Comments by slapshot
Page 1 of 4 | Next
Posted on May 20 at 5:32 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted on May 13 at 5:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I believe that the council did take into consideration the desires of the taxpayors on this mosquito issue. My recollection is that the City was not doing it (or considering not doing it) last year and got an earfull. In fact, I spoke with one council member who said this was one of issues that he heard the most about, and the majority were in favor of spraying.
Frankly, I don't like the spraying, but I don't blame the council for deciding to do it.
As a sidenote -- What works best is to get a bunch of people in your neighborhood to get those gas operated mosquito magnets and run them at agreed upon times. Try it on a few weekends and I bet the problem is significantly reduced. With email, sending a note to neighbors that you are having a cookout the following night is simple. It turns into a "you help me and I'll help you" thing. Just try it this summer and you will see.
Unfortunately, that does not solve the mosquitos at the park problem -- so some spraying probably does make sense. In fact, while I totally support not mowing park areas that are not used, longer grass will mean more mosquitos.
As for the adopt a park program -- I think it is a great idea. Look at how many groups and clubs help clean road ditches now. If we could get the same type of support for the parks, it would be great. Also, volunteering and taking "ownership" are great things. People with "ownership" are less likely to trash things, and more likely to look out for and report those that do.
As for volunteering -- Try it. You'll like it. It may make you less likely to complain ad nausiem on websites because you will generally be a happier person.
Worst case scenerio -- the Adopt a Park does not work as well as hoped, and it can be dropped. Give it a couple of years to see though. Certainly no harm in trying . . . and its not like anyone is loosing any skin off their back through this effort.
I believe the more that can be done by volunteers, churches, neighbors, etc., the better. Government should do the essential things it was designed for and leave as many other things as possible for groups, clubs, businesses, and individuals to take care of. If it can be done privately, chances are that it will be done better than by the government. Not really a nock on government, as it has its place. However, it can't be everything for everyone.
end rant.
Posted on May 8 at 3:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I understand your "free market" take on this. However, helping the local economy is only one part of the justification. Personally, I like the fact that it helps reduce our dependance on foreign oil. Is that a conservative or liberal goal? It should be both.
Admittedly, ethanol and biodiesel alone will never do the trick on foreign oil but it is a move in the right direction.
As for the eat or burn comment, it is a matter of prioritizing. That argument could also be applied to "subsidizing" roads and housing developments as well. What about all of the crop land that is taken out of production and paved over via the use of public money? That causes a tighter supply of commodities, so prices rise. Should we stop building roads so that food prices can remain a bit lower? It is a matter of priorities.
How about organic farms? I'm all in favor of them, but they only produce about 60-70% of the output of traditional farms. It is like taking land out of production . . . thereby increasing food prices. Again, it is a matter of priorities.
Hopefully the technology will advance soon so that corn ethanol plants can convert to cellulose -- switch grass, etc. If more ethanol can be produced off of less acres, that would benefit everyone. I believe that the technology is getting closer all of the time.
One last comment -- Commodoty prices are much lower again now, but food prices have not fallen in line. Why is that? The extra margin all of the grociers and food processors are making is like a subsidy paid by the shoppers.
Posted on May 6 at 6:56 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
On Of these popular Albert Lea outdoor activities, which is your favorite?
Posted on May 6 at 6:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Good article.
The fed. is now saying that the recession will last another 6 months or so . . . and the banks are going to need more money to stay afloat.
Both consumers and businesses have gone into ultra-conservative -- don't buy unless you have to -- mode. Yet the government will be pushed hard to spend more. Will the elected officials be strong enough to say "no"?
Posted on May 6 at 6:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Or you could ride a bike without an helmet and die!!! (inside joke to the person who commented in the bike-a-thon article.)
Posted on May 6 at 6:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sunman --
You should applaud this girl and her parents, rather than chastise them. What she is doing is the picture of "healthy". If you want to pursue the helmet issue with the event organizers, go for it. But don't criticise a young girl or her parents for their choice of having her ride in the Bike a Thon. Maybe her ears were cold, maybe she is well coordinated and was not racing, maybe . . . . it is her parents choice!!
Your approach is part of what is wrong with society these days. People want to legislate rules and regulations that mandate "personal safety decisions", which are better left for parents to decide. Get off your high horse. Let people make their own decisions and be responsible for them. Your own kids were probably watching the boob tube and eating donuts that morning . . . but nobody is criticising you!!
Rest assured, the girl's not having a helmet on has nothing to do with the parents' "lack of education" or "financial resources". More likely they know their daughter's abilities and the fact that she was not going to be racing or riding in large groups.
All of these other events that you mention -- are they actual races or fundraisers like the bike-a-thon? I agree with you on requiring helmets in races, but not so much in a bike-a-thon.
Here is a question for you: Which is healthier? 1.) 25 years ago when over 500 local kids rode in the bike-a-thon, with not one of them wearing a helmet (gasp!!)? or 2.) now, with maybe 50 kids riding in the bike-a-thon and possibly 60-70% wearing helmets? The answer is easy . . .
and the solution is simple: Focus on getting more kids outside and being physically active, and worry less about being a "nanny-state" that protects everyone from everything. That is better left to parents.
Now, I am going outside to ride my bike -- Without a Helmet!!
Posted on March 16 at 5:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Great news!! get rid of the carp. "Well done", to all involved.
Posted on March 12 at 8:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This is not the first year that NDSU has been D-1. I believe it is the first year that NDSU was eligable for post-season play (NCAA's), but they have been playing a D-1 schedule for 4 or 5 years, haven't they? Correct me if I am wrong.
Page 1 of 4 | Next
Posted on July 5 at 7:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The uninsured in Minnesota just go to the ER, where they can not be turned away. If Minn. has 400,000 uninsured, how many of those are by choice? How many have elected fancy cars, video games, booze, and other "essentials" over health insurance?
Yes, health care reform is needed. Is turning over the decision-making to the Big Brother the way to go? No. Changes are needed, as the US spends far too much of its GDP on health care. I think a number of smaller changes is the way to go: more high deductible health insur. plans; manditory health insurance for people making over a certain amount, or $$ gets withheld from tax refunds; streamline the paperwork; simplify payor sources; give incentives for people to live healthy lives and lose weight; take away the tax exempt status of medical providers that are not adequately serving the public to justify that huge break, and have the new tax revenue go toward helping people become insured . . . .
On Government medicine will slow health care