Tony Palazzolo is an active member of Keep St. Louis Free and a strong believer in personal rights.

​

Earlier this month Washington University released a study on air quality in smoking-allowed and smoke-free bars and restaurants in St Louis. They used nicotine as the marker to gauge environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) levels in all venues.

If you accept the conclusions of the study you should probably never leave the safe confines of your home. While nicotine was present in all venues it was on average thirty one times higher in smoking-allowed venues. This, they say, is proof that the air in these venues is deadly. What they left out of the press release that the nicotine levels were, at worst 500 times safer than OSHA standards in the establishments tested. Even at 31 times higher, it is still 500 times more dilute than would be considered harmful by OSHA. These are not arbitrary numbers but rigorously-tested standards developed by OSHA for all environments.

The other "finding" in this study is that they were surprised that establishments with ventilation had higher levels of nicotine.
More >>

Martin Pion is founder of MO-GASP (Missouri Group Against Smoking Pollution)

​

Washington University researchers recently released a study of smoking pollution levels in various restaurants and bars in metro St. Louis. Airborne nicotine was used as a measure of secondhand smoke (SHS).

Important findings of the study, posted on-line are:

1) "Venues that allowed smoking had significantly higher levels of nicotine than smoke-free venues"

2) "Ventilation systems were not effective in eliminating exposure to SHS."

This echoes the latest U.S. Surgeon General's Report on SHS, released in 2006 by Dr. Richard Carmona, which drew this major conclusion about ventilation:

"Eliminating smoking in indoor spaces fully protects nonsmokers from exposure to secondhand smoke. Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate exposures of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke."
More >>

image via

​Someday I'll read Freedom. I'm currently 113th on the waiting list at University City Library. Maybe Sarah will lend me her copy in an attempt to convert me to Freedom-dom.

I suppose I could go out and buy a copy. But $28 is a pretty steep price to pay for a hardcover, especially for one I'm not sure I'll like. Back in 2001 or 2002, I made my way through The Corrections, inspired by all the hype and then the backlash about Oprah's power over "modern tastemaking" or something. I did not like it, mostly because of Franzen's utter contempt for his characters. Why would someone want to spend years and years turning out a 600-page novel about people he despised?

Later, I grew slightly fond of Franzen after I read his essay in the New Yorker about his career as a prankster at Webster High. The fondness quickly calcified back into disgust after I attempted another essay on birdwatching and the demise of his marriage.

Sarah has good taste in books, so I'll trust her assessment that Freedom is awesome. But I can wait. There are plenty of other good books to read this fall, so why is Freedom getting all the hype?

More >>

Every writer hates a winner. And so with Jonathan Franzen's new novel earning raves from just about everybody who matters in American letters, we've been subjected to the predictable envious backlash about how Franzen is overrated (and annoying), how middle-aged white guys get preferential treatment in the New York Times, and how Freedom really isn't that much better than the kajillion other novels about "love, identity, and families," in the words of don't-call-it-chick-lit novelist Jennifer Weiner.

Let's not talk about the Twitter war; let's talk about the book.

​Don't believe it. Don't believe any of it.

It may be true that Franzen is annoyingly smug. There may even be a point worth making about how the Times favors white men. But this is not the book to making it about. Saying Freedom is just a novel about "love, identity, and families" is like saying War and Peace is just a novel about a Russian girl finding a husband. It's true, technically, but it ignores the scope of the book, its beauty, and its wonderful (and rare) readability.
More >>

Ignore Chad's Chicken Little impression. The sky is not falling on fans of the St. Louis Rams.

While the franchise has already moved three times (from Cleveland to LA in 1945, from LA to Anaheim in 1979 and to St. Louis in 1995) it is definitely going to stay put this time around.

Here's why:
More >>

So, Stan Kroenke is the new owner of the St. Louis Rams. Enjoy it while it lasts. The team won't be here for long. Why?

1. Kroenke Won't Commit to Keeping Club Here
After NFL owners approved Kroenke's purchase of the club last week, the new owner had this to say to ESPN:

"I've been around St. Louis and Missouri a major portion of my life. I've never had any desire to lead the charge out of St. Louis. That's not why we're here. We're here to work very hard and be successful in St. Louis."

"Now, the realistic part of that. I live to be competitive. To be competitive, you have to have revenue. We're going to work really hard to have a model that produces revenue where we can be consistently competitive. Anyone can be a contender in the pro sports business every so often. The real challenge is to be competitive every year."

Now tell me, doesn't that sound like a person who's leaving a window -- hell, a garage door -- open for his exit out of town?
More >>

Tenzing Norgay: ACTUAL real-life Sherpa

​Today's work was very gratifying. The overfed Westerners make it to the sacred summit of Jomolungma, blessed mother Everest. We all laughed for joy. No one fell into a crevasse or met an untimely end.

They only needed oxygen ten times or so, and luckily their multitudes of baggage were no hardship for me. Immediately upon reaching the summit, they asked me to take their pictures for Facebook.

My family has assisted Westerners in climbing for generations--my revered uncle Tenzing was the first to do so.We lead simple lives, growing potatoes during our short growing season and sipping yak butter tea. We do not have Facebook.
More >>

A few weeks back, we here at Daily RFT instituted the Tuesday Tussle -- two weekly posts in which we take opposing viewpoints on a news item and battle it out. Occasionally these debates carry a serious tone. Mostly, though, they're for our amusement (and hopefully yours).

Holleman, a.k.a. Life Sherpa

​Recently, though, we discovered that someone is already doing something very close to the Tuesday Tussle. His name is Joe Holleman, a Post-Dispatch columnist who writes under the title "Life Sherpa." Holleman takes on real issues like corn vs. tomatoes, manicure v. pedicure and blackberries v. peaches.

That said, we thought, how about a Tuesday Tussle taking on the following topic: Life Sherpa v. Real-Life Sherpa? Here's one vote in favor of Holleman.
More >>

Face it: St. Louis just can't cover up all its zits.

​Sure, the 2012 Democratic Convention could bring millions of dollars to the St. Louis economy. And, yes, it would be a great way for St. Louis to showcase to the world its recent downtown renovations -- City Garden, Washington Ave., Post Office Square, etc.

But has anyone really stopped to consider the significant drawbacks of St. Louis hosting the convention? Allow to me lay out four good reasons why St. Louis has NOT hosted a political convention since 1916 and should NOT host the 2012 DNC.

1. World Agriculture Forum 2003: Remember this colossal cluster&@#% of an event?
More >>

flickr.com/photos/local_louisville/

​When Democratic officials dropped by St. Louis last week to unofficially check out whether we can handle their next convention, we really showed 'em something. And I'm not talking about Chuck Berry and Nelly (though our native sons did a fine job).

What I'm talking about are the meat and potatoes of any convention: hotels and basic transportation. On that score, compared to the other contenders -- Cleveland, Charlotte and Minneapolis -- we got it covered.
More >>