Social Network Links
Powered by Squarespace
Search the Riddleblog
"Amillennialism 101" -- Audio and On-Line Resources
« Who Said That? | Main | Ken Samples' Academy Lecture »

More Interesting Links . . . .

links%203.bmpHere's the latest update on the LCMS--"Issues, Etc." debacle.   The church bureaucrats are still stonewalling and equivocating, the faithful are still doing what they can, and "Issues" remains silent.    Click here: New St. Louis Post-Dispatch story « Augsburg1530

The courts now say that Caesar does have the power to tell us what we can and cannot eat.  Man, do I hate the nanny state.  Click here: News from The Associated Press

I'm sorry the courts didn't buy the baldness thing as a handicap/disabled excuse.  I was hoping for a handicapped parking sticker so my car won't get all dinged up.   Click here: BBC NEWS | UK | Scotland | Tayside and Central | Bald teacher loses disabled claim

Finally, for those of you in South Carolina, be warned, Bigfoot is on the loose.   So is the "Lizard Man," although he's not been seen since 1988.  We had sightings of a "Bigfoot-like"  creature in our neighborhood a few years back.  Turns out it was a tall, bare-footed, bearded, shaggy-haired, homeless guy.    Click here: The State | 04/13/2008 | Bigfoot in S.C.? | Experts: ‘it’s the real deal’

Reader Comments (7)

I'm not sure how forcing restaurants to put calorie or other nutritional information on menus or in other accessible areas is Caesar telling us what we can eat. In fact, it seems that Caesar is allowing us to make the choice in an informed manner. I wish they had regulations on this in Canada. I am tired of trying to guess only to find out later that the things that are added in terms of oils and the rest have made a seemingly healthy meal into something less healthy than eating a Big Mac. At least with the Big Mac I know its nutritional value or lack thereof.
April 19, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterJim Vellenga
I have to agree with Jim...this is no way regulates what we can or cannot eat. It simply provides us with the proper information so we can make informed choices. Plus, it might put an end to all those stupid lawsuits from us round mounds of sound when our arteries start hardening and our cholesterol goes through the roof because McDonald's or some other restaurant told us their food was good for us!!! Now, even the stupid ones among us will know better!
April 19, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterRob Mellen Jr
I agree with Kim. NY has alreaded proposed (possibly) enacted legislation to prohibit certain kinds of fats in fast foods. The menu thing is just one more step in that direction. Since Nanny can't teach people to read and to think, they now have to tell us what to eat. Soon they'll be offering up fashion advice. Certain colors, as you know, can affect appetite!

Can't wait for the Nanny's to decide that Mexican and Tex Mex restaurants are going to have to lose the frijoles--too much of a methane threat to the environment.
April 20, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterPaul
Certain types of fat you say, like say trans-fats? If that is the fat in mind, I frankly have no problem with it being banned. Beyond that the point of my comment was on what they had actually done. It is in no way a nanny state thing, it is reasonable legislation to enforce something that is already enforced on all the labels of food you purchase at the grocery store. Outside of this, how would a person such as myself who wants to choose the healthier selection be able to do so.
April 20, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterJim Vellenga
"The former teacher, who retired in 2007, said he avoided corridors in the school where he would meet pupils to avoid them shouting 'baldy'."

Pah! Curse 'em and wait for the wild bears, that's what I say.
April 21, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterPhilip Walker
Kim and Paul are correct in my book. It's not that we shouldn't eat correctly, it's the fact that the gov't has no responsibility to see that we as individuals, do so. That's our responsibility!
April 21, 2008 | Unregistered Commenterhb
HB, you are missing the point. The law passed does not force people to eat or not eat anything. What it does is force restaurants to provide nutritional information so people can make informed choices. Informed choice that you cannot make right now because most restaurants don't and won't provide you information on the nutritional content of the food you eat. My question is this, how is that making a decision on what you eat for you?
April 22, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterJim Vellenga

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.