
Well, I wanted it to be different, so I decided that the Brazilian Weasel should be Cachaça, Coke, and lemon juice.
Please don't drink this. It's vile.
I think I could have predicted this outcome without actually tasting it.
C'mon, bitch, it's 23 days!
Now somebody's gonna show up and whine about how mean you are to poor oppressed celebrities--you know that, right?
The fact that anybody cares whether Paris Hilton goes to jail, doesn't go to jail, or drops dead just leaves me baffled.
The FCC doesn't just need to lighten up--dry up and blow away is more like it. If there were a poster-boy for pretending the First Amendment doesn't really exist, it'd be the FCC's very existence.
If there were a poster-boy for pretending the First Amendment doesn't really exist, it'd be the FCC's very existence.
You know I wholeheartedly agree with you, sir. I have no problem with the "ratings system" that (I believe) was voluntarily taken on by the networks. So even if the FCC weren't unconstitutional, the ratings system makes it irrelevant.
Now, don't get me started on required rating systems...
(Not that I don't think that last will get here eventually...it is.)
(Not that I don't think that last will get here eventually...it is.)
Or, rather, it will. Though I may well be too senile to notice by then.
In PA there is currently a proposal in the state House of Representatives to require random drug tests for welfare cash receipients; how hard would it be, do you think, to require an a1c (3-month average blood glucose) test for those on Medicade/Medicare? That wouldn't tell you exactly what the testees were eating, but it'd tell you if they were being bad boys and girls and shoving stuff in their mouths that they shouldn't.
People are getting something essentially for free, paid for out of the public coffers.
This may be true with regards to Medicare/Medicade receipiets--if they don't like the terms, they can refuse the service. Of course, the exact same thing can be said about any activity that might complicate health issues, including having sex. Perhaps state welfare offices should require chasitity belts and vows of celibacy.
But what is one of the political mantras today? "Universal health care"--which is to say Big Daddy takes care of his peasants' health needs. And if Big Daddy is taking care of everybody...why, then Big Daddy gets to decide you aren't allowed to stuff your face with certain things for your own good. And, perhaps, other things that you shouldn't be allowed to do for your own good as well.
(There--we've come up with a potential way to please both liberals and conservatives on one issue. Who says bridging the idiological divide is impossibloe?)
In theory, of course. Certainly, this government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" is not so much true in practice.
It's sad that we actually need laws to protect us from "the majority."
We don't need laws to protect us from the majority; we need to prevent the majority from passing laws that screw everyone else. This may sound similar, but it isn't.
alcohol