You don’t have it up in position while you’re turning it around. You have it lower down around the lower part of your rib cage; then when you have it front side to the front you pull it up into position.
And it’s quite possible to move something that’s snug to your body around on your body.
Maybe you can. When I learned about this, I tried it as snug as it’s supposed to be and it felt like rope burn.
Huh, never had any trouble, and my bras are quite snug, and provide a lot of support.
in other news, it looks like the name for women’s under garments is strongly gendered, with women generally saying “underwear” (or underpants, I would guess) and men saying “panties”.
Vegan cheese is’t like cheese, but it’s a godsend for people who can’t have dairy, including those who grew up eating dairy then lost the ability.
I will do that with a sweater or sweatshirt that is over a turtleneck or blouse. I do it specifically so I don’t pull them both off at the same time. I usually throw the shirt into the wash basket and keep the top layer to wear again as it didn’t get sweaty.
I think it would be possible, though very, very difficult, to age-limit political office.
I don’t think getting rid of lobbying is all that possible. But maybe I’m wrong.
The non-gendered, non-sexist term I use is briefs for something that fits more or less snugly, underwear if the style is unknown to include boxer shorts, thongs, etc.
I’ve used underpants when talking to a Brit to avoid confusion between US and UK definitions of pants. Trousers, ditto.
I take a shirt off over my head, but take my arms out first.
I agree. I didn’t vote because i can’t conceive of a way to actually ban lobbyists. There is a technical definition that could be enforced. I know this because i need to fill out a disclosure for my employer’s legal department every year, where i disclose that i might have written a letter to my elected representatives, but didn’t do more than (allowed stuff here). But my job isn’t remotely related to lobbying, and because i have to fill out that form I’m very aware that anyone who works for a company can cross that line into lobbying. And if companies couldn’t legally cross that precise line there would be a ton of pressure to get as close as possible.
And what about people who actually own companies? Or run them. Are they allowed to talk to their elected representatives at all?
In women’s clothing, “briefs” is a specific cut of underpants, with a relatively high waist and no legs, but that covers most of the “not-leg”. There are also bikini, hipster, and several other cuts that cover less, and things like “boy shorts” designed for women that cover more.
The poll results pretty much agree with David Sedaris’ statement:
Women - Underwear
Men - Panties
(and with this I will move on as I am getting the sense that I am thinking too much about this topic)
mmm
The thing about lobbyists is, for every terrible story of corruption I hear, I know there are also lots of left-leaning lobbyists, working hard to have legislation I favor implemented.
Some of that is applying pressure, but some of it is that legislators usually don’t know shit about complicated topics , and often their staffs don’t either.
So, one person’s lobbyist is just another person’s advocate….
Also, despite all the flack industry lobbyists get, they are often helpful in negotiating legislation so that is practical for industry to comply with. Regulations that can’t be implemented tend to be ignored or overturned. And no one is an expert in everything. There are lots of complicated topics where paid industry lobbyists can be actively helpful in advancing the goals of regulation.
But also, as a practical matters, i simply can’t see how it can be possible to completely eliminate paid lobbyists in a democracy.
Nitpick: It was Senior
I’ve only seen the Lon Chaney and Claude Rains movies, and read most of the novel in French class.
My love of eggs and milk and cheese prevents me from ever being a vegan, but could easily be a pesco-vegetarian. As an avid fisherman I don’t have to buy the usually very expensive supermarket fare, so it would be financially advantageous. But I like tasty red-blooded critters too much to really consider it on a long term basis.
I voted in all five of those and I voted the ‘sometimes there’s nothing you can do’ option in four of them.
The exception was the drug addiction poll. I feel drug addiction is different from the others because it always has an external component. The addiction itself is inherent in the person’s body but the drugs have to be put into their body. So while it may take a massive effort, not taking drugs is always going to be a possibility.
This.
I don’t see how it’s possible to ban the negative side of lobbying, but still allow the portion of it that’s genuinely educational. And laws passed by people ignorant of what the laws are going to do in practice are generally a bad idea.
– I’m a member of a couple of organic farmers’ organizations which, among other things, do lobbying. I think we puzzle some of the legislators: we’re trying to get the damn rules enforced, not trying to get out of them! – but we also had a long multi-year (and continuing) battle trying to get those rules written by people who actually understood the subject; with partial success.
I tried being vegetarian. I stuck it for several months, during which, despite eating lots of cheese, I got increasingly strong meat cravings, to the point at which I couldn’t think of much else. So I went to a butchering demonstration (done right, and small scale) to make sure I understood what I was doing, and went back to eating meat, while generally being careful who I’m getting it from.
@Little_Nemo: When I posted that, the range in numbers of voters per poll was between 7 and 40. (I think it was the drug poll that was at 7). They’ve since equalized, so that post now doesn’t appear to make any sense.
I think that not ever taking the drugs in the first place is to some extent under the person’s control, but once the addiction exists it isn’t; although the addicted person may be able to resist taking the drug(s) in question, they’re still addicted. And taking them in the first place is often done on the basis of bad information, or without realizing that the person doing so is one of the people susceptible to addiction – there are a lot of drugs addictive for some people but not others and/or addictive under some circumstances but not others; so that while swallowing or inhaling something may be a choice, it’s rarely a choice to become addicted.
However, there are often treatments available; so there may be something the addict can do about the effects of their addiction on themselves and others. But the treatments work better on some people than on others, and not everyone can access them. I don’t think I voted in that one; because I wasn’t sure whether ‘nothing they can do’ was supposed to mean ‘there are no treatments’ or ‘there are some people who treatments don’t work on/can’t get at them’.
I’m puzzled by the people who seem to think that there’s no such thing as physical severe intellectual disability, and/or that people who have that could be as smart as anybody else if they’d just apply themselves. Maybe they just don’t like applying the word “stupid”?
– I think there may well be something “spiritual” that arises out of “atoms, chemical things”. Maybe that’s a matter of definitions of the word “spiritual”? Didn’t vote in that one.
At the very least, lobbying should be divorced from campaign financing. Sure, talk to your elected officials all you like. But even the slightest whiff of “I’ll give you money if you vote my way” should be strictly forbidden.
Yeah, yeah, I know that’s very gosh-golly gee-whiz Mr. Smith Goes to Washington of me, but that’s truly the root of the problem.
A good first step would be to prohibit any elected official from being employed in any fashion by any industry/organization/etc. that had lobbied them while they were in office. Make the penalties draconian to the extreme, so much so that nobody even thinks of doing it. Offer bounties to whistle-blowers.
Would that mean that, whatever you’ve done for a living before being elected, you’d never be able to do it again?
Not necessarily. In all likelihood you were a lawyer before getting elected. That would mean that you couldn’t be hired (or your firm couldn’t be hired) to represent a company/industry/etc. that you directly dealt with as an elected official. Nothing would prevent you from doing other law-stuff. More importantly, you couldn’t get hired as a lobbyist yourself after leaving office.
There really ought to be an additional restriction on being hired by any media after office. Not even as a “Guest Commentator.”