<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://projects.newsobserver.com" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title>newsobserver.com projects - Charles Thomas - Comments</title>
 <link>http://projects.newsobserver.com/tags/charles_thomas</link>
 <description>Comments for &quot;Charles Thomas&quot;</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>Re: Scholarships for children of fallen police and firefighters</title>
 <link>http://projects.newsobserver.com/blogs/scholarships_for_children_of_fallen_police_and_firefighters#comment-2176</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;At first blush, there is a tendency to say this is a nice gesture and isn&#039;t without merit, but who will look after the children of hardworking citizens who &quot;die while working&quot;. Don&#039;t these children deserve the same level of consideration? &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;So, maybe the proposed legislation should not only include our public safety officers, but any citizen who has a good record of working during their adult lives and lived responsibily while raising a family. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Still, I would like to see the proposed legislation because, as they say, the devil is in the details, and these men are politicians. If they were wanting to do good, perhaps they would have helped pass the Employer-Employee type legislation in the past session that would have given these officers the right to collective bargaining. Maybe they did?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the end, if the legislation were written to truly benefit them, I would likely support it because most of these men and women aren&#039;t paid a decent wage and the work they do is as important as any I know. This would be a targeted benefit hopefully few would receive.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <pubDate>Wed, 21 Nov 2007 22:42:36 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>ethanperry</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">comment 2176 at http://projects.newsobserver.com</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Re: Rematch?</title>
 <link>http://projects.newsobserver.com/blogs/rematch#comment-598</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;McHenry is full of you know what.  His staff was quoted in December of 2006 saying that if Heath hadnt already started his reelection campaign he was going to lose.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Does anyone really think Chucky is going to win a rematch?  I would put money on him losing by 15 points at a minimum if he ran again.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jun 2007 14:00:20 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>lefaim</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">comment 598 at http://projects.newsobserver.com</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
