From now on adult dancers will be required to cover one-third of their buttocks and a quarter their breasts.

Yes, but which third and which quarter? Depending on how they define that, there may as well not be a limit at all.

You certainly have my prayers and best wishes with your health battles, Bill. I always find your features very entertaining. I like your offbeat news features very much.

I don't drink or smoke, so I never frequent bars. However the rules in Daytona Beach have only to be very bad news to the bars where the dancers are forced to wear nearly as much clothes as on the beach. The only lure that these bars really have is to allowed to offer live "centerfold" girl type shows to draw in paying customers. Some parts of Florida are a very bad environment for adult businesses because of various local laws. But what can you expect from a U.S. Supreme Court who refuses to uphold the Bill Of Rights that restricts government from walking all over the 1st Amendment and allows a patchwork of local "community standards" laws to flourish that makes business very complicated for adult merchandise distributors and other businesses that operate on the Internet or over state lines. What is perfectly legal in adult entertainment in one community can constitute a crime or even serious felony racketeering activity in yet another more conservative community. Faced with the possibility of prison terms of twenty or more years, millions of dollars in fines and government seizure of any business assets under stiff racketeering laws, it also forces censorship and restrictions on the arts as well, as persons are concerned with violating some complicated legal "obscenity" line somewhere. Look at a serious independent film such as THE BROWN BUNNY which could probably be found obscene in some communities because of one closing scene at the end of the film for example. It is difficult for some independent filmmakers and artists to operate in such an environment of legal uncertainty as this. Each individual, not the government, should have the right to decide for themself what constitutes entertainment of some value and worth. I've never seen a serious film, art or book critic who supports censorship.

Incidently, the first reported case of government censorship in the U.S. was in 1840 in Massachusetts when a bookseller was arrested without a charge for selling a copy of the European novel, FANNY HILL. It wasn't until a full year later in 1841 when the legislature in Massachusetts actually passed a law that made selling "indecent" literature a crime. Up until 1840, government largely respected the wording of the Bill Of Rights that restricted government from imposing it's will on the free speech rights of Americans.

"Important" news items of the day?

No.

Recovering from your cancer treatment is important. It's "important" that you get better!

I find these tidbits entertaining too. But like others here, Bill, I wish everyday for you to get better :)

This Larry Reich may be in deeper that that. IRS criminal division agents have seized files from his office and there are implications that suggest he may be involved possible income-tax evasion and money laundering as well as fraud. It must suck to be him right now.