Fluoride Action Network? Are they the ones who ride in on big swooshes of Aim toothpaste and fight the Cavity Creeps?
A chemistry professor at Stuffwhitepeople Like University was a big anti-fluoride activist. Because my only associate with the issue was General Jack D. Ripper from Dr. Strangelove, I assumed that he must be crazy. But he was widely respected on campus and had brought many of the science faculty around to his side. He came to a presentation some of my students gave on stem cell research and he did not strike me as someone who argued about science and public policy very well. In particular, he was either unable or unwilling to think in terms of cost-benefit analysis. All of these opinions are superficial, though.
Anti-Fluoridation was one of the odd crossover points between, say, Birchers and the Northern Sun tshirt crowd.
Towns where anti-fluoride sentiment is surprisingly public and pervasive: Ith/aca, NY; Water/loo, ON. Maybe if people know of others, we can identify the common element.
I don't know why I felt compelled to Google-proof that.
5: The fluoride controls your mind and makes you do weird things.
There was a story last week about reducing the amount of fluoride in already-fluoridated water supplies because the current levels appear to be leading to some tooth discoloration.
Christ/church, NZ.
(No kidding, when a national politician ran for mayor, he was attacked for his support for fluoridation (in role as a Minister, I think.) This put him in awkward position, because on the one hand the crazies vote, but on the other who the hell wants to back down on fluoridation?)
7: it creates those weird mineral white spots. And corrupts your vital bodily essences. At high doses.
we can identify the common element
This wasn't the best phrasing, was it?
Speaking of discolored teeth, I think coffee might also cause problems.
The dose makes the poison. If the CDC is issuing warnings I'm all for making changes, but I'd rather see other sources addressed before ditching water fluoridation altogether.
Regarding the statistic that 1/3 of US teens have signs of fluoridosis I'm more inclined to blame that on overuse of fluoride toothpaste/mouthwash/gum/floss/etc driven by the "more is better" mindset than on water fluoridation. It's a pet peeve of mine, so perhaps I'm placing blame where it doesn't belong, but I'm reluctant to dump one of the major public health accomplishments of the 20th century if there are significant contributions to the problem from consumer stupidity.
9. People don't understand the dose response curve, here. In low doses, it actually helps your precious bodily essences.
Aren't the weird mineral white spots just cosmetic? I know I'd rather have my teeth fall out than have white spots on them.
Why are some of the most successful public heath efforts (vaccines, fluoridation- please suggest others) the ones that provoke the greatest backlash? I have ideas why but thought I'd throw it out there.
I'd rather see other sources addressed before ditching water fluoridation altogether
Yes, this.
(vaccines, fluoridation- please suggest others)
Washing hands, not spitting in public so much, shitting well away from the drinking water, and don't eat much of things that taste good.
Why are some of the most successful public heath efforts (vaccines, fluoridation- please suggest others) the ones that provoke the greatest backlash? I have ideas why but thought I'd throw it out there.
Others: condom use.
I can barely begin to think about why these things provoke backlash: people like the idea of questioning what's been previously given? Or, rhetoric about government control and the nanny-state? or, an increasing generalized fear about the rise in cancer rates and a flailing-about attempt to find candidates for blame?
I'd rather hear more articulated suggestions.
Vaccines didn't provoke much backlash until there was time to raise a generation that never experienced the alternative.
18
Others: condom use.
Are condoms really a public health success? I was under the impression that they are most used by low risk groups.
Two other examples are seatbelts and airbags. I think there is more of a backlash against airbags because they are scarier.
15.last: Needle exchange programs. There the backlash is easy to understand (goddamn puritans), but in terms of effectiveness vs backlash it's got to be one of the all time leaders.
On the subject - I strongly recommend The Wisdom of Whores by Elizabeth Pisani. It's about HIV epidemiology and the intersection of public health and politics, written by someone who works on the front lines. It's an easy read, full of interesting and often disturbing anecdotes.
I first encountered the book on Christmas day when I looked up to see my mom exclaiming that it was just what she wanted. The sight of mom clutching a book with that title in obvious excitement had me profoundly bothered for a moment before common sense assured me she most likely wasn't planning a change in career.
Are condoms really a public health success? I was under the impression that they are most used by low risk groups.
Well, using condoms is pretty much what makes a low risk group. The cause of the backlash there is obvious (help, somebody put a bag on my penis).
Are condoms really a public health success? I was under the impression that they are most used by low risk groups.
I wish you would think more clearly, James.
Dumbass: yes, condoms are a public health success in reducing the risk of sexually transmitted diseases. Also in reducing the number of pregnancies.
I apologize somewhat for using rude language, James, but honestly, you say the dumbest things some times.
Easy answers to easy questions:
Do I need to devote a more serious level of attention to this one?
No.
If they lower the fluoride too much, you have to go back to brushing at least once a day.
To answer myself- one of my first thoughts is just numbers. The more successful something is, the more widely implemented, and since nothing is zero risk, when 90% of the population is treated you'll be able to find random anecdata about how it didn't work or how fluoride made your sister's roommate's cousin impotent. Even things that aren't actually caused by the supposed bogeyman (autism/vaccines) can be blamed on it because it's "not natural" and widely applied.
"shitting well away from the drinking water"
Is there a movement arguing that we're being denied our god-given right to shit in the reservoir?
As far as I know, none of the changes recommended in fluoride levels involved abandoning it altogether, but the anti-fluoride people have seen an opening so they're making a big push. I think the reasoning is that the recommendations for fluoride levels were set between the 1940s and 1960s when people didn't encounter much fluoride in their daily lives, but now that people are using more fluoridated toothpastes and getting dental care and getting fluoride treatments, etc. etc., the cumulative amount of fluoride someone is exposed to is higher than would be ideal for dental health, but just perfect for MIND CONTROL.
We have a natural right to pee where we want, but not too shit.
|| The Golden Globes have become a classic train wreck -- terrifically careening off the rails, bound for tragedy, and impossible to look away from. [The audience and the HFP are in full revolt from host Ricky Gervais.] |>
but now that people are using more fluoridated toothpastes and getting dental care and getting fluoride treatments, etc. etc., the cumulative amount of fluoride someone is exposed to is higher than would be ideal for dental health
This kind of elides the people who aren't using those toothpastes and getting dental care and fluoride treatments, which is kind of the point.
But I'm not speaking to the anti-fluoride people here. Togolosh has it right in 13.
It drives me a bit nuts when public policy proposals are driven by assumptions about what 'everyone' does: far too many people are lost, dropped out.
To my mind, one of the funniest things about the fluoridation/adulteration of our drinking water debate was the similar finding (last year?) that certain towns in Texas where the groundwater is very high in lithium have drastically lower rates of murder, suicide and insanity.
This led some people to advocate that municipal water supplies throughout the country be treated with lithium. As I recall, those people were dismissed, more or less as cranks. And even if it were a good idea to add lithium to the drinking water -- well, it would never happen.
But it's still refreshing to see Bircher fears come to life like that. There really are people who want to control your mind by adulterating the drinking water!
(vaccines, fluoridation- please suggest others)
Making children eat more vegetables is a plot from Michelle Obama to control their minds.
certain towns in Texas where the groundwater is very high in lithium
I didn't realize that lithium was naturally occurring, or a thing that might be found in groundwater. Huh.
Yeah, it's a major component of some types of granite, and since lithium salts are mostly water soluble, it washes out into the water supply fairly easily.
None of that explains why 7-Up used to have lithium in it though. Apparently they trumpeted this fact pretty heavily in advertisements in the '30s, even though nobody was then aware of any benefits to lithium consumption.
33: I find that hard to buy without more research or something. Lithium is difficult to prescribe because the difference between taking enough to work and taking tooAre condoms really a public health success? I was under the impression that they are most used by low risk groups.
much is narrow. Clearly they are getting a very low dose with the water, one that is sub-therapeutic in people with bi-polar disorder. (Or people are getting sick from drinking the tap.)
Yeah, it is a little bit odd. But as far as I know, very little research has been done into the possible benefits of low-dose lithium for people with no diagnosed mental illnesses.
Or for that matter, whether the residents of these small Texas towns had high rates of kidney disease and other effects of lithium overdose.
Lithium is pretty rare in nature. It's one of the few elements produced directly in big-bang nucleosynthesis, but at something like 1 lithium-7 nucleus per 10 billion hydrogens, and stars don't make a lot of it either. (If I'm not mistaken, most of the lithium-7 that's around today is still left over from the big bang.)
Not that you wanted to know this, I'm sure.
We must gather as much lithium as we can in case it turns out to be widely beneficial; we cannot afford to have a lithium gap!
(If I'm not mistaken, most of the lithium-7 that's around today is still left over from the big bang.)
We are all prescribed star stuff.
42: But that's the opposite of my point -- I don't think much of the lithium is star-stuff, I think it's much older than stars.
39: Oh no, speak of the devil.
Here's a study on the mental effects of lithia water on healthy males due to begin soon. Guess we'll see.
Someone recently told me I have the same voice and mannerisms as a young Carl Sagan, but I don't think it's true.
I think it's much older than stars
I'm now imagining a 7-Up ad campaign from the thirties, written by H.P. Lovecraft.
43: I deliberately misread your comment to make a joke based on misquoting a PBS show from like 30 years ago. I'll do it again if I get the chance.
40: Lithium-7 also produces helium and tritium when bombarded by neutrons, neglect of which fact caused the Castle Bravo hydrogen bomb test to produce far more energy than expected, leading to the the accidental radiation poisoning of a bunch of people.
31: Wait, how so?? I have a television situation that can't easily be rectified. If it's truly off the rails, as in deeply embarrassing and possibly felonious...please, please share.
It sucks worse than bombarding lithium with with neutrons.
48: Those Trinity puzzles could be awful tricky.
It sucks now because Gervais seems to have been yanked. He hasn't introduced anyone in an age. Even Steve Carell has turned on him. Gervais made a "my show first" joke introducing him, and once Gervais was off stage Carell said, "Yeah, that never gets old."
Aw. Moby, I hope someone does something incredibly stupid very soon.
DeNiro is giving a really stupid speech, but not good-stupid.
DeNiro is now doing stand-up and I do not even. "Homeland Security has deported all the waiters and does full body scans of Megan Fox." Boyfriend has his drink on.
Not sure when they removed the Lithium form 7-up. I saw 1950 mentioned, if it was still in, it makes ads like this one somewhat more entertaining. The family that mood stabilizes together stays together.
I guess I should be watching the GGs, but fuck it, it's unwatchable and Big Love is on. If RED wins, this would make a friend pretty goddamn happy.
That bit was so much more awkward than funny.
60 to any number of things on the Golden Globes, for that matter.
Oh, "Don't Stop Believing"! How original!
50: Here's Gervais' opening monologue.
I reiterate this. She looked roughly the color of John Boehner a minute ago.
I really should finish this damn referee report I've been putting off all weekend.
I can't watch awards shows. Any of them. Any longer than a few minutes with them on a TV in front of me, and my spinal cord starts yanking painfully on the base of my brain to make me stop.
Tim Allen still exists as a public figure? Why?
65: That was uncomfortable, huh? Tom Hanks: "We remember when Ricky Gervais was a chubby and kind comedian." Tim Allen: "He's neither now."
Ah, fuck. Stupid corrupt award blah blah blah.
Maybe Ricky Gervais will be ostracized back to Britain now. I hate that guy.
"And finally, thank you to God -- for making me an atheist."
And . . . cut.
64: I had a weird exchange with my housemate (who was at the time reading quietly in the living room) in which I said that I'd like to look at the Golden Globe Awards show for a few minutes, and he asked slightly irritably Why?? and I said that I had no good reason, but it was roughly like his desire to watch football.
That didn't go well.
roughly like his desire to watch football.
That seems fair to me.
22
Well, using condoms is pretty much what makes a low risk group. The cause of the backlash there is obvious (help, somebody put a bag on my penis).
The FDA feels otherwise .
Having had a low number of partners is known to decrease the risk of HIV infection. However, to date, no donor eligibility questions have been shown to reliably identify a subset of MSM (e.g., based on monogamy or safe sexual practices) who do not still have a substantially increased rate of HIV infection compared to the general population or currently accepted blood donors. In the future, improved questionnaires may be helpful to better select safe donors, but this cannot be assumed without evidence.
23
Dumbass: yes, condoms are a public health success in reducing the risk of sexually transmitted diseases. Also in reducing the number of pregnancies.
Well unlike say small pox vaccination they haven't exactly wiped STDs or unplanned pregnancies from the face of the earth. And if you have evidence they have substantially reduced either please cite it.
74: MSM who use condoms do better than other MSM.
||
I think I need to publicize my First Law of Doing Science and Stuff: when proposing a very sophisticated, intelligent, careful, laborious method of testing something, always include a comparison to the stupidest possible way of doing the same thing that I would come up with in five minutes' thought. Being very sophisticated is nice and all, but if you're doing twenty times the work for a ten percent improvement, I don't give a shit.
|>
73: Thanks. I was worried after I wrote that that I might have crossed a line. I know there are avid sports fans among us.
I'm off to bed now -- g'night.
77: Is this like on infomercials where, say, people who can't hammer a nail without smashing their thumbs or the wall 6 times are brought sweet relief by the wonderful new hammer that holds the nails itself?
75: I get your point, that steps which can improve things in a given case can have no effect or a contrary effect in the aggregate, but by your criteria, a ham sandwich won't stop hunger.
And I don't have any ham and now I want some.
Fuck ham. I'd forgotten that we had leftover bacon.
After posting this thread I forewent the Golden Globes and Unfogged and watched Secretariat, which was uplifting, even though I know who was going to win the whole time. Thanks, Disney!
84: Both the lady who gets spanked and the guy who spanks her?
Well since someone beat me to the lithium/cthulhu joke I was dying to make I will merely contribute the knowledge that a town in Texas called Mineral Wells became famous briefly for their water, it was believed, curing a woman's mental ails. They started bottling "crazy water" and the town turned into a thriving resort with a 14-story hotel built in 1929. Um, I don't remember why I was going to tell this story.
Oh, I also participated in the purchase of a double-capacity French press, which seems like a more dignified version of "resetting the tivo", as euphemisms go.
the same voice and mannerisms as a young Carl Sagan
Gervais was pretty gold. That Mel Gibson line was so excellent.
That monologue was great. What's uncomfortable about it?
I think the accusation was based entirely on this clip, but I deny that I pronounce the word "water" anything like that. Among other things.
92: How do you say "water"? To the group-recording-project mobile!
90: He started out making fun of people for cavorting with porn stars, for making terrible movies, and for running a rigged awards show. That was great. Then he made fun of people for getting old. That was weak. I didn't watch the rest of it.
87 - hmmm, congratulations Stanley? Is that at yourhouse to replace your lost-in-embarrassing-circumstances one? Or at someone else's house?
90 - my thoughts exactly. Are you not allowed to take the piss out of people in America these days?
The joke about Hugh Hefner has got to be the most shocking joke made at an awards show monologue.
Well, there has probably been worse at the AVN Awards, but then I imagine that's a pretty hard crowd to shock.
re: 96
It's not really harsh by UK standards, tbh, is it? I can imagine Frankie Boyle going down well ....
Maybe Ricky Gervais will be ostracized back to Britain now. I hate that guy.
Oh, God, I hope not. It's been rather nice not having him around these last few years. We were all rather hoping you'd take him to your bosom and we'd never see him again (cf. Craig Ferguson, Niall Ferguson, other undesirable Brits not called Ferguson).
Gervais is actually quite intelligent and engaging at times, when he doesn't have a posse of Jonathan Ross arselickers around him. I'd have him back in exchange for a cast iron guarantee that Sacha Baron-Cohen was gone for good. Also "Little Britain", although I suspect that they might be asked to cut down on the blackface gags, as in my experience Americans are not all that big on the "ironic racism" concept and it's not because they don't get irony.
99: You can be as rude as you want in stand-up, but awards show monologues tend towards pablum. Otherwise, the strain for the audience of acting like a good sport makes the Botox show.
I'm much in favour of Ricky Gervais (my thoughts on Lucas & Wailliams are now a matter of eternal Google record, and frankly you can have 'em free-on-board Felixstowe)
Shit yes, re: Little Britain. David Walliams: Dick fucking Emery without the 'talent'.
Gervais writes more intelligently _about_ comedy than most, I think. I don't always find him that funny, but I don't think there's any doubt he's an intelligent bloke or that he's done some good stuff.
I'd have him back in exchange for a cast iron guarantee that Sacha Baron-Cohen was gone for good
This is a difficult choice to have to make, but I think I'd go with dsquared. Gervais is irritating, smug and punchable, but Cohen is worse. (Seriously, the Comedy Foreigner? The Comedy Black? The Comedy Muslim? The Comedy Poof? What's next, O Voice of 21st Century British Light Entertainment - the Comedy Pakistani? The Comedy Jamaican?)
I think the problem with Lucas and Walliams is that they actually hate people. People in general, that is. The Fast Show crowd (their closest comparison) quite liked people in general and so portrayed characters who were weird but, at bottom, quite likeable. But Lucas and Walliams really don't like human beings. They don't like women, they don't like the disabled, they don't like the poor, they don't like the badly-dressed. And it's trickier to do comedy without empathy - ask any psychopath.
I actually think that really low level lithium would be a good idea. Too much and people would have hypothyroidism and other side effects, but there are lower suicide rates (didn't know about murder) in places that have naturally high lithium levels in the water. Doesn't keep them depression free, but they are less impulsive.
yeah, but doesn't lithium sort of pull all the joy out of things and condemn you to an unpleasantly too-even emotional life? no mania or depression...but everything kind of greyed out in between. not fun, in other words. maybe it's different at low doses.
I was forced to watch Little Britain by someone who "let me borrow" the DVDs (i.e., handed them to me and wouldn't take them back) and kept asking how I liked it. It was the sort of thing where I could sort of accept that the premise of some of the sketches could be funny, but the execution just left me confused and annoyed.
I would prefer more Gervais-style hosts to these shows.
I rather like "hugely mean-spirited with mildly sinister undertones."
I will sign on to no deal that involves SBC staying here. He's sneering and awful.
And it's trickier to do comedy without empathy - ask any psychopath.
"just flew in tonight, folks, and boy are my arms tired from holding a gun to the head of that pathetic worm of a pilot for six hours. Six hours, folks."
109: Yeah, that comment was strange. Especially since RDJr. (whom I normally like, but who is humorless about his having served time -- and who became, at his own admission, kind of racist and wingnutty as a result of that prison bid) went on to introduce his category really creepily -- how he'd like to fuck each of the women nominated.
112:
Agreed. RDJr.'s comments looked even worse when compared to Sorkin's comments. If that is possible.
I actually think that really low level lithium would be a good idea.
I once attended a talk in which a real live very senior employee of the FDA expressed his support for adding Lipitor to all US water supplies, which I and I think most of the rest of the audience initially thought was a bit of a joke but it became clear that he was dead serious. That sort of horrified me. Fortunately, even he conceded that it would never happen, because "too many people would object" (among other reasons), but he was obviously all in favor.
(I think I've shared this here before, but I can never remember anymore. I know, I know--RTFA.)
re: 112
I saw RDJr bragging in a fairly creepy way about his own supposed fighting prowess on some US TV awards show. Given that he's about 5ft nothing and was making a comparison between himself and bunch of squaddies* twice his size it was both unfunny and delusional.
* insert the US equivalent thereof
low level lithium would also be good for reducing various kinds of senility.
as for the original post: good cartoon of it here http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ptitlehkm94ato
one of the interesting things is that infusion of tea releases large amounts of fluoride into the water if there is unflouridated water, but tea brewed in fluoridated water don't increase the fluoride level much.
also: they've put vitaminD into the sunlight now, so every can get enough, unless they live in britain or cleveland.
There is a fortune to be made selling that high-lithium water to the office water cooler market.
IIRC there was a guy at a fairly major investment bank in about 2006 who got sued for forcing his (male) traders to take oestrogen supplements on the grounds that women made better traders. (Why he didn't just hire women as traders instead is unknown.) What amazes me is that the traders actually took the pills in the first place.
What amazes me is that the traders actually took the pills in the first place.
Get called "cunt" enough times, you'll do anything.
Why he didn't just hire women as traders instead is unknown.
Because then he'd need to add another restroom.
Always remember that when people talk about "market sentiment" this is what they mean; the consensus opinion of a couple of busloads of overcaffeinated extroverted money-hungry 23-year-old blokes who would do things like taking oestrogen pills simply because their psychotic boss tells them to.
But those are the only people who operate entirely based on lust for money, ajay. The rest of us are intolerably irrational.
Whatever lusts I operate under preclude me from being willing to take estrogen pills.
#118: I think you mean this rather strange case. I tend to agree with Bess Levin's assessment that what was actually going on was some kind of workplace sadomasochistic relationship.
125: good grief. Yes, I think that's the one I'm thinking of, though I admit I wasn't aware of all the details.
they've put vitaminD into the sunlight now
This is funny.
Meanwhile, is it me or is ToS losing heft? From offensive to YouTube comments content-free.
What are the odds that a submissive Chinese-American bond trader in Jersey City would find himself working for a dominant Chinese-American bond trader in Jersey City? I say leave them be.
||
I was just hit by a car while running! Okay, more like I splayed out my arms over the hood and rolled across it.
Note: don't assume that drivers aren't going to turn right across the crosswalk without looking. They are!
(I'm fine and finished the run, thanksforasking.)
|>
From the Dealbreaker thread: I am studying for the ethics portion of my CFA exam...do these acts constitute an offense that will automatically mean losing one's CFA charter or just censure?
129: then he jumped through a plate glass window and ran away from an explosion!
do these acts constitute an offense that will automatically mean losing one's CFA charter or just censure?
I am reminded of that J Edgar Hoover quote that finishes "unless it has in some way obstructed interstate commerce".
Major points if you rolled over the hood, landed in stride, and kept running.
135: I landed running backwards, waved at the driver (who, as small-town luck would have it, I sort of knew), and kept running. Still: that was dumb of me. I usually run behind cars waiting to turn like that, but I was sure she wasn't going to try for the turn based on the volume of oncoming traffic. Wrong!
Stanley,
Please recreate it and set it to music for our enjoyment.
And if you could include an Eagle Owl in the video, that would be appreciated too.
Major points if you rolled over the hood, landed in stride, picked up the $5 bill lying in the street, and kept running.
Major points if you landed in Wisconsin.
I do love RDJr. Which, going by these comments, is probably because I have never seen him being himself. I should avoid that then, until I've gone off him.
In fact, there's a deal for you: we'll swap Ricky for Robert. Done?
129: Okay, more like I splayed out my arms over the hood and rolled across it.
136: who, as small-town luck would have it, I sort of knew
So, a beautiful splay on your neighbor's hood.
Stanley, are you gonna let this:
So, a beautiful splay on your neighbor's hood.
Pass unchallenged?
I hope so, because it's unbeatable.
I don't necessarily feel a strong need to make this a live topic again, but on the public health question:
75, 80: I get your point, that steps which can improve things in a given case can have no effect or a contrary effect in the aggregate
I'm probably being dense, but I don't really get the point of James's 75. I don't see why we need to see condom use 'wiping STDs or unplanned pregnancies from the face of the earth' in order to consider it a public health success, or at least significant positive. I'm not going to bother to dig up a citation about reductions in STD infections and unplanned pregnancies with condom use.
I just don't really get how steps which can improve things in a given case can have no effect or a contrary one in the aggregate.
You get to rip of the person's hood ornomint if they hit you too. except noone has them anymore
except noone has them anymore
I think I only see them on Jaguars now.
I hope so, because it's unbeatable.
Roger that.
Don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, but are we really going to equate vaccines and fluoridation? Vaccines eliminated polio. Fluoridation may or may not have reduced the risk of cavities. I wouldn't put it up there with, say, penicillin and zoloft.
Penicillin? Pshaw. I'm really going to need a cite before I grant that antibiotics have been efficacious in wiping out infections.
So I just watched the RG opening monologue, and I'm really kind of puzzled--this counts as extremely uncomfortable? I know we're grading on the awards show curve here, but still--I felt far more uncomfortable watching basically any given 4minutes of (the original) Office than while watching that.
148: I just don't really get how steps which can improve things in a given case can have no effect or a contrary one in the aggregate.
If an innovation lessens the risk that X leads to Y encourages more X then you could get more Y even if the innovation were very effective in an individual case. Obviously, this calculation would be different if X had some positive utility in addition to the negative Y. I doubt it applies to condoms, but I seem to recall some newspaper article saying Volvo drivers in the U.S. were getting into more wrecks than you'd expect because they felt they'd been so well protected in a crash.
156: Ah, okay. Some prophylactic measures contribute to an increase in reckless behavior, thereby offsetting their positive effects. Got it.
Penicillin? Pshaw.
This would look good on the front of a bass drum or a parade float. I watched a video about fluoride in high school biology. Apparently there was a town in Colorado with natural fluoride springs, producing a reduction in tooth-falling-outedness and a dental effect called "Colorado Brown Stain." Which would also look good on a bass drum or parade float.
If an innovation lessens the risk that X leads to Y encourages more X then you could get more Y
And who doesn't want more Y? We could all have a little more Y.
Certainly, if we have more Y, we might stop with all the X. Cripe. It's like people think they should be able to go for the X or something. More Y will cure them of that impulse.
Fuck all that shit. P is where it's happening. And Q, if you're up for it.
I do love RDJr. Which, going by these comments, is probably because I have never seen him being himself. I should avoid that then, until I've gone off him.
I watched it, and found it charming, because my love for him blinds my better senses. When I read here that his intro was creepy, I thought to myself, oh yes - it was. I should have been offended! But alas, the possibility didn't even go through my head at the time.
Hmmmm .... perhaps I will indulge then!
So I just watched the RG opening monologue, and I'm really kind of puzzled--this counts as extremely uncomfortable?
I haven't seen the Gervais thing yet, but people should bear in mind that for British comedians at awards shows, anything less than saying you've just been fisting a cabinet minister is considered tame.
re: 165
Heh. That was nearly 20 years ago! Just checked on wiki and I forgot it was such a long time.