Site Comments

If college presidents really want to educate the students, treat law=breakers like they do in the real world: Break the law and you get kicked out. If I went on a drinking binge my boss at my paycheck-providing job would FIRE me if I didn't show up for work, didn't do the work I was suppose to do, or had to miss work because I was in jail. It's that simple. Having to tell the First National Dad that you got kicked out of the school he paid big money for because you engaged in binge drinking just might be the wake-up call some of these kids need. Having to tell those who provided you a scholarship that you got kicked out of school for binge drinking just might make them look a little more tightly at who they give such to. There doesn't need to be a change in law - there needs to be a change in attitude. Don't reward those who openly break the law.

Lowering the drinking age to 18 is not the answer. If college presidents really want to 'educate' let them do it in a manner that shows the students what it is like in the "real world". If I were to go on drinking binges I would get FIRED from my paycheck-providing job. My boss wouldn't care whether I was out "bonding" with my friends or whatever, all he cares about is that I am at work when I am suppose to be and doing the work I am suppose to do. If I am not at work because I'm in jail, having to see the judge, or just plain hung over, my boss doesn't care - nor should he be expected to. College students are no different - other than they don't usually get paid for attending class and getting good grades. Once a 17-, 18-, 19-year old is out of high school, it's time to learn that they have to perform in order to get an education that will help them move one in life. If the student doesn't attend class, doesn't make the grade needed, or doesn't keep up the work needed to graduate, they are taking up space where some other student could be getting it done. College presidents should expell kids who don't obey the law (age 21 and over for drinking). They should let the student know that breaking the law is not the way to get an education, nor to get ahead in life. Maybe if some kids had to go explain to the First National Dad why they are no longer in the school that the latter paid out big money for them to attend, or if they had to explain to the sponsor(s) why they are no longer in school on the scholarship they were awarded, there would be a big change of mind in those who remain in school.

Hi mslurk - I usually add about 1/4 cup of ground flax seed. I generally add it along with the flour. Sorry for the late reply. If you would like to email me directly, go to www.joyinthekitchen.com and email me from there. Good luck! Joy

I SEEN THIS SPIDERS AT MY OWN HOUSE WHAT CAN I DO ABOUT IT?IS THERE A NUMBER I CAN CALL FOR INFO?

That is so true it is much cheaper and you know what you are getting when you buy in a salon!! Thanks for doing a report so our clients will be believe us when we tell them!!!

Drinking At A Younger Age I have comment on this subject a few times on NPR radio when the Dean from a Vermont college (I believe he was from Middlebury College) approached this subject a few years ago. I believe that the best way to handle the lowering of the drinking age would be to place some restrictions on the young adults starting at the age of 18 to to perhaps 24 years of age. Perhaps limiting consumption of a 1 liter bottle of either beer or wine, not both, on a daily basis via use of a monthly issued punch card at a state or local government agency or by a liquor store itself could be a possibility. It may sound a little complicated and/or unnecessary but protection to abuse is important. Other means of monitoring are open but a method to limit access and stress its importance can be a teaching aid to young adults. Kegs of beer and hard liquor would not be accessible to age group that venerable to abuse. the daily limit to beer and wine could be change to perhaps a daily six pack of beer and/or daily bottle of wine at the age of 20 or 21 while maintaining a restriction to kegs and hard liquor until the age of 23, 24 or 25. Most people of this age are out of the colleges and/or of an age where they are more mature thus limiting the contact with the younger less mature college students and being more mature, would understand the perils of over indulgence better than an 18, 19 or 20 year old. A young person joining the military and willing to lay down their lives for our freedom and security should be exempt from all restrictions and able to drink at their peril!

What is scary is knowing that the Judge, the Cop, the Tax man, the Garbage Collector, and the lifeguard at the public swim pool had to prove his/her loyalty to the puritans by supporting the hatred against colored people clause in their employment agreement. By the way, isn’t a forced agreement that violates the rights of other citizens, against the law and the rights of the employee to be free of coercion and political prejudice? You bet it is. If you’re a good person you better stand-up for your rights, the 2008 council of bountifools is trying to divide and separate good people from good people for no good reason. As the Constitution, and I as a Citizen see it. I have the right to pursue happiness in any way that does not infringe on any ones right to do the same. This includes coloring my skin, enlarging my breasts, tattooing make-up on one eye lid or both, or tattooing Bountifool Councilman on my forehead,. I have the same right to change “MY” appearance any way I choose, the same as you do. Tattoos belong on people, like artificial hair color, eyeliner, lipstick and breast implants do. If it's illegal to see any of these body modifications in public, it’s legal to see them all. You, as a fellow Citizen or Government Official have no right to limit my lawful appearance in public. If my earring poses a job related safety risk, it is reasonable to remove it, if possible, during work duties. Tattoos on the other hand can not interfere with a persons physical duties. Therefore you have NO constitutional right to determine my job skills according to the color of my skin. You will have to pass a total ban on public exposed tattoos before a limited exposure can be illegal. When working for the government I have the right to fill the position regardless of the color of my skin or the shape of my body. (see breast implants). see more comments for rest

I am a property owner in Bountiful City, therefore I do have the right to scold the Council of Bountifools for misbehaving in this irresponsible and troubling manner. I do not want the city to spend one cent of my tax money to defend this stupid ordinance. If the law has been passed, rescind it immediately. If it’s just in the works, drop the idea now, and take care of our constitution first and then attend to the more important duties that are required to run the city according to our existing laws. You also need to apologize to all of the good people that have tattoos. Good people with tattoos are still good people. Sincerely Kelly Miller, Tattoo Artist

And by the way, tattoos no more indicate criminal behavior than breast implants indicate promiscuous women, nor does your wearing a neck tie indicate immoral white collar criminal activity on your part. Well maybe neck ties do indicate criminal intent, anyone that willfully violates their public oath to up hold the constitution as it is written on the day of the oath, is a criminal. (see the connection, neck ties are to white collar crime, as street crime is to tattoos). The Constitution strictly forbids the creation of a second class Citizen by any branch of Government, not even the righteous Bountiful city Council has the authority to do that. Tattoos are not a problem. If the Citizens of Bountiful don’t feel comfortable seeing tattoos on their employees it is the councilmens job to delegate the funds needed to purchase the uniform and establish the psychological evaluation that gives the protection and security the citizens need. Not hiring a person because of sever antisocial tendencies is not against the law, (unless it’s a disability) nor should it be. Expecting an Employee to cover (with cloths) antisocial tattoos is not entirely unreasonable either, but ostracizing a citizen for any non criminal coloring of their skin is. The creation of a second class citizen is not constitutional, or the friendly way I want Bountiful city to conduct business with my money. It is absolutely unconstitutional for Bountiful City to limit any ones Life, liberty or their pursuit of happiness. see more comments for rest

What is scary is knowing that the Judge, the Cop, the Tax man, the Garbage Collector, and the lifeguard at the public swim pool had to prove his/her loyalty to the puritans by supporting the hatred against colored people clause in their employment agreement. By the way, isn’t a forced agreement that violates the rights of other citizens, against the law and the rights of the employee to be free of coercion and political prejudice? You bet it is. If you’re a good person you better stand-up for your rights, the 2008 council of bountifools is trying to divide and separate good people from good people for no good reason. As the Constitution, and I as a Citizen see it. I have the right to pursue happiness in any way that does not infringe on any ones right to do the same. This includes coloring my skin, enlarging my breasts, tattooing make-up on one eye lid or both, or tattooing Bountifool Councilman on my forehead,. I have the same right to change “MY” appearance any way I choose, the same as you do. Tattoos belong on people, like artificial hair color, eyeliner, lipstick and breast implants do. If it's illegal to see any of these body modifications in public, it’s legal to see them all. You, as a fellow Citizen or Government Official have no right to limit my lawful appearance in public. If my earring poses a job related safety risk, it is reasonable to remove it, if possible, during work duties. Tattoos on the other hand can not interfere with a persons physical duties. Therefore you have NO constitutional right to determine my job skills according to the color of my skin. You will have to pass a total ban on public exposed tattoos before a limited exposure can be illegal. When working for the government I have the right to fill the position regardless of the color of my skin or the shape of my body. (see breast implants). see more comments for rest