Wednesday Night Open Thread

I got my H1N1 flu shot today -- at the grocery store. Probably not necessary, but for $10.00, I figured better safe than sorry.

The 8 civilian Americans killed by a suicide bomber in Afghanistan today were CIA agents. It happened inside a U.S. facility. How did they get in? More security failures?

The bomber managed to slip past security at Forward Operating Base Chapman in the eastern province of Khost before detonating an explosive belt in what one U.S. official described as a room used as a fitness center.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< TSA Subpenas Blogger for Source of Non-Public Screening Leak | Somali and Nigerian Explosives Not the Same >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    A young person like you (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Steve M on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 09:19:36 PM EST
    is well-advised to get the shot, Jeralyn!

    I wish I had gotten flu shots (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Teresa on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 09:34:12 PM EST
    Christmas Eve & Day are nothing but a blur to me. 103.7 temp and a headache from hell and various other not so nice things. The following two days weren't much better but I do remember them sort of. And I still don't feel so hot. :)

    I guess I should consider myself lucky. After 24 hours of nothing to drink, when my husband came into the bedroom to get some clothes, I asked him if they were going to let me get dehydrated. He said, well you didn't tell us you wanted something to drink.

    Awww, I'm sorry Teresa (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by andgarden on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 09:38:26 PM EST
    I hope you're feeling better.

    I'm glad I got my flumist so soon (mid-October IIRC).


    I am as long as I don't leave the room! (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Teresa on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 11:03:56 PM EST
    I can hardly breathe if I go to the kitchen. Next year I'm going to listen when my mother says "go get your flu shot"!

    I've only had the real flu 3 times and this one was really bad. It was too late for those tests by the time Christmas was over so I don't even know which one I had. I sure don't want the other one.

    I'm so glad you got to see your great-grandmother. I hope you get to have a big celebration for her next year.


    Feel better Teresa (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by ruffian on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 06:50:47 AM EST
    With such a crack nursing staff, how could you go wrong? ;-)

    That sounds horrible...now Im thinking I better get a shot.


    H1N1 to come back in spring (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Cream City on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 11:00:41 AM EST
    supposedly, so even though it has waned now, it may be worth it.  That's what I figured in getting mine, even when supplies came so late to my city.  

    Btw, the seasonal shot caused quite a reaction for me this fall -- a couple of days and nights of the misery that Teresa has had for more than a week.  I tend to have a mild flu reaction to the regular flu shots about a third of the time (as I get them every year, with a high-risk condition and high-risk work environment, so still worth it to not have even regular flu for a week or more).

    But I had no reaction at all to the H1N1 shot, not even a sore arm.  Just in case you saw the misinformation about it.  It's made just the same as the regular flu shot.  


    I saw my great grandmother in FL (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by andgarden on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 09:36:28 PM EST
    near Coral Springs this afternoon. She turns 99 next month, and survived being hit by a van in Manhattan almost ten years ago. She has not been the same since (i.e., she's not all there), but she can generally speak in complete sentences.

    We brought her a chocolate, chocolate cake, and drew stories about the family out of her. Apparently her mother studied in Paris at the turn of the last century (I think she said it was the Sorbonne, but I don't know if women were admitted at the time), and spoke numerous languages (Yiddish, Polish, Russian, French, German, and eventually English). Somehow she then made off to America with her new husband--in steerage.  

    So glad for you and your family (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by ruffian on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 07:06:37 AM EST
    that you have the time together. Enjoy it, and remember the stories.

    Some of those family stories just get lost if the younger folks are not brought up to speed. I didn't know until right before she died 7 years ago that my aunt was a vaudeville performer - part of a two girl roller skating stunt act.  In 45 years my Dad never thought to mention that.  He's made up for it by doing a lot of genealogy work and finding other stories. But to think I might have never known that about my aunt....

    Anyway, have a good trip...keep plying her with chocolate until she tells all!


    tks (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 09:54:00 PM EST
    It would not have been much after that, as my gg was born around 1911 in Poland.

    "Pink Slime" (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by andgarden on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 10:55:12 PM EST
    Oh. My. God. (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 11:46:07 PM EST

    Thank God, my local general store has a terrific small butcher shop and they grind their own hamburger fresh from good meat cuts, not crap, a few pounds at a time.  It's put ground beef back in my diet because it not only has wonderful taste and texture but I can be confident it's not going to poison me.

    This whole article kills me.  This company worked very hard to figure out how to make a profit from trimmings of God knows what from a beef carcass and decided treating it with ammonia was the way to go.

    Yeeessh.  Yech.


    You know, I'm not a healthy eating extremist (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by andgarden on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 11:53:18 PM EST
    and I am very much in favor of irradiation, for example. But I really hate how ineffective our regulatory bureaucracy is.

    Let this story be a warning to those starry-eyed liberals awaiting magic healthcare exchanges.


    Especially under (none / 0) (#20)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 12:00:00 AM EST
    a Republican administration, which is how this horror came to be not just ignored but actually approved.

    I don't know enough about irradiation to have an opinion one way or another, but I'm just very happy to be living in a place where it's possible to disengage to a very large, though not total, extent from the mass production of food and eat local, including from my own kitchen garden.

    If I'm going to be poisoned by my own food, I'd far rather have it be from some local grower who screwed up than some giant agri-corporation that just considers it a part of doing business as usual.


    If you can buy local, trustworthy foods, great. (none / 0) (#23)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 12:19:56 AM EST
    But if you can't--and many can't, we need to get to where we tried to start going in about 1906.

    Everything credible source I've read says that irradiation works and for many foods, especially beef, it's about as much of a no-brianer as pasteurization is for milk.


    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 01:07:24 AM EST
    I drink raw milk, actually, that I get at a farm in the next town. Do you have any idea at all how much of the good stuff in milk is utterly wiped out by pasteurization? (Not to mention, man, it tastes so much better if it hasn't been boiled to death.)  So no, pasteurization doesn't harm you, exactly, unless you realize that you're being deprived of pretty much all the good things in milk and are left only with the mostly bad stuff-- ie, the fat.

    But I basically agree with you, so much so that I'm expressing gratitude for the fact that I personally largely don't have to deal with the problem of our deteriorating food safety because of the sources of most of my food.

    And it's a dam* depressing thought that our food production has become so bad that it can hurt or even kill you unless it's irradiated.


    Oh, yeah, raw milk (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by caseyOR on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 01:30:17 AM EST
    My grandparents had a farm, with cows. The only milk we drank on visits to the farm was fresh from the cow. It was so good.

    And cream really does rise to the top.


    I used to have to switch back (none / 0) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 06:37:21 AM EST
    and forth between summers at the ranch and the school year in town.  Huge difference with eggs too.

    All I can say is that (none / 0) (#37)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 08:12:59 AM EST
    if the anti-irradiation people were successful at the tie pasteurization was introduced for milk, we'd have had a lot more sick kids (not to mention adults). It's of the same cloth as the anti-vacciene movement, IMO.

    If you want to drink raw whatever yourself, fine. But don't dictate to  everyone else that they have to take the same risks.


    Except that vaccination (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 10:28:05 AM EST
    is a proven health measure over many years and irradiation is not.

    But kindly don't lecture me, Andgarden.  I don't believe I said anywhere that I wanted to "dictate" to anyone else what they should or shouldn't drink or eat.

    You should, however, put at least a little bit of thought into what I said about how pasteurization, like many other of the things that are done to our processed foods, removes one kind of immediate risk while introducing other, longer-term ones sideways.

    Also, it's worth thinking about the fact that pasteurization, just like irradiation would and extensive use of antibiotics in animals does now, allows factory farms and processors to get away with filthy and unsafe conditions for raising, slaughtering and processing their animals because it can all be compensated for with chemicals and drugs.

    That's what that guy with the filthy meat trimmings is able to accomplish with his ammonia treatments.

    That all may be an unavoidable component of modern life, especially in cities, but it needs to be considered and thought about more than it is.


    Sorry, I didn't mean to come off that way (none / 0) (#59)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 07:49:13 PM EST
    I just came off a long flight (poor me, etc.) so I don't have the energy to write a long response. Suffice to say that I am unconvinced by the comparison between irradiation/pasteurization and the overuse of antibiotics.

    The comparison is quite direct (none / 0) (#60)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 10:06:48 PM EST
    because both are unnecessary if animals are raised in clean and healthy conditions.

    The farm I get my milk from isn't officially organic, but it's so clean you could eat your breakfast off the barn floor.  The cows are pastured most of the year, fed good grains and forage in the winter months, have roomy stalls in the barn and are kept beautifully clean, not covered in feces as factory-farmed milk cows are.  Their udders are carefully washed and examined before milking.  They receive regular vet checks and testing, but no antibiotics or any other crap unless they're actually sick.  They almost never are sick.

    Same goes for the chickens, turkeys and pigs these folks keep.

    Vermont farms are all small family farms, and they've been allowed to sell raw milk (at the farm only) for decades, and many do.  There's only been one rather mild case of any kind of illness possibly but only arguably traced to consumption of raw milk in all that time.

    The famer I buy from is an immuno-compromised kidney transplant patient.  He drinks gallons of the milk.  So do all the dairy farmers and their families I know, even the ones who don't keep their cows so pristinely clean.  No one has ever gotten sick from it and find the mere question laughable.

    Pasteurization is simply not necessary if the cows are kept as reasonably clean and healthy as they should be in any case.

    Same goes with routine antibiotics, though most farmers around here unfortunately do use them prophylactically because it's easier and cheaper than having the vet come frequently.

    Pasteurization is necessary for the factory-farm milk that fills supermarket milk bottles because the cows are kept their entire short lives confined in barn stanchions and caked with their own excrement.  It's postively disgusting and absolutely totally inhumane.  They're pumped up with hormones to make them produce more milk, which wears them out so completely physiologically that they have to be turned into hamburger after only a couple of years as living milk production machines.

    But that doesn't matter because the antibiotics and the pasteurization permit them to do that.

    I don't know what the answer is here, Andgarden, but I do ask you as a thoughtful person to consider the consequences of relying on drugs, chemicals and radiation to compensate for filthy practices.


    *every (none / 0) (#24)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 12:20:56 AM EST
    Gross. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by oldpro on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 11:48:59 PM EST
    Blecch. I'm going vegan. (none / 0) (#15)
    by Cream City on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 11:50:47 PM EST
    Great book about a blind cat (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 11:54:02 PM EST
    I have to recommend to everyone who likes animals a wonderful book I got for Christmas called "Homer's Odyssey" by a woman named Gwen Cooper. It's about a blind kitten adopted as a baby who turns out to be the friendliest, most adventurous, clever and ultimately brave little cat you could imagine.

    The writer is very, very good, so it's not saccharine and gooey but paints a wonderfully vivid portrait of this amazing little animal.  She's a great story teller, and there are several long passages that left me turning pages as fast as I could and with my mouth literally hanging open to find out how it was all going to turn out.

    Here's one key section from the book.  See if you can resist after reading this.

    $10.00? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 08:50:20 PM EST
    The seasonal shot was $30.00!!

    My H1N1 shot was free (none / 0) (#4)
    by Cream City on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 09:26:27 PM EST
    but that may be because my workplace -- which I call a "germ swarm" -- was targeted, as it is amid  thousands of young people in the most likely age group.  My seasonal shot did cost me, but that's because I got it asap at one of the first places with it -- as the flu is near-epidemic every year among the young 'uns.  However, my spouse got it at the same time, and it was covered by his insurance . . . whereas I'm a government employee, and our insurance costs more and covers less.  (You can imagine that knowing that, I'm skeptical of much about health insurance as planned by government!)

    Upholding the Constitution FTW (none / 0) (#2)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 08:57:04 PM EST
    An Arapahoe County judge today barred the city of Centennial from shutting down a medical marijuana dispensary, saying that the city had no right to use federal law as a pretext for doing so.


    Rush Limbaugh (none / 0) (#10)
    by Radiowalla on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 09:57:25 PM EST
    taken to the hospital in Hawaii with chest pains.  Said to be in serious condition.

    Is it okay to pray with Senator C that he (none / 0) (#61)
    by DFLer on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 10:53:46 PM EST
    doesn't make it into work?

    JSOC to assassinate Mexican cartels (none / 0) (#16)
    by mcl on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 11:51:44 PM EST

    Happy happy joy joy.

    First JSOC gets deployed only in third-world countries; now, also against drug lords...next, south central HelL.A.?

    that is just a suggestion by (none / 0) (#21)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 12:01:58 AM EST
    the author of that blog. Why bother to spread his lousy suggestion?

    J, imo, (none / 0) (#19)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 11:56:07 PM EST
    TL is - now - BTD (ie, serial wanking about health care, etc., etc.) in the daytime, and you at night. I'm at the computer at work most of the day, and mostly with my family at night.

    I miss the old days when we'd argue about the DEA's actions in Columbia, or tasers, or whatever, at work when it was still light out.

    And now...ah well, g'nite...

    it totally depends on (none / 0) (#22)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 12:12:08 AM EST
    my schedule and whether there's news on crime issues to report. I have not given up daytime blogging.

    Right now there's lots more terrorism news than drug  war news. I've spent many hours the past week getting up to speed on Yemen and the growth of al Qaida affiliates there, which may turn out to be a pretty big deal in the coming year. It also ties into Guantanamo since so many of those still there are from Yemen. It's also an interesting story with interesting and inter-connected characters, kind of like a big wiretap case. And sorting out the reputable reporting sources from the right wing terror conspiracy nuts is no small task.

    So hang in there, things will be back to usual before you know it.


    Ya want I start more frequent DrugWar diaries? (none / 0) (#25)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 12:51:36 AM EST
    Finally got a retrial date (none / 0) (#26)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 01:02:50 AM EST
    for my Federal civil suit against the University of Wisconsin Police who peppersprayed me for collecting ballot access signatures in 2006. We pick a jury May 23. The first trial, a year ago, ended in a hung jury.

    We're down to 1 judge here in the Western District, and she recused. Obama's appointee to the 2nd seat,Louis Butler, a former State Supreme Court Justice and  onetime head of the Public Defenders' office in Milwaukee was among the appointments sent back by the Senate, so Eastern District reserve Justice Randa will again preside.

    TChris covered my first trial here

    Good Luck Big Ben.... (none / 0) (#40)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 08:30:47 AM EST
    really hope this one goes your way...liberty's way.

    AGs complain about "Nebraska Compromise" (none / 0) (#32)
    by jbindc on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 07:19:15 AM EST
    13 states' attorneys-general sent a letter to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid requesting the extra Medicaid funds set aside for Nebraska (in order to secfure Ben Nelson's vote for HCR) be removed, calling it unconstitutional, and threatening litigation.  All 13 AGs are Republicans, but I think they make a good point.

    December 30, 2009

    The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
    Speaker, United States House of Representatives
    Washington, DC 20515

    The Honorable Harry Reid
    Majority Leader, United States Senate
    Washington, DC 20510

    The undersigned state attorneys general, in response to numerous inquiries, write to express our grave concern with the Senate version of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("H.R. 3590"). The current iteration of the bill contains a provision that affords special treatment to the state of Nebraska under the federal Medicaid program. We believe this provision is constitutionally flawed. As chief legal officers of our states we are contemplating a legal challenge to this provision and we ask you to take action to render this challenge unnecessary by striking that provision.

    It has been reported that Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson's vote, for H.R. 3590, was secured only after striking a deal that the federal government would bear the cost of newly eligible Nebraska Medicaid enrollees. In marked contrast all other states would not be similarly treated, and instead would be required to allocate substantial sums, potentially totaling billions of dollars, to accommodate H.R. 3590's new Medicaid mandates. In addition to violating the most basic and universally held notions of what is fair and just, we also believe this provision of H.R. 3590 is inconsistent with protections afforded by the United States Constitution against arbitrary legislation.

    In Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S 619, 640 (1937), the United States Supreme Court warned that Congress does not possess the right under the Spending Power to demonstrate a "display of arbitrary power." Congressional spending cannot be arbitrary and capricious. The spending power of Congress includes authority to accomplish policy objectives by conditioning receipt of federal funds on compliance with statutory directives, as in the Medicaid program. However, the power is not unlimited and "must be in pursuit of the `general welfare.' " South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 207 (1987). In Dole the Supreme Court stated, "that conditions on federal grants might be illegitimate if they are unrelated to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs." Id. at 207. It seems axiomatic that the federal interest in H.R. 3590 is not simply requiring universal health care, but also ensuring that the states share with the federal government the cost of providing such care to their citizens. This federal interest is evident from the fact this legislation would require every state, except Nebraska, to shoulder its fair share of the increased Medicaid costs the bill will generate. The provision of the bill that relieves a single state from this cost-sharing program appears to be not only unrelated, but also antithetical to the legitimate federal interests in the bill.

    The fundamental unfairness of H.R. 3590 may also give rise to claims under the due process, equal protection, privileges and immunities clauses and other provisions of the Constitution. As a practical matter, the deal struck by the United States Senate on the "Nebraska Compromise" is a disadvantage to the citizens of 49 states. Every state's tax dollars, except Nebraska's, will be devoted to cost-sharing required by the bill, and will be therefore unavailable for other essential state programs. Only the citizens of Nebraska will be freed from this diminution in state resources for critical state services. Since the only basis for the Nebraska preference is arbitrary and unrelated to the substance of the legislation, it is unlikely that the difference would survive even minimal scrutiny.

    We ask that Congress delete the Nebraska provision from the pending legislation, as we prefer to avoid litigation. Because this provision has serious implications for the country and the future of our nation's legislative process, we urge you to take appropriate steps to protect the Constitution and the rights of the citizens of our nation. We believe this issue is readily resolved by removing the provision in question from the bill, and we ask that you do so.

    By singling out the particular provision relating to special treatment of Nebraska, we do not suggest there are no other legal or constitutional issues in the proposed health care legislation.

    Please let us know if we can be of assistance as you consider this matter.


    Henry McMaster
    Attorney General, South Carolina

    Rob McKenna
    Attorney General, Washington

    Mike Cox
    Attorney General, Michigan

    Greg Abbott
    Attorney General, Texas

    John Suthers
    Attorney General, Colorado

    Troy King
    Attorney General, Alabama

    Wayne Stenehjem
    Attorney General, North Dakota

    Bill Mims
    Attorney General, Virginia

    Tom Corbett
    Attorney General, Pennsylvania

    Mark Shurtleff
    Attorney General, Utah

    Bill McCollum
    Attorney General, Florida

    Lawrence Wasden
    Attorney General, Idaho

    Marty Jackley
    Attorney General, South Dakota

    Grasping at straws (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 07:37:45 AM EST
    So you think it's ok (none / 0) (#35)
    by jbindc on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 07:56:11 AM EST
    and legal for Nebraska not to have to pay extra for Medicaid while everyone else does?

    Of course it is (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 08:03:11 AM EST
    states get different and preferential treatment from Congress all the time. This is just an earmark battle.

    Earmark battle?!! (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 08:52:29 AM EST
    Well, here's a really good opportunity for Obama to stand up and prove he really is against those nasty earmarks he campaigned so loudly he would end. :)

    Just because some thing happens all the time (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by cawaltz on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 08:55:32 AM EST
    doesn't make it right.

    It might be different if we were talking about a need specific to Nebraska(or something like the aid given to La after Katrina). We aren't though. health care access is a problem in all the states. This reeks of "buying off" Nelson's vote.


    not right (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by CST on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 08:56:47 AM EST
    is not the same as not legal

    just saying.


    Please highlight/quote exactly (none / 0) (#45)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 09:03:52 AM EST
    where that comment even suggested the activity as not legal.

    What was said was very true.


    responded (none / 0) (#46)
    by CST on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 09:07:04 AM EST
    to the wrong comment I guess.

    That was more for jbdinc's posts.

    Just tying the two together.


    My comment was (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by jbindc on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 09:17:35 AM EST
    asking if we thought it was okay AND legal.  Should have made them two questions.

    And I still think they have a legal argument, despite andgarden calling this just an "earmark", as earmarks do not create new government spending (by definition).  In this case, other states will be spending more on Medicaid if HCR passes (more and new government spending), while Nebraska will be exempt.

    Seems like there's at least a legal question there that will need to be addressed.


    Karl Hess nailed it.... (none / 0) (#50)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 09:14:47 AM EST
    When he got his customary IRS for being a part of the losing Goldwater campaign in '64...he asked the IRS auditor if a deduction he had made was "right", the auditor replied, "it doesn't matter if it is right, it only matters if it is legal".

    That was all old Karl needed to hear to get radical.


    C'mon jb... (none / 0) (#39)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 08:25:59 AM EST
    dontcha ya know we live on Animal Farm by now?  Some animals are more equal than others....in this case, Nebraskan animals.

    Especially for kdog (none / 0) (#33)
    by jbindc on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 07:28:13 AM EST
    New laws that take effect tomorrow.

    2010.... (none / 0) (#38)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 08:23:36 AM EST
    Year of the Nanny State?  Year of the Extortionary Fine?

    Check this out...NYC is banning smoking in open air horse drawn carriages, our first outdoor ban.

    So horse, driver, and passenger can trot bast buses and cars spewing serious amounts of poisonous smoke all day long, but they'll be safe from the demon tobacco smoke?

    Bunch of geniuses over there at the Dept. of Health...I tell ya.


    The far Right will protect you from (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 09:02:30 AM EST
    disapproved sex and the Left will protect you from tobacco.

    The left is... (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 09:10:45 AM EST
    anti-choice in this regard.

    I might not agree with the indoor bans, but I can understand them.  Outdoor bans I can't understand, and can only call it nanny-state tyranny-lite.


    For sure... (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 09:39:14 AM EST
    "I know better than you whats good for you" thinking is not monopolized by right or left...only their styles differ.

    Here's to the lot of 'em leaving us alone in 2010!


    And all I wanted for Christmas... (none / 0) (#49)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 09:11:28 AM EST
    was protection from the right and left...Thanks a lot Santa:)

    And tobacco (none / 0) (#53)
    by jbindc on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 09:29:05 AM EST
    (in any form) is gross and has no redeeming values.....

    Speak for yourself....:) (none / 0) (#55)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 09:41:00 AM EST
    pleasure has mucho redeeming value...some find smoking pleasurable.

    Living in that nanny state (none / 0) (#58)
    by Cream City on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 11:13:02 AM EST
    from which the story comes, let me tell you that it's quite a selective nanny.  Far, far more people here are killing themselves -- and others -- with drinking, and especially drinking and driving.  It is the state with some of the lowest taxes on beer (even though it no longer is run by the brewers, with few left here) and the absolutely most lax laws on drunken driving.

    If the nannies were consistent, I'd have even a modicum of respect for them.  Instead, this is just another of the Dem governor's and Dem legislators' way here to raise taxes -- as the state long ago diverted its funding for nonsmoking campaigns to actually improve citizens' health.  North Carolina has far more courage, as noted in the story, in being a tobacco state with nonsmoking laws compared to   Wisconsin, the state where more residents than in any other state boast about drinking and driving.

    So expect more news of more slaughters here on the already-slippery roads tonight.  I'm staying home, youbetcha, while hoping that the victims -- and the perpetrators -- again are not anyone near and dear.  But they will be near and dear to someone here.