published Thursday, June 2nd, 2011

Cell Phones

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

102
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
AndrewLohr said...

We're talking about a slight increase in a basic brain cancer rate of 3 per hundred thousand people, say basic rate 10,000 cases in the U.S., increase maybe a few thousand? Thanks for the info. A risk like that is low enough we can make our own choices about it. Abortion kills on purpose, a million a year here, is there a cartoon in the murder of little babies? Or a law?

June 2, 2011 at 12:20 a.m.
OllieH said...

Although I've heard about the link between cell phones and cancer, I never realized there was a link between cell phone cartoons and rants on abortion. Very strange, indeed.

Funny cartoon, Clay!

June 2, 2011 at 1:59 a.m.
tderng said...

well that explains the problem with the democratic mindset...brain tumors!

June 2, 2011 at 2:03 a.m.
Yano said...

You're much more likely to die from using a cell phone while driving.

June 2, 2011 at 4:14 a.m.
alprova said...

What exactly is the "Democratic mindset" tderng, that you feel is a problem? Seems to me that Democrats and their supporters are quite a bit more humanistic when they adopt their positions. How nice of you to take the subject at hand off-course. Now that I have recovered my mind and spirit after a long illness, it will be my pleasure to address your assessment of those aligned with Democrats.

Brain tumors are not the problem at all. The problem with most people, when they do have a problem, is that they are insanely selfish to the nth degree. Out of sight and out of mind is another tactic that many 'fine people' in charge have chosen to deal with the real problems in this nation.

Here: Let me introduce you to three people who likely have the Democratic mindset.

They were arrested for feeding 40 homeless people in a public park within two miles of Orlando, Florida's City Hall.

JAILED FOR FEEDING HOMELESS PEOPLE?

I read a lot from people who think they live their lives walking beside the Lord, but where are these people when it comes to emulating the Lord and living up to his example?

Andrew is charged up over the abortion issue, which he too tied to the issue of brain cancer and cell-phones, but where are he and others like him when it comes to those who have nothing? Oh...they are adults I suppose, and can fend for themselves.

June 2, 2011 at 4:17 a.m.
hambone said...

tderng, Having a brain tumor would indicate that there is a brain there to start.

Unlike some in the house GOP!

June 2, 2011 at 6:17 a.m.
ITguy said...

Alprova is back! We have sure missed you,

June 2, 2011 at 6:27 a.m.
jimbob said...

Welcome back Alprova.

June 2, 2011 at 7:09 a.m.
moonpie said...

Welcome back al.

June 2, 2011 at 7:10 a.m.
BobMKE said...

Welcome back Al. Pray that you are in good health.

P.S. Keep the posts some what short.

June 2, 2011 at 8:21 a.m.
MTJohn said...

Al - thanks for explaining why the miracle of the feeding of the 5,000 did not take place in Orlando.

June 2, 2011 at 8:25 a.m.
limric said...

A recent study by The RNC (Russian National Committee) on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection says that use of cell phones by both pregnant women and children should be "limited". It concludes that children who talk on cell phones are likely to suffer from…a…"disruption of…umm… memory, a decline of…what? Oh yea - attention, diminishing learning and cognitive abilities, INCREASED IRRITABILITY “in the short term, and that longer-term hazards include "disgusting syndrome" and disruption of the nervous structures of the brain resulting in a degenerative condition known as ‘Bachmann’s Syndrome.’

They add that there might be other possible explanations that they didn’t think of – such as that mothers who used the phones frequently might pay less attention to their children – and stress that the results "should be interpreted with caution" because we don’t quite know what we’re talking about yet. However, they conclude, "if they are real they would have major public health implications. Or not."

Professor Ollie H. Alprova, of the blue-chip Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, and the University of Washington School of Public Health – one of the pioneers of research in the field – said last week that he had no doubt that the results were real. He pointed out that recent University of Tennessee research on pregnant Libertarian females exposed to similar radiation found weird structural changes in their offspring's brains, often accompanied by a touretts like symptom. Blurting out words like “TAX CUTS or SOCIALISTS” at inappropriate settings….especially at black tie dinners.

June 2, 2011 at 8:29 a.m.
SeaMonkey said...

i'm surprised bennett didn't plop sarah palin's head on that guy's body.

another media induced panic.....unless you have your cell phone duck taped to the side of your head all day then there is no problem. i saw a woman the other day texting while driving and coming within a couple of inches of hitting a pedestrian at an intersection. i saw another woman talking on a cell phone while rounding a corner and nearly going off the road.

i don't think the government has any business fining us for not wearing seat belts, but cell phones seem to be causing a lot of destruction.

andrew is correct.....the unborn are much more threatened or endangered in this country than anyone's brain cells are from cell phones.......

democrats are more humanistic?....what a joke...

there's nothing "humane" about confiscating something from someone who has earned it and giving it to someone who hasn't.

June 2, 2011 at 8:32 a.m.
dave said...

The danger from cell phones is real and the government and the cell phone industry has done all they can to minimalize any word just how dangerous it can be. I remember being in the military and the warnings of just how dangerous microwave energy can be...even to the point we were warned to NEVER place a signal generator (which has far less output than a cell phone) on a shelf while using it. Cell phones operate in the 900 mHz band which is very near the lower limit of microwave energy. Even cell phone companies give instructions of "how" to hold your cell phone..with the antenna away from your head. The very fact this report came out after all the attempt of the industry to squash it shows that there is something to the claims. Yes, I own a cell phone and use it...but I do not hang on the thing gabbing for untold hours about nothing. I try to limit my exposure to this radiation. (yes, it is radiation) Take a hint...they may not be as safe as they wish you to think. Perhaps the government and the cell phone industry are both blinded by the money. Andrew is right...Abortion kills babies.

June 2, 2011 at 8:41 a.m.
inthemiddle said...

John Hugh "Buddy" Dyer (born August 7, 1958) is mayor of Orlando, Florida, first elected in 2003. He is a member of the United States Democratic Party. Previously he represented Orlando in the Florida State Senate for ten years, including three years when he was the Senate Democratic leader.

June 2, 2011 at 9:17 a.m.
fairmon said...

There is probably an already weakened brain if someone spends enough time with a cell phone against their head to cause a tumor. No doubt some congressman will develop some protect idiots from themselves legislation calling for compensation if cell phone use is a possible cause.

It will probably be similar to seat belt laws that protects the idiot electing to not use safety restraints when driving or riding in a vehicle. Is it desirable to have someone lacking in judgement to that extent survive a crash? Why do we keep cluttering the books with laws that protect an idiot from their own ignorance? Cycle riders that object to protective helmets are required to wear one, are they too dumb to see the value on their own, why force them to do something logical?

June 2, 2011 at 9:38 a.m.
MTJohn said...

Inthemiddle - if Buddy Dyer has the "democratic mindset", that might explain why Orlando Food Not Bombs had been able to get permits to feed the poor in the city park and also explain waited until the hungry had been fed before arresting the folks who had organized the demonstration.

Perhaps, if a few more folks had used their cell phones and used them well, the confrontation over the permit issue might have been avoided.

June 2, 2011 at 10:26 a.m.
Sailorman said...

The class action lawyers are absolutely salivating. While they are already trolling for "victims", they are bemoaning the fact that they might have to wait until, as the lawyer interviewed on CNBC put, a statistically significant number of tumors show up. He said his son, a fresh law school graduate, would probably file more suits than he will.

June 2, 2011 at 10:53 a.m.
FreedomJournal said...

Foolish

The true intellects stood and listened often hearing nothing but garbage. As the genius was at rest. Meanwhile the birds continued to sing and those not so bright heard them talk.

FreedomJournal Press www.freedomjournal.com>

bret said...

Obviously this is all Obama's fault.

June 2, 2011 at 11:25 a.m.
sage1 said...

I can see where extended prolonged use over years may be a health risk...The real danger is pretty danged obvious that even SHORT TERM use while driving makes you BLIND AND STUPID and reduces your driving skills and abilities to that of a 12 year old......and texting? If you TEXT while driving you're STUPID 24x7.

June 2, 2011 at 11:38 a.m.
nurseforjustice said...

Alprova, welcome back . I have prayed for you often. Hope you are well. I do enjoy reading all sides to issues and you give an interesting take on things most of the time even tho we don't always agree.

As far as the toon goes, I don't know if the cell phone brain tumor idea is real or not. But I do know you can pretty much manipulate studies to show just about anything you want, for or against.

Who knows, if you look close enough you might find that people who sleep on Memory Foam have more brain tumors than others. (I just made that up by the way)

June 2, 2011 at 11:47 a.m.
limric said...

Have trans fats been banned? No.

Have cigarettes been banned? No?

Have darts without plastic tips been banned? No.

Have guns been banned? No.

Will you waste our time again making sh! t up? Yes.

Your absurdities need more humor. They only illuminate your dark spots. (You’ll need to ponder that last sentence for a while)

June 2, 2011 at 12:30 p.m.
SeaMonkey said...

no, limric, they haven't been banned....but l4f's point is right on. liberals are about banning, controlling and intrusion. they may not have succeeded in many cases, but they try and try and try. only pot and other "recreational" drugs, abortion and sodomy are off limits..everything else is on the table. obama, your glorius leader, would love to ban profit, except for the government and those who work for it. they get a waiver.

June 2, 2011 at 1:22 p.m.
SeaMonkey said...

you progressives are absurd in your obsessive desire to "transform" whether it's america itself, our kids school lunches or our meals. buzz off...mind your own business and keep your paws out of our lives you nazis

June 2, 2011 at 1:28 p.m.
miraweb said...

A respected international health organization flags something that is potentially killing people. Not a left issue. Not a right issue. Not an up issue. Not a down issue. I wonder why we have this narrowness in the national conversation that says everything has to somehow be shoehorned into a very narrow political debate - even when the issue isn't really political? It seems we've forgotten how to have any other kind of conversation.

June 2, 2011 at 1:35 p.m.
hambone said...

Some people have to be protected from themselves.

But when it comes to FrancisTrollMonkey, I just don't care!

June 2, 2011 at 1:42 p.m.
limric said...

America is a VERY big country. It is not just the cities you want to cherry pick.
Where I live, I eat trans fats - I smoke cigarettes (see avatar)- I drink alcohol (but only to excess)- I own guns and at times play with metal pointed darts. Are they banned? NO! Don't try to weasel your way out of blanket horse sh!t statements.

Oh, and I go hunting in the Adirondack Mountains with my friends and relatives. I BRING MY OWN RIFLE...through commercial airlines! They own guns - IN NY!!

Christ you guys are full of it!!

June 2, 2011 at 1:43 p.m.
SeaMonkey said...

miraweb

it's all political...as the natorious chicago politician, liberal, statist... and ex- obama chief of staff, rahm emanuel said, "you never want a serious crisis to go to waste"

liberals will take any opportunity they can to intrude into our private business, reduce our freedoms and control us.

history proves it.

June 2, 2011 at 1:45 p.m.
miraweb said...

No it is not all political. Politics is a small, wierd, distorted corner of a much bigger world. Most of the interesting and important stuff has little to do with it.

June 2, 2011 at 1:50 p.m.
memphisexile said...

I find it funny that "liberals" are being blamed for banning things or controlling people by some commenters. Aren't the more conservative minded folks the ones who are always trying to tell us what to do? They try to control our bodies with abortion bills or sodomy statutes. They try to control what we use by attempting to restrict alcohol use and fighting a losing war against drugs. They try to control what we think by pushing their religion on us and telling us it is unpatriotic to disagree with their point of view. The want to control who can get married or raise children based on their ridiculous stereotypes about gay people or their own personal religious beliefs.

Anyone who bitches about seat belts and then wants to tell a woman what kind of medical treatment the government should allow her to have is ridiculous and hypocritical. Go push your religion on someone else. Last time I checked this was the United States of American, not the United Christian States of America.

June 2, 2011 at 1:58 p.m.
SeaMonkey said...

" aren't the more conservative minded folks the ones who are always trying to tell us what do? no....no....hell no....

what a bunch of garbage....believing something and proudly stating it isn't the same as forcing it down someone's throat.

how can you post what you posted given the bullying we in this country have endured the last two years under obama and pelosi? obama is classic liberal/progressive bully..... forcing...pushing, scolding, lecturing..finger pointing....

boy...see ...i'm right, abortion, sodomy and drugs....always at the top of you liberal wackos' list of things that are sacred.

let me set you straight......as a conservative i believe whatever someone does in their home is their business...as long as it doesn't harm anyone else, break the law or intrude on others....i don't approve of the homosexual lifestyle, but that's their call..it's called freedom and privacy..

you libs aren't satisfied that i respect their freedom and their privacy....you will not stop until i approve and agree with their lifestyle. even if it means forcing......you want to control everyones mind. you want everyone to be of one mind...even if it means force..

you don't know when to stop.

and, hambreath..as usual...kiss my ass

June 2, 2011 at 3:31 p.m.
Leaf said...

Conservatives want to ban change. Liberals want to ban things that interfere with change. The party that happens to be in power wants to exercise power and the party that is out wants to stall. That's all I know about politics.

Anyway, this is just one more reason I don't carry a cell phone.

June 2, 2011 at 5:02 p.m.
SeaMonkey said...

no, leaf..that's not quite right...conservatives want to fight those who want change that will destroy freedom and limit our rights. conservatives want change that doesn't erode our constitutional rights. liberals want to "transform" this country into something that really is not america. liberals want to ban other opinions and views. liberals only believe in the 1st ammendment when it applies to them. obama is living proof of that....his administration's attacks on newspapers and news organizations that are critical of him and the democrats is astounding....and not just fox news, which has many liberals on there, by the way....but the san franciso chronical as well.. hardly a conservative newspaper.....look how obama grimaces and glares at reporters who ask tough questions......what a freakin' dictator......his desire to silence talk radio is the classic example..

speaking of cell phones......how are you libs going to handle weinergate? that jackass congressman, anthony weiner. when some republican, foley, i think..texted some sexual comments to a page..he was forced to resign and saint nancy pelosi called the republican party the culture of corruption.....well, does that mean now the democrat party is the culture of corruption?

weiner sent a pic of his weiner to a college student...

double standard......

June 2, 2011 at 5:43 p.m.
fairmon said...

hambone,

I don't think people should be protected from themselves if they are the only one at risk. People now have the information and statistics about cell phones. If someone is brain damaged enough to use a cell phone enough to cause a brain tumor then so be it. I resent any government intrusion in personal behavior to protect idiocy. Seat belts, motorcycle helmets, drugs, gambling, prostitution, smoking in privately owned businesses. There are others where politicians think they know best or respond to those that rally around an issue if they think it will get them votes.

This is typical of both parties at all levels, federal, state and local. There should be no litigation around cell phones allowed in the future. There should be no legislation on this issue including no requirement to wear protective head gear when using a cell phone. End the governments providing free cell phone time since it is hazardous.

Does government need more to do? In the past ten years Federal employment has increased 15% compared to a private sector increase of 1%. Average federal government wage is $123,000 compared to $61,000 in the private sector. 21,300,000 government employees is 16% of the voters. The 16% plus spouses and family they influence is about 32% of voters. This is a special interest group of significant size. When this number reaches 50% "we the people" will be in the minority. This may be a clue why is it impossible to increase taxes and reduce spending. "We the people" may need idiot protection legislation if we keep condoning government growth, intrusion and control. Democrats were against the patriot act when Bush was in and republicans supported it. Now Obama who was against it is now for it and the republicans are against it. Another clue that neither party is to be trusted.

June 2, 2011 at 5:47 p.m.
fairmon said...

Seamonkey,

My impression of Pelosi is that she is a conniving, evil, mean, hard hearted, greedy, power hungry B$%^#H. She was so envious of Hilary Clinton she couldn't hide it in interviews. You could almost see her thinking "pick me" I want to run for president. When she was in the succession line I was hoping nothing happened to Obama and Biden both. In other words she makes me sick! I sent her opponent a contribution during the campaign. Now she has a large number of people in her district getting Obama Care waivers.

June 2, 2011 at 6:03 p.m.
potcat said...

`~ You can't ban the Sun and you can't ban stupid. I knew the Sun was bad when over exposed, because my GrandMother wore long sleeves and a bonnet when working in the fields and told us to do the same. Did i listen, Hell no!

`~ I am fair skin, freckle and blonde when young,and after several Sunburns and delibertly laying in the Sun for The fleeting Tan for years, i am now recovering from head, nose and neck skin cancer.

`~I am sure it was my being vain,a Tomboy or hell i can blame it on the 70's and not remenbering a whole lot or the Damn Sun did it to me, but thats being Stupid and dishonest. We all have Free Will.

~` Have Common Sense this Summer!

June 2, 2011 at 6:21 p.m.
fairmon said...

potcat,

well said and a good analogy. How many times do we have to prove morals can't be legislated, stupid can't be banned and common sense is not very common. No doubt some will increase the use of a cell phone in defiance and accuse someone of a conspiracy then sue like heck and demand free health care if something happens.

June 2, 2011 at 8:16 p.m.
Oz said...

alprova...Glad to see your physical health has recovered. I'm still praying for your mental health! (lol)

June 2, 2011 at 8:51 p.m.
dude_abides said...

The rabid right wants tort reform for the quacks that cut off the wrong legs, but don't trust a worldwide organization of doctors that are forming a scientific consensus about a possible health threat. The comical thing is that most of them have to wait and see what their leaders say before they can form an opinion on tricky subjects like this. Not to worry, cancer will probably turn it's nose up at some brains.

June 2, 2011 at 9:17 p.m.
moonpie said...

Santa Monkey,

You are the most humorless poster I have ever read. I hope your real life, if you have time for one, is happier than your online life!

June 2, 2011 at 9:27 p.m.
hotdiggity said...

harp3339 June 2, 2011 at 5:47 p.m. - "I don't think people should be protected from themselves if they are the only one at risk. People now have the information and statistics about cell phones."

Uhh no, the people apparently do not have the information completely yet, as more studies are coming out regarding the issue.

Perhaps you would be more interested in the subject if it was shown that children could be harmed by cell phone use? There is a study out that implies this is possible. Who is going to protect them? Certainly not the communications industry..or conservatives/libertarians who care more for the buck rather than protecting our citizens.

Darn that intrusive government who would consider studies that could potentially harm its citizens. Darn those bleeding heart liberals.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/thom-hartmann-day-life-joe-middle-class-re

June 2, 2011 at 9:45 p.m.
hambone said...

Harp, People have to be protected from themselves when what they do effects others.

Mainly other's health or insurance rates.

June 2, 2011 at 10:10 p.m.
tderng said...

hotdiggity said... Perhaps you would be more interested in the subject if it was shown that children could be harmed by cell phone use? There is a study out that implies this is possible. Who is going to protect them?

hotdiggity...that would be their parents job. I don't mind the studies but many more need to be done.The W.H.O. even said that there was not enough data to even start recommendations.

June 2, 2011 at 10:18 p.m.
tderng said...

hambone said.. Harp, People have to be protected from themselves when what they do effects others.

Mainly other's health or insurance rates.

...with that thinking then every* aspect of our lives should be controlled by the government because everything we do has an impact in some way on others and their insurance rates.

June 2, 2011 at 10:28 p.m.
alprova said...

Thanks every one for the welcome back to the forum. I see that the salt water monkey man is still arguing for argument's sake. He still has not so much as a clue as to what he types about.

P.S.- BobMKE, I know you like to think that you are the house monitor, you post what you want and I'll post what I want. Your inability to comprehend lengthy posts is not my problem.

Salt Water Monkey Man, I'll sum it up and keep it simple for you. While you are of the opinion that there is nothing humanistic about taking money from your pocket and giving to others, the simple fact of the matter is that the taking of your money in the form of taxes, if you indeed pay any taxes at all, will never hurt you. There is ample evidence that the failure to collect taxes from those able to pay them could easily result in harm or worse to others in need without those taxes paid by those who can afford them.

Get it?

June 2, 2011 at 10:56 p.m.
fairmon said...

hambone,

If an idiot gets killed not wearing a seat belt instead of having treatable injuries it actually saves health care cost. Same for motorcycle riders with no helmets and other protect the idiot laws that affects no one except the idiot. hotdiggity,

No problem with studies to get facts and providing people facts so they can make a decision. Parents knowingly subjecting children to unnecessary and unusual risk should be accountable. I suspect the results will be that cell phones don't expose children nearly as much to injury or illness as the athletic events that parents encourage them to participate in. Talking on the phone or texting while driving is a greater risk to others than not using a restraint system.

It would be good to have leaders interested in not exporting jobs and not bankrupting businesses so people could provide for themself. There is no issue with providing for children, the elderly or disabled. It is a shame the government prefers to confiscate from those that can and those that really can't afford it to avoid making difficult decisions leaving people that could take care of their self dependent on the government. I assume you buy only made in America products?

June 3, 2011 at 1:09 a.m.
jimbob said...

Sea Monkey, In order for some one to kiss your ass you would first have to move your nose.

June 3, 2011 at 6:49 a.m.
moonpie said...

This cartoon is a good reflection of the public reaction to the statement released by the World Health Organization. (Amazing to see how quickly it gets politicized. Some people can't leave a scab alone.)

It's important to remember that no firm conclusions were made by the WHO, which simply said the non-ionizing radiation from cell phones is a potential carcinogen.

If this suspicion holds up and there is an actual risk, we are still a way off from knowing the number of people who need to use cell phones (and for how long) to create 1 additional case of brain cancer -- the number needed to harm (NNH).

There are lots of ways to look at risk: relative risk, absolute risk, attributable risk, population absolute risk and NNH (among others). Given the paucity of current evidence, the number needed to harm is likely very high. Too early to panic. Still the cartoon reflects the a general reaction to the news.

This is not to say the announcement of this finding was premature. Suspicions and findings should be shared. Sharing of information like this should cause more scientific interest.

I just hope it doesn't cause people to text more, rather than talk.... as harp and Yano correctly points out, texting or talking while driving is dangerous.... leagues more dangerous than any potential tumor risk is likely to be.

June 3, 2011 at 6:50 a.m.
moonpie said...

Meant population attributable risk (PAR) sorry.

June 3, 2011 at 6:51 a.m.
fairmon said...

It wouldn't upset me if cell phones were eliminated and their systems removed from the towers to prevent black markets. People talk louder in restaurants, stores etc. with no consideration for others. You see them driving and using a cell phone. The government has a program to provide some with free cell phone time. Some people seem obsessed with texting and talking on their cell phone.

June 3, 2011 at 8:26 a.m.
tderng said...

Harp3339,rather than getting rid of cell phones I would rather see mandatory cell phone suppressant devices placed in cars that keeps them from working while the car is in motion.Restaurants could employ the same devices if the management wanted,NOT required by the government!I am sure that the technology is either available or could be created to let a cell user know he/she has a call but must pull over and put the car in park to receive or place a call.Increase fines and even confiscate the cars of repeat offenders.I am including hands free devices in cars also,as a motorcyclist I can't tell you how many times I have nearly been killed by someone talking on a hands free device.Hand held phones in cars are much worse and texting is an absolute recipe for a disaster!That is why I have loud pipes on my bike,to try and make some noise as some idiot isn't paying attention.It had stopped my being in accidents many times.

June 3, 2011 at 9:54 a.m.
alprova said...

tderng, your last thought was most humorous.

With the windows of most vehicles rolled up tight, air conditioners on full fan speeds, desperately trying to cool the vehicle, and stereos entertaining those within the car, not to mention the probability that all occupants are likely speaking or texting on their cell phone at the same time, how on Earth do you think they are going to hear the loud pipes on your motorcycle a quarter of a block down the street before the driver pulls out in front of you?

Ask anyone who drives an emergency vehicle with the siren on, which likely meets or exceeds the level of noise produced by your pipes.. People don't hear them either, failing to yield all the time, and their sound producing devices are projected forward, rather than out the rear of those vehicles.

You're attempting like all other motorcyclists to justify your annoying loud pipes to those unfortunate enough to have their windows down when you pass them or who are stuck behind you when you rev that engine.

As a kid, you were probably a consumer of playing cards and clothespins in order to have a steady supply of noisemakers for the spokes of your bicycles. That was cool back then too.

At least have the intellectual honesty to admit that you just like annoying people, rather than to pretend for a moment that your loud pipes are a safety feature. Personally, in my less than humble opinion, any operator of a motorcycle without a muffler deserves a citation for violations of noise ordinances. You're all menaces to those of us who like a little peace and quiet and may you all wind up stone-cold deaf in your twilight years as your penance for irritating your fellow citizens.

How dare you pass me, causing me to have to ask the person who I am speaking with on my cellphone to have to repeat themselves when I can hear again, all because you are pleased with the constant refrain of elephant farts that emanate from your motorcycle.

June 3, 2011 at 10:47 a.m.
tderng said...

alprova. At least four times in the last five years I have caught someone moving into my lane and revved my engine and they realized I was there and went back into their lane so unless you ride then don't tell me loud pipes don't work.At least three of these people were elderly so I don't think they were listening to loud music and talking on their cells. And by the way have you EVER had your radio up in the spring or fall with the windows down? If so may you also go deaf!

June 3, 2011 at 11:47 a.m.
Leaf said...

tderng, would a horn do the same thing as revving your loud bike? Just a thought.

June 3, 2011 at 12:01 p.m.
tderng said...

and yes I do like loud pipes but it has nothing to do with annoying people.Its more like someone who likes muscle cars and the sound their engines make.There is nothing like the sound of a large number of bikes going by it makes the blood sing!!!

June 3, 2011 at 12:03 p.m.
tderng said...

leaf...most motorcycle horns are very tinny and not very attention grabbing sound.Nothing grabs the attention like a loud bike engine being revved.Plus the reputation of bikers(mostly undeserved) keeps others from getting too mouthy when you call their attention to their laxness.

June 3, 2011 at 12:06 p.m.
fairmon said...

L4F,

It depends on how our nutty legislatures react whether we have to give up cell phones. My preference is they do nothing which includes not requiring another auto expense of a suppressant system that could be over come. The unintended consequences of well intended laws make many non tax paying crooks wealthy. Pushers, pimps, bookies and a few others. Why not make legal drugs, prostitution, gambling and other morals that can't be legislated and tax the heck out of them. What would the crooks do for a living, heck, they may have to get a regular job?

June 3, 2011 at 1:32 p.m.
canarysong said...

ALPROVA!!! You are a sight for sore eyes! So glad you're back! You've been missed.

memphisexile and moonpie, great posts!

Harp said,

"...seat belt laws that protects the idiot electing to not use safety restraints when driving or riding in a vehicle. [....] Why do we keep cluttering the books with laws that protect an idiot from their own ignorance?"

--- Actually harp, these laws protect OTHERS from idiots too stupid to wear a seatbelt. Some studies have shown that in a rollover accident an unrestrained body can become a high-speed projectile capable of killing other occupants in the car, say a young child in a safety-seat. Even a 20 mph collision can result in death or serious injury for an unrestrained driver or passenger; not only does this mean higher costs for everyone, but resulting lawsuits are "cluttering" up our legal system with avoidable litigation when someone might otherwise have walked away from an accident uninjured. Taxpayers also help foot the bill for these unnecessary lawsuits. It seems that seatbelt laws are the cheapest, most ethical, and most logical choice.

L4F,

"I'm not going to give up the convenience and security of having a cellphone just because some WHO jerks think it causes cancer. FREEDOM FIRST!"

--- Geesh!...... Calm down, Drama Queen! No one is trying to take your freedom away by giving you information.

As for your continual ranting on anti-smoking legislation, this again is about protecting people from someone else's choices. It's about allowing workers to earn a living without compromising their health and enabling people with respiratory problems to have access to businesses and other public places that would otherwise be unavailable to them. This is an issue that is decided by the voters, not imposed by government. I thought 'libertarians' were all for local citizens deciding what they want in their own community. Are you cherry-picking again?

~Regarding my cell phone, it has made my life so much easier (and in some ways probably safer, too) that there is no way that I would ever give it up. However, since it is currently my only phone, I probably will be adding an additional 'land line' again to minimize exposure. The added expense would be preferable to missing out on long chats with my children. I will probably also use the 'speaker' function more often on the cell phone (but not where it can disturb others).

June 3, 2011 at 3:29 p.m.
BobMKE said...

iterng,

Have you been to Milwaukee and the Harley Museum? Also our Summerfest starts June 29th - July 10th (The World's Largest Music Festival)and they have special parking for motorcycles. Check them both out on the Internet.

June 3, 2011 at 3:41 p.m.
Leaf said...

Ah, the constant debate on when do the rights of the individual impinge upon the rights of the majority. The old "your right to throw your fist ends where my nose begins" debate.

You know what I dislike? When people insist upon their rights. You may have a right to smoke near kids or play loud music at 2:00 AM or call me during dinner to solicit a donation. But it just isn't polite.

Be honest, tderng, the pipes have nothing to do with safety and everything to do with getting attention. It's OK. We all want attention. That's why we post our meaningless tirades on this forum.

June 3, 2011 at 4:14 p.m.
canarysong said...

L4F,

"It's second hand smoke, not Zyklon-B."

--- What?? There are many people, like my husband and I, who cannot go into a place where there is smoking at all. Five minutes or less of exposure and I might have a full-blown (life-threatening) asthma attack and my husband would spend weeks battling bronchitis (which occasionally turns into pneumonia for him, also life-threatening). Do you think that you could just wait until you get outside to smoke so that we can go about having a life also?

"Right, and we should ban peanuts from the airlines just because a tiny minority of people suffer from peanut allergies."

--- I'm sure that this is a concept simple enough for even you to grasp..... people with peanut allergies can forgo the peanuts; if you smoke on an airplane other people are forced to breathe your smoke or they are not able to get where they need to go.

"Oh, and what about pollen? Lots of people suffer from allergies, should we cut down all those flowers?"

--- Surely you are not really this simple-minded.

"I don't remember voting for the Riverbend smoke-ban, do you? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's the ORGANIZERS who decided to do this."

--- I'm not familiar with Riverbend in particular, but for every smoking ordinance that I have heard of the "organizers" campaigned to get the issue put onto a ballot and then the voters were able to either approve it or to vote it down. Colorado has very strict smoking ordinances which are occasionally challenged, but each time voters choose to uphold them.

June 3, 2011 at 4:32 p.m.
fairmon said...

canarysong,

Statistics do reveal restraint systems save lives. I will not ride or drive without one. However, the frequency of an idiot becoming a human projectile causing injury to an innocent other is so low it is not justification for government mandated idiocy protection. The number not surviving would more than off set the cost of potential litigation and recovery should be limited if a restraint was not used. The logic certainly fails regarding motorcycle riders with no helmet. They often become a projectile that doesn't survive although not wearing protection indicates a hard head.

Smoking. I agree that public tax supported areas should not allow smoking. People help pay for these and other public areas such as city owned parks etc. etc. Places where people don't have a choice regarding utilizing or visiting or working there should be no smoking. However, it is not appropriate for government to dictate to an owner of an establishment where people have the choice of not patronizing. I don't smoke and no one smokes in my house without being uninvited but other than that if you have them and paid the taxes smoke them. I put smoking, drugs, prostitution, gambling all in the same category. Provide appropriate regulation and tax the heck out of them. The cost of incarceration of drug users is astronomical and a useless deterrent in most cases. Talk about costly wars we are losing, no war is more costly or harmful than our losing of the war against drugs. What would the Mexican cartels do if we made drugs legal. It would create many paying production and distribution jobs, it would yield significant tax revenue plus the ability to know who was using drugs. I would be willing to bet a random test of congress would reveal no less than 7% users when the use of unnecessary prescription drugs are included.

Cell phone info. is good to know and the practice of releasing preliminary data is good once people realize there is not yet a firm conclusion. They can still take precautions. I hope future information is provided and legislatures don't again think well, we better protect the idiots and pick up a few votes while at it.

June 3, 2011 at 4:58 p.m.
miraweb said...

I saw another article recently that cited a study that found cell phone transmissions were very confusing to beehives. When we have reality-based conversations we can begin to find out how strong a signal, what frequencies, and at what distance that could be a problem. When we know that we might even be able to find a good solution that lets us have the convenience of a personal communicator without harming ourselves or anyone else. Sadly, the knee-jerk talking-point blatherers contribute so little to solving any of our many serious issues.

June 3, 2011 at 5:07 p.m.
fairmon said...

canarysong,

I am reasonably sure Ofumblebuma has nothing to worry about in the 2012 elections. No opponent is up to the task, none of them can beat his diverse support base. He will have another term to keep his promise of the deficit being cut in half and unemployment reduced to well under 8%. Once in office he requested and received an enormous stimula package that hasn't delivered on the promise yet but he says it will.

The political world has changed but we still have congress members thinking in the 50's and 60's when the U.S. was the worlds biggest lender and was criticized for not spending more. We are now the world's largest creditor and spending way beyond our means. How long can we spend 1.7 trillion more per year in excess of all tax revenue? Basic arithmetic says revenue has to go up and spending has to go down. One party says no tax increases so revennue don't go up, the other says we can spend our way out of the problem. Is this a recipe for disaster?

June 3, 2011 at 5:15 p.m.
canarysong said...

Harp wrote,

"...it is not appropriate for government to dictate to an owner of an establishment where people have the choice of not patronizing."

--- It is entirely appropriate if the voters of a community choose to make certain (or all) public places available to those who cannot tolerate cigarette smoke and to make these places safer and more pleasant for themselves and for workers. The business owners are also free to choose to do business elsewhere, right? There was a time when I couldn't ride an airplane, go to a restaurant, attend a concert, or even sit in a waiting room because of other people's smoke. Many of these things I could live without, but those sensitive to smoke should not have to miss out on life because of the selfishness of others. I did not choose to have illness; they choose to smoke. Can't they just forgo for a short time so that others may have these simple opportunities?

June 3, 2011 at 5:17 p.m.
moonpie said...

All someone has to do to make smoking acceptable in their restaurant is to declare it a club. A $2 membership per year gives them the right to allow smoking etc, even in smoke-free communities.

June 3, 2011 at 5:24 p.m.
canarysong said...

From the mouths of [fill in appropriate word of your choice].... L4F said,

"... if a[I?] buy a pack of Camels, my money is being stolen and wasted on all kinds of things, like children's healthcare..."

--- I rest my case.

June 3, 2011 at 5:25 p.m.
canarysong said...

L4F,

No point in beating a dead jackass....

June 3, 2011 at 5:39 p.m.
miraweb said...

Well done, sir.

June 3, 2011 at 6:01 p.m.
alprova said...

Moonpie wrote: "All someone has to do to make smoking acceptable in their restaurant is to declare it a club. A $2 membership per year gives them the right to allow smoking etc, even in smoke-free communities."

But who in their right mind would alienate and eliminate 75% of their customers to appease just a minority of their current business? Smokers are now down to a fourth of the American population. It would be financial suicide.

I for one am glad that I am not addicted to the darn things anymore. Six months tobacco free and counting.

June 3, 2011 at 9:59 p.m.
tderng said...

BobMKE...I was in Milwaukee in 2003 for Harley's 100th anniversary,had a great time! The people were incredible! Couldn't get into the museum but have heard its great.Maybe I'll get back up there some day.In the meantime if you are a rider keep your knees in the breeze!

June 3, 2011 at 10:01 p.m.
tderng said...

Great alprova! Five and some change for me!What prompted you to quit?

June 3, 2011 at 10:07 p.m.
SavartiTN said...

L4F has been beating that dead jackass for a while now.

Alprova, the statistics are improving for the non smokers...it's up to 80% that are not smoking (and stupidly throwing away their money while insisting on their right to kill and pollute) now. Congratulations on joining the majority!

June 3, 2011 at 10:07 p.m.
fairmon said...

canarysong,

Smoking has never been voted on in Chattanooga or in Tennessee as far as I know. Banning smoking in publicly owned and supported facilities and areas is appropriate since everyone contributed to developing them and often need to use them or want to use them. Prohibiting smoking in a work place makes sense. Prohibiting smoking in health care facilities makes sense. What is not appropriate is government telling me, if I were the owner of a privately owned establishment catering to the public, that I must ban smoking. Most will do so without it being a law but they should make that decision, not some politician making a business decision for them. I am also willing to take the risk of not having the patriot act.

June 3, 2011 at 10:45 p.m.
fairmon said...

Can anyone tell me what the criteria for getting a waiver from the Obama Care law and with who and how to apply? Entire states and millions of others are getting waivers from participating and helping pay for it which means it will cost those without waivers even more. I will opt out if possible. Perhaps any future cell phone legislation will have a waiver option also.

June 3, 2011 at 10:54 p.m.
fairmon said...

canarysong,

A good thing about our form of government is a majority cannot dictate to a minority things that adversely impcact a minority. IE. The civil rights act of 1964 addressed that although it has not yet fully corrected it.

Why do the rights of those that desire to avoid second hand smoke supercede those of an owner of a business where they have an option of not patronizing it? He/she has a significant investment at risk in the business. Those objecting have nothing invested and shouldn't have any say about the owners smoking or no smoking option.

June 3, 2011 at 11:20 p.m.
canarysong said...

That's great, alprova! I know that it is a very hard addiction to overcome; congratulations.

June 4, 2011 at 12:28 a.m.
canarysong said...

Harp wrote,

"Why do the rights of those that desire to avoid second hand smoke supercede those of an owner of a business where they have an option of not patronizing it?"

--- Gee, harp,... Why do we make laws that force a business owner to make their establishment accessible to someone in a wheelchair? After all, the disabled person might "have an option of not patronizing it" and finding one where they do not have to crawl on their belly up a set of steps.... BTW, my avoidance of secondhand smoke is not a "desire", it is a necessity because of a serious health condition. Thankfully, because there are enough thoughtful people in Colorado that do not agree with you and who voted in favor of smoking restrictions, I am able to participate much more fully in life.

In Colorado smoking has been restricted in most businesses for many years. When voters approved restaurants to be totally smoke-free state-wide, restaurant owners shrieked that it would be the demise of their business. It wasn't. Business is booming and our (nearby) city, which led in the the anti-smoking effort, was recently ranked as the best U.S. small 'foodie' city in which to dine out. A few years ago, when a proposition was put on the state ballot to eliminate smoking in all Colorado bars, taverns, and casinos as well, more shrieking ensued. It would be the demise of the businesses! The bill passed and it wasn't the demise of the bar and casino industries. They have as much business as ever and tourists still flock here. They grumble a little when they find that they can't light up wherever they want, but they still keep coming back. And new businesses continue to come here as well; they know that their employees will enjoy a high quality of life in Colorado. Colorado's economy has weathered the recession far better than most states; we must be doing something right despite (or because of) our liberal health and energy policies. Often doing the 'right' thing, the compassionate thing, turns out to be the most profitable thing as well. Sometimes it just takes a little voter activism to make it happen, though.

Incidentally, our city also consistently shows up on lists of the best U.S. cities in which to live, the healthiest U.S. cities, the most happy U.S. cities, and has been rated as the U.S. city with the lowest rate of obesity and the most physically fit population (and we have extremely little crime)..... I guess I'm a bit 'patriotic' when it comes to my community!

June 4, 2011 at 12:47 a.m.
trburrows said...

to all you looooooong winded posters, its not that we cant understand, its so ofensive we just scroll over it and we ignore them. I dont smoke but to take that LEGAL right from someone in public is stupid. If you dont like smoke, drink, etc. all that are LEGAL stay the hell away. al, good to see you back but your posts are full of it.

June 4, 2011 at 4:06 a.m.
alprova said...

tderng wrote: "Great alprova! Five and some change for me!What prompted you to quit?"

3 bouts of pneumonia and the desire to avoid another.

June 4, 2011 at 7:53 a.m.
alprova said...

trburrows wrote: " al, good to see you back but your posts are full of it."

I'm sorry. Were you under the impression that your opinion about anyone's posts matters?

June 4, 2011 at 7:59 a.m.
fairmon said...

cs,

The reason business are required to accommodate the handicapped is the same principle of protecting a minority from adverse impact of a majority. Allowing a vote that infringes on the right of an owner of a small business is discrimination by a majority. At least Colorado voted, Tennessee didn't vote. No doubt most owners would ban smoking as a good business decision. My point is the government and others have no right to dictate such to the owner.

I am inclined to think you would also support a vote on setting the owners prices so anyone that wanted to could afford the fare and if the business wasn't profitable tough luck.

June 4, 2011 at 8:02 a.m.
canarysong said...

h339,

"The reason business are required to accommodate the handicapped is the same principle of protecting a minority from adverse impact of a majority. Allowing a vote that infringes on the right of an owner of a small business is discrimination by a majority."

--- Actually, they are both about accommodation (and compassion, which is a new four-letter-word in right-wing-speak).

"I am inclined to think you would also support a vote on setting the owners prices so anyone that wanted to could afford the fare and if the business wasn't profitable tough luck."

--- As is usually the case, your inclination to think for someone else is founded upon a mistaken premise.

June 4, 2011 at 9:05 a.m.
canarysong said...

TR,

"If you dont like smoke, drink, etc. all that are LEGAL stay the hell away."

--- We do indeed choose our travel destinations based partly on non-smoking accommodation and the availability of healthy food, which is a major reason that we rarely go to the south. Eventually southern businesses may see the profit potential in making healthier choices.

Until the right wing becomes bored with legislating our wombs and our marriages, communities still have a right to decide these standards of living for themselves. If you don't like what voters in Colorado have decided, you are likewise free not to come here; we won't miss you.

BTW, have they released you with the proper meds this time?

June 4, 2011 at 9:23 a.m.
canarysong said...

FYI y'all,

"Throughout the years, the science of secondhand smoke has driven the secondhand smoke policy engine from separate smoking and nonsmoking sections to separately ventilated smoking rooms to 100% smokefree environments. We now know that 53,800 people die every year from secondhand smoke exposure. This number is based on the midpoint numbers for heart disease deaths (48,500), lung cancer deaths (3,000), and SIDS deaths (2,300) as calculated in the 1997 California EPA Report on Secondhand Smoke. And children are at significant risk to many acute and chronic diseases as a result of secondhand smoke exposure."

http://www.no-smoke.org/getthefacts.php?id=13

June 4, 2011 at 10:29 a.m.
fairmon said...

canarysong,

Yes both are accommodation but one accommodates a helpless minority while the other imposes the will of a selfish majority that insist on helping a small business owner run the business in the way they prefer or in a way that accommodates them. There was no vote, and should not have been, regarding accommodating the physically challenged.

It is amusing how you support a local and state right to select the rules for it's citizens but you support federal intervention when others don't accept the same premise.

Chattanooga ranks in the top cities for retirees for many reasons. A lower cost of living, the environment, recreation facilities and many attributes you attribute to your community. Like every other state Colorado has good and bad areas.

Colorado is in debt 54.5 billion and increasing by 5 billion per year or currently $10,800 per citizen and growing. 250,000 unemployed and a similar number no longer eligible for unemployment. 466,000 receive food stamps. Colorado debt per GDP is over 20%, Tennessee is at 15% and growing at a rate similar to that of Colorado with each citizen in Tn. with a government debt obligation over $6,000.

Bragging rights are not evident for either. California's debt obligation per citizen is lower than Colorado's but they are on track to pass you at some future point. Is it time to make the hard choices? If not now when? If not this generation which?

June 4, 2011 at 11:48 a.m.
trburrows said...

al, my opinion means alot to many. You are one that dont matter. You are full of yourself. Canary, we down south may not care as much about money/profits as our way of life, which yanks dont understand, thank god.

June 5, 2011 at 3:46 a.m.
canarysong said...

Harp,

I don't know if you will still see this; I have been out enjoying my weekend. But anyway...

You wrote; "Yes both are accommodation but one accommodates a helpless minority while the other imposes the will of a selfish majority..."

--- No, functionally both remove a barrier for a minority dealing with a disability who would otherwise be unable to have access to public places.

"Chattanooga ranks in the top cities for retirees for many reasons. A lower cost of living..."

--- I need to preface what follows by saying that I know that there are a lot of great people in Tennessee; the state has incomparable natural beauty; and the rich heritage of the Scotch-Irish settlers have given the area a wonderfully unique culture. However...... If you judge Tennessee's attractiveness by its affordability, you must keep in mind that cheap comes at a price. There are many measures by which Tennessee does not fare very well compared to most other states (it ranks 41st in education, for example). CNBC's report on the 'Top States For Business 2010' ranked states overall and measured 40 different metrics in 10 categories. Colorado was ranked as the third best state for business in the U.S. Here is how Tennessee and Colorado compare in a few categories:

... (overall) ... quality of life ... economy ... technology/Innovation ... cost of living

CO (3) ................. 2 ................... 8 ..................... 12 ............................ 35 ........

TN (16) .............. 49 ................. 36 ..................... 23 ............................ 1 .........

Cheap? Maybe..... but you get what you pay for. Please note Tennessee's position at 49th in quality of life. A brief glance at the chart suggests a inverse relationship between the cost of living and the quality of life offered by the state. One might argue that budget cuts that eliminate those things that add to our quality of life are necessary for economic health, but wait.... Colorado also ranks much higher on economy! Hmm.....

To see the rest - http://www.cnbc.com/id/37516043/

http://www.cnbc.com/id/37642856/CNBC_s_Top_States_For_Business_2010_And_The_Winner_Is_Texas

You mention the number of unemployed in Colorado (which has dropped by 30,000 from the all-time high number that you gave). In fact, Colorado's (8.8%) unemployment rate is still below the national average (9%), and below that of Tennessee (9.6%). The part of Colorado where I live has an unemployment rate well below 7%. Colorado also has a considerably smaller percentage of its citizens living in poverty than does Tennessee (http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparebar.jsp?ind=10&cat=1).

June 6, 2011 at 1:36 a.m.
fairmon said...

canarysong,

CNBC? Not one of the sources I would look to for that information and the promises they use would be important. Tennessee does have a weak education system and areas of dire poverty that have not improved in years. Both states are fast approaching major government debt problems. I have spent some time in Colorado and I guess it is good different people have different preferences or we would all be trying to live in one state.

The cost of living issue is not the tax delta between the two, which is not very large, but the cost of goods and services.

June 6, 2011 at 9:02 a.m.
canarysong said...

Harp, did you even look at the study?

I actually have quite a bit of training in research design and statistics (as an undergraduate). Many years ago I worked for a major corporation assessing factors that might be predictive of profitability for their hundreds of nationwide branches. I never cite a study that does not look like it was well designed and carefully executed. The CNBC (a business-oriented network) study looks very thorough and is based on objective analysis of empirical data on a fairly large number of different values.

My thumbnail evaluation of the inverse relationship between two of the categories is certainly open to criticism (much more study would be needed to strengthen such an argument), but the study itself looks quite sound.

What do you want? I had a large number of studies from which to choose; they are all consistent in their respective rankings rankings of the two states. I chose the one that was the most recent and the most thorough. Try 'numbers.gov'; you will get the same information but it will take you dozens of steps and half the day to assemble. Maybe you have that kind of time; I don't. Maybe YOU could do a better job of backing up claims that you make, like giving the dates for stats that you mention and links to information that you base your arguments upon; otherwise your information is not something that I would ever take seriously.

June 6, 2011 at 9:48 a.m.

canary wrote: "Colorado's economy has weathered the recession far better than most states; we must be doing something right despite (or because of) our liberal health and energy policies."

Unfortunately, this is a classic example of a logical fallacy. The correlation drawn is a Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Just because CO citizens are uptight, a-holes (I know I lived there for a number of years) does not make the economy better.

June 6, 2011 at 12:06 p.m.
canarysong said...

audentisfortunaiuvat wrote,

"...CO citizens are uptight, a-holes..."

--- Wow, you may have a legitimate argument with part of my conclusion (as I acknowledged in my last post to harp), but your statement says a LOT more about the quality of YOUR character (or lack thereof) than it does about people in Colorado.

BTW, the "uptight" part is really funny. While there are a number of unflattering characterizations that are sometimes used to describe residents of my community, "uptight" definitely is not one of them; but thanks for contradicting the common stereotype! Obviously, you lived somewhere else in Colorado.

My purpose was not to get into a pissing match about which state is best, but rather to refute one of harp's common lines of reasoning. Namely, his assertion that legislation focused on compassion, quality of life issues, progressive energy policy, environmental protection, and a proactive investment in trends of the future is, by definition, incompatible with economic health and a robust business environment.

June 6, 2011 at 1:06 p.m.
canarysong said...

audentisfortunaiuvat,

Just for the record, my statement - "we must be doing something right despite (or because of)..." is not a correlation of anything, but obviously just presented as personal supposition. If you want to attack logic, attack a statement that uses words more definitive than "something".

June 6, 2011 at 1:33 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.