A Picture Share!
Topic: pictures

Cute huh? :)

Crash Victim Gets $105 Mln from Concessionaire
Topic: ramblings
And I thought me costing my work a few grand was bad...glad I'm not this employee...

************************************************

Crash Victim Gets $105 Mln from Concessionaire

Jan 21, 10:05 AM (ET)

By Larry Fine

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The family of a girl paralyzed in a car crash caused by a drunken football fan won $105 million in damages from the concessionaire that sold him beer, and the girl's father said on Thursday the case should have far-reaching effects.

The Superior Court jury in Hackensack, New Jersey, assessed punitive damages on Wednesday against Giants Stadium concessionaire Aramark Corp., for its role in the October 1999 accident that left Antonia Verni, then 2 years old, paralyzed from the neck down.

"I believe the jury accomplished two things," Ronald Verni said in a telephone interview. "It should provide Antonia with the necessary medical care and maintenance for the rest of her life, and send a message to Aramark and other vendors of alcohol at stadiums and arenas in the United States.

"Clean up your act and hopefully prevent other Antonia Verni conditions out there."

Aramark, one of the world's biggest food and beverage providers, said in a statement it plans to appeal.

Trial testimony showed that Daniel Lanzaro, 34, had gotten around a rule allowing the purchase of only two beers at a time by tipping a vendor to buy six. The family's lawyer, David Mazie, argued that Lanzaro was also noticeably drunk at the time.

Lanzaro, whose blood-alcohol level after the crash was more than twice the legal limit, is serving five years in prison for vehicular assault. He settled separately with the Vernis.

The New York Giants football team defended Aramark's alcohol policies and said in a statement: "No words can express the sorrow we feel for what the Verni family has gone through."

The conduct of inebriated fans has been a concern in U.S. sports, notably at last November's NBA fracas at the Detroit Pistons' Palace in Auburn Hills where Indiana Pacers players charged into the stands to fight with fans after a beverage was dumped on one of the Pacers.

That incident prompted criminal charges, the suspension of eight players and promises from NBA Commissioner David Stern to improve security operations across the basketball league.

But it did not change the Auburn Hills' policy on beer, which is sold through the third quarter of games.

Arguments...
Topic: ramblings
Well I happened to join this yahoo group called "IdLikeToHaveAnArgumentPlease" a few months ago. For those who don't know, yahoo groups are created and used to share information, tips, support, etc (in this case it is to share arguments lol)

Well for the first few months the group was really mild...then someone posted:

"Norma McCorvey, aka Jane Roe, will ask the Supreme Court tomorrow to
vacate Roe v. Wade.

Rhonda"

That sparked quite a debate as we all put in our two cents about the abortion debate (quite possibly the most heated of them all). I have never known anyone to think that denying a woman their "right" to have an abortion equated to forced slavery. Nor had I ever heard of anyone developing an artifical womb in order to, I suppose, raise and nurture the pre-born rather than "forcing" the mother to do it. I understand women not wanting to go through the pain/work of being pregnant and giving birth, but I also know many women who see pregnancy as a blessing and willingly put themselves through whatever they need to in order to say "yeah, I helped create that." Anyway, they had totally opposite views/perspectives on love, sex, responsibilities, rights, and laws than I do. Which makes for plenty good debating huh? :)

I debated whether I would post the emails and arguments on here, but I think I'll hold off for now. Besides, I will be spending plenty of time responding to them as it is :)

Topic: pictures

Brevity - 1/18/05 (C) 2005 guy & rodd Dist. by UFS, Inc.

A Picture Share!
Topic: pictures


Some more cars parked a little crooked...I can only assume they slid on the ice and got stuck like that...?

A Picture Share!
Topic: pictures


This pic was taken 1/15/05 after we had severe freezing rain. The ground was definitely covered in a layer of ice and there were three cars parked all crazy like this...

Sweat shops...
Mood:  chillin'
Topic: informative
I categorized this under "informative" instead of just "rambling." I hope you agree :)

I was reading another blog (http://trueliberal0.tripod.com/) and the author mentioned sweat shops. (He also happened to be mentioning how the far left can go too far left sometimes).

Case in point: sweat shops.

Now how many of us think that manufacturing companies here should go from paying workers $7/hr + benefits, 40 hr work weeks, paid time off, sick leave, etc to moving their factories overseas, pay $1/day to the workers and give them little to no benefits? Well unless you happen to own the business (or are a hired financial advisor for them) you probably won't support that. "It's ridiculous" you probably say. "They shouldn't be allowed to get away with that!"

Well, the story, as they say, always has two sides. The "other side" was introduced to me by a man named Nicholas Kristof of the NY Times. In my humble opinion, I think he is an outstanding author. That's my opinion though, you're free to think whatever you want of him.

See, Nicholas and his wife travel abroad a lot. In one article, entitled Two Cheers for Sweatshops, Nicholas actually argues for sweatshops. "How can someone in their right mind do this?" you ask? Well, simple: he's been to those third world countries where these sweat shops are. He knows the conditions of these shops (not as bad as you can imagine, but not the best working environments either). He also knows the conditions of the children who are not able to get jobs at these sweatshops...of the sad truth behind child prostitution, drugs, and crime. Many families (as the article and others like it show) actually encourage their children to work in these shops. The families need money, and the parents don't want their kids turning to drugs or prostitution to get it.

"Fourteen years ago, we [Nicholas and his wife] moved to Asia and began reporting there. Like most Westerners, we arrived in the region outraged at sweatshops. In time, though, we came to accept the view supported by most Asians: that the campaign against sweatshops risks harming the very people it is intended to help." He goes on to explain situations that are reported in America, Michael Moore-style. For those who don't know, "Michael Moore-style" is when you take the truth and twist it and turn it a little bit and omit a few things so that it looks worse than it is.

Rather than sweat shop owners forcing the workers to work long hours, many sweat shop workers request it so as to make more money.

"It's actually pretty annoying how hard they want to work," said the factory manager, a Hong Kong man. "It means we have to worry about security and have a supervisor around almost constantly."

"$2/day for a nine hour shift, six days a week," definitely doesn't sound like a good deal for us, but to someone in a foreign land that is decent money. Comparing what they make to what we make is comparing apples to oranges: Nicholas went to a food stand in a nearby village there and paid the equivalent of 5 cents for a meal of leaves, rice, fish paste and fried beetles. Now where in American can you get a meal for 5 cents?

And then, there's the third side of this story: what paying $2/day to people in Thailand means for us Americans. It means, quite plainly, that we can go to a store and purchase something today for half the price we paid for it a few years ago.

As any intro econ teacher would tell you, it doesn't matter so much how much you make (nominal wage), but what you can buy with it (real wage). Who cares if you make $100/hr if the cheapest hamburger you can find is $300? Life would be much better for you if you made only $5/hr and paid $1 for a hamburger. (We are assuming, of course, that all other goods and services are on comparable terms to the hamburger.) In three hours of working in situation one, you could just barely afford to buy your hamburger; in situation two you could afford 15 hamburgers.

"What does this have to do with it?" you ask? Well, when people overseas produce our products cheaper than we can and in turn the companies that make them sell them to us at a reasonable mark-up, we are better off. Our "hamburgers" become cheaper.

Let's use clothing as an example. Today, let's say, you can find a sweater you like for $20 (regular price). Three years from now, you might find the exact same sweater and it will be $15 (regular price, not sales price). Did cotton fall upon the earth in great quantities and the over-abundance cause a lower price for sweaters? Or was it that the sweaters were made with less labor and capital? Most likely, #2. Now during those three years your wage probably didn't change all that much. Let's say, for the sake of making things easy, that today you make $10/hr, and in 3 years from now you just happen to make $15/hr. That's a good raise in just 3 years, but not completely out of line. Well, today you'd spend 2 hrs working in order to purchase the sweater ($20); in 3 years it will only take you one hours worth of work to purchase the sweater ($15).

What always has bothered me was Nike: they pay someone 15 cents a day to make shoes overseas, and then turn around and sell the shoes in America for over $100. From a business point of view it's brilliant (since they can get away with it). But morally I think it is reprehensible...and that is why I boycott Nike :)

It is hard to be in "support" of sweat shops, but most of them aren't as bad as the press and some activists here would have you believe. But sweat shops aren't all bad, like they'd have you believe. Certainly we don't want anyone suffering at work or being forced to work hours without rest or pay. But for those sweat shops that treat the workers humanely and keep children (and some adults for that matter) out of trouble, I say we should support them. That is why I stand behind Kristof and say "Two Cheers for Sweat Shops!"

Do me a favor...
Mood:  surprised
Topic: people who need help
Do me a favor...if you are going to take someone to court, try to make sure that what you are suing them for isn't against the law :)

I went home for lunch, as I usually do, and turned on Judge Joe Brown (as I usually do). Sure enough, the plaintiff was suing her friend for not paying parking tickets. The friends' defense was along the lines of she had already paid it or shouldn't have to or whatever. Problem was, the plaintiff continually loaned her car to her friend (who she was suing) even though the friend didn't have a license! Furthermore, the plaintiff attempted to have the defendant added to the registration of the car so that she could "legally" drive it around.

Furthermore, the defendant had already paid several parking tickets already; both agreed that this was true. Judge Joe Brown asked where the defendant got the money. "I get welfare," she said.

When the judge referred to it as "public assistance" she retorted "but I don't get public assistance."

"I thought you said you got welfare...?" he asked.

"I do," she said. Apparently she didn't know what "public assistance" meant...or..."public assistance" is too politically correct for her? lol

Anyway, the judge couldn't believe what he was hearing. The plaintiff was knowingly lending her car out to someone w/o a license and trying to add someone to her registration that did not have a license. And, just as bad, the defendant was using her welfare checks to pay other parking tickets!

The judge asked if they were sure they wanted to proceed considering they were both under oath and in danger of being convicted of felonies. They still tried their case, but the judge threw it out before it got any worse.

I'd say "it would be nice if people like this could get some mental help" but the Lord knows there are just too damn many of them in this world to help...

Back to the innocent times...
Mood:  lazy
Topic: ramblings
I was helping a member (what us in the credit union business call "customers") on the phone today and he asked if he could close his Visa. I informed him of our policy: basically we would need him to either come in and sign a form or mail in a request to have the Visa closed. The basic rule is that we have to have a signature to verify they want it closed, just like we need a signature to verify that they did at one time want the loan.

Which got me to thinking...

I know I wasn't necessarily alive "back in the days"...but I do know that times then were much more innocent. I have no doubt that when my dad was my age I'm sure he could have just made a quick call (or sent a telegram perhaps? lol) to close a signature loan that had been paid off. He could write checks without worrying about a hold being placed on them. He could take a business opportunity from a friend and more than likely it wouldn't be a scam...

But things have changed. Now people have to constantly watch their backs, shred their mail, keep close eyes on their accounts, check their credit reports fairly often, and "tips from friends" are often times critiqued to death. Am we all just getting paranoid? Well perhaps, but for good reason. Times have changed. People aren't as nice and innocent as they used to be (unfortunately). Which means we all have to be extra cautious not to have someone do fraud against us. I've never personally had my identity stolen or fraud on my accounts, but I've dealt with plenty of it to know that it is no fun...

It's just too bad that we'll never be able to go back to those "innocent days"...

King of Queens...
Mood:  happy
Now Playing: King of Queens
Topic: ramblings
I must say, the show King of Queens has got to be one of the best shows ever :) I mean most shows these days are funny, but none of them makes me laugh out loud as much or as often as King of Queens.

Doug (Kevin James) plays the husband, Carrie (Leah Rimini) plays the wife, and Arthur (Jerry Stiller) plays Carrie's dad who moved in to live with the both of them since episode one. Most sitcoms have married couples with children; in this show, Arthur plays their 85 year old child. Arthur is definitely the most excentric person you've never met. He screams at the top of his lungs constantly, and of course is slightly senile in his age.

Doug plays a delivery driver for IPS (International Parcel Service) and Carrie is a legal secretary. Doug's personality mimics mine pretty well: overweight guy who loves football, hanging with the boys, and his girl even though he's not the best at showing it. Carrie is a little on the high maintenance side, loves her designer clothing, and can be short tempered at time. Together they live the "blue collar American life"...only unfortunately they're stuck with Arthur.

Seinfeld was definitely my favorite show when it was on tv...King of Queens is slowly approaching the "best television show ever" status. I definitely recommend the show to everyone. Doesn't matter how crappy of a mood I am in, this show always cheers me up :)