Cop Sues McDonald's Over Slimy Sandwich
Friday, June 01, 2007

E-MAIL STORY PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION
CHARLES CITY, Iowa — A police officer who claims his chicken sandwich was slimed by two teenage employees at a McDonald's restaurant is suing the fast food company.

Officer Josh Douglas said he was working nights two years ago and went through the McDonald's drive-thru in Charles City. He ordered a chicken sandwich, which came with lettuce and tomato.

Not liking vegetables, Douglas said he went to remove the toppings and discovered what he described as a mucousy substance holding them together.

"Fortunately, I don't like lettuce. Because if I did I would have at least taken one bite before I realized what was the matter," he said.

Douglas and another officer went inside the restaurant, where they found two teenagers working. The employees said they were imitating a prank in a movie in which a state trooper orders a burger and the cook spits phlegm on it.

Both boys were fired and one of them later apologized to Douglas, records show.

Douglas and his attorney, Joel Yunek, say they have negotiated with McDonald's for more than a year but have been unable to reach a settlement. They filed a lawsuit on May 8 in Floyd County District Court.

Yunek said they aren't looking "for the world."

"But certainly ... he is deserving of an apology. Certainly, he is deserving of some kind of compensation," Yunek said.

Douglas said it's not about money but about accountability and to ensure the restaurant takes measures to ensure their employees are handling food properly.

Sam Soifer, the owner of the Charles City franchise, said in a written statement to KIMT-TV in Mason City that the restaurant took immediate action to fire the employees and that McDonald's takes food safety seriously.

All You Need is Water: Dutch Students Make Alcohol Powder
Wednesday, June 06, 2007

AMSTERDAM —  Dutch students have developed powdered alcohol which they say can be sold legally to minors.

The latest innovation in inebriation, called Booz2Go, is available in 20-gram packets that cost 1-1.5 euros ($1.35-$2).

Top it up with water and you have a bubbly, lime-colored and -flavored drink with just 3 percent alcohol content.

"We are aiming for the youth market. They are really more into it because you can compare it with Bacardi-mixed drinks," 20-year-old Harm van Elderen told Reuters.

Van Elderen and four classmates at Helicon Vocational Institute, about an hour's drive from Amsterdam, came up with the idea as part of their final-year project.

"Because the alcohol is not in liquid form, we can sell it to people below 16," said project member Martyn van Nierop.

The legal age for drinking alcohol and smoking is 16 in the Netherlands.

In Germany, alcopops -- sweet drinks containing alcohol and in powder form -- caused quite a stir when launched on to the market. Alcohol powder, classified as a flavouring, was sold in the United States three years ago.

The students said companies interested in making the product commercially could avoid taxes because the alcohol was in powder form. A number of companies are interested, they said.

upermodel Gisele Bundchen Attacks Catholic Church

Last Update: Jun 7, 2007 12:13 PM
Print this Story
Save/Share Story
digg      reddit
newsvine      Google
del.icio.us      Yahoo!
                 

Daily Entertainment Photos - "Get all the fashion, glamour and scandal here in pictures!"

Supermodel Gisele Bundchen has attacked the Catholic rule of no sex before marriage, insisting "no one is a virgin when they get married."

The Brazilian beauty accuses The Vatican of being irresponsible for their stance against contraception and abortion.

Bundchen tells the Folha de Sao Paulo newspaper, "Today no one is a virgin when they get married ... show me someone who's a virgin."

Referring to pregnant women, Bundchen says they should be given the right to choose whether or not they have the child.

She says, "If she thinks she doesn't have the money or the emotional condition to raise a child, why should she give birth?"

"It's ridiculous to ban contraceptives - you only have to think of the diseases that are transmitted without them. I think it should be compulsory to use a contraceptive."

"How is it possible to not want people to use condoms and also not have abortions? It's impossible, I'm sorry."

Americans believe in both evolution, creationism: poll

Fri Jun 8, 2:34 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Asked their views on whether human life is a result of God's creation or a product of evolution, one quarter of Americans chose both conflicting theories, a poll suggested Friday.

"All told, 25 percent say that both creationism and evolution are definitely or probably true," USA Today said.

Overall, more Americans expressed a strong belief in creationism, or the theory that God created humans in their present form at a single period in time within the last 10,000 years.

A full 66 percent said they believed in creationism, with 39 percent of those polled saying it was definitely true and 27 percent believing it was probably true.

But 53 percent said they believed in evolution, the scientific theory that humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. Eighteen percent said evolution was definitely true, while 35 percent said it was probably true.

The results were released in a USA Today/Gallup poll of 1,007 adults, taken between June 1-3. The margin of error was three percent.

The polarizing issue of how life came to be has worked its way into US classrooms in recent years. Some states have enacted legislation that says teachers must include critical analysis of Charles Darwin's evolutionary theory.

More recently, the question divided Republican presidential candidates who traditionally represent the Christian conservative elements of US society, with three answering in last month's debate that they do not believe in evolution.

Americans believe in both evolution, creationism: poll

Suit to decide workplace 'hate speech'

By Julia Duin
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
June 11, 2007

The words "natural family," "marriage" and "union of a man and a woman" can be punished as "hate speech" in government workplaces, according to a lawsuit that is being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
    Briefs for Good News Employee Association vs. Hicks, which were filed June 5 with the nation's highest court, lists D.C. school board President Robert C. Bobb as one of two plaintiffs. The case originated five years ago in Oakland, Calif., during his tenure there as city manager.
    The dispute began in January 2003, when the two Oakland employees created a subgroup at their workplace called the "Good News Employee Association." It was partly in response to a group of homosexual employees having formed their own group 10 months before and being given access to the city e-mail system. One e-mail, dated Oct. 11, 2002, invited city employees to participate in "National Coming-Out Day."
    When several employees asked whether such a posting was legitimate city business, they got an e-mail from City Council member Danny Wan, reminding them that a "celebration of the gay/lesbian culture and movement" was part of the city's role to "celebrate diversity."
    In response, the Good News employees posted an introductory flier on the employee bulletin board Jan. 3.
    It said: "Preserve Our Workplace With Integrity: Good News Employee Association is a forum for people of faith to express their views on the contemporary issues of the day." It said it opposed "all views which seek to redefine the natural family and marriage," which it defined as "a union of a man and a woman, according to California state law."
    Anyone who wanted to help preserve "integrity in the workplace" was invited to contact the two employees: Regina Rederford and Robin Christy.
    A lesbian co-worker, Judith Jennings, spotted the flier and complained to the city attorney's office that it made her feel "targeted" and "excluded," according to a deposition. The flier was removed by a supervisor because it violated the city's anti-discrimination rules.
    A U.S. District Court for Northern California ruling said the words "natural family" and "marriage" had "anti-homosexual import."
    However, Miss Rederford was told she could announce the group's presence on the city's e-mail system if she removed "verbiage that could be offensive to gay people."
    In late February 2003, Joyce Hicks, a city deputy executive director and the other defendant in the suit, sent out a memo to city employees. It cited recent incidents where "fliers were placed in public view which contained statements of a homophobic nature" and warned employees they could be fired for posting such material.
    Miss Rederford and Miss Christy sued the city, claiming their First Amendment rights had been violated. According to court documents, employees had posted bulletin announcements on everything from terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden to local sporting events, yet those had not been removed.

The district court disagreed, saying the women had other venues in which to proclaim their message. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said employees' freedom of speech takes a back seat to employers' "legitimate administrative interests." They were allowed to submit a new flier, subject to "certain editorial constraints."
    "This incredible and devastating ruling has had the practical effect of silencing hundreds, if not thousands, of City of Oakland employees who simply wish to talk about marriage and family values," said a statement from the Pro-Family Law Center in Temecula, Calif., which represents the plaintiffs.
    "To the extent that this ruling has been shared by Oakland with other cities, there is a huge risk that these rulings are being treated as precedent by other cities across the nation," the statement continued.