whoops

This is absolutely true. Every law chips away ever so slightly (or not so slightly) at your freedoms, and we're not about to have any fewer laws.

I think the problem largely stems from that fact that 99+ percent of laws that actually NEED to be made have already been in place for fifty years or more. However, we pay a federal legislative body full-time to primary create more laws. Even if Congress's best course of action would be to pass no laws at all, that would never happen because our political system demands that legislators have something to show to the voters back at home. Can you imagine the reelection speech:

"We'll, folks, after two years in Washington, I succeeded in getting no new bills passed, because we didn't really need anything new! I'll keep up more of the same if you reelect me!"

The other problem is that it's much more difficult to remove a law than to add it on, unless it's unconstitutional. Once the government gives itself the authority to tell you what to do, it doesn't want to relinquish that power.

It's really incredible what they can do with satellites these days. But really, I have to think it'd be more efficient to have a ground-based sensor...

Thanks for all the responses guys! Here's another one:

Any time you order Barberito's, you can ask for Chipotle Ranch sauce (and I highly recommend that you do). It's not on the menu or anything, but I've always found it available and delicious.

I've tried the cinnamon challenge, and failed miserably. It was hilarious though; great drinking game

@grove600: Quite right, I'm not sure why I had Lexington on my mind. I'll fix that right away.

At least I managed not to call Oglethorpe Tallassee

I watch that show almost religiously and have been very impressed with that kid's acting. It's nice to see a young actor who's
a. talented
b. not be exploited by his parents
and c. not being whored out by Disney

The wifi password at Walker's for the longest time was unicornsexist.

It took me a couple of months to realize it was unicorns exists, not unicorn sexist

@Ross: Too long, of course. Ideally, they'd have a system in place to cut off lottery winners immediately after collecting their winnings. Barring that, though, better late than never.

Also, a good way to eliminate this kind of problem would be to make it illegal to purchase lottery tickets if you're getting financial assistance from government programs. I work next door to a convenience store, and I'd be willing to bet a heavy proportion of the people buying scratchoffs there get food stamps, public housing, welfare, or some other kind of assistance.

@riff-raff: A vote is set for early this summer, I forget the exact date. As this story indicates, It's important that everyone goes out and votes on it. a Handful of votes could make the difference either way!

She was actually cut off from food stamps pretty quickly, considering how recently the story broke. Surprised the bureaucratic machine was able to push it through that fast.

Just in: Mich.: $1M lotto winner cut from food assistance

http://onlineathens.com/breaking-news/2012-03-08/mich-1m-lotto-winner-cu...

That was actually a pretty quick response by them considering how recently the story broke.

Once upon a time, people talked to each other...

Here's the video http://youtu.be/Y4MnpzG5Sqc . Up to 33 million views. It's looong.

@pumpkie: I'd imagine 5 years in a Pakistani jail would be considerably worse than anythign our legal system could do.

I grew up in Griffin, a short drive from Macon, and had no idea this thing existed. I wish I did, though; this place sounds awesome. They should be taking kids on field trips there!

@itscomplicated: I wouldn't call myself an Obama supporter, mostly because I don't think Obama is a me supporter. There are a lot of things I like (read: dislike less about compared to other alternatives) about him, and quite a few more that I don't.
I do believe Obama more closely follows my conservative principles than Rick Santorum, though. I'd like to vote for someone other than Obama; Paul would be my choice from the current flock, and Romney would be tolerable. Gingrich and Santorum make me want to throw up.

Man, Oreos and Girl Scouts turn 100 around the same time? Think I need to celebrate. But what ever kind of food could I eat to commemorate their birthdays...?

@keepitsimple: I can get it at Sam's Food Mart too, and I know Sam isn't indirectly funding anti-gay causes. Saves me a trip down Alps

@Pologize: The voice vote was held in the Democrat-controlled Senate, though it seems likely some Republicans voted in support of it as well.

I can go to Sips and get Jittery Joe's coffee, or I can go to Jittery Joes and get Jittery Joe's coffee for two dollars less. Wonder which one I'll choose...

It's a shame, too. I work next door to Sips, and I'd love somewhere to grab a cup before/during/after work.

I think I'll also be voting for Ron Paul, even though I'm not crazy about him. He's still the only one who seems serious about reducing government interference in our lives.

If Santorum ends up on the ticket, I'll vote against it regardless of my conservative principles.

Using more paragraphs and less caps lock will help my brain hurt less.

But other than that, yes we're on a slippery Orwellian slope here, aren't we?

If you're good enough to get paid for it, and do it in an environment where you can make a little cash, then I say go for it. It probably helps if you're an attractive female college student.