

Thank You!

Sponsored by

Subscribe to IBJ
  1. I don't think a cricket field qualifies to attract tech talent. What does is more recreational activities, why not a white water park near downtown for kayaking. Why not more of what California has to offer in terms of night life, what techies want. We don't even have beaches in Central Indiana, perhaps the new reservoir in Anderson is needed. We can't create mountains, oceans, but we can improve the white river as a source of water recreation, a reservoir north of Indy, etc. We don't even have a Kings Island equivalent in or near Indianapolis. What is it with the 12th largest city without a water park/theme park. Indianapolis does not have the cosmopolitan persona that other cities do. We can't be like San Francisco with ethnic areas of restaurants and culture at every corner. We can however take advantage for technologists with Purdue, IU, etc. and IUPUI needs to become a Big 10 University in its own right. Renaming it would be a start. Making it a dorm campus would be another. It needs to outgrow the commuter campus persona and place satellite campuses centrally located in all surrounding counties, within 15 minutes of any of the towns in each county. A major soccer stadium investment would help.Improving all libraries to cater to engineers, techies, entrepeneurs.

  2. It's clear as day that these farmers and big-ag companies want to protect themselves from people seeing the truth about the atrocities they inflict upon animals, even the "humanely raised" ones!

  3. Thanks Mike for being the party pooper.

  4. Jeff was real proud of himself when he got this whole billboard approved on the sly. Patted himself on the back he did. He didn't think anyone could do anything about it. He was wrong. May his suit against the city fail miserably and may he have to pay the Indianapolis court costs for this more than frivolous lawsuit.

  5. The author is being disingenuous. And is backpedaling. He say in his comment that "'s important for people to know how much of research and education are funded by pharmaceutical companies." But his text doesn't contain a single use of the word "educate." The article's title - "Doctor's drug money" - is crafted to incite distrust of physicians and industry, and the author clearly states his opinion that "physicians steadfastly deny that their prescribing patterns are influenced by any of this money, but the drug companies obviously believe otherwise--or else they wouldn't keep spending these large amounts." So when the author defends himself by claiming "I'm not saying there is something wrong with it," he is being dishonest. He lists "$1.8 million" next to a researcher's name in an article titled "Doctor's drug money," and then thinks that an intelligent reader will not see the smear? Especially when he then follows that implication with the admission that "[the researcher] may have taken none of it home." It's disappointing to see such biased and lazy commentary (I won't call it journalism) in a reputable paper like IBJ.