Reader poll
What should the Emporia City Comission do with Clean-Air Emporia's proposal to make Emporia smoke free?
- Not approve it
- Approve it
- Seek input with an advisory election
1367 total votes.
The city conference room was full this morning as Clean Air Emporia made its smoking-regulation proposal to city commissioners.
Mayor Bobbie Agler began by limiting public comment so the group could make its presentation and commissioners could ask questions and comment.
Bobbi Sauder spoke for the group. She said the Clean Air Emporia wants to promote the health and safety of all Emporians.
She went on to describe the U.S. Surgeon General’s statements that there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke. There have been studies on this issue for 44 years, Sauder said, that have proven the carcinogenic effects of secondhand smoke.
“Everyone has the right to breathe clean air in all public places,” Sauder said.
The only means of limiting exposure to secondhand smoke is to ban it in public places, she said.
“Can it be good for business?” Sauder asked. “Governments have an obligation to protect people from known dangers,” she said.
The group seeks a comprehensive plan to regulate smoking in public places — one similar those recently adopted in Winfield and Derby.
“The health of all Emporians is essential to Emporia,” Sauder said.
“”It is good for business,” she said, noting that in cities that have ordinances, such as Lawrence, business has increased.
“You are the advocates for Emporia,” Sauder told the commissioners.
Commissioner Jeff Longbine wanted clarification on enforcement of the ordinance.
“Is it more administrative or criminal?” he asked.
City Attorney Blaise Plummer said the ordinance provides for processing violations through the court system.
“Most violations would result in a fine, in my opinion,” Plummer said.
Sauder said it would be up to the commission to decide what department would be in charge of enforcing the ordinance.
Longbine questioned the science behind the proposal.
“In my research, I was unable to find any evidence in OSHA or KDHC’s regulations of the dangers of secondhand smoke,” he said.
“Those agencies have stepped aside to let state and local agencies take care of that issue,” Sauder said.
Discussion on the issue continued. Read more coverage of the meeting in Thursday’s Gazette.
madpoet (anonymous) says...
I hope the commissioners don't pass this ordinance as it stands now. I'm a non-smoker, allergic to smoke, and I think it goes way too far. I would be thrilled to see restaurants go smoke free. But I think the ordinance is too restrictive. Just post smoking or smoke-free signs. Or maybe increase ventilation so suck the smoke away from "non-smoking" areas. As much as I dislike smoking, I don't see telling people they can't smoke in a bar or club or at work.
September 10, 2008 at 1:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jayhawker (anonymous) says...
Good for Jeff Longbine for asking pertinent questions. The science on this question is clearly in dispute so I question the absolute statements to the contrary made by the proponents of this ordinance. Additionally, the proponents' assertion that it would be good for business defies common sense. Philosophically, I disagree with their assertion that it is up to government to protect citizens against "known dangers." Many things that we do everyday are "known dangers," one obvious example of which is driving a car. I was also impressed with the public disclosure that the enforcement of this ordinance would be criminal in nature, and an implicit recognition that the city would incur additional costs in its enforcement. I have been very critical of the City Commission in many areas, but I have to say that, in this instance, they are asking the right questions. Let's see what come of it.
September 10, 2008 at 2:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
I have been critical of the city commission in the past, but in this case it seems clear they have done their homework and are not rushing to judgement or allowing the Country Club Crusaders to bully them into a decision. This ban is unnecessary, way too restrictive, damaging to businesses and the economy, and attempting to be forced upon our citizens by a bunch of bullies citing misinformation and using emotion to mask facts. I sincerely hope this attempt to dictate lifestyle and limit individual rights never comes to fruition.
September 10, 2008 at 3:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LifeGoesOn (anonymous) says...
Jayhawk,Bj and madpoet, Ditto!
As has been said over and over again " This ban is unnecessary" Let the owners of each business make the choice , If ya dont like the smoke, stay out of the fire!
September 10, 2008 at 4:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jayhawker (anonymous) says...
On another thread is a discussion about the criticism that was directed at the police over the way that they handled a pursuit yesterday. As posters are now pointing out, they did the best that they could. Can you imagine what we would do to the police if we asked them to start patrolling the bars to catch smokers? Their evidence area would fill up with cigarette butts and their evidence person would be overwhelmed with DNA testing to prove who the smoker was. Pictures in the Gazette of bar owners and patrons being led away in handcuffs would be rampant. You know that if this passes, the "Clean Air Committee" would pester the police department to no end about getting out there and enforcing the law. We need to think this thing through.
September 10, 2008 at 5:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dale011 (anonymous) says...
Don't you just hate it when folks contend they are doing something for our benefit? Let the business owners determine if they want to be smokers heaven or smoke free. I'll spend my money at the smoke free establishment, but at least I'd have the FREEDOM TO CHOOSE FOR MYSELF!
September 10, 2008 at 5:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
Myself and a few other bar owners/managers were at the meeting this morning. The few things I picked up on were:
1. They don't want this to come to a vote. Mrs. Sauders clearly stated that most other towns did not vote on this issue, and she felt Emporia shouldn't either. Which makes sense, because it will fail if it gets voted on.
2. There were to be no exemptions to this policy, it covers everyone, to ensure a level playing field period....except some hotels would be allowed to have a few smoking rooms, so I guess it DOESN'T cover everyone... After she told the commissioners that hotels weren't allowed smoking rooms in Lawrence, then she said they WERE allowed smoking rooms... right... uhh, pick one...
3. Smoking would be allowed on outdoor patios as long as it is 20 feet away from entrances. So basically, no smoking on outdoor patios. No bar on Commercial can have this, as being the alley isn't that wide. Well, that eliminates smoking in most bars...
4. The only kind of smoking ban that is effective is a comprehensive one, and no city in Kansas has successfully passed a smoking ban with exemptions (except Wichita, Kansas City, Lawrence, ohh wait, that isn't supposed to come out...)
5. Business will improve because of a smoking ban. That's kind of funny, because of all the bar owners I've talked to in person and online (in just about every state) that have survived a smoking ban, almost to a person they say business dropped anywhere from 20-50% the first year, and then leveled off to about 15% less in the following years. I wouldn't be able to survive a 20% drop in business, let alone 50%.
My feelings from this meeting were exactly what they were before. The health reasons are a cover to force people to live by standards of others.
I understand there are health risks associated with second hand smoke, and my customers understand that as well. They also understand that when they enter my establishment, there is a good chance second hand smoke will be present. This is a CHOICE they make. Nothing FORCES them to come here. They are all of legal age (18+), and all understand the risks, yet they choose to come here anyway. If I felt that a smoking ban would improve business, I would survey my clientele, and adjust accordingly. If I felt that X amount of people were staying home because of second hand smoke, I would go smoke free. As being we have hour long lines at the doors on the weekend, I feel this just isn't the case. In the end, I feel it should be MY choice, not the City's, the County's, the State's, or the Fed's.
My employees also understand the risks involved with second hand smoke, just as the employees at Sauders understand the risks involved with welding galvanized metal. Leave the bars alone on this. We have enough troubles trying to stay open as it is.
Matt Slater
Owner-Josie's
September 10, 2008 at 6:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slipandslide (anonymous) says...
there are so many non smoking places in town i dont believe that employees or customers are forced to be in a smoking area
September 10, 2008 at 6:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
toninj (anonymous) says...
I found the following on KVOE's website. I think this says it all and shows how close minded this group of individuals pushing for this "ban" are. It seems to be their way or no way!!!! Several of these "provisions" have been adopted by other communities in our state.
"Provisions we will not agree to:
Ventilation Systems and/or smoking rooms – these are costly systems and are ineffective to deal with control of smoke. Ventilation may remove the odor but cannot remove the harmful constituents of secondhand smoke and smoking rooms put employees who work in them at risk.
Hardship Provisions – This exemption is based on the false premise that a negative economic impact results from smoke free air laws.
Signage provisions: this would allow businesses to simply post signs indicating that an area allows smoking. This does nothing to protect the employees or patrons in those areas.
Grandfather provisions: this would exempt certain existing businesses from the smoke free regulations, which is unfair to both employees and patrons. There is no legitimate economic argument for permitting older establishments to avoid a health regulation.
Consent provisions: an establishment requests this option to allow smoking if all of their employees consent. Often, though, the employees are pressured into “consenting” to work in smoke filled areas either voluntarily or contractually (by signing a contract as a condition of employment). Employees should never be placed in a position where they must choose between jeopardizing their health or their job.
Hours provision: this would restrict smoking only during certain hours of operation. These provisions are not only ineffective, but create confusion and are difficult to enforce.
Minors only provision: this would allow smoking if minors are not allowed on the premises. These provisions do not protect employees or patrons. Smoke free laws are important for everyone in public places and where they work, not just minors.
Licensing Fees: this allows business to permit smoking on the premises upon payment of a licensing or other fee. This does not protect public health.
Tax Incentives: these merely reward businesses for doing something that they should be required to do in any case – provide a safe and healthy workplace for their employees and customers.
Bar, Bowling Alley and Bingo Parlor Exemption: smoking should be completely eliminated in these and other venues for all the usual reasons. The health hazards of secondhand smoke are dangerously high in these establishments.
Private Club Exemptions: If these are exempted, the definition of a private club must be clear, and include only not-for-profit clubs with no paid employees. Also, the exemption should not apply if and when a club is open to the public.
September 10, 2008 at 7:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
toninj (anonymous) says...
The only things they will consider!!!
"Provisions we would consider with a comprehensive ordinance:
Phase-in Provisions: these delay health protections. A long period of time simply allows time for possible weakening or repeal of the law. Laws typically become effective within 30-90 days of enactment. We would request a phase-in of no more than 90 days.
Outside/Patio Smoking: We would approve this if the area is not covered and if at least 20% of the wall space is completely open in the roof, or wall area, with no screens, shutters, window sashes, or doors of any kind that would restrict the movement of air, and if it is an appropriate distance from doors and windows."
September 10, 2008 at 7:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bdprotheroe (anonymous) says...
Smoking ordinances have skyrocketed in the past two decades. Frankly, I am a bit surprised that a city the size of Emporia does not already have a policy of its own. Here is a list of nationwide smoking ordinances (and their variations):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_...
I guess what I am having a hard time understanding is why a smoker would be unwilling to step outdoors for the five minutes it takes to smoke a cigarette. Since living in California, I've become accustomed to all public spaces being smoke free. I can't tell you how nice it is. And smokers have, out of habit, become accustomed to stepping outdoors. More often than not, the bars have an outdoor patio area where smokers can light up. If not, they step outside to the sidewalk. Again, just five minutes.
There's an added benefit of such an ordinance. While a smoking ban does not prohibit one's ability to smoke (aside from public spaces) it does encourage smokers to quit the unhealthy habit.
I encourage opponents of this measure to spend a weekend in a city that has passed a smoking ordinance, like Kansas City, Missouri recently did. During my visit to KC in July, the difference in the air quality of the restaurants and bars I used to frequent was like night and day. It was nice. I encourage you just to try it. Simply consider it.
Brian Protheroe
San Francisco, CA
September 10, 2008 at 7:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Brian, being a resident of the state of California,(which has a state wide ban on smoking) you should get out more to the bars in your town. A friend of mine recently returned from a convention in San Fran and could not find one hotel bar/nightclub that enforced the ban. seems like some have figured a way around the ban.
September 10, 2008 at 8:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LifeGoesOn (anonymous) says...
Brian " did you not read, let me refresh for you
"Smoking would be allowed on outdoor patios ((as long as it is 20 feet away from entrances))
So my friend when you say "the bars have an outdoor patio area where smokers can light up. If not, they step outside to the sidewalk." Most if not all sidewalks in Emporia are not 20 feet wide OR outside of the 20 ft limit.
Also from the article "The group seeks a comprehensive plan to regulate smoking in public places" are not parks public places, are streets public places, Anyone? Is this group saying they want no smoking on streets or in parks too?
Lastly and this is just my opinion, brian, Emporia may be your home town but you dont live here, worry about the place you live not the place you left behind
September 10, 2008 at 9:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bdprotheroe (anonymous) says...
Are you certain your friend was referring to cigarettes being smoked? She was most likely detecting the scent of pot being smoked, which it is not exactly a rarity to see someone spark a joint in public.
There are a FEW exceptions. A clause exists, but I'm not certain of the exact wording. I know of one particular bar called Amber, but I have rarely seen anyone inside when I pass by. I'd say the number of bars in the city that permit smoking could be counted on one hand. Smoking is just not popular in a health-conscientious city like San Francisco, and the bar owners know it.
The other clubs and bars are smoke free, and smokers frequent them, too. Obviously, they don't mind the ordinance or else they would go to places like Amber which I mentioned earlier permits smoking.
As for hotels, guests have the option of a smoking or non-smoking room. But, in a city that frequently fills to maximum capacity during conventions, sometimes you get what you get in terms of a room. I'm certain the non-smoking rooms were reserved, first.
BP
SF, CA
September 10, 2008 at 9:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bdprotheroe (anonymous) says...
LifeGoesOn - When I provided my post, I was pointing out the "variations" of smoking ordinances. Since this ordinance is still in the creation stage, alterations could still be made to it.
September 10, 2008 at 9:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
flexj66801 (anonymous) says...
No private citizen group (I like the Country Club Crusaders comment!!) should have the right to take away a business owners right to make choices for their business. This includes masking it as a benefit to all. This Country is quickly becoming the land of the laws instead of the land of the free because of groups like this one who let their emotions guide them into believing they are doing good while stripping away the very fabric this country was founded on. I wonder if this group would like another tax increase to fund whoever would patrol the establishments to enforce their beloved crusade. I seriously doubt it! This is just more of the same, Someone wanting more & more while taking away from someone else & pay nothing for it. I sincerely hope that our commission sees through this load of crap & does the right thing (NOT FOLD TO THE PRESSURES OF THEIR NEIGHBORS!)
September 10, 2008 at 9:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Pingeon (anonymous) says...
Unfortunately, this won't just go away. Different cities around the state are passing ordinances (Wichita being the latest) and the state is starting to talk about it. It kills me when I see the holy rollers saying how worried they are about the health of people in a bar full of smoke. In the words of comedian Auggie Smith "Who's worried about their health in a bar?!!" He goes on to say something to the effect of "Excuse me, Mr. Bartender. I am out here trying to get drunk so I can drive home and have unprotected sex with this girl I just met...AND THIS GUY'S BLOWING SMOKE IN MY FACE!!!"
Get real. Your argument for banning smoking in public places has already happened. You can't smoke anywhere the taxpayers have paid to have built (courthouse, etc). What you're trying to do is ban smoking at a private business when smoking is legal (if you're over 18, I know) and you do not HAVE to be at that place.
By the way, I don't smoke. I just believe that the less government involvement, the better.
September 10, 2008 at 10:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jayhawker (anonymous) says...
Excellent point, made with humor, Pingeon. Bars are not exactly health spas. We don't go into them to improve our health.
September 10, 2008 at 10:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rdgrey (anonymous) says...
What I want next is a scale at the entrance of Dairy Queen and Braums. No one over the regulated BMI can order icecream or double cheese burgers. Obesity is a burden to our health system and bad influence on my kids. Next on the ballot is ....... comeon someone else think of something silly because that is what this is...SILLY. It is a waste of our time and money, too many things out there that are just as dangerous. Besides one can choose to not engage in going out to bars or restaraunts and do their own thing at home with friends. Like I have said before, name one place where you walk in and you see a cloud of smoke or just plain offended with the smell of smoke. OTHER THAN A BAR.
September 11, 2008 at 12:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ratdog (anonymous) says...
Why can't we just keep it simple? Why do we need a law that is going to cost a lot of money to pass and enforce?
We live in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! If you find youself in an establishment, or any other public place and you like, or dislike something that is taking place, make your opinion known to the manager or whomever is in charge. If you have a complaint that there is too much, or any, secondhand smoke and management doesn't make the change you desire, just don't go there again.
Each and every one of us has the power of choice. Simply exercise your own personal choice and none of this will be an issue worth discussing any longer.
Think back about 20 years... People routinely smoked in the work place, in the stands at high school football games and in just about every other public setting. Without any laws or organized initiatives, citizens have policed themselves and businesses have policed themselves.
If I'm in a restaurant and someone is smoking nearby, I just simply ask to change tables. It works EVERY SINGLE TIME! I've also asked a smoker not to smoke on many occasions, and again, that has worked EVERY SINGLE TIME.
Again, ask yourself how many times just in the past year that you have been subjected to secondhand smoke that you could not honestly avoid. If you are are completley honest with yourself, you'll agree that it is minimal. Prolonged exposure probably has a significant risk, but the vast majority of us don't experience anything close to a significant risk. 20 years ago maybe, but not today.
I would issue the following challenge to anyone that is pushing this ban: Name a specific place where you experience a SIGNIFICANT threat to your health from secondhand smoke that you cannot avoid by personal choice. And, if there is such a place, have you gone to the manager or person in charge of that specific place and voiced your concerns?
If there is such a place, then whoever is in charge of the "place" is negligent if they don't ban smoking immediately. I don't believe there is such a place in this community.
I've traveled to a lot of places in Kansas and around the country. I can't count the times when I've realized how proud I am to say I'm from Emporia, Kansas. I'm proud because I'm struck by the genuine "common sense" that normally guides people in this community. It's a product of combining a long history of midwestern values, a frontier spirit and true diversity. We almost always do the exact right thing without being forced.
I have no doubt that the proponents of this initiative honestly have the best interests of Emporia at heart. But, I sincerely believe that they have gone about it all the wrong way. Instead of pushing for a law, why not educate Emporians about what establishments and other places allow secondhand smoke. That would be more than appropriate. Let the common sense people of this great community make their own decisions about where they want to frequent and spend their money.
September 11, 2008 at 5:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nutsaboutools (anonymous) says...
rdgrey,
I know, no more field burning.
September 11, 2008 at 7:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Weltha (anonymous) says...
The only problem with putting this up for vote in Nov. is... They will attach it to something that the majority wants, just to get people to vote it in.
September 11, 2008 at 9:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slipandslide (anonymous) says...
banned fireworks, banned dogs riding unrestrained in cars, and now they are banning smoking. i cant wait to vote in November, i'm voting against every commissioner who passes bans based on some community members 'concern for others' i don't need government telling me whats good for me. i pay my medical insurance and medical bills i don't want or need some misguided group 'protecting' my health by banning smoking. i' ve never needed an inhaler by walking through a cloud of smoke or by having smoking co-workers in the break room. get real!!
September 11, 2008 at 10:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Paccifier (anonymous) says...
You all should be sure to send a signed letter to the Gazette so that your views can be published in the paper. There are many good points of view here- but I think most folks in town do not get to see them- As it is now, there is little public opposition to the proposition in the paper. While this blog can be a good thing, there is little exposure of the views posted here.
September 11, 2008 at 11:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Paccifier (anonymous) says...
Don't forget to ban charcoal in grilling/bar-b-q and smoking- it releases petroleum based binders and all kinds of bad things-
September 11, 2008 at 11:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rdgrey (anonymous) says...
This is awsome to see so many of us who may differ on many things. But when it comes to a threat of the freedom of choice...We are bonded together with the glue that our forefathers worked and died for that made this country what it is. I too am not a smoker but I will not sit back and let a very small group of citizens tell others how to live or run their businesses.
September 11, 2008 at 11:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wyse_guy (anonymous) says...
does walters still own the property wendys was on on 6th ave and the new one whenever it gets rebuilt?
September 11, 2008 at 12:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wyse_guy (anonymous) says...
maybe these 2women need to join michael jackson and share his plastic bubble.
September 11, 2008 at 12:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
toninj (anonymous) says...
wyse_guy: the answer to your question is No, she sold it a while back.
September 11, 2008 at 12:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
spensanity (anonymous) says...
On a lighter note about the smoking ban..........how about banning heavy perfume/cologne wearers or those individuals who don't shower/bathe and have bad BO? How about those individuals who pass gas in public places? Just a little something else to think about when going out. If it is a privately owned establishment and they pay their taxes, their freedom in choosing smoking/non-smoking should be up to them---anyone can chose whether or not to go to these places. It is ultimately up to the individual.
September 11, 2008 at 1:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
smr_reader (anonymous) says...
I do appreciate the voiced concerns that smoke-free ordinance does restrict choices of business. However, I would like out point out scientifically support fact;
"There is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work increase their risk of developing heart disease by 25 to 30 percent and lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent."
(2006, Report of the U.S. Surgeon General)
While it is the role of the government to protect the rights that we hold sacred as citizens, is it not the responsibility of the government to also ensure quality of life?
What would our quality of life be if the government had not...
- established regulations to prevent contamination of the food we consume?
- enacted seat belt laws to reduce the number of automobile fatalities?
- enacted policies to eliminate exposure to lead poisoning?
- created regulations for a clean water system which eliminates the risks of cholera or other communicable diseases?
There must be a balance between protecting our rights and ensuring quality of life. In my perspective, enough evidence exists which shows the harm of involuntary tobacco smoke. A smoke-free ordinance will not mandate individuals to stop smoking. It will protect the public (both consumers and workers) from being exposed to something which will have a negative effect on their health and quality of life.
September 11, 2008 at 2:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
Well, we can all argue one side or the other of this potential ban but this debate appears to be heading to a close. Either we have a ban or we won't. The city commissioners will decide. We can argue until we are blue in the face but all we are doing is voicing our opinions on a message board which is meaningless.
I suspect that no matter the outcome the losing party is going to push for the decision to be changed but I for one am ready to move on to other things.
September 11, 2008 at 2:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Pingeon (anonymous) says...
Crackinsack,
I would highly disagree with your synopsis. Firstly, the poll put on by TEG is in no way even close to scientific. However even if you want to use that, I would have a problem believing that all of those "Have a public vote" are going to vote for it. If you split that category 50/50, you would still not approve it. I think it should be put up to a public vote so the majority of the population can speak, but I would defiantly vote against it.
In the end, it won't affect me either way as I don't smoke nor can I even vote on this. I don't live in Emporia, but I do own 2 properties there, so I do pay taxes for you guys. I just hate to see business owners being told how to run their business.
September 11, 2008 at 8:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jayhawker (anonymous) says...
Bjnemp, et. al: You have made excellent points, all well reasoned and persuasive to reasonable people. Of course, the proponents of this ban have become so wrapped up in it that they are no longer reasonable. My question now is how to best defeat this outrageous proposal? What strategy can we use? I suppose that for now, the target audience consists of only 5 people (the City Commissioners) since they have the authority to either adopt it, reject it or submit it to a public vote. I strongly recommend that we all contact our commissioners and make this case. If the commission chooses to put it to a vote, you can bet that the "Clean Air Committee" will be well organized, with money, fully prepared to present a campaign. We are unorganized with no money and not even close to being able to present a campaign. Posting on these blogs is helpful, but reaches only a tiny fraction of the community. Let's hope that by individually contacting the commissioners that we find that they are reasonable people who will put an end to this Big Brother idea; however, if they don't and submit it to a vote, somebody is going to have to take charge of getting our point of view in front of the voters. It is an unfortunate fact that if the "Clean Air Committee" is all that the voters hear from, this will pass. Even though reason is clearly on our side, it will still require a lot of work and money to defeat this insidious, elitist, politically correct proposal. I'm way too old and used up, so it will have to be someone other than me. Is there an ambitious and smart young person out there? Whomever it is, the rest of us need to support him or her with our money and our time. If we don't, Big Brother will be here to stay.
September 14, 2008 at 1:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )