Only in America...

[Allan Carr]

A different sort of balloon, also likely to cause a stir!

[Fiji Dave]

Originally Posted by Mr T.

1,420 calories in America's new monster hamburger
By Marcus Warren in New York
(Filed: 18/11/2004)

America's appetite for junk food has taken on terrifying new proportions in the form of the highest calorie hamburger ever marketed to a nation already sick from overeating.

The Monster Thickburger is nothing less than a "monument to decadence", declares Hardee's, the chain pandering to the country's worst instincts for greed and gluttony.

The burger, which packs a bulging 1,420 calories and 107 grams of fat per portion, also bucks the trend of fast-food restaurants offering healthier alternatives.

I may be transferred to Houston for 3 months next year. I can feel my arteries hardening and my waistline expanding just thinking about the food portions.
One of those burgers and I wouldn't eat again for a week. It'd be three days before I'd be able to move. I have visions of becoming one of those people who need to remove a wall to get crane lifted out of the house.

[Mr T.]

Gun owners claim right to take their rifles to work
By Alec Russell in Valliant and Scott Heiser in Washington
(Filed: 11/12/2004)

Gun-toting, tough-talking, and anti-establishment to his muddy boot straps, Larry Mullens is an Oklahoman "good ole boy" personified.

He is also fast becoming a classic American folk hero as he takes centre stage in a revolt of gun owners that is reverberating in boardrooms across the United States. The son of one of the last of the old-style Wild West ranchers, he first fired a gun as a boy.


Larry Mullens: people tell me to 'stick to my guns'

Now he carries his trusty Winchester in his pick-up on his way to work at a sawmill in case he comes across a coyote, a wild dog or even a wolf attacking his small herd of steers. Last year he lost five calves to wild dogs.

So it was perhaps not surprising that he was enraged when his previous employer fired him for breaking company security rules that banned guns from the company car park after they found a .38 pistol stashed behind the seat of his pick-up.

No one could have predicted that two years later he and his backers would claim an extraordinary revenge - a law allowing employees to keep guns in locked cars on company property.

Just two days after a gunman jumped on to a stage in Columbus, Ohio, and shot dead a heavy metal guitarist and three others before himself being shot dead, it might seem surprising to hear that elsewhere a state is extending gun owners' rights.

But in Oklahoma, as across much of rural America, gun control is seen as the work of naive and meddling minds.

"Having a gun is no different from having a hammer. It is just a tool," said Jerry Ellis, a Democratic representative in the state legislature who drafted and pushed through the law.

"Here, gun control is when you hit what you shoot at."

The passage of the law resounded like one of Larry Mullens's Winchester rifle shots through the boardrooms of America.

In recent years companies have been implementing anti-gun policies in an attempt to cut down on violence at the work place.

Now they fear the Oklahoman ruling will encourage the powerful gun lobby all over America to try to roll back the reforms.

Paul Viollis, the president of Risk Control Strategies, is appalled at the new law. Every week there are 17 murders at the work place across America, and most of them involve guns, he says.

"It's the most irresponsible piece of legislation I've seen in my 25 years in the business," he said. "I would invite anyone who'd allow people to bring firearms to work to write the first death notice.

"The argument that emp-loyees should be allowed to bring firearms to work because they'll be locked in the car is so absurd it barely merits a response."

Several companies are trying to block the law. Two days before it was due to come into force last month, a judge granted a temporary restraining order preventing it from taking effect. The next hearing is on Tuesday.

But the firms are fighting on unfavourable terrain. Contrary to the widespread impression that the nation is polarised between gun-loving Republicans and more liberal Democrats, in the heartland gun control spans party lines. The law passed unanimously in Oklahoma's Senate and by 92 votes to four in the House.

Mike Wilt, a Republican, voted against the law, not on security grounds but because he believes the state should not dictate gun policies to property owners. "Here in Oklahoma the issue of guns is not a wedge issue," he said. "We all go hunting together and we all tend to have the same beliefs."

Two weeks ago one of the principal plaintiffs, Whirlpool, a prominent supplier of white goods, withdrew from the case. It said it was satisfied that its ban on guns on its property was not affected. The gun lobby suspects that the decision had more to do with talk of a boycott of the firm.

Nowhere do feelings run more strongly than in Valliant, a small town where, on Oct 1, 2002, at the Weyerhaeuser paper mill, the row began.

Mr Mullens was one of four on-site employees who were sacked after guns were found in their vehicles in contravention of a new company ruling. They are convinced it was just an excuse to lay off workers and insist they did not know about the new security laws.

The firm, which is locked in litigation with the fired employees, rejects the charges and says everyone knew it had a zero-tolerance approach to security. "You don't need a gun to be safe at Weyerhaeuser," said Jim Keller, the firm's senior vice-president. "Safety is our number one priority.

"It's more important to tell someone they don't have a job than to have to tell a family that their loved one is not coming home from work. This is about safety; it's not about guns."

But the people of Valliant, where the high school closes down during the prime week in the deer-hunting season to allow pupils to shoot, will not be easily assuaged.

James Burrell, an assistant at the local gun shop, said: "Most people around here think the new law is already a right."

Mr Mullens has now found a new job, where his employer is less pernickety.

"People tell me to 'stick to my guns' because they are all carrying one too," he said. "The bottom line is that it is our constitutional right to have a gun in the car."

Pure Comedy

Gun laws, gun control & gun rights - The Jurist

[Mr T.]

Only in America could either Michael Jackson or Colin Powell be considered 'black'.

[Mr T.]

More lip service required
By Jemima Lewis
(Filed: 09/01/2005)

Living among the cream of American womanhood can be hard on the ego. When I first arrived in New York, I had lunch with a friend who has lived here for years. No sooner had we sat down than she leaned across the table and ran her finger over my upper lip. "That'll have to go," she said, with a whistle of disapproval. "You can't have a moustache in New York."

By any normal standards, I still maintain, I do not have a problem with facial hair; but in Manhattan, where women get the insides of their nostrils waxed, I am practically a bearded lady. Women here are more polished and glossy and co-ordinated ("put together" is the American expression) than anywhere else in the world, except Hollywood. To walk around the Upper East Side is to witness the art of beautification at its most refined.

Housewives with the bodies of supermodels tower over their perma-tanned husbands. Every nose is neat, every cuticle buffed, every buttock as hard and round as an apple.

It doesn't take long for these extreme standards of beauty to infiltrate even the most resistant psyche. I have always found flaws to be more attractive than perfection; yet I sometimes find myself gazing at the über-females, with their smooth, symmetrical faces, silken hair and rangy limbs clothed in tasteful beige, and wonder if I should be doing more to look like them.

Fortunately, I have just discovered the perfect antidote to these feelings of self-doubt: a website called awfulplasticsurgery.com. It is run by a plastic surgeon, who posts pictures of the rich and famous before and after they went under the knife, explaining what they've had done and why it looks bad.

Although his bedside manner might be somewhat brusque (section titles include: "The Ugliest Breasts in Hollywood" and "Ouch, My Face Is Too Tight"), his aim is not to deter people from having surgery: merely to demonstrate the importance of choosing the right doctor. He also has a website called goodplasticsurgery.com, which showcases cosmetic success stories.

The effect of both sites is much the same: they cure you of the urge to compete. Now that I have seen, through the eyes of an expert, how much blood and pain and money it takes to achieve that clean-cut American look, I no longer have any desire to try. Here more than anywhere, il faut souffrir pour étre belle. Let's face it: a girl who is too weedy to get her lip waxed will never make it big in this town.

The most tasteless and exploitative television show ever made was premiered this week. At least, that must have been what Fox TV executives were aiming for when they devised their new gameshow, Who's Your Daddy?

Each week, someone who was given up for adoption at birth is introduced to eight men who all claim to be her biological father. If she correctly identifies her real daddy, she wins $10,000. If she guesses wrongly, the imposter who deceived her gets the money.

There was a predictable furore before the first episode was aired this week – no doubt to the delight of the suits at Fox. But for once, outrage failed to translate into ratings: only 6.34 million people watched Who's Your Daddy? – a measly turnout by American standards.

This has been seized on by some commentators as proof that there is, after all, a bad-taste boundary beyond which the American public will not go. I am not convinced. The real problem with Who's Your Daddy?, it seems to me, is that it is not tasteless enough.

Reuniting lost relatives might be big news for the individuals concerned, but it is old hat in televisual terms. Oprah was doing it decades ago, when it was still surprising to watch people air their family's dirty laundry on television. Since then, the public palate has been jaded by reality television: viewers expect to see fighting and sex and celebrities eating maggots – not the internal dramas of ordinary folk. It was boredom, not principle, that made Americans switch over.

So unstoppable is the cult of the chav that it has even made it across the Atlantic. Americans – who have a bit of a passion for British phrases at the moment – are toying with this new linguistic delicacy, trying to work out whether or not they approve.

Some complain that it is snobbish (quite a cheek from the nation that invented the term "white trash"). Others have hailed it as a masterpiece of invention. The New York Observer recently declared: "This word is both hilarious and incredibly useful, and should be integrated into your vocabulary forthwith." The British, it added, "are still the world's greatest wordsmiths, with a knack for naming trends and cults that effortlessly surpasses anything on this side of the Atlantic".

All very flattering, I'm sure, yet I can't help feeling faintly annoyed. Like Ali G – who is adored over here – chavs are a joke that Americans shouldn't get. In both cases, part of the humour lies with people from the drabbest underclass of British society aping American ghetto glamour.

Logically, such a phenomenon simply cannot exist here. Besides, there is little enough left to distinguish Britain's popular culture from America's.

Couldn't they at least keep their hands off our insults?

[Mr T.]

And not before time. Let's hope this has a trickle-down effect on the ambulance-chasing toe-rag lawyers and their Chav 'money for nothing' clients in this country too.


Bush vows to cap 'compensation culture' payouts
By Philip Sherwell in Washington
(Filed: 16/01/2005)

President George W Bush has approved a radical assault on America's burgeoning "compensation culture" as part of an ambitious programme of domestic reform to be unveiled in his inaugural address this week.


President Bush: Junk suits make bad medicine

Mr Bush wants to clamp down on the "tort" system of civil damages - intended to compensate victims of negligence and accidents - which costs the US economy $230 billion (£123 billion), or two per cent of gross domestic product.

Mr Bush plans to cap non-economic damages at $250,000 (£133,500) per case, far less than the multi-million dollar awards that have become commonplace. Medical cases are the most visible examples, but soaring damages in class actions across the commercial sector would also be restricted.

Reform would be popular with the public, who believe that lawyers are abusing the system, but is opposed by lawyers themselves, who make up a high proportion of the country's legislators.

"Junk lawsuits change the way doctors do medicine," the President declared at a public meeting recently. "Instead of taking care of patients, they're worried about lawsuits."

Strikingly, plaintiffs received less than half the money awarded by the courts in 2002, while 54 per cent – or $126 billion - went to the lawyers and to pay administrative costs. As a result, doctors and hospitals are weighed down by expensive insurance policies that further inflate medical costs for Americans.

In one area, Madison County in Illinois, which is renowned for high compensation awards, doctors say that the rocketing cost of medical-liability insurance is forcing them out of business while business owners say they are being crippled by class-action lawsuits and similar legal claims.

Mr Bush's critics say that he is siding with his friends in the business world against ordinary people who have suffered and deserve compensation.

Tort reform became a bitter bone of contention during the presidential election after John Kerry, the Democratic candidate, chose as his running mate John Edwards, a lawyer who earned millions of dollars from medical malpractice suits. It was a point that Mr Bush repeatedly hammered home.

Mark McKinnon, Mr Bush's chief media strategist, told The Telegraph: "This is a President who's not afraid of making enemies or facing down his critics in either party. He does not believe he's in the White House to mark time and he'll continue to press ahead with bold changes."

As well as tackling tort reform, Mr Bush wants to overhaul the country's tax and pensions systems, and champion America as a good place for businesses. On tax, he recently appointed a nine-strong commission, headed by former Republican and Democrat senators, to report back by the summer.

There is growing support on the Right for federal income tax to be replaced entirely by a national sales tax, but the team is expected to make less ambitious recommendations. Battle lines are also being drawn over state pensions, known as ''social security'' in the US. Critics say that the system will be facing bankruptcy by the time today's entrants into the jobs market retire. People are living longer, putting greater demands on the dwindling fund.

Mr Bush plans to launch private investment accounts, into which workers would invest some of the taxes currently paid into the social security fund. The proposal, however, is opposed by the powerful pensioners' lobby, the American Association of Retired People, which has launched a multi-million dollar national advertising campaign to denounce the "risky" privatisation scheme.

Karl Rove, the President's chief adviser and political strategist, has begun mobilising Republican supporters, in Congress and across the country, to get behind Mr Bush's plans. The White House is to reactivate the network of activists and donors who helped him win the election, and direct them to lobbying lawmakers, especially on the pensions crisis.

The boldness of Mr Bush's second-term plans reflects the President's confidence after his undisputed success against Mr Kerry in November - in contrast to his contested victory over Al Gore in 2000.

Condoleezza Rice, Mr Bush's chief foreign affairs adviser, whom he has nominated to be the next Secretary of State, is among those putting the finishing touches to the inaugural speech at the White House this weekend.

On foreign affairs, the President will strongly defend US policy in Iraq. Asked in a recent interview about the tone he would be adopting, Mr Bush replied: ''Liberty is powerful and freedom is peace.''

He will also, however, seek to dampen expectations for Iraq's January 30 election, describing the poll as part of the "process" of the transformation to democracy.

The inauguration has prompted the biggest security operation ever staged in the United States. About 200,000 people are expected to attend the inaugural events, which take place over three days.

[aclivity]

Bloddy Americans. How stupid is this:

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds18682.html

"the offended groups say that they would prefer not to understand the ways of those they disagree with"

It makes me so angry when people claim intolerance and bigotry is a christian viewpoint.

[Fathoms Down]

I just love the line "but the offended groups say that they would prefer not to understand the ways of those they disagree with."

So how do you know you disagree with their ways then?

[FOX]

........lives in a pineapple under the sea?

SpongeBob SquarePants.

Absorbant and yellow and porous is he,

SpongeBob SquarePants

If nautical nonsence be something you wish

SpongeBob SquarePants

Then drop on the deck and flop like a fish............................

[Hoppy]

Originally Posted by aclivity

Bloddy Americans.

Tw*ts - I currently read Winnie the Pooh to my 2 1/2 yr old son, does that make me a shirtlifting pedo then ?