I am sincerely torn on this one.
This is my review of Rusty Rail Brewing Raspberry Luminous Which Chocolate and Raspberry Stout:
After several years of allegations that Big Pharma companies were effectively bankrolling the propaganda from corporate media outlets, their supposed reign of terror may soon come to an end. (TW: CNN):
While not an outright ban, the two policies would make it significantly more difficult and expensive for drug companies to push their products across broadcasters’ airwaves, according to a Bloomberg report on Tuesday. The policies look to either mandate that advertisers elaborate on the risks posed by their drugs — forcing ads to be longer and, therefore, more expensive — or bar drugmakers from writing off direct-to-consumer ads as business expenses on their taxes, also padding the bill, Bloomberg reported.
Drug ads, which are illegal in most countries, have been a hallmark of US television since the 1980s. By raising the bar on pharmaceutical ads, the Trump administration threatens a crucial revenue source for broadcasters
My problem is, I could bitch about Big Pharma ads all day long because I tend to agree its clearly a way to allow the consumer to participate directly in the racket by asking your doctor if ____ is right for you.
Kennedy has long criticized the pharmaceutical industry’s ability to directly advertise to consumers, which he argues leads to Americans’ greater use of prescription medications. HHS acknowledged it is examining the issue but said no final decisions have been made.
“As Secretary Kennedy has consistently emphasized, direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising must prioritize accuracy, patient safety, and the public interest — not profit margins,” HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon said in a statement, adding that the department is “exploring ways to restore more rigorous oversight and improve the quality of information presented to American consumers.”
The trouble of course, is broadcast news and advertising are in fact…free speech.
The other side to this is the last time this was tried there really was a positive public health impact: The Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act of 1970. Here is a fun history of the bill’s passage from our favorite KKKongressional Grand Wizard. They did have the overall desirable effect of keeping people smoking as they conclude in this study from the British Medical Journal. 37% is significant. Significant enough a number of you are reaching for the pack of cigarettes in you shirt pocket as we speak, just to spite the shitheads that took the hot chicks smoking menthols out of commercials. Now we’re stuck with androgynous losers, depressed 40-something women in alcohol ads or whatever Aperol Spritz is. They can speak directly to their demographics with a product that will kill them, why not RJ Reynolds?
Do you suffer from anxiety? Frazzled nerves? Did you just realize you allowed an employee to take PTO on account of Juneteenth without thinking about the suspense on the external audit you put off to the last minute on Friday afternoon and are now stuck redacting some doctor’s personal information off the deliverable? Do you consistently use the word deliverable as a noun? Now there is Raspberry Luminous from Rusty Rail Brewing. Raspberry Luminous is FDA approved to treat the effects of anxiety, depression, irritability, mood swings, and irritable bowel syndrome. Raspberry Luminous is an exciting take on an existing product without the burned toast aftertaste, or the engine oil texture. Side effects include anxiety, depression, gout, irritability, incontinence, erectile disfunction, mood swings, and irritable bowel syndrome. An insignificant number of test subject experienced internal hemorrhaging. Talk to your doctor to see if Raspberry Luminous is right for you, today. Rusty Rail Brewing Raspberry Luminous Which Chocolate and Raspberry Stout: 3.8/5
“Rusty Rail Brewing Raspberry Luminous Which Chocolate and Raspberry Stout”
No.
Like gay marriage, pineapple on pizza was a slippery slope.
P Diddy putting applesauce on cheeseburgers, Cynthia Nixon putting smoked fish on raisin bagels, and whoever made this “beer”, need to be removed from society to save our Democracy.
As long as we support vegetable rights ✌️.
and peace!
As long as we support vegetable rights ✌️.
Nope, in fact fuck no, the Terry Schiavo case needs to stay as dead as she is.
Hell to the no.
The Tater is Right.
Hard No.
(except about the pizza. Anchovy, jalapeño, and pineapple is quite tasty?
Thanks Zwak. Now I am craving anchovies on a everything on it pizza. Thin crust.
Then next thing you know people are adding blueberries and ranch dressing. We live in a society!
Swedish banana and curry pizza:
https://andmykitchensink.com/banana-curry-pizza-a-swedish-favorite/
Anchovies are DA BOMB. I eat them straight out of the jar.
I’ve made a “pizza puttanesca” as well (look up the second term if you like) with anchovies, capers, and olives. Excellent stuff.
https://www.kyounoryouri.jp/recipe/44320_%E3%83%84%E3%83%8A%E3%83%9E%E3%83%A8%E3%82%B3%E3%83%BC%E3%83%B3%E3%83%94%E3%82%B6.html
Saw the.jp link and was not disappointed!
Molto salata, Akira. 🧂
Yes
Hard no.
“have been a hallmark of US television since the 1980s”
Quite sure it hasn’t been that long.
I looked it up, it was 1997.
Obligatory
It worked for Liberace.
Drug ads. I dont care. It is dumb and a transparent attempt to kinda skirt the prescription requirement but I dont care.
It is like the AIDS thing from the links…I employ a fool-proof method for avoiding the symptoms of AIDS…the same strategy I use to keep from being convicted of crimes.
the same strategy I use to keep from being convicted of crimes.
Being a high-level player in the Democrat Party? That’s not really a sustainable strategy for everyone.
Drug ads: I hate them, mostly because they became almost 100% of ads and became very tiresome. In that sense I wish they were cut back or banned, even if that is not a libertarian viewpoint.
That said, unban all ads 100% (including tobacco and alcohol) if we are allowing drug ads. That way we will at least get some balance. And a super bowl sponsored by Jack Daniela.
Jack Daniels. Damn my fingers.
Its 2025. Perhaps he transitioned.
I think the Jack Daniels crowd would be more into college football. Jack Daniels presents: the Rose Bowl.
I mean Jack Daniels was a rich white man who lived like a hundred years ago or something; he probably had slaves and colonies and everything.
/ Slate.com writer
Jack Daniela
I figured JD had an ad campaign featuring a dusky-skinned Latino hotty.
I’m pretty much with RJ. Since we are allowing ads to be banned, I see no reason not to throw drug ads on the pile.
This gets to the way selective enforcement of a bad law just makes it worse.
Fuck Pharma. *deletes spittle-flecked rant*
I think the Jack Daniels crowd would be more into college football. Jack Daniels presents: the Rose Bowl.
Four Roses would be better
But now isn’t that five roses?
This is why I don’t do marketing ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
Should we ban ads for military fighter jets on the Sunday morning “news” shows, too?
Can I buy an A-10?
I will take an A-10 but someone else has to pay for the fuel and ordinance.
You can buy as many as you want and have them delivered to your doorstep!
Between the gym in the garage and the home office in the spare bedroom, I just don’t know where I’d put an A-10.
I think I could squeeze the 30mm Gatling gun in, though.
That is kind of odd.
Long legal argument here:
https://www.wmlawreview.org/direct-consumer-advertising-prescription-drugs-constitutionally-protected-speech-or-misinformation
As soon as they say “misinformation”, along with malinformation and disinformation, you know they have BS in the way of facts.
This. It assumes that ‘misinformation’ is not constitutionally protected speech. When you start lying right out of the gate I dont hear anything else you have to say.
There are plenty of laws against false advertising.
However, CMS could create a policy that refuses to pay for or sets a cap on any medication that has direct to consumer advertising.
There shouldn’t be any laws against “false advertising” either.
Freedom of speech is a bitch.
It’s commerce, not speech.
False advertising is fraud. Also, incitement and defamation are excepted from the first amendment.
I am ok with that but a close eye has to be kept on it.
The reason first amendment haters like terms like ‘misinformation’ and ‘hate speech’ is because they are sufficiently fuzzy to be applied to anything. Those people should be put into a woodchipper.
Fraud is fraud, and advertising is advertising. Those two concepts need to be kept separate, as the bleed over we see now is really bad for freedom of speech. And I will always err on the side of free speech.
If the Biden years convinced me of anything it is this.
And I will always err on the side of free speech.
This can be inconvenient and uncomfortable at times, but it is always the right side to be on.
I don’t care about drug ads, but can we get cigarette ads back? Free speech and all, but nothing makes you look cooler. And taste they better than chocolate beer.
I don’t need ads for cigs back. What I do desperately want though is for them to ban the ads against smoking.
The ones that are paid as part of the big smoking settlement ago.
The most recent round is people in the hospital with terrible things happening to them because they smoked. Those are preferable to the snotty kid ads where they lecture you on how uncool smoking is.
Never mentioned: 80% of lung cancer victims never smoked.
Never mentioned: We just spent over a million years evolving around open fires in enclosed spaces. We are a highly smoke-tolerant species. Notice that in most house fires people survive but pets almost never do.
Never mentioned: nicotine kills bugs. As a result smokers have markedly better dental health. Being a moderate smoker may actually prolong your life as bugs in your teeth getting into your bloodstream are a major cause of death.
I guess mentioning those things doesnt pay well.
Now that vaping has been around for a while, I’m interested to see any real research on its impacts on health.
I feel like the 95% safer than cigs that was bandied about when vaping was just starting was hype. I’m also sure that there has been lots of govt research that “proves” that vaping is just as bad as smoking and anyone who vapes is super icky.
Too bad we don’t live somewhere where actual research will be done. All of it is going to be more along the lines of picking your conclusion first and then searching for the data that proves it.
I’ve always believed that “smoking caused my __________” is completely unprovable.
It’s the COVID of bad habits.
Looks like that group mission creeped into ads against vaping.
This. Even the insurance companies are driven (commanded?) by the hype and treat vaping just like smoking.
I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle. Much better on the lungs but still not good on the heart.
“nicotine kills bugs.”
It kills insects, not bacteria.
“As a result smokers have markedly better dental health”
doubt
Nicotine doesn’t cause cancer.
The ones that are paid as part of the big smoking settlement ago.
Speaking of which, I just walked in to a Quik Trip. They had a sign up from RJR and Phillip-Morris saying they intentionally put nicotine in cigarettes to make you addicted,. Right…Isn’t that the point?
That’s an interesting statistic. The American Cancer Society says 80-90 percent of cases can be attributed to smoking.
I’ve heard that only 9% of smokers develop lung cancer.
I knew two lung cancer sufferers. One (old) smoked, one (middle-aged) didn’t.
That is correct. But, 90% of the people who do get lung cancer are smokers.
I’d be careful with that, Spud. There’s a lot of people who smoked at one time (including me) who could get wrapped into that 90%.
Since the ‘60s the percentage of smokers has declined by something like 2/3 or more. Cancer incidence is going to trail that decline, but the rate of lung cancer increase until the 2000s, when it peaked at around 42 per 100,000, and has since declined by around 25%, to 32 per 100,000.
https://www.lung.org/research/trends-in-lung-disease/lung-cancer-trends-brief/data-tables/lung-cancer-deaths-and-rates-by-race-sex-and-year
Does smoking (at a certain level for a certain period of time, neither of which the anti smokers care to elucidate*) increase cancer risk? Yeah, sure, probably. If nobody smoked, would lung cancer rates drop by 90%? I seriously doubt it.
*the hypothesis that something that increases cancer risk at high doses increases risk at lower doses in some kind of linear fashion is just more public health bullshit from the people who went on to bring you masking, social distancing, and mRNA vaccines
OFFS
the hypothesis that something that increases cancer risk at high doses increases risk at lower doses in some kind of linear fashion is just more public health bullshit
Egg-zaktly. The linear no-threshold model is prevalent in the medical field. To some degree understandable as the ultra-conservative extension of something like the precautionary principle/do no harm, but it almost never realized in the real world. And in fact can *cause* harm, both in a collateral way (mis-directed resources financial and otherwise) as well as directly by restricting things that are necessary at doses below the harmful level (e.g. something like the war on salt).
Interestingly, I would argue that the mRNA injections are a sort of inversion of the problem. Thanks to things like pseudoeuridine, the LNPs, and possible reverse transcription, you have no control of dose or tissue distribution – and something that might be, if not helpful, at least tolerable at a low dose in the deltoid muscle, might become an intolerable insult to the body when delivered as mRNA shots. Strange that many of the people who are advocates for the linear no-threshold model when it comes to driving ‘dosing’ of some things to 0 level without evidence seem to be OK with possible driving along the curve in the other direction when it came to the mRNA injections.
Strange that many of the people
Not so strange, they believe in what the priests tell them.
Your Holiness, research will show ‘give me money’.
Nobody cared about cigarettes until they figured out how much money could be looted from the cigarette companies. Nobody cared about vaping until….Yeah.
It’s the money. It is always the money.
The thing about these obese musicals is that they are so garish. If the pill is purple, then there is all this purple shit, but very little information. It’s like they are made for children.
“It’s like they are made for children.”
Yep, it is like that isn’t it. <— period, not question mark.
I see no one remarked on my link this morning about states attempts at banning 'chem trails'. In the video they mention that the proposed law would have people calling the air national guard when they see 'chem trails'.
It is also like people are retards.
They are retards. Bring on the killer robots.
or whatever Aperol Spritz is
Forget the spritz. Use Aperol (APE-roll) to make a Spaghett.
BTW, you can try to substitute in some other beer, but the High Life really is the best one to use.
I’ll have to give that a try. I like Aperol.
that looks horrible and you should be ashamed for suggesting it. Not even Picon Bière should be put in beer despite the name
The Aperol Spritz is a delightful drink, as long as you’re careful. I would advise against a second one.
Does the second one turn you into a Great Ape and it takes 100 men to wrestle you to the ground?
100 Great Apes < 1 Vin Diesel.
What if it was Grape Ape?
Hanna-Barbera had some really stupid cartoons. But I always was a fan of Hong Kong Phooey.
chick drink. to be avoided.
The Aperol Spritz is a delightful drink, as long as you’re careful.
Its like drinking an orange peel!
The gf makes an awesome Aperol Spritz. And I definitely feel it after one.
The question is, does she feel it after one?
in the end which chocolate are we talking about?
In which end?
we do have commercials for over the counter medicine on tv. They are vry annoying.
I do not watch TV and do not have cable. But I remember in my youth while yes there were commercial breaks, you could watch a show or movie on tv. No longer, The commercial breaks are longer and more frequent. It takes any and all immersion out of the experience.
Since streaming is still generally commercial free, getting used to streaming a show or movie makes standard tv unwatchable for me.
We get commercials with streaming, but depending on who does it they will put them all at the beginning of the stream rather than cut into the show.
Let’s ditch HR departments!
fortunately i do not have much of a bother with HR, i barely notice their existence.
The HR at my company thankfully sticks to onboarding, payroll, and taking the mugshot-like photos for ID badges.
What I’ve not read is why Jennifer Sey as the CMO of Levi’s was all in on woke marketing at Levi until she wasn’t. Basically over COVID.
Mind you people are allowed to reexamine their beliefs, but somehow this 20 year run in her professional life doesn’t get discussed.
I read her autobio about her fall at Levi’s. It’s been a few years, but I think when she had full control her marketing was more 60s liberal and multicultural than woke. Her schisms started over SF public schools being closed (which is the system she sent her own kids to for the diversity she valued) while her elite colleagues publicly and privately harassed those like herself and her husband that called for all schools to be open. Meanwhile those elites had their kids going to private school by fall 2020.
She is merely a fellow traveler but maybe more so with every passing year. Her husband red pulled even a bit harder
I recognize she is a fellow traveler, but she did learn the hard way what it means to cross the left.
I’ll welcome someone that has discovered the importance of free speech and will tell the tranny ideologues to get fucked
Thanks!
My wife is an HR director, and the university HR is nothing like this. Payroll, onboarding, offboarding, and making sure that the professors stay within the law is the focus.
DEI is a whole different department, and universally hated. But, it is required by the state.
Fortune 100 is politics and protecting the company.
DEI essentially started in HR and migrated to its own department.
DEI is inextricable from HR. HR hasn’t been limited to paperwork compliance for decades, it’s been ideological gatekeeping. I have no knowledge of your wife or her role in this but if she isn’t complicit in enforcing leftwing ideological conformity she’s an outlier.
HR is all about compliance, either coming from the C-suite, or the law. Nothing more, or less. What isn’t mandated by law is mandated by the C-suite, unless you have very weak leadership, which is the case at times. In other words, either it is required by law, or by directive.
Most of what HR does is payroll, leave, onboarding, and terminations, because that is the majority of the work that needs to be done. And those have to be performed within the parameters of law, as there are very specific workplace regulations about all of that. Also, much of what may need to be done has to fall into any bargaining contracts that the entity is subject too. Which can include some very anti-DEI specifics, as the contracts have to ratified under all bargaining groups and the law. So, even if, say, one of the teachers unions wanted some DEI specifics, such as payroll or hiring specifics, and the other side of the bargaining unit wanted the same thing, such as the City of Chicago, they still cannot codify it, as they will be open to massive lawsuits, and the contract would also be null and void due to the verbiage being in service of an illegal act. For example, the wife’s university professors want to put out specific instructions to help any illegal students if ICE came looking. And my wife, as part of HR senior leadership asked, bluntly, if they wanted to require illegal actions in writing. It was dropped very quickly.
Now, if a C-suite wants these things as part of company policy, then it is no different that an ad campaign, a buyout, or any other business decision. It is simply what needs to be done. But, again, within the law. And that is a huge chunk of why these concepts are falling down right now; companies, cities, and various other entities did them for political reasons, not belief in the idea of them qua DEI. There was no money in them, no real feeling of value. And when the legal fiction of them fell apart, they are being dropped like hot potatoes.
Most hard-core DEI programs are pushed by people who are, essentially, bad actors, not unlike crooked cops. The concepts aren’t wanted at pretty much any level, as it creates more work, brings in the vastly unqualified, and at the end of the day, no matter how much the average worker might or might not agree with the core concepts of it, isn’t part of the work. And HR is staffed by people who are just like anyone else, people who want to get paid, do a good job, and go home at the end of the day. But the people who do want the programs, those are the people who would be petty tyrants no matter the job: cop, teacher, zoo keeper, waitress.
As long as we’re just making shit up…
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson unloaded on her Supreme Court colleagues Friday in a series of sharp dissents, castigating what she called a “pure textualism” approach to interpreting laws, which she said had become a pretext for securing their desired outcomes, and implying the conservative justices have strayed from their oath by showing favoritism to “moneyed interests.”
——-
This court has long recognized that the textual limitations upon a law’s scope must be understood as no less a part of its purpose than its substantive authorizations,” Gorsuch concluded in his opinion in Stanley v. City of Sanford. It was joined by all the court’s conservatives and liberal Justice Elena Kagan.
Jackson fired back, accusing her colleagues of reaching a “stingy outcome” and willfully ignoring the “clear design of the ADA to render a ruling that plainly counteracts what Congress meant to — and did — accomplish” with the law. She said they had “run in a series of textualist circles” and that the majority “closes its eyes to context, enactment history and the legislature’s goals.”
“I cannot abide that narrow-minded approach,” she wrote.
Interpret the law as written? What a ridiculous notion. We must use our imagination, in order to justify our desired conclusions. Congress obviously intended to provide unlimited benefits to everyone.
Textualism takes away one of the lefts most potent weapons. Pass some law using vague language to express a very controversial policy in its least threatening sounding form, mock any of us who have learned from experience that such laws are always interpreted in the broadest and most destructive ways possible, then backdoor in the really bad stuff through the courts. For example ‘reasonable accommodations’ I mean you’d have to be a cruel monster like me to think anyone the ADA was one of the most tyrannical evil laws ever passed in any nation. After all, all it calls for are ‘reasonable’ accommodations for poor unfortunate quadriplegics and blind people. Who could possibly object to giving any asshole who can claim anything on the endless list of disabling conditions a legal claim against any business that doesn’t change all their policies and procedures at whatever cost, whenever asshole with depression, or obesity, or whatever decides they want to do something their disability makes more difficult.
What did I say yesterday about Jackson?
This case should have been settled in state court ruling for the firefighter. When she was hired they struck a deal. The city attempted to alter the deal after the fact. She should have been grandfathered in. It is ridiculous that it had to go to the SC.
Saying the majority has a “unfortunate misunderstanding of the judicial role,” Jackson said her colleagues’ “refusal” to consider Congress’ intent behind the ADA “turns the interpretative task into a potent weapon for advancing judicial policy preferences.”
“I know you are, but what am I?”
Progressives always accuse conservatives of doing exactly what progressives want to do, just for the wrong results.
So I was trying to research what K-12 schools are doing (if anything) to curb cheating with AI, and the unsolicited Google AI assistant says this:
While the initial fear was that ChatGPT would cause a surge in academic cheating, studies suggest that reported cheating rates haven’t significantly increased since its release. Students are using it as a tool, but not necessarily in ways that constitute cheating.
I think the AI has learned to bullshit just like humans. It reminds me of the claim that “only 5 percent of rape claims are determined to be false”.
If the rate of X is low but it’s very hard to detect X, you can’t point to the low detection rate and claim that X hardly ever happens.
There are algorithms claiming to detect AI-written text, and counter-algorithms that will take AI-generated text and tweak it just enough to evade detection. That’s why I was wondering what schools were doing to make sure kids weren’t cheating, because as far as I can tell, they’re doing nothing. Just issuing every kid a laptop and allowing use of it during the entire school day.
I have a friend at a small(ish?) private school they don’t have fancy detention tools. If I remember correctly the policy is that AI should not be used exclusively. They are trying to continue to teach the traditional way to research. In the teacher lounge they recognize there is nothing they can do to identify or curb its use.
In the teacher lounge they recognize there is nothing they can do to identify or curb its use.
Well true, because if the students are told to bring back a paper they wrote at home, there’s no way to know if they ChatGPCheated or wrote it themselves. I’ve heard of some teachers only accepting hand-written papers, which I’ll grant is a slight improvement because even if AI wrote the whole essay, you still had to copy it by hand, thus bringing about SOME level of learning. Personally, I still think that’s not good enough.
If I were running a school, I would move towards a lot more in-class group discussion and oral presentations with questions from the teacher. You’d have to actually have some familiarity with the subject material that way. Maybe set up some kind of in-school intranet with a small whitelist of allowed sites, which would just be pure informational sites.
Most schools don’t want to curb its use due to one facto; they might have to fail a whole lot of students, and that will blow a massive hole in the budget.
Because it is really easy to test on it; all tests are taken sans phone, books or any other aids, in class. Either you know the material, or you don’t, and those that don’t fail. Because in the end, all the work you do is to be tested on, so a prof shouldn’t care if a student does the work or not. If they can’t pass a test, then they fail, Which is what scares the schools, because we are currently in a down period for enrollment, and failing students means no money.
Which is what scares the schools, because we are currently in a down period for enrollment, and failing students means no money.
Or their greatest fear of all, which is that there might be some “disparity” in which students are being flunked. Better to just sweep the whole problem under the rug and make education into a charade, from their point of view.
Most aren’t thinking about disparity, what they are worried about is whether or not they will get a contract for the next year.
No contract, they just spent their best years working in a dead end field, and are now overqualified for anything.
They’ve been working on that for a couple decades at least.
I don’t believe that at all. My youngest finished her freshman year of college. She is a straight arrow. The way she tells it, AI use and abuse is common.
(Especially among grad students teaching, I imagine.)
At my academies in Korea, kids came in and had to turn their phone into the principal. They collected it on the way out.
Seems simple, and was followed. (The parents paying likely gave a shit, as well.) Oldest nephew just turned 12 and a phone was part of his ‘graduation’ into the ‘kinda sorta nearly a half adult’ realm he occupies. Hate to be one of those folk, but I can’t imagine how ‘Constant Access to All Mankind’ fucks a youngin’s mind as it’s still developing. Phones are damn attention sucking addictions for *adults,* let alone for these tiny humans aimlessly roaming in a bubble of ‘their’ own making.
As mentioned earlier, Demolition Man was prescient. Combined with ‘Sneakers,’ the early ’90s had insight on the shit to come. (Now.)
I should add my friend is at a private HS.
I should add she feels like they are in a gray time period right now as they really have no idea how to approach its use
I can’t imagine how ‘Constant Access to All Mankind’ fucks a youngin’s mind as it’s still developing. Phones are damn attention sucking addictions for *adults,* let alone for these tiny humans aimlessly roaming in a bubble of ‘their’ own making.
I’ve seen this with younger relatives too, and I’ve come around to the belief that it’s generally really fucking bad for kids to have a phone that does anything more than make phone calls and text. Maybe there are some kids that can keep their use in reasonable balance, but a vast majority cannot. Same reason we usually don’t give kids alcohol – not enough benefit even if all goes well, and way too much risk if it doesn’t.
2 of my 3 are in high school, a public school in a high income neighborhood. Most of their teachers have a basket to collect phones as they walk in the room.
Lulz
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAShittyMechanic/s/T7ISy6ViTd