Yeah, but can you get an icee?

Proof that Long Beach sold its soul to the devil, in 3 photos:

Caption 1:

Old Long Beach looked like this...

Caption 2:

This could be Hell, or merely a refinery on the beach

Caption 3:

This ices it: look what they're hauling around in tanker trucks down there 

Skulls of Romaine

b1-66er: Skull in salad!

That HAS to be a good omen.  Right?

D4rw1n: Don't believe in omens 

But that's fucking awesome 

The Actore: Wow!… I, yeah… I'm going to go with a good omen… Ha ha, ha ha… Ha ha… Uneasy breath

Gumby: Yes! One of the best omens there is. 

I saw that skull in a dream I had about salad 3 days ago. You were verbally abusing the skull, and it just laughed and laughed- Nervously. 

b1-66er: SO DID I!

Lettuce prey

b1-66er: I'm interested in any comments you have.

https://www.thepacker.com/article/what-you-need-know-about-outbreak-linked-romaine

b1-67er: The Packer is the Pravda of the lettuce industry.   Surprisingly this piece seems fairly reasonable.

Nearly all the winter Romaine in the US would be coming from Yuma as of a few weeks ago. 

Consumer reports messed up but saying stop eating all Romain in my opinion.

If it's a contaminated field, the whole field will probably be used for the same purpose (chopped,  hearts,or whole heads)

This is because the extent of leaf burn, over growth, under growth, mildew, etc favors different fields for given products.

If out of 40 cases none get traced to whole heads, then the whole heads should be considered as safe as they ever have been.

Also the products touch different machinery, so if a chopped production line is contaminated, it's not going to contaminate whole heads.

I think the packing industry is right in using different language for product that might have a problem vs product that definitely has a problem.

It's pretty odd that they can't get it down to a brand.

b1-66er: great answer.

b1-67er: Consumer reports has done a poor job in the few cases where I knew something about what they were complaining about.

It's only good for them when someone else has a problem. So I don't think there are any tempering forces in their organization.

b1-66er: Another shrewd observation!

You had me at "slime"

From the flyer:

'Thanks for calling the ASPCA poison control hotline, how can I help you?'

'My dog ate my daughters slime.'

'What's the recipe?'

'Well, she's not sure but likely borax, white glue, shaving cream, and the insides of a stress ball that was made of some kind of clay.'

'Do you see hm eat it?

'Not really. she came back in the room and was looking for where her slime went and saw it dripping from his mouth.'

Fan-mail from some flounder

There is no number three

The 'grid: Two things that people should stop doing are moving to California and having children they cannot afford.

The point in projective law

b1-66er: 

Extremely good write-up of a super interesting case.

 https://nyti.ms/2uxWTrz

The mouthpiece: 

Fascinating.

Really an excellent article. Great details. One interesting quote caught my eye from a former US attorney, saying the government should never lose the case.

I understand his point about how much power of the government has, and how prosecutorial discretion should weigh heavily in favor of not bringing questionable cases.

But, in my view, there are some cases the government must bring, even though they might lose. The Noor Salman case does not look like one of those, both because she was likely innocent and because the evidence for guilt was extremely weak. This kind of case should never be brought. But in cases where the defendant is likely guilty, but the evidence happens to be weak, I believe there's a strong argument for bringing some of those cases. My reasoning is that even if the government loses, it must show that it is willing to try some cases on principle, even against heavy odds.