still learning how to speak priss" - Sydney White, the movie. LOL - Sep 19, 2008, 3:02:00 AM
Sydney White,
I respectfully disagree. I have asthma...not really bad...but asthma nonetheless. Sometimes I have symptoms and other times I am perfectly normal.The times when I am unavoidably in the vicinity of second hand smoke I immediatley beging to cough...and sometimes have symptoms continuing even into the next day. If it stays in my lungs that long, it stays in yours too...you just don't feel it so acutely. Most of the time I try to leave immediately when smoke is in the air...but there are times when its not feasable.
There are plenty of kids and adults with lung issues and it seems quite unfair that others can engage in a vice that causes them immediated physical distress. I have plenty of friends with normal lungs as well who just can hardly stand to be encircled by smoke and end up smelling badly themselves as a result to boot.
I just think if we have laws limiting other activities because they are bad for our health, it is a mystery that smoking is still legal when it is such an undeniable detriment to people and to society and has no positive value. Why do we have to wear seatbelts and motorcycle helmets if we don't want to? Why can't we smoke marijuana? Why can't we cross in the middle of the street? - Sep 19, 2008, 10:32:00 AM
PS I realize that the bulk of the medical costs attributable to smoking are for people with self imposed diseases (which in itself is tragic)...but I still don't think its a good idea for our country to allow something like this to occur when we have so many people who need help in ways that are actually unpreventable and we don't have the money to handle those.
And with us having the knowledge of how addictive smoking is, how can we allow people to become trapped in this vicious cycle of trying to quit? How many people have you known who started smoking as a teen, not having the maturity to know the full weight of what they were getting into, and then spend decades trying to quit...often unsuccessfully? And then they get cancer or empheseyma, or some other disease that seems on the surface not to be smoking related, but actually is, because their body is so broken down and weakened from the smoking?
And to help these people fight against all odds to the bitter end until they die painful deaths, too young, we pay billions of dollars that could have otherwise been spent helping those same people get better educations when they were in the public schools, get higher paying jobs when they held jobs as teachers, police officers, firemen, soldiers, etc, or helped them out with a better funded,less burdened, healthcare system when they had some unavoidable health issue.
I don't know, the whole thing just seems like lunacy to me when you sit back and look at what it costs...in human terms as well as monetary. - Sep 19, 2008, 10:55:00 AM
mom, I agree with you 100% when it comes to allergies and Asthma. Un fortunately that is just like those allergic to perfumes and colognes..it is a part of life and a part of learning to co exist with people in this world.
It is unrealistic to think that we will never run into someone who smokes outdoors in public or who wears cologne. The best we can do if we suffer from allergies or Asthma is be prepared..make the best of it..jam your happy little butts to a new location at the park or beach(both are always big enough to accomodate smokers and non smokers or smelly perfume wearing skunks)
Life is so much easier when we find a solution instead of making a big deal out of things. - Sep 19, 2008, 1:21:00 PM
I once accompanied my friend outsie of the cafe we were eating at while she smoked. I don't smoke but grew up with parents that did. I don't care for the smell and always stand up wind of those smoking.I will tell you my that friend is always aware of who is where when smoking and will try and find the least populated area.She is very courteous that way.
A rather large woman(upwards of 300lbs)passed by us on a motorized scooter/chair(like a Hover Round). I would guess she was 40 at the most.She was eating a pack of Twinkies. When she got in front of us she muttered something about my friend affecting her(the lady on the scooter's) health by smoking out in public. It was so rude but I said "yeah, like you are concerned with your health..why not have another pack of Twinkies?"
I don't know where that came from or why I said it except that I was so incensed that this woman,obviously in too poor of health to walk,grossly overweight and shoving a Twinkie in her face would even consider saying anything to someone smoking but otherwise minding their own business!
I usually do not make such comments outloud.
It was obvious though that this woman was complaining just because she could.Like so many others.
Some have valid complaints..most do not.
If this woman were at all concerned about her health,she would shove less twinkies down her gullet!
It has become the PC thing to not smoke. Funny, in the 40's & 50's it was the PC thing TO DO.
Complaining for a valid reason is fair but complaining just because you can..well that just sucks! - Sep 19, 2008, 1:44:00 PM
Wow. Good analogy, sydney! I can't STAND strong perfume. I choke, and it makes my eyes water. I hate smoke too, but I get more of a physically violent reaction from perfume.
- Sep 19, 2008, 1:54:00 PM
Dear Moniker,
Wow that was an ugly story. :(
If the fat ass was eating twinkies and spitting them in your face, then you could complain.
The problem with smokers is they don't walk around in astronaut helmets. I don't want to smell their smoke and I sure as hell don't want their smoke in my lungs, and my friend, I am no stranger to hostess products. - Sep 19, 2008, 1:59:00 PM
Well, for the record, I do not harass smokers in any way. And somebody like BLBs friend, who tries to be considerate...that's always appreciated.
I have been thinking about this issue today and I have come to a conclusion about why I probably feel so strongly the way I do.
I think it is probably because I was always brought up, even as a small child, to consider first how my actions affected everybody around me. I was just short of the "free to be you and me" generation...which my sister, four years younger, was a part of. I think its so ingrained in me to not bother other people that I am typically bothered when I see people who don't seem to have regard for how others feel...even if they are behaving within their rights. I'm aleways thinking, "Do they really have to do that right here, when they could move 15 feet and nobody would be affected?" (About any variety of disruptive behaviors...not just smoking.)
My sister is also way more "me first", which bugs the crap out of me. And I bug her because I am a rule follower, and therefore, what she condiders "Boring."
It may just be as simple as a few years difference in the "cultural mindset" that we grew up with that forms our opinions. I just don't think "Because I can" is ever a good excuse for not being as considerate as possible of how others may feel. - Sep 19, 2008, 2:04:00 PM
Until smoking becomes illegal then you have to put up and shut up. She can smoke outside and the average cigarette lasts 5 minutes, move away from her.
- Sep 19, 2008, 2:37:00 PM
Twinky, as I stated, the comment was very unusual for me.
I never complained about anything my friend.I simply made a comment about eating another twinkie as that was surely good for her health!Right?
whats worse for me????
lets see... a pack of twinkies a day combined with no walking and an obvious weight problem or the stench smell of someones smoke for 5 seconds as I pass by them. yeah thats a hard one to figure out!
neither are good for you so what gives? She did not complain because she was worried about her health but because she is an unhappy person wanting to spread greif to those all around her.Like most people who over react and make big deals out of things.
And BTW Twinky, I am a plus size penny all the way and am not fat prejudice. I am however prejudice against people who complain just because they can..just to cause greif to someone else and just because it is the PC thing to do.
Perhaps it is you who should walk around with an Astronauts helmet to ensure your pure air in your perfect world? Why should someone else have to cater to you. Perhaps you should cater to yourself? Just a thought.
Mom, I hear you. I too was raised too pay close attention to those around me. I don't like smoking. I don't like people who suck face or swear in public.(especially around children!) I think they are all rude. I choose not to do any of those things.But as they are all legal,I simply MMOB and relocate,making the best of it while setting a great example for my children.(trying to change others is usually useless,changing yourself is always successful)
I guess however I am fortunate because most smokers I run into are much more polite than otherwise obnoxious people out in public.
I agree..its yucky and I don't like it.
should it be illegal..hell no! - Sep 19, 2008, 3:11:00 PM
Such hysteria!
Second hand smoke is far less dangerous than the pollution that spews out of every combustion engine all day long.
To say you would like to run over a smoker with your car is not only pathetic and hateful, it is the height of ignorance and hypocrisy.
Stand in a closed garage with 10 chainsmokers. You could stay in there for a month straight, and come out stinky, but mostly fine.
Stand in a closed garage with 1 running car and you will be dead within the hour. - Sep 20, 2008, 11:13:00 AM
dangitall (aka joe camel),
"Stand in a closed garage with 10 chainsmokers. You could stay in there for a month straight, and come out stinky, but mostly fine."
What? Mostly fine? A sealed garage with no incoming air and 10 chain smokers? Are you psychotic or just on the board of Marlboro?
And for the record, I don't park my charge's stroller next to idling cars, not even for brief moments! - Sep 20, 2008, 1:03:00 PM
dang it all..you are right but people refuse to get the truth when it comes to second hand smoke.
Well here it is!!!!
In 1975 British delegate Sir George Godber informed the World Health Organization how to get smokers to quit: Foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them,especially their family,infants and young children who would be exposed involuntarily to the smoke in the air.
The more attention we focus on phantom fears,the less we have left over to address actual problems.
You can all think this is silly but do the research!
Dang it all is correct..the amount of time you have to be subjected to second hand smoke is far more than what any of you "anti smokers" have mentioned.
You would literally have to inhale second hand smoke for 6 or 8 hours a day,every day,for many,many years in a row to have any significant health problems from it.
The whole anti smoking movement is about social control and nothing more.
yes, smoke can trigger Asthma, I would never deny that but so do perfumes and lotions..should those be illegal too?as for all the "hysteria" that comes with the "I simply don't like it"... what a load of crap.
Quit repeating what you have heard and get the facts for yourself!
You really will be amazed at what you find.
Janet english..are you going to run over the entire crew at your local Bath & Body store at the mall??or Oh,is THAT smell (that engulfs an entire section of the mall)tolerable?Should that store be banned or made illegal? I am sure that triggers many Asthma attacks?? Ya think??
Your thoughts are totally irrational and finding joy in others greif will only bring bad Karma your way..you might want to start ducking now!!
I don't like smoking either..it sucks..but just because I don't like it does not mean I have the right to create a hysteria around it in order to force those that do enjoy it to have to quit! - Sep 20, 2008, 1:12:00 PM
What? Mostly fine?
A sealed garage with no incoming air and 10 chain smokers?
20 or 30 even, you'd still be ok. You are confusing "closed" with "air-tight seal". Standing in any space that is closed with an air-tight seal will kill you.
Are you psychotic or just on the board of Marlboro?
Sigh. Of all the logical fallacies, false dilemma is the least entertaining, but that's JMO. There is no company called "Marlboro", you are thinking of Philip Morris. Anyone who actually cared about the effects of smoking would know this.
And for the record, I don't park my charge's stroller next to idling cars, not even for brief moments!
Whether or not you park your charge, or your own behind, next to idling cars, unless you ARE in a closed space, is immaterial. Parking lots, sidewalks, bus stops, waiting at crosswalks, or simply walking down the road - there is always a car, or bus, or truck spewing slow death out at you.
You have to understand that just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they are your enemy. All someone has to do is mention that the "facts" may have been misrespresented and they are villified.
Smoking is the red herring in the "What's giving us all cancer?" mystery, please don't be distracted by it while the larger threat sneaks by unnoticed.
If even a fraction of the derision that is so rabidly aimed at smokers was directed at people WHO WILLFULLY REFUSE TO CARPOOL or people WHO TAKE TAXIS WHEN THEY COULD USE MASS TRANSIT, perhaps then we'd start to see some decline in the frequency of diseases and disorders of the respiratory system.
It's quite similar to the way the powers that be used false information about weapons of mass destruction to garner support for a profitable war. It's a tragedy, really. - Sep 21, 2008, 9:21:00 AM
Don't even get me started on the weapons of mass destruction disussion.
We had every right to go into Iraq based solely on the fact that Saddam refused to comply with the order to let inspectors in. - Sep 21, 2008, 10:11:00 AM
How did I do that?
- Sep 21, 2008, 10:13:00 AM
Actually, the current estimation is a Kurdish population of 5.5 million in Iraq.
Listen to what the former UN Chief Inspector of Weapons has to say about the very unfortunate confusion:
I certainly didn't mean to get anyone all riled up, just halfway riled up..., so here's some kitteh: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZSbC09qgLI - Sep 21, 2008, 11:00:00 AM
"So much for "looking cool" by smoking if you have yellow teeth, excessive wrinkles, sagging skin,cellulite, lines all around your mouth, a voice like a 90 year old lumberjack, and a witch's hacking cough."
Are you trying to say that every smoker has these problems? I know people who have never smoked who have terribly yellow teeth and cellulite. I know smokers who don't have any of them.
Thank you Sydney White and dangit all for being logical and rational. - Sep 21, 2008, 2:27:00 PM
oh please,
Those are unfortunate side effects of smoking. By smoking we increase our chances dramatically of suffering those results. How old are these smokes you know who have none of those ill effects?
Write back when they have been smoking for 20, 30 or 40 years. - Sep 21, 2008, 8:46:00 PM
Well, there are also unfortunate side effects to watching daytime TV, eating Twinkies or drinking beer. Should we outlaw all those things as well?
- Sep 22, 2008, 12:55:00 AM
Well mom, let's see...my grandfather smoked for over 60 years but lived to be 90. A former co-worker of mine was in her mid 50s, has smoked since she was 20ish and she could easily pass for 40. My former boss has smoked a pack a day for 20 years, he still plays soccer 3 times a week, and he definitely looks younger than his age. And last but not least, me. I'm 41 and I've been smoking for 26 years. I have white teeth, no wrinkles and no sagging skin. I am active and 100% healthy according to my doctor.
Don't misunderstand...I'm not trying to advocate for smoking or saying that there aren't substantial health issues that can be caused by smoking. But to insinuate that every smoker is or will be physically unattractive is just silly.
Cali mom,
You're so right. My husband doesn't smoke but drinks too much beer and has an atrocious diet. He's on high blood pressure meds, overweight, always at the doctor, etc. And he's younger than me! - Sep 22, 2008, 10:20:00 AM
NO Cali.
But I must admit that those are the arguments I casually toss in when I know somebody is a smoker...maybe mentions they are hoping to quit, but sort of a little hesitant to put themselves through the agony of quitting...and maybe mentions how they are getting older looking or lines around the mouth, etc.
I dopn't harang people about smoking, because I know it won't do any good and will only make them mad. I don't tell them it can kill them, because they know that already and it will only make them mad. But the people I care about who smoke...I worry about them. So...for example, the lady who has done my hair for 15 years, and who I have come to care about, smokes. During a recent appointment she was mentioning how she is getting some medical treatments to soften the wrinkles on her face and even out her skin tone. (She is in her 30s, is getting a gravelly voice, and happens to have discolored teeth as well.) She has also mentioned that her smoking is an unwelcome vice and has tried a couple/few times over the years to quit. So I asked, "Are you still off the cigarettes?(Even though I pretty well suspected she was not.) Because that will go a long way in helping your skin to stay young looking after you finish your treatments." And she just had work done to the color of her teeth, so I mentioned how pretty they will stay if she doesn't smoke.
My hope is that if somebody I care about is under the delusion that they are immune to the severe health effects that are possible from smoking, maybe appealing directly to their vanity will make an impression. Cancer may come way down the line...and its almost always too late by then...but when we start to see wrinkles or look older it seems to get the attention of us women pretty quickly.
Here's one of the big reasons I hate that its legal. It is very addictive and dangerous. It costs billions to deal with the effects. (Money we could better spend, and as I mentioned in another thread. Our country has a lot of unresolved problems that could be much better addressed if we spent responsibly instead of the way we often do.) Most new smokers are teens...which is a bigger shame, because they lack the ability to assess consequences the way adults do, but by the time they are old enough to understand better, they are already hooked. That sucks. And I firmly believe that the tobacco lobby is so strong that our government (as in the case of illegal immigration) puts the good of the people WAAAYYYY behind the economic interests of a powerful industry in hopes of gaining their political support and dollars. And people are DYING as a result. This is not like getting fat or spraying on a half bottle of perfume and making everybody in an elevator practically faint. People are dying at an alarming rate every single day as a direct result of smoking...ONLY SO THAT SOMEBODY CAN MAKE A BUCK. I firmly believe that that is the true situation and the only reason tobacco is still legal. It kills. That is an undisputable, undeniable fact...and that should make it clear that it is unfit for human use. We regulate so many things that are dangerous...but not this. Why? Money. Sick.
We have to wear seatbelts. We cannot drive drunk. Our government is in the business of regualting us based on true safety issues. This is one. Ask yourself why the blind eye on such a huge and persistent killer. - Sep 22, 2008, 10:31:00 AM
oh please,
Congratulations to you, your grandpa, and to your friends. I hope all of those good things stay that way fo all of you. I really do. I don't wish ill on any smoker, and wish nobody would ever be harmed by it. But many, many, many are not so luck as you.
I wish my grandma, aunt and uncle had been as lucky as you and your friends. I miss them...a lot. - Sep 22, 2008, 10:37:00 AM
A test.
Get 50 smokers.
Rent a 15,000 square foot warehouse with ten foot ceilings.
Seal the doors, windows and ventilation.
Leave them with an exhaustive supply of phillip dickhead morris products.
set a clock and see how long until they drop dead. - Sep 22, 2008, 11:19:00 PM
"Seal the doors, windows and ventilation."
"set a clock and see how long until they drop dead."
I'd say you wouldn't need a cigarette because you'd be dead within 5 minutes with the room closed off like that.
You sure are writing some winning fucking posts tonight, aren't you? - Sep 22, 2008, 11:52:00 PM


text:
United States: Poll: 87 Percent of Illinois Voters Want More Renewable Energy
Published at May 21, 2013
source: Renewable Energy World
Wide majorities of likely Illinois voters believe it is important that the state maintain its commitment to increase its use of renewable energy and support... -
United States: Breakdown: Penetration of Renewable Energy in Selected Markets
Published at May 17, 2013
source: Renewable Energy World
The penetration of renewable energy into the electricity supply mix has been much in the news recently. During the first quarter, Portugal generated three-quarters of... -
United States: Portable Wind Turbines Bring Renewable Energy To Cities
Published at May 16, 2013
source: Northwest Public Radio
A Seattle-area company developed the wind turbines Majel Dixon is talking about. They're called Powersails. The blades look more like a sail from... -
United States: Colorado Renewable Energy Bill gets Call for Veto from GOP Lawmakers
Published at May 10, 2013
source: Denver Post
About a dozen Republican legislators met on the steps of the state Capitol on Thursday to call for a veto on the rural renewable energy... -
United States: Army Steamrolls $7 Billion In Renewable Energy Projects, Sequester Or No Sequester
Published at May 9, 2013
source: Clean Technica
The U.S. Army has just launched the first in a series of renewable energy contracts that will eventually total $7 billion by the end of... -
United States: Midwest looks to New England for biomass roadmap
Published at May 3, 2013
source: Midwest Energy News
A biomass advocacy group called Heating the Midwestthinks the region could and should significantly boost the share of heat it gets from wood-burning stoves... -
United States: Report: Wisconsin needs an energy plan to stay competitive
Published at May 2, 2013
source: Midwest Energy News
A new report warns that Wisconsin's economic competitiveness could be at risk if the state doesn't diversify its electricity sources. The Badger State is... -
United States: REPORT: ENERGY REMAINS AS "DIRTY" AS EVER DESPITE RISE OF RENEWABLE ENERGY
Published at Apr 30, 2013
source: Singularity HUB
With all the news about wind farms, record-breaking solar power stations, and burgeoning sales of hybrid-electric vehicles one could... -
United States: Renewable Energy Poised for Strong Growth
Published at Apr 26, 2013
source: Renew Grid Mag
Annual investment in new renewable power capacity is set to rise by anywhere from two-and-a-half times to more than four-and-a-half times between now and... -
United States: US Senators Re-Introduce MLP Act to Level Playing Field for Renewable Energy
Published at Apr 25, 2013
source: Renewable Energy World
JinkoSolar Holding Co. and First Solar Inc. were among solar companies that surged after four U.S. senators introduced legislation that would let renewable- energy projects...