Get a bottle opener. You can put it on your keychain. Heck, you can pry off a bottle-cap with regular old KEY in half a minute with practice—I have, hundreds of times.

In any event, if you're really enjoying your beer, you should be pouring it into a glass, not swilling it out of the bottle. You should want to smell the beer.

As to glass vs. plastic—say what you will, but even HDPE can add noticable petrochemical essences that you don't want in your beer. That's one reason why only the lowest of the low beers are in plastic. Just as importantly, dark amber glass prevents light from entering the bottle, which can skunk up the beer (by oxidizing key flavor molecules from the hops) within a few hours, as well as insulating the bottle from warmth much better than plastic. None of this matters with high fructose corn beverages, or the swill put out by Anheuser-Coors-Miller, of course.

Glass is also completely recyclable, and if you are drinking local, which you should be, the environmental impact of drinking a glass bottle of beer is lower than that of a plastic bottle of Coca-Crap shipped from a factory half-way across the nation. Glass also requires no petroleum for its manufacture (other than that which goes into energy or equipment, of course), and is environmentally inert. Plastics can potentially leach bioactive chemicals, and burned at low temperatures they are a leading source of dioxin.

Making this a "freedom of speech" issue is absurd. What we're talking about is what a jury--the fact finder in a CRIMINAL case that determines the fate of a man accused of a felony sex offense--is allowed to hear in the courtroom. Not about anything this woman is allowed to say in the public sphere.

In this case, the defense attorney got it right when he said that "rape is a legal conclusion." It is not the place of a witness, or either attorney for that matter, to tell the jury what rape is. That is the sole province of the judge as arbiter of the law. It is for the witness to truthfully tell what happened in non-conclusory language as best as she remembers, in response to the prosecution's questioning. It is for the jury to determine what actually happened, and whether it was rape based upon the judge's instructions.

"He swung at me with his fist and hit me in the nose, causing it to break and bleed profusely" is a narrative. "He battered and assaulted me" is a conclusion. Get the difference? To permit the witness to testify to the conclusion that she was raped would be highly prejudicial and would put her in the position of the judge and would improperly shift the burden on the defendant, who is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I like Broadsheet very much, but I do have to say that the coverage of legal issues, especially criminal issues, is very weak, misleading, and beyond the authors competency as writers who obviously have no legal training. The Slate article quoted suffers from the same problem. It asks whether "rape" is really a more inflammatory word than "robbery," which it very well may be, but ignores the fact that this is routinely the practice in robbery cases and criminal jury trials generally, except no one would be writing this article in the first place if it wasn't about a sex offense. No judge worth his salt would let a prosecution witness testify that he was a "robbery victim" over the defense's objection; that's a perfect example of conclusory language.

when they use the phrase "lightly armed with AK-47s."

Your journey into the arms of Amma the hugging saint reminds me that humans are neurologically programmed DNA machines, subject to all the delusions and psychological experiences that accompany that condition.

Anonymous, I am very interested in this lethal strain of herpes you seem to have discovered.

not a problem at all. The rate of world population growth may be slowing down, but with 6.6 billion people on earth and the population still ballooning at an inconceivable rate, the problem is too many people having too many babies that they (and the earth) cannot sustain. I'm all for providing families with the resources they need to care for their children, but the last thing we need is to provide incentives to breed, especially not in developed countries where per capita consumption is vastly out of proportion.

This are digital (Photoshop) portraits, and not good ones either. It's the electronic equivalent of tracing over a photo and painting by numbers, badly. The entire website reeks of desperate amateurism, I am surprised that this banal and obscure website was flogged as some sort of cultural trend by Ms. Price. I guess it was a slow day for outrage.

To read Salon with its surplusage of adulating Clinton and Obama articles, one would think that the 3rd-runner and in many ways most progressive legitimate candidate in the race had already dropped out.

Anybody who has spent 10 minutes watching his show knows that this is representative of the quality of a Larry King interview. People go on Larry King because he is Larry King and because other people go on Larry King, and because he gives them an opportunity to broadcast themselves without ever having to feel uncomfortable. He wins meaningless awards like the CableACE because people go on his show and because he has been doing it for about six hundred years.

Not because he is a good interviewer. A drunk monkey in suspenders could probably conduct a more informative interview.

"I think that the thing that most ardent advocates of vegetarianism/veganism for the environment's sake completely (and foolishly) ignore is that food is an intrinsic part of culture."

Driving a Hummer and having five babies is also an "intrinsic part of culture." Tell me how that makes it a good thing?