Wife’s friend: You know one of the bodies in the lab? It’s fresh.
Wife: Oh, you mean juicy?
The pumpkins are here!
Hallowe’en is here again, which means it’s time for MUSC’s annual pumpkin carving contest. This year there weren’t quite as many pumpkins as last year, but there were still a lot of good pumpkins.
I particularly liked the one from the Cardiovascular Perfusion/Life Support Team. Note the contents of the IV bag.
The mini-bottle debate
There are a lot of big issues being slung around this year before the election. Terrorism, prescription drugs, social security, the economy. All big and weighty things.
Here, it’s different. Here, one of the more contentious issues is the mini-bottle. Specifically, whether restaurants and bars should be allowed to stick with mini-bottles, or go with free-pour.
Yes, South Carolina is the last state in the US that mandates the use of mini-bottles of alcohol. Those little bottles of booze you thought you only got on airplanes. You get them in SC too. And in SC, that’s the only way liquor is allowed to be served. Tiny little 1.7 oz (42.5 mL) bottles.
You wouldn’t think it would be such a big issue, but it is. The main reason why is of course money. Each mini-bottle carries a tax of $0.25, or 14.7 cents/ounce. The 5-8% sales tax (depending on where you live) on a regular 26 oz bottle of booze that costs around $15 is just 4.6 cents/oz. Or 5-8% sales tax on a $5-6 drink at the bar. That makes mini-bottles a huge source of revenue for the state.
Those that favour getting rid of mini-bottles say it will decrease the number of drunk driving deaths (apparently a similar decrease was seen in Utah when they got rid of mini-bottles). Tourists will get the amount of booze in each drink that they’re used to instead of getting a wallopped by almost twice what they’re usually accustomed to. Inventory management will be much easier for bars and restaurants. It’ll be easier on the environment. Mixed drinks will be easier to make. And, drinks will be cheaper.
Those in favour of keeping the mini-bottles say people will just end up drinking more because the drinks will be watered down by free-pour (bollocks I say). Mean bartenders will serve watered down drinks. People know how exactly how much they’re getting for their money. The state will have to find a way to make up for the lost revenue.
And that’s essentially what it all comes down to…the all mighty $.
It’s all FUD
In the end, all this political campaigning comes down to who can generate the most FUD. And bonus points if you can link your FUD to terrorism.
Yesterday on the news there was some guy claiming that making it easier for people to buy prescription drugs from Canada would open the door to terrorists. Terrorists could infiltrate Canadian pharmacies and send out poison-laced drugs. Terrorists could set up fake internet storefronts to send out tainted drugs. Terrorists this, terrorists that.
Factcheck.org is an interesting website I found out about while watching the Today show (I’d link to it, but NBC makes you go through an ad just to get to the website).
Sure, in the beginning all the campaigning starts off noble, and all the candidates say they’re against negative campaigning and they won’t do it. But eventually it all degenerates to who can slander/libel whom the most, who can twist and distort the opponents record the most.
I’ll be glad when the election is over and all these crappy campaigning ads are gone. Then the networks can get back to showing ads geared towards trying to get me to buy crap I don’t need.
Hmm, this seems like an uncharacteristically cynical post, doesn’t it…
Memorable wedding moment #42
Just about every wedding has at least one memorable moment. Many times, that moment is the climactic ‘Throwing of the Bouquet’. Ours was no exception.
I especially love the part when she spikes the remains of the bouquet after getting back to her seat.