Huh. In my little community in central Colorado, our small grocery store has about 1/2 an isle devoted to your basic cheese. Some of it quite good. But then there are two other free standing coolers devoted to higher end cheese which is very good stuff. And of course lots of cheese that you can get at the deli. I guess this little market (that is not a specialty or high end place) has 100 different types of cheese. Sure, a bunch of it is imported, but we can get good cheese. It’s not all canned parmesan and velveta. Not sure why folks think that.
Any decent sized supermarket will have a dozen or two quality cheese choices. There are at least 3 specialty shops within easy walking distance from my house that combined have 100+ additional choices.
Hasn’t really been true for a few decades, except in the truck markets and that’s changing pretty rapidly as well.
From what I’ve heard, a good selection of high-end cheese in regular supermarkets is a fairly recent phenomenon. Supposedly it wasn’t like that 40 years ago. Microbrews have certainly taken off since the 80’s. It may be a case of outdated stereotypes.
The US does have stricter laws concerning raw milk cheeses than some countries do. This is a good thing for me right now- I’m pregnant and avoiding raw milk cheeses. But I’ve heard from some cheese aficionados that it makes a difference to some types of cheeses.
Yeah, it really isn’t fair to compare cheese “in the US” to cheese from some cheese producing country in Europe. If you live in a non-dairy producing region, then yeah, unfortunately you’re stuck with the big national cheese brands and maybe some imports. But compare to WI and you’ll find it’s a different story with small, family owned dairies putting out cheeses that easily rival the best in Europe.
I’m not. Trust me - I’m not. I’m under NO illusions that soccer will overtake even hockey or basketball for a spot in the top 3 of the “Merkan” sports consciousness any time soon (if ever). And yes - I played soccer as a kid, I’m half-Latino, and I fully understand how popular the sport is outside of U.S. (and Canada) borders.
For me it’s the Sounders (I wouldn’t say I’m a “card-carrying” fan but it’s definitely the MLS team that I most associate myself with)
Okay. I can buy that.
I TOTALLY get that. I couldn’t care less about women’s sports, in general. I was just putting the WNBA up as an example of a league where the teams’ uniforms feature advertising. Nothing more.
This seems reasonable to me.
Got it!
Somehow I have no trouble believing that. No trouble, whatsoever.
Gotchya!
Let’s hear it for tradition!
Take it up with our Founding Fathers. They were brilliant, you know.
It has been pointed out to me that without the electoral system, an election could be decided by New York and California.
It’s just a way of referring to (certain) people of African descent as something other than “black” or “Negro” (or other words that I won’t repeat here). Personally I have no problem with this. After all, those people’s forefathers didn’t cross the Pacific willingly (or, if you prefer, “without a GREAT DEAL of coercion”)…
California and New York represent about 58 million people, or under one fifth of the electorate. They cannot decide an election with or without the electoral college.
I fear that this is overstated as well. Are there some brewers that do the “bigger is better”? Sure. And partially it’s because they want to crank it up to 11 and see what happens. But there are a ton of beers with subtle flavors that are being done by the craft beer industry as well. It’s just the super hoppy types get all the press.
Not only do the numbers not work for this to be true, but it also stands on a big assumption that being a voter in a particular state is somehow qualitatively more significant for the purposes of democracy than some other characteristic. It’s an assumption I don’t accept.
David Cameron took over as UK PM in 2010 after receiving 36% of the vote. Stephen Harper took over in Canada in 2008 with 38%. Tony Abbott became PM in Oz in 2013 with 46%. The US system may produce a head of government with a minority of votes occasionally, but in other countries it’s entirely routine.
Okay. I’m not arguing that Velveeta® is great cheese. Not by “fancy European” or Wisconsin or Tillamook standards, anyway. But it is my processed “cheese” of choice for making macaroni and cheese. Scoff all you want to but that’s how my (Chilean) Auntie made it for me “back in the day” and I just can’t help liking it. So there! 
(As it happens I can also tolerate SPAM® [the meat {by-}product] but that’s a story for a different day)
Sorry, I meant the Atlantic in that one entry, above. D’oh!
Without the electoral college, men could decide the election!
[QUOTE=Tom Tildrum]
David Cameron took over as UK PM in 2010 after receiving 36% of the vote. Stephen Harper took over in Canada in 2008 with 38%. Tony Abbott became PM in Oz in 2013 with 46%. The US system may produce a head of government with a minority of votes occasionally, but in other countries it’s entirely routine.
[/QUOTE]
Those are hardly comparable; those countries have more than two parties. The POTUS is elected without a majority despite having only one opponent. More importantly, a UK, Canadian or Australian PM cannot be elected despite losing the popular vote, which is what he was talking about.
I was misinformed. 
Roll grass? What does that accomplish? Cutting it periodically I can see, but rolling it? (I assume with some sort of push-roller contraption?)
Maybe he means something else. If you roll a joint and smoke it every day for 500 years you’ll probably be perfectly satisfied with your lawn.
64% of the popular vote went against Cameron, 62% against Harper, and 54% against Abbott.
Well, most African-Americans don’t know anything more specific than “Africa” about where their ancestors came from. Slaveowners didn’t always keep such careful records on such things. Our history classes are heavily biased toward things that happened in Europe or America, so they might not learn in school where the African slaves came from.
But it is a useful way to convince states with smaller populations to join together with states with larger ones.