I think "government benefits" should definitely be read to include any government benefits, such as say, oh, "health benefits", "pension benefits", "legislature license plates", and so on.
Let's see the state legislature put their urine where their mouths are!
Can we just hire Mike Leach? At least we know:
a) he can win
b) bigger schools aren't competing to hire him
Actually, there was an academic paper published earlier this summer titled: "Abnormal Returns From the Common Stock Investments of Members of the U.S. House of Representatives" where the authors basically conclude that members of the House are either the World's Best Asset Managers, or they're cheating and user inside information.
The whole thing stinks.
Read a quick summary here: http://leedsonfinance.com/2011/07/17/the-w…
Hahaha... great article that no one will read, because Diane Sawyer isn't wading around on camera threatened by snakes, spiders, and alligators unfortunately.
I mean, it may be true that he has a heart for preservation, but this quote concerned me: "I have favored and supported the "overlay" concept which began in our St. Luke's/University of Memphis neighborhood and then was adopted for Midtown last fall."
This is the same overlay that took effect AFTER the CVS sale and that they are reportedly not (in most important ways) going to follow, right?
I, like most people opposed to the redevelopment, would have been OK (sad, but OK) with a redevelopment following the new overlay guidelines.
Too bad the most important stakeholder involved didn't use his position to back what apparently he supports... as with all things, actions speak louder than words.
Would I live next to a nuclear power plant? Not really much of a question, as no one has been allowed to build one in the US in 30+ years.
How do you feel about all the US Navy sailors and submariners who sleep next to reactors?
A better question is, given the choice, would I rather live next to a coal fired power plant or a nuclear plant... and the answer is REALLY easy: nuclear.
If you're so against nasty polluting / dangerous energy, I'm hoping you're living off the grid, without plastics, and without a car (regular or electric).
I'm making a guess the answer to that is no.
So, in the entire history of nuclear power generation, how many incidents have led to a serious loss of life?
Easy answer (so far, hopefully, depending what happens this week): One.
And that would be Chernobyl, where the reactors were built with spit and bailing wire, even compared with the outmoded models currently at risk in Japan.
How many people have been killed mining coal? How many people living downwind from coal power plants the world over have been sickened by living in close proximity to that form of energy?
You say 200,000 people have been evacuated this week because of this potential release... how many people are going to be permanently evacuated if global climate changes turns out to be real and sea levels rise, because of the carbon footprint of the world's coal infrastructure?
Looking at the current crisis and proclaiming knee jerk statements like this editorial is a simple logical fallacy. A comparison would be seeing a plane crash (yes, a tragedy) and deciding that car travel is safer. You may not have seen anyone die in a car crash this week, but it is hugely unsafe in aggregate than flying.
Basically over the past year, we've learned that coal is a bad idea (miner deaths), oil is a bad idea (BP in the gulf), and nuclear is a bad idea (Japan). So we're left with windmills and solar... which aren't enough to power society as we know it.
So figure out some statistics and make some reasoned judgments and don't just dish out knee jerk fear mongering.
All Comments »
By Hannah Sayle, Chris Herrington, Chris Shaw, Louis Goggans, Greg Akers and Bruce VanWyngarden
download this issue
click here to see more »