<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:pingback="http://madskills.com/public/xml/rss/module/pingback/" xmlns:trackback="http://madskills.com/public/xml/rss/module/trackback/" version="2.0"><channel><title>JZipp - whereIstand.com</title><link>http://whereistand.com/JZipp/</link><description>whereIstand.com: JZipp - whereIstand.com</description><language>en-us</language><copyright>Copyright 2004-2008 whereIstand.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.</copyright><lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Aug 2008 21:28:44 GMT</lastBuildDate><generator>whereIstand.com 2.3</generator><managingEditor>nick@whereIstand.com</managingEditor><webMaster>nick@whereIstand.com</webMaster><item xml:lang="en-us"><dc:creator xmlns:dc="target">author added</dc:creator><body xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><div><em>Did McCain just hand over the election? Or are the Republicans staging a coup
      at the RNC to nominate Mitt Romney? After all, that would certainly throw a curve
      to the Obama campaign... they'd have to reconfigure their game plan. I just don't
      see how Palin helps with the undecided voters. And experience? The McCain team just
      limited the attacks they can make on Obama with this one.</em></div></body><title>Sarah Palin was not a good choice for John McCain's vice presidential candidate. (2008 Presidential Election)</title><guid>http://whereistand.com/JZipp/58215</guid><link>http://whereistand.com/JZipp/58215</link><pubDate>Fri, 29 Aug 2008 15:40:17 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;div&gt;
	&lt;em&gt;Did McCain just hand over the election? Or are the Republicans staging a coup at the RNC to nominate Mitt Romney? After all, that would certainly throw a curve to the Obama campaign... they'd have to reconfigure their game plan. I just don't see how Palin helps with the undecided voters. And experience? The McCain team just limited the attacks they can make on Obama with this one.&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</description><category>2008 Presidential Election</category></item><item xml:lang="en-us"><dc:creator xmlns:dc="target">author added</dc:creator><body xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><div><em>With great power comes great responsibility. The media, especially in the United
      States, has grown so immensely in recent years that it now has the power to effectively
      alter the minds and thoughts of entire generations (much more so than parents and
      teachers). Since it blatantly exploits that power for profit, it must accept a certain
      level of responsibility. As a society, we haven't even begun to unravel the consequences
      of these actions.</em></div></body><title>The media does have a social responsibility to promote positive body images. (Media)</title><guid>http://whereistand.com/JZipp/57505</guid><link>http://whereistand.com/JZipp/57505</link><pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:04:57 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;div&gt;
	&lt;em&gt;With great power comes great responsibility. The media, especially in the United States, has grown so immensely in recent years that it now has the power to effectively alter the minds and thoughts of entire generations (much more so than parents and teachers). Since it blatantly exploits that power for profit, it must accept a certain level of responsibility. As a society, we haven't even begun to unravel the consequences of these actions.&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</description><category>Media</category></item><item xml:lang="en-us"><dc:creator xmlns:dc="target">author added</dc:creator><body xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><div><em>This is another attempt by policy makers to address worldwide hunger and poverty
      issues, not to mention food costs, with a complete disregard for public safety. The
      idea of beaming radiation into food in an attempt to make it "edible" for a longer
      period of time is absurd. Especially because doing so means the food is not "fresh"
      by any definition of the word. There have been numerous tests that prove irradiated
      food still contains a high risk for the spread of deadly viruses and bacteria. If
      the radiation isn't doing that much, then why ask people to trust it? Also, by altering
      the makeup of foodstuff, you're opening a can of worms that could lead to the creation
      of stronger bacteria. Oh science, you silly contradiction.</em></div></body><title>Irradiated food is not safe to eat. (Health)</title><guid>http://whereistand.com/JZipp/57552</guid><link>http://whereistand.com/JZipp/57552</link><pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:47:15 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;div&gt;
	&lt;em&gt;This is another attempt by policy makers to address worldwide hunger and poverty issues, not to mention food costs, with a complete disregard for public safety. The idea of beaming radiation into food in an attempt to make it "edible" for a longer period of time is absurd. Especially because doing so means the food is not "fresh" by any definition of the word. There have been numerous tests that prove irradiated food still contains a high risk for the spread of deadly viruses and bacteria. If the radiation isn't doing that much, then why ask people to trust it? Also, by altering the makeup of foodstuff, you're opening a can of worms that could lead to the creation of stronger bacteria. Oh science, you silly contradiction.&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</description><category>Health</category></item><item xml:lang="en-us"><dc:creator xmlns:dc="target">author added</dc:creator><body xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><div><em>After the first week, post-"Phelps mania", NBC viewers were hard-pressed to find
      much in the way of live coverage. Thanks to the Internet, results were impossible
      to avoid in a number of high-profile events. Thus, the decision to show tape delayed
      coverage versus live, lower-profile events in prime time turned out to be a poor one.
      It's simply a case where there should've been live telecasts of events as they happened
      rather than the network trumping live coverage for tape.</em></div></body><title>NBC's coverage of the 2008 Olympic Games was not satisfactory. (Television)</title><guid>http://whereistand.com/JZipp/57493</guid><link>http://whereistand.com/JZipp/57493</link><pubDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2008 16:48:01 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;div&gt;
	&lt;em&gt;After the first week, post-"Phelps mania", NBC viewers were hard-pressed to find much in the way of live coverage. Thanks to the Internet, results were impossible to avoid in a number of high-profile events. Thus, the decision to show tape delayed coverage versus live, lower-profile events in prime time turned out to be a poor one. It's simply a case where there should've been live telecasts of events as they happened rather than the network trumping live coverage for tape.&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</description><category>Television</category></item><item xml:lang="en-us"><dc:creator xmlns:dc="target">author added</dc:creator><body xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><div><em>This should be a state issue, not a federal issue. Cost of living varies from
      state-to-state and that's where the minimum wage debate stems. I'd rather the federal
      government focus on reform that's necessary across the board. However, there should
      be federal laws to protect workers' rights to fair compensation so that they aren't
      taken advantage of just because they live in a relatively "affordable" area.</em></div></body><title>There should be no federal minimum wage. (Labor )</title><guid>http://whereistand.com/JZipp/27228</guid><link>http://whereistand.com/JZipp/27228</link><pubDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2008 16:24:28 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;div&gt;
	&lt;em&gt;This should be a state issue, not a federal issue. Cost of living varies from state-to-state and that's where the minimum wage debate stems. I'd rather the federal government focus on reform that's necessary across the board. However, there should be federal laws to protect workers' rights to fair compensation so that they aren't taken advantage of just because they live in a relatively "affordable" area.&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</description><category>Labor </category></item><item xml:lang="en-us"><dc:creator xmlns:dc="target">author added</dc:creator><body xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><div><em>I'm on the fence, but leaning more towards the "yes" side. The peanut allergy
      is extremely dangerous. While there's no proof that a pregnant woman's intake of peanuts
      can lead to the allergy in newborns, there's also no absolute science to refute that
      it can't. For every case-study that cites it as a possibility, there's another that
      doesn't. However, my feeling is better safe than sorry with this one. You can deal
      for 9 months without peanuts. Some people are forced to go their whole lives without
      them.</em></div></body><title>Pregnant women should avoid peanuts. (Health)</title><guid>http://whereistand.com/JZipp/53769</guid><link>http://whereistand.com/JZipp/53769</link><pubDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:02:46 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;div&gt;
	&lt;em&gt;I'm on the fence, but leaning more towards the "yes" side. The peanut allergy is extremely dangerous. While there's no proof that a pregnant woman's intake of peanuts can lead to the allergy in newborns, there's also no absolute science to refute that it can't. For every case-study that cites it as a possibility, there's another that doesn't. However, my feeling is better safe than sorry with this one. You can deal for 9 months without peanuts. Some people are forced to go their whole lives without them.&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</description><category>Health</category></item><item xml:lang="en-us"><dc:creator xmlns:dc="target">author added</dc:creator><body xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><div><em>I'm going with exhaustion as a major factor for why he won't pull off the U.S.
      Open win. He's not the top hard-court player in the world yet, and most of the people
      who pose a real threat to Nadal at the Open weren't even at the Olympics.</em></div></body><title>Rafael Nadal will not win the 2008 U.S. Open. (Sports)</title><guid>http://whereistand.com/JZipp/57253</guid><link>http://whereistand.com/JZipp/57253</link><pubDate>Mon, 25 Aug 2008 19:22:11 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;div&gt;
	&lt;em&gt;I'm going with exhaustion as a major factor for why he won't pull off the U.S. Open win. He's not the top hard-court player in the world yet, and most of the people who pose a real threat to Nadal at the Open weren't even at the Olympics.&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</description><category>Sports</category></item><item xml:lang="en-us"><dc:creator xmlns:dc="target">author added</dc:creator><body xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><div><em>I've been very hot/cold on this choice since the announcement for various reasons.
      Right now, I'm becoming increasingly cold on it. #1 - They don't really get along
      and have a number of ideological differences. The democrats of "change" politics ended
      up piecing together a ticket similar to Kerry/Edwards or Gore/Lieberman in that respect.
      #2 - The most "PC" candidate to run for President chose one of the most unashamed,
      non-PC democratic candidates for VP (sidenote: it's actually one of the reasons I
      like Biden). #3 - It has to be said... how does picking a candidate that's too similar
      to an HRC in many respects (a Washington insider, an attack dog, a gaffe maker) yet
      doesn't bring a voting bloc to the table like HRC actually help bring new voters to
      the Obama ticket? By choosing HRC-lite, the campaign now has to find a way to get
      voters interested in Joe Biden from scratch... with only 2 months to go. I'm sorry,
      but most of the voters in this country are not followers of daily political news,
      and even a candidate like Obama didn't and can't change that without actually being
      an open-door President (which requires winning the general election first). A nation-wide
      election is a popularity contest, at least in terms of what pushes a ticket over the
      top in many close races. In times when elections are lost by hundreds of "missing"
      or "non-counted" votes, sealing the deal is more important than anything else. At
      least if Obama picked Kaine, he'd have chosen someone he works well with and a guy
      he actually likes being in the company of on a regular basis. I don't see Obama-Biden
      becoming the symbiotic relationship the Obama camp hopes for. Once again, the democrats
      are playing the GOP game... and we already know who is better at that one.</em></div></body><title>Joseph Biden was not a good choice for Obama's vice presidentialial candidate. (2008 Presidential Election)</title><guid>http://whereistand.com/JZipp/57604</guid><link>http://whereistand.com/JZipp/57604</link><pubDate>Mon, 25 Aug 2008 17:23:04 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;div&gt;
	&lt;em&gt;I've been very hot/cold on this choice since the announcement for various reasons. Right now, I'm becoming increasingly cold on it. #1 - They don't really get along and have a number of ideological differences. The democrats of "change" politics ended up piecing together a ticket similar to Kerry/Edwards or Gore/Lieberman in that respect. #2 - The most "PC" candidate to run for President chose one of the most unashamed, non-PC democratic candidates for VP (sidenote: it's actually one of the reasons I like Biden). #3 - It has to be said... how does picking a candidate that's too similar to an HRC in many respects (a Washington insider, an attack dog, a gaffe maker) yet doesn't bring a voting bloc to the table like HRC actually help bring new voters to the Obama ticket? By choosing HRC-lite, the campaign now has to find a way to get voters interested in Joe Biden from scratch... with only 2 months to go. I'm sorry, but most of the voters in this country are not followers of daily political news, and even a candidate like Obama didn't and can't change that without actually being an open-door President (which requires winning the general election first). A nation-wide election is a popularity contest, at least in terms of what pushes a ticket over the top in many close races. In times when elections are lost by hundreds of "missing" or "non-counted" votes, sealing the deal is more important than anything else. At least if Obama picked Kaine, he'd have chosen someone he works well with and a guy he actually likes being in the company of on a regular basis. I don't see Obama-Biden becoming the symbiotic relationship the Obama camp hopes for. Once again, the democrats are playing the GOP game... and we already know who is better at that one.&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</description><category>2008 Presidential Election</category></item><item xml:lang="en-us"><dc:creator xmlns:dc="target">author added</dc:creator><body xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><div><em>John Edwards actually had the best overall health care plan in oast two elections.
      Hence why Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama each created their own off-shoots of the
      Edwards health agenda this time around. Because of that, I'd have to say of the four,
      Obama's shows the most practicality and potential.</em></div></body><title>Barack Obama has the best health care plan. (Health)</title><guid>http://whereistand.com/JZipp/57371</guid><link>http://whereistand.com/JZipp/57371</link><pubDate>Sat, 23 Aug 2008 22:21:59 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;div&gt;
	&lt;em&gt;John Edwards actually had the best overall health care plan in oast two elections. Hence why Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama each created their own off-shoots of the Edwards health agenda this time around. Because of that, I'd have to say of the four, Obama's shows the most practicality and potential.&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</description><category>Health</category></item><item xml:lang="en-us"><dc:creator xmlns:dc="target">author added</dc:creator><body xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><div><em>I know I'm likely in the minority, but Pepsi (regular and diet) are far and away
      better than Coke according to my taste buds.</em></div></body><title>Pepsi makes a better tasting cola than Coke. (Food &amp; Beverage)</title><guid>http://whereistand.com/JZipp/57429</guid><link>http://whereistand.com/JZipp/57429</link><pubDate>Fri, 22 Aug 2008 15:49:57 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;div&gt;
	&lt;em&gt;I know I'm likely in the minority, but Pepsi (regular and diet) are far and away better than Coke according to my taste buds.&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</description><category>Food &amp; Beverage</category></item></channel></rss>