Flesh-eating bacteria. Swine flu. The plague. We have enough to worry about these days, let alone what dangers are lurking for us when we stop by the Dollar Store. Thankfully, CBS 2 is there to alert us to the creeping hazards that await us in the aisles of the discount departments.
CBS 2 also found old medicine that you would not want to bring into your home. A Family Dollar children's painkiller expired in May 2009, but that medicine was bought on Aug. 26, three months after it expired...When asked why children's vitamins were sold on Aug. 29 that expired in March, an employee said he had to look into it. He had no idea.
Not to sound like jerks, 'cause we know times are tough are all over, but if you're reduced to buying medicine at the Dollar Store and you don't even bother to check the expiration date, well, you get what you pay for. Personal responsibility, folks.

Weekend Diversion: Night Of The Ponies


I have kankersore medicine that expired in October 1992. It still works, and quite well I might add.
Although, it cost $10 even in 1991 so it probably is higher quality than the dollar store goods.
These are hardly "Dollar Store Dangers." Medicine doesn't become deadly when it gets old, it gets less potent. Way to hit the fear button CBS.
"Not to sound like jerks, 'cause we know times are tough are all over, but if you're reduced to buying medicine at the Dollar Store and you don't even bother to check the expiration date, well, you get what you pay for. Personal responsibility, folks."
uh, no.
Marcus do you have to editorialize all of your news posts?
okay. on one hand:
i don't feel like i have to have 'personal responsibility' to check the expiration dates for medicine i buy in the store. that's the store's job. just like it's starbucks' job to get rid of old food, etc. i also don't feel like it's shitty to buy stuff at a dollar store. or aldi or whatever. that's not cool to make people feel bad because they buy stuff somewhere. whether because they just want to save money or because they're downright poor.
on the *other* hand:
i miss the chicagoist that used to have a lot of posts that had 'tone' to them. (full disclosure: i used to write for them during this era.) there was still opportunity to get information on an article out there, but i thought our writers were funny and smart and i enjoyed the opportunity to have discussion about things when i didn't agree with the 'editoralization' about something. the reason i wanted to write for the site in the first place was because of such leanings. i think at some point, we probably went too far in that direction and needed to get back to some more straight stuff, but i think it went too far in the other direction, and now i miss stuff like the sentence in the above post.
Actually in this case it sounds unnecessarily judgmental if not just plain snide.
The controversial sentence is simply sense that should be common but apparently isn't.
And if there wasn't what you call editorializing, the meager post would hardly be more than a Weekly Reader summary.
"Snide" and "unnecessarily judgement"?
Only if one's skin is as thick as the paper plates one buys at the typical dollar store.
I don't remember when you wrote for the site, Smussy, but there was an era sometime immediately after Bowden's tenure in which the site went way too-far into what it thought was "edgy" snark but I thought was obnoxious but uninformed arrogance. That works for some, but to me it seemed merely annoying cliche, so I stopped reading completely for a year or so. I came back to see it much improved under Gilmer's predecessor. (That was Lyons, wasn't it? My memory isn't as good as it use to be.) I think Marcus and the current crop of writers have managed to strike a fairly sensible balance between providing information, being funny, and making editorial commentary.
Matty, you know I love you, but considering some of your comments on this site in the past, it's hard to take you seriously when you call someone else "judgmental" and "snide."