Comments by scurvydog
Page 1 of 41 | Next
Posted on March 18 at 9:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Really?
Posted on March 13 at 3:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What a neat experience for the kids involved.
Posted on March 13 at 3:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hang on a second - the report does not state whether or not their headlights were on, just that there was dense fog.
But either way - let's use our headlights when needed.
That said - you know what would be a nice feature to have in cars? Headlights that automatically dim when they detect oncoming headlights (not stationary lights - they would detect forward motion). That way drivers who don't dim won't blind you when they approach. Especially those pickup trucks with the extra headlights.
Posted on March 13 at 3:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I came here to say what's already been said. This is precisely why we do that - because in some conditions it's difficult to see - and even if you can see, other drivers might not be able to see you in time.
That said - it's a shame there were injuries. I hope anyone hurt is okay, and that both drivers involved come away from this wiser.
Posted on March 13 at 8:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
JanFred, do you have any idea what it costs to rent a tux? Last time I had to rent one - 8 years ago or so - it was about $100 - and that was right here in Albert Lea.
$75 for a dress rental seems inexpensive by comparison.
Posted on March 13 at 6:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Great post, OldTrojan. And well put - if you were being sarcastic (which I think and hope you were).
Posted on March 10 at 12:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
They should have at least informed the public that if there were interested citizens to submit their names for consideration. Obviously, they couldn't take everyone, but they could have had a few everyday people who weren't hand-picked. This seems too "invitation only".
Posted on March 9 at 2:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Where did anyone get the idea that I thought this wasn't a good thing? I first said I thought it was good thing, then pointed out the irony.
Looks like snowbird is trying to read negativity into posts. Humor impaired, perhaps?
Posted on March 9 at 6:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Great deal for Cargill/Schweigert, and this is great for our community.
On another note - I do appreciate the irony of how we were chosen as a "Blue Zone" with the Vitality Project, and whatnot, promoting health, and now we've been chosen to produce one of the least healthful foods there is.
Page 1 of 41 | Next
Posted on March 18 at 12:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well put, Warhog.
Do we REALLY need more smoking laws? Are there that many parents smoking in the car with their kids inside and the windows up anymore? And if we have parents who are that dumb or negligent, will this law protect their kids from the parents' stupidity when they're not in the car?
A year or so ago I read about some place (can't recall where) that wanted to make a law against smoking in your own home if you had children EVEN IF THE CHILDREN WEREN'T THERE, because of residual secondhand smoke that may later harm them. This would affect non-custodial smoking parents, for example - who would not be allowed to smoke on their own property even when they didn't have their kids over for a visit.
Recently some groups have been conducting surveys asking private citizens (no experts, just every day people) if they FELT that residual smoke on curtains and clothing may possibly be harmful - they called it third hand smoke. You guessed it, there was a perceived threat by some people. How long before a perceived threat becomes a law? If the threat feels real to you, it must exist, right?
For the record, I quit smoking nine years ago - but I think lawmakers and lobbyists are spending way too much time and money on this when we have more immediate things to be concerned about.
On Editorial: The right to smoke with kids in the car