Oreo Cookies: The "Stuf" Ridiculous Lawsuits Are Made Of

"Double stuf" Oreos don't contain double the creme? Call your lawyer!

Earlier this week a mini food scandal erupted under the following headline: "Double Stuf Oreos Don't Actually Have Double The Creme."

If this reminded you of yet another instance of life riffing on The Onion or Ron Swanson, you're not alone.

The scandalous headline, courtesy The Huffington Post, is the result of the efforts of Dan Anderson, a high school math teacher in upstate New York who had his students weigh three types of Oreo cookies and report their findings.

The students determined that the creme in the Double Stuf Oreos they tested weighed less than twice as much as the creme in regular Oreos they tested.

In a particularly slow news week in the slowest news month, ABC News and other outlets came calling. Even the gossip website TMZ got in on the action.

The story does indeed make for some light summer reading. But it piques my interest because, as a food lawyer who's very often not a fan of lawsuits targeting food companies, I fear the next step might be litigation.

To Anderson's credit, he appears to be little more than surprised by the findings. But Anderson is not a class action attorney.

The prospects of an Oreo lawsuit might have appeared slim were it not for a series of lawsuits that were launched just this year against the sandwich chain Subway. In those cases, now consolidated in federal court, several plaintiffs sued Subway over claims the chain's "footlong" sub is not a full 12 inches long. The plaintiffs allege, in fact, that Subway subs "are anywhere between 5 and 8.3 percent short."

That may seem like hairsplitting—especially given the fact that dictionaries define the word "footlong" not as "exactly 12.00 inches" but, rather, as "approximately one foot in length."

But consider that Anderson's students determined that the filling in a Double Stuf Oreo weighs only 1.86 times more than does the filling in a regular Oreo. That means the creme in a Double Stuf Oreo is 7 percent lighter than two times the creme in a regular Oreo. That places Double Stuf Oreos in the same range as the Subway sub that's the subject of a lawsuit because it's "between 5 and 8.3 percent short" of a foot long.

"The case is about holding companies to deliver what they've promised," said New Jersey attorney Stephen DeNittis, who filed the first lawsuit against Subway, in remarks I suspect would sound dramatically similar to comments an attorney might make in announcing a lawsuit against Oreos.

Others see the possibility of a lawsuit.

"I'm not sure a class action on this would be a whole lot sillier than the actual class actions that have been filed claiming that the Subway 'footlong' sandwich was only 11 inches," says Walter Olson of the Cato Institute and the great legal blog Overlawyered—whose readers also fear a lawsuit—in an email to me.

Jeff Stier, a lawyer and senior fellow with the National Center for Public Policy Research who would oppose any lawsuit against Nabisco, agreed nevertheless to play devil's advocate for me and explain in legal terms how a plaintiff might justify suing Oreos.

"Regarding the Double Stuf, a reasonable consumer would in fact justifiably believe that there was double the stuff in there," Stier said in an email to me.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • anon||

    The mighty MappRapp has fallen! Long live LardoSardo!

  • Nazdrakke||

    Peh, MappRapp was an upstart that stabbed his truly great mentor, WomSom, in the back and now has itself fallen after failing to deserve the anonbot throne.

  • Agammamon||

    Always to there are - one to embody the power, one to covet it.

    We just need to find out who's the secret apprentice.

  • ||

    Poor WomSom. I shall remember his last words till the day I pass. They still to this day reverberate through the interwebs. "Et tu MappRapp".

  • Ted S.||

    At least this time it's Nabisco's lawyers, and not the Cleveland Browns, letting Baylen down.

  • Ted S.||

    God damn it! Beaten by Anonbot!

  • ||

    That's what you get for leaving FoE's dojo too soon.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Now Ted S. needs a training sequence and a climactic rematch.

  • Archduke Trousersenthusiast||

  • ||

    Even Rocky had a montage...

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Sweep the leg.

  • ||

    Ron Swanson!!!

    Nice one, Baylen.

  • Ted S.||

    Nice other than the fact that it runs to three pages.

  • SweatingGin||

    Using the word Oreo that much? Clearly racist.

  • Entropy Void||

    The black Oreo is Tails=Racist

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Speaking of sorta food-related topics, NPR was just doing a thing on the Bread and Puppet Theater. Nice way to defy the stereotypes, guys!

  • SweatingGin||

    Proletariat radio has gotten just terrible lately.

    Local affiliate news has switched to being all about (potential) wolf hunts in the UP, and how we should all cry about it.

    Not like the biggest city in the state is bankrupt or anything. That doesn't generate any news. "Lead with wolf hunting, again."

    National isn't much better. Make sure we have at least three stories a week to make middle aged liberal women sit in their Pius in their driveway and cry. Not like there's actually news with, you know, the government spying on everyone.

    The Bulger case is a great example of their terrible-ness. "Mob boss on trial." That's not the news. The news is "mob boss that the government let kill a bunch of people for thirty years is on trial." No mention of that whole "government let him kill people" side of the story.

    /rant

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Wolves are fuzzy, Detroiters are not.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Ship the wolves to Detroit, they wouldn't be so endangered any longer. They'd thrive.

  • SweatingGin||

    RACIST!

    IIRC, there are coyotes. They occasionally get suburban pets.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Don't wolves hunt coyotes? Not many of either around my place, so I wouldn't know.

    But if so...get the wolves to hunt the coyotes, then get the giant lizards to hunt the wolves - nature will balance out, like in that Simpsons episode.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Their reporting on the NSA leaks have been beyond abysmal.

  • SweatingGin||

    That's not news! We sent a correspondent to see Metallica in China! Pit on the Metallica in China story. Our listeners will think it's brave and say their horizons have been broadened!

  • CatoTheElder||

    To the typical NPR listener, the NSA is doing what the NSA is supposed to do now that right people are installed in the executive branch. The only news relevant to a NPR listener is about that scoundrel Snowden, and how he has betrayed the President and his followers. Not much has happened lately in that story.

  • Dweebston||

    Speaking of, Mexican gray wolf shot in New Mexico, and to everyone's surprise, the feds haven't charged the rancher.

  • Agammamon||

    Well of course not - it was a stinking illegal immigrant. The law's the law, even for animals.

  • Warrren||

    Goddam furbacks.

  • SweatingGin||

    "And now the next part in our series" CLICK!

    If it's a series of anything on proletariat radio, it's terrible.

    Oh, and the weekend programming is for people who think they welcome change, but in truth, want to have Garrison fucking Keilor give them the same fucking sermon every week.

    Seriously. Satellite radio has started running old cartalk in the afternoon. Cover up the date in the title when you turn it on. Can you tell whether it was last week or 20 years ago? Only if you catch the year of a car.

    NPR rant feels good in the morning... And I might still be a little drunk.

  • LynchPin1477||

    I do really enjoy radio lab. And Wait Wait Don't Tell Me can be entertaining sometimes.

  • SweatingGin||

    Haven't listened to radio lab enough to know for sure, but This American Life tends to be consistently good with occasional out-of-the-park episodes,

    WWDTM is just a way to out Paula Poundstone on the air to remind everyone how obnoxious she is.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Yeah, Poundstone is annoying.

    Ira Glass annoys the hell out of me so I don't listen to This American Life. Radio Lab usually focuses on things with a somewhat more scientific edge, but with a strong human element. Some episodes are stronger than others but overall I think it is excellent. And I've never noticed any real moralizing or politicizing.

  • ||

    Is NPR even running new Cartalk content. Every time I listen (not very often) now it seems like they're just repackaging calls from several different shows from years ago into one "new"show.

  • ||

    They've retired, the show ended in 2012.

    Remember, Wikipedia is your friend:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartalk

  • Dave Krueger||

    Goddamn corporations! Next thing you know, they'll be bragging about how they "care about your privacy" at the same time as they are funneling everything you say and do over to the NSA.

  • LynchPin1477||

    I'm sure we would have heard about such a thing if it had happened, what with it being such a slow week/month for news.

  • Nando||

    Don't eat food with more than five ingredients, or with ingredients you can't pronounce, or that contain high-fructose corn syrup

  • SweatingGin||

    Does the five ingredient rule count stews? Or minestrone?

  • Nando||

    When someone asks you what is in your salad you can probably tell them every ingredient. If someone asks you what is in your bag of chips you can’t say every ingredient.

    Stick to this tip, and you will notice most of the foods you are eating are raw, healthy, and nourishing foods!

  • Dibbler||

    Would you eat something that contains kaempferol, glucoraphanin, gluconasturtiin, glucobrassicin, sulforaphane, and indole-3-carbinol? Well you should, it's broccoli and all those chemicals are good for you.

    Stupid Luddite rule. What about a chemist who can pronounce any chemical imaginable?

  • sticks||

    Fuck. I hope you die of of malnutrition.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Why?

  • Live Free or Diet||

    Because people are too confused about food to know what's actually healthy so they just cast about for rules of thumb? I think this has to do with how "processed" the food is.

    It's amazing to me how hard it is to convince people who are already convinced HFCS is bad, that the other kinds are just as bad. It doesn't matter if it's called high-fructose corn syrup,
    honey, invert sugar, cane juice solids, sucrose or turbinado, it's all bad for you.

  • Nando||

    Americans are a people obsessed with eating healthily, yet they are nonetheless very unhealthy.

  • Irish||

    No. Some Americans are obsessed with eating healthy and they tend to be different Americans than the ones that are obese.

  • ||

    Well, the people actually obsessed with it are actually a small subset of all Americans.

    Most people just lackadaisically buy skim milk, buy the occasional salad, buy things that are labeled low-salt, skip "unhealthy" things like eggs and butter, etc because that's the party line. Then they binge on processed carbs because their metabolism is fucked three ways to Sunday.

    Also, Americans talk about food a lot instead of making any strong efforts to make significant changes in their diet or maybe reading a few books on the subject. Ditto exercise.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    When you're led to believe cholesterol is bad for you -- never mind every cell in the body needs the stuff to make all sorts of hormones -- it makes you feel awful. It's hard to think without the animals fats that make up and fuel your brain. Then there are the blood sugar swings...

  • hotsy totsy||

    Skim milk, yuk! Why bother? Just drink water. Or ice tea. Skim milk tastes like crap and it's still 90 calories for 8 ounces, about the same as Coca Cola.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    Why bother indeed, especially when the fat is the part that's best for you. Besides, calorie math doesn't work.
    Food can be used to build and repair tissues, to build enzymes, cofactors, hormones, bile, stomach acid, and mucus, or used by gut bacteria. It can fail to be digested or absorbed, and be excreted unused. It can be converted to glycogen or fat. It can be transported to an individual cell that takes it in, and converts it to energy, in order to perform the above tasks.
    Only the last one satisfies calorie math, and even then there are huge problems.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    Americans are a people obsessed with eating healthily, yet they are nonetheless very unhealthy.

    Because we've been seriously misinformed about what constitutes a healthy diet, the "healthier" we try to eat, the faster we get sick.
    I read a study recently about a vegetable-heavy low-fat diet versus a control group of similar children. They were surprised all those vitamins and nutrients from the veggies didn't show up in the children's bloodstreams. They were surprised that fat-soluble vitamins and nutrients were not taken up by the digestive system fed almost no fat.

  • hotsy totsy||

    Yes! Vitamin D needs fat! Calcium needs fat to be absorbed, but keep pouring the god awful skim milk on cornflakes because the surgeon general says it's healthy.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    God awful is right! I was so glad to give up blue milk!

  • Agammamon||

    ". . . or that contain high-fructose corn syrup "

    So no corn or fruit then?

  • Live Free or Diet||

    Fructose in corn and fruit are trapped in both soluble and insoluble fiber, unlike in soft drinks and fruit juices. The sugar from corn and fruit is absorbed at a much slower rate, so the liver isn't so loaded with fructose while the bloodstream is loaded with glucose.

  • Agammamon||

    "Don't eat food with more than five ingredients, or with ingredients you can't pronounce, or that contain high-fructose corn syrup"

    How many ingredients in an apple?

    Water
    Vegetable Oil
    Sugar
    Startch
    Carotene
    Tocopherol
    Riboflavin
    Nicotinamode
    Pantothenic Acid
    Stearic Acid
    Oleic Acid
    Linolic Acid
    Malic Acid
    Oxalic Acid
    Saliclic Acis
    Purine
    Sodium
    Potasium
    Manganese
    Iron
    Copper
    Zince
    Phosphorous
    Chloride
    Coloring

  • Warrren||

    You didn't list appleness.

  • hotsy totsy||

    And you forgot ursolic acid...mostly in the peel though.

  • Warrren||

    Bear acid?

  • sticks||

    Don't listen to nando.

  • Archduke Trousersenthusiast||

    wise

  • ||

    So Nabisco specified what 'stuf' is in an official statement? Jesus, what a gaffe.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Yeah, that was dumb. Really dumb.

  • Entropy Void||

    "Stuf" is "creme" NOT cream, no dairy in there, but CREME

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    One common stereotype about libertarians is that we are corporate apologists. It is incorrect. Corporations are held to the same standards of force and fraud as any other organization and person. We oppose bailouts and corporate welfare.

    I think unfortunately articles like this lend to that misconception. Who cares what Oreo 'should have said' to protect itself? There is a case that can be made that in advertising in the way they did they committed a material misrepresentation of their product. If that is the case that is fraud.

    Sure, damages would be small per person, but the proponents of a lawsuit acknowledge this in the article. This seems like a perfect example of why class actions are needed in such instances (where many people have been wronged but the damages per person are not worth a lawsuit), otherwise such frauds would not be addressed.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Is it possible to believe that the suits are justified but still really dumb?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Why dumb? Because the damages are spread out in a way to make them small per person?

  • LynchPin1477||

    No, because I'd be hard pressed to describe how I was harmed by this. And Double Stuf Oreos are the only Oreos I recognize.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    You are harmed by not getting what was represented to you, just as in any case of fraud. It is the same as if someone labeled a product as 'Made in America' when it was not and sold it to you when you chose it in part because of that representation.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Sure. And like I said, I agree that technically speaking a suit would be justified. But personally I've invested very little in the literal truth of "Double" or "Footlong" and I think someone getting all upset over this and turning to the legal system is sort of dumb.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    The footlong one actually sounds worse to me. It is a pretty specific claim.

  • Nazdrakke||

    The footlong one actually sounds worse to me. It is a pretty specific claim.

    Or maybe not.

    foot·long [foot-lawng, -long]
    adjective
    1. approximately one foot in length: Their specialty is footlong hotdogs.
    noun
    2. something that is approximately one foot in length.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Good point. It seems to me the question would be how far one must be under a foot to leave the realm of 'approximately one foot in length.'

    If someone were selling you something by the footlong and they were charging you per every 10 inches would you balk? 9? 11?

  • ||

    If someone were selling you something by the footlong and they were charging you per every 10 inches would you balk? 9? 11?

    While I agree that a suit like this every now and then keeps businesses honest, in this example, because the definition of footlong uses the term approximately, they can make the sandwich any damn size they like, from a liability standpoint.

    Now as a consumer, if they try to pass a 9 inch sandwich off as a footlong, I have the option of not purchasing it. 11" wouldn't bother me. I'm an engineer, not a mathematician.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    So misrepresenting your product is OK because customers can just decline to buy the misrepresented product?

  • hotsy totsy||

    Yes. Because you can probably SEE that the "stuf" in Oreos is NOT literally double, and that a foot long sub is not really a whole foot long. (And if it's only 11 inches you might just want it ANYWAY, because it looks delicious, you're hungry and it's still a good price.)

  • ||

    It always tasted "double" to me. It's even thicker. Sucker I guess I am.

    Meh.

    We only buy the original Oreo around here

    Anyone ever eat Hydrox?

    I don't expect an answer with all these comments.

  • ||

    Anyone ever eat Hydrox?

    Yes. Oreos are better.

  • ||

    Yes, if the definition of footlong is

    approximately

    12 inches in length.

  • Agammamon||

    *If* someone were selling me something by the foot then it had damn well be by the foot.

    Subway isn't selling sandwiches by the foot - their selling small and large sandwiches. Any rational person would (and have) accept that the 'footlong' is an approximation. And given you can see how big the sandwich is you can decide, right then and there - for yourself, if its big enough.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Their 'small' is literally called a 'six inch sub.'

  • Agammamon||

    And again, ANY RATIONAL PERSON WOULD ACCEPT THAT ITS AN APPROXIMATION.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I can see the argument for 'footlong' being an approximation but I would think the more natural reading of 'six inch' would be 'six inch.'

  • Agammamon||

    Only if you're irrational. I (and most people) take the designations 'footlong' and 'six inch' to be the designations of a large and small sandwich respectively.

    If I assume a 'footlong' is *approximately* a foot long and a 'six inch sandwich is HALF A FOOTLONG, then a rational person would assume that 'six inch' was also an approximation.

    I just do not see how hard this is for you to understand - context matters.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    Their 'small' is literally called a 'six inch sub.'

    And with the meat and veggies sticking out the ends it probably is six inches.

  • Mr. Hyde||

    Not all feet are 12" long.

  • ||

    And if that product, say a car, had four screws that were made in China then that would justify a class action suit for the admittedly small "damages"?

    Does 'Made in America' mean that all the raw materials are from America?

    Again, if someone claimed 92% of their product was manufactured in America and that was a lie, a case for fraud could apply.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I think this amounts to more than four screws in a car. An Oreo cookie only has three parts and this is a representation about one of them, that it is doubled.

  • ||

    But it doesn't really matter because what we are really talking about is whether or not 'Double Stuf' is an ambiguous term.

    The market is, of course, full of such ambiguous claims and terms. A clear delineation in my mind is that a specific claim (92% American or 'Made in America' means 90+ percent of American origin, etc) should have a clear definition and if the company is lying about that clear definition than they are committing fraud.

  • anon||

    Yeah, sorry, I'll never be on board with consumers suing a company for willingly buying a product from a company when for all intents and purposes the company's claims are true.

    It's one thing to create a product that causes cancer.

    It's completely different to claim your oreos are doubled stuffed when they aren't *quite* doubled stuffed.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -It's one thing to create a product that causes cancer.

    It's completely different to claim your oreos are doubled stuffed when they aren't *quite* doubled stuffed.

    Fraud and product liability are two different things, yes, but I think both should be actionable.

  • ||

    Kramer did it.

  • CatoTheElder||

    Nonsense. "Double Stuf" is obviously a brand name used to market a product for immediate consumption. The physical quantity of the product is sold by net weight, and is clearly marked on its packaging.

    The fact that product is intended for immediate consumption is relevant. If a jeweler overrepresented the fineness of gold in his jewelry, such would be fraud because it would misrepresent the value of the product. Oreo Double Stuf, on the other hand, is valued based upon its nutritional and gustatory qualities, not the relative quantity of stuf.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    So the fact that it implies it has 'double' the filling is not a material fact to many making the transaction? They just look at the net weight?

    That is incredible.

  • SForza||

    It implies no such thing. The name of the product is "Double Stuf," which doesn't mean anything in particular. They could change the name to "I Double Stuft Your Mom" or "Double The Cream All Over Your Face" and the name wouldn't imply that either of those actions actually happened.

    A name is just a name. The fact that your name is Bo doesn't mean that you are a ribbon tied around a package.

    Where precision matters is in the small print-- the weight, the ingredients, the nutritional content. Most consumers don't care about that stuff at all-- but those who do, care very much, and rely on the precision of that information.

    Of course, there are enough retarded judges around to make the filing of such lawsuits a very rewarding career.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I guess you did not read the article where Nabisco said the product had double the filling?

    I mean really. The difference between the regular Oreo and this is that this has more filling. And it is called 'Double Stuf.' You really don't think that is meant to imply it has double the filling?

  • SForza||

    "I guess you did not read the article where Nabisco said the product had double the filling?"

    I guess I did, and I guess I noticed that that statement came from a spokeswoman, not from the legal department. And I guess I saw that others have measured the ratio of Stuf to regular, and got numbers like 1.91, instead of 1.86. Which, to my mind, is nearly double.

    Again, it's a name, not a precise statement of how much crap they've squeezed between two cookies.

    In your own words, "[t]he difference between the regular Oreo and this is that this has more filling." And guess what? It does, indeed, have more filling. A lot more. Very nearly double.

    Is a Ho-Ho fraudulent if the package doesn't actually contain two whores? What if a Lifesaver never actually saves my life? A name is a name, not a promise.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    What do you think a spokesperson is? They are the official speaker for the organization.

    And more and double do not mean the same thing. Your examples about ho-ho's and lifesavers are not relevant because they are not measurement claims in the way that 'double' is.

  • SForza||

    Does being a lawyer make you myopic, or did being myopic make you a lawyer?

  • Gorilla tactics||

    I think being an underhanded, oppourtunistic dick without any moral scrupples and a desire to drive productive companies into bankruptcy make you a lawyer. I think I read somewhere that almost half of the worlds lawyers are in the US, the legal profession thrives because of excessive regulations. Fuck em.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    No. It doesn't. It's a brand name. Should the brand name "America's Best" be liable if it isn't?

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    To libertarians, contract law is all about formality, consistency, and specifics in language. One foot means exactly one foot. Double means exactly double. If manufacturers think differently, then they should clearly label these terms as nominal measurements on the product. Otherwise, manufacturers should be held to exact measurements in their products, or always provide more product than specified by the price per unit.

  • hotsy totsy||

    We are talking about actual harm done by this "fraud". If I buy tile from Home Depot that has to fit into a room I've measured out at 150 square feet, then I am harmed if the tile they say measures 160 square feet is only 140 square feet.

    Double stuf in an Oreo cookie that's not really double, more like 180%, is not harmful....it doesn't even cost more than regular Oreos.

    Honest to Christ, the things overly sensitive types dream up that they think harms them.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    The harm is the product was misrepresented. If someone sold you a 'beef hot dog' that had no beef in it you do not think you could say you were harmed in some way?

  • ||

    The harm is the product was misrepresented.

    How so? What, exactly, is "stuf?" Why do you think they left off the second f?

    You made an assumption. It was wrong. "Twice the smiles in every bag." Prove I'm wrong.

  • Agammamon||

    *Contract law* maybe, but we're quite aware that there's a whole lot of leeway that exists(and needs to exist) in informal contracts - such as buying Oreos at the supermarket.

  • Agammamon||

    Expect that if I don't know I'm harmed, don't ever think I'm harmed, then how am I harmed?

    You're talking false consciousness shit.

  • Agammamon||

    They could say there's deca-stuff in their Oreos. I can see the damn thing, I can tell if they're lying or not, and I can make a decision *for myself* whether or not the lie harms me. If it does, I simply do not buy the product and avoid the harm.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    "You are harmed by not getting what was represented to you..."

    No, I wasn't. I didn't enjoy the Oreo any less because it had only 1.86 times the creme that a normal Oreo does, rather than twice. I wasn't being sold a product that was different from what I saw inside the packaging.

    "It is the same as if someone labeled a product as 'Made in America' when it was not..."

    Not really. It's more like the product's brand name was "AmericanMade".

  • Live Free or Diet||

    It doesn't specify what "stuf" is double, right?

  • ||

    Could be talking about flavor.

    Z-GuyEEZ

    Double the E, double the Z, double the flava!

  • ||

    Unless they lie about the volume (2 grams of stuffing per cookie) I don't see this as fraud. The total volume of cookies on the package is correct. What "damage" is the consumer getting from this?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    If a product is labeled as 'double the crème as previously' but it does not have double the cream then would that count as fraudulent? The only issue is whether in labeling their product 'double stuf Oreos' whether that makes this case like the one described. I would say that is an issue for a jury to decide (one upon which reasonable people might disagree).

  • ||

    Yes, and in my opinion 'Double Stuf' is not a sufficiently specific term to justify fraud.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    That is a reasonable view (I imagine Nabisco quite consciously chose such a term for what it might imply but also allow in the way of reasonable deniability). I am just saying that I can see a reasonable person disagreeing and in that case a jury should decide.

    Of course, if Nabisco came out and officially said it had double the cream of the original cookie then that jig is up.

  • ||

    I think the number of people "damaged" by thinking that Double Stuf Oreos could be measured by the number of people stopped buying them when they found out it was only 1.86 times as much stuffing. I suspect that number is vanishingly small.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    This rewards the wrongdoer. It is like saying that if there is a thief who steals trifles from people as they walk down a certain alley, then once people realize they are being stolen from when they go that way they will stop and the rest can be said to be OK with it.

  • hotsy totsy||

    It's probable that Nabisco actually test-tasted the double stuf cookies and found that people preferred the 180% over the double...the double SOUNDS better, but 180% tastes better.

    In any case, last I checked at the supermarket, double stuff, chocolate stuf, regular stuf Oreos were all the same price.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Then call it 180% stuff.

  • Brett L||

    I am just saying that I can see a reasonable person disagreeing and in that case a jury should decide.

    Says the lawyer who gets paid win or lose.

  • ||

    And I'll bet he's chewing Double Mint Gum in court. SHOW ME THE SINGLE MINT, COUNSELOR!

  • Robert||

    I agree with Bo Cara. What else do you think they meant to imply by "Double Stuf"? As much as I think there are frivolous lawsuits out there, I think the law on advertising and implied guarantees or claims has been generally too lax (with of course some exceptions running the other way). Too much weasel, not enough diesel.

    The law has gone out of its way to infer intentions when dealing with gov't, but not far enough in commercial cases.

  • Dibbler||

    What if the doublestuf are 2 units of stuf, and the regular cookies are 1.1 units of stuf? I'll wait for your mind to stop being blown.

    But seriously, this whole thing is stupid. Why don't we sue the businesses keeping tabs on us for the governement or something worthwhile?

  • SForza||

    What do I think you meant to imply by "Too much weasel, not enough diesel?"

    The obvious implication is that the law of advertising consists of actual furry weasels, and that you wish to splash diesel fuel all over the unfortunate/vicious creatures.

    If I find that the law of advertising is actually, y'know, like, words in books and stuff, I'll be dropping a lawsuit on you for false advertising.

  • Acosmist||

    Puffery. Get back to 1L Contracts, champ. You appear never to have passed it.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I know about puffery. Can you point me to caselaw where 'double' was held to be puffery rather than a claim that something was, you know, double?

  • SForza||

    Puffery is claiming that Nabisco represented that "these cookies have exactly twice as much jizz per cookie as regular Oreos" when they did no such thing.

    It's the name. That's it. Double Stuf. Notice that "stuf" doesn't have exactly the number of Fs that word should have?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Come on. Why do you think they said 'double stuf'? Because they hoped it would make people think it had double the filling.

    It is as if your employer and you negotiated a contract that promised you 'thrise' your current salary, then the employer went on to pay you 280% more and when you complain they say 'hey, notice the 'thrise' is misspelled, so you cannot hold me to it!'

  • SForza||

    I know you are incapable of understanding this, but the name wasn't part of a secret plot to convince people that it has exactly twice the filling of a regular Oreo.

    The picture of the cookie, and actually being able to see the damn thing, is what convinces people that this version of an Oreo has a shit-load more filling in it than the regular version. The name is just meant to be catchy and memorable, to get the consumer to think of this product rather than some other crappy junk food product. That it happens to be relatively (but not exactly) descriptive is beside the point.

    Notice that the name "Oreo" doesn't promise anything about the product? Well, neither does "Double Stuf."

  • SForza||

    Notice that Girl Scout cookies don't actually contain any girl scouts? Even though it's right there in the name-- even though there are pictures of actual girl scouts right there on the box-- when you open the box, there are no girl scouts inside! Now that's a rip-off.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    I always have my Girl Scout Cookies with fava beans and nice chianti.

  • Jerryskids||

    Would people who think this is a silly suit say the same if the 16 ounce package of Oreos actually only weighed 14 ounces?

    Sure, I'm no more surprised to find out that 'Double Stuf' doesn't actually mean double stuff any more than I am surprised to find out that Froot Loops don't contain real froot or Cheezy Poofs contain neither cheez nor poofs but goddammit, there's a limit to what sort of lies companies can get away with in the name of marketing and advertising hyperbole. Fuck Nabisco.

  • Jerryskids||

    Would people who think this is a silly suit say the same if the 16 ounce package of Oreos actually only weighed 14 ounces?

    Sure, I'm no more surprised to find out that 'Double Stuf' doesn't actually mean double stuff any more than I am surprised to find out that Froot Loops don't contain real froot or Cheezy Poofs contain neither cheez nor poofs but goddammit, there's a limit to what sort of lies companies can get away with in the name of marketing and advertising hyperbole. Fuck Nabisco.

  • Archduke Trousersenthusiast||

    did your law degree come at the bottom of a box of candy popcorn?

  • ||

    Bazooka bubble gum wrapper.

  • LynchPin1477||

    In a particularly slow news week in the slowest news month

    It must be, with a three page article about a lawsuit that might not happen.

    Of course that third page wasn't a full third page. Taking one out of the Subway and Nabisco playbook, I see. Is there a lawsuit coming? Someone better write a story discussing the possibility!

  • ||

    And for the record, I HATE multi page stories. Just put it on one page my scroll function works just fine.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    It is a real pet peeve of mine too.

  • Generic Stranger||

    You know, it's odd; there's a design maxim, or rule-of-thumb, that you should avoid scrolling like the plague, and that as much of your content should be above the bottom of the screen as possible. But I don't know a SINGLE user who has a preference for this, and would prefer to scroll rather than load up new pages. I'm curious as to how that rule got started, because I don't think it could have been reached at from actually talking to users...

  • Nazdrakke||

    More pages, more ads.

  • Generic Stranger||

    No, that's not the justification given for it, though it certainly has that effect. It's generally stated as a usability issue, and that it is easier for the user and makes it more likely that your content will be noticed. It's also implemented in ad-free/non-profit contexts.

    I think it's an instance of an unfounded assumption becoming dogma, and few designers being bright enough to question it.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Could it be a hold over from when internet speeds were much slower? Perhaps the smaller amount of content on a page made users happier because the whole page loaded more quickly?

  • Dibbler||

    This is probably the reason. Or the aforementioned ad revenue increase.

  • ||

    But, you could have ads all the way down.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    OT
    -A conservative Christian lobbyist group's latest crusade is the elimination of pornography on college campuses.

    Using data collected by the Marriage and Religion Research Institute, Fagan cautioned his audience about the personal consequences of pornography consumption as well. He flipped through a slide show of charts that correlated porn use and addiction with high divorce rates, abortions, and deviant behavior. According to his research, those who are exposed to porn as young adults become desensitized to its dopamine rush, which can lead to the pursuit of distorted fantasies involving children, the invalid and even vampires.

    http://swampland.time.com/2013.....z2ctUA0ksQ

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Now we know how the Twilight series got started, lol

    omgthosemoviesreallysucked.com

  • SweatingGin||

    Someone's projecting!

    But who doesn't like invalid pr0n

  • ||

    There's just too much crap there to pullquote

  • LynchPin1477||

    I'm glad someone is finally advocating for vampires. They've been raped by our society of diurnal privilege for too long.

  • SweatingGin||

    Ooh, is vampire a valid type of Otherkin that you can yell about privilege for?

    Wait, got it. trans-ethnic vampire.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Vampires have been excluded from traditional places of power and influence in society due to their inability to function outdoors during the day. This has forced them into professions that are more heavily associated with nighttime, such as sex workers, janitors, third shift workers at Walmart, and purveyors of pleather that was probably made by child laborers in China. So just another example of capitalism exploiting the weak so that the rich, living folks can get even richer.

    And that doesn't even scratch the surface of the damage done by public displays of religion, like pictures of crosses on television. We clearly need to become a more secular society to correct this injustice.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Also, while society has come around to things like peanut and milk allergies very little attention and care is given to the garlic allergies of vampires.

  • Aloysious||

    +1 victimhood.

    You bastards have made me laugh hot coffee out my nose. I'm suing.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    You do that too well

  • LynchPin1477||

    Only because it is damn easy.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    But seriously, folks, there *is* evidence porn is damaging. And the "counterpoint" provided by *Time* doesn't attempt to rebut this:

    "Linda Williams, a professor film studies and rhetoric at the University of California, Berkeley, begs to differ. She and college educators around the country have used pornography as a teaching tool and a basis for classroom discussion. “I do believe pornography reveals a great deal about who we are as Americans,” Williams told TIME. “Its sheer popularity warrants examination, the same way we have studied soap opera, television and other popular media in the past.” New York University, Vanderbilt, and Bates College are only a few of the institutions that now use sexually explicit material in film, law and sociology classes."

    Oh, well, radical chic professors use porn in their classes, so it must be OK!

    And I bet these same professors want to eradicate ethnic jokes on the ground that they desensitize students to racial bigotry. And I bet some of them champion the use of books by lesbian women of color in order to teach tolerance.

    But there's no way porn can carry any bad messages or influence students in a bad way!

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    And the intro paragraph, in order to remind readers of the FRC's radicalism, mentions that they want to impose a 1-year waiting period for divorce.

    ZOMG, radical extremism!

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "One year? But I want to marry my mistress *now*!"

  • LynchPin1477||

    Um, that would be radically extreme, and a violation of liberty.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Why should free adults be required to wait a year to divorce (especially when there are no children)? How paternalistic is a law that says 'no, we realize in your opinion you think your marriage cannot work, but you guys have to wait a year and think about it.'

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Time said the proposal was only for couples with children, sorry.

    That adds some parties to the equation other than the couple. There are already plenty of restrictions on parents for the sake of children, like requiring support and shelter, etc.

    How would a waiting period have a serious damaging effect, unless a cooling-off period would actually cause the parties to reconsider and stay together? If so the children, and the broader society, would benefit.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I would add that the SSM advocates, defending gay marriage, often argue "OMG why are you picking on us, divorce is much more damaging than same-sex unions."

    So even sexual radicals are letting the cat out of the bag on this one.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    If you do not agree with sexual radicals generally why would you think their statement regarding divorce proves anything?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    It shows the radicals aren't unanimous - some of them get glimpses of the truth. And you can't claim that only socons assert the damaging effects of divorce.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    If you could find a socon saying divorce was awesome, wouldn't you cite him or her? (Eg, Newt Gingritch, though I don't see him as a socon and technically he only recognizes annulment, not divorce).

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I do not think I would, I do not care for that type of argument for the reasons I mention.

    A common thing people say in response to my libertarianism is something like 'well, Hayek believed in a safety net, so you must be OK with that.' I reply 'you think Hayek is wrong on so many things, why do you not think he is wrong on this?'

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    The Hayek thing is a good point, unless you're saying libertarians automatically ought to believe him.

    But if people with premises similar to my opponent draw different conclusions than the opponent, that at least stops the opponent from claiming to speak for his faction. Which is the vibe we get with divorce discussions, which supposedly pose socons against everyone else.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    If you do not agree with sexual radicals generally why would you think their statement regarding divorce proves anything?

    So you either agree with everything that someone says or nothing the say?

    Seriously?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Doesn't it seem odd to say about someone that they are essentially fools but then quote them when arguing to someone?

  • Virginian||

    Doesn't it seem odd to say about someone that they are essentially fools but then quote them when arguing to someone?
    ________

    This shit again with you?

    People do this all the time. I personally loving quoting the tyrants of history on guns. People like Mao and Heinrich Himmler have great quotes about people owning firearms.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    If you were trying to convince someone who knew you loathed Mao would you quote Mao to him?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    No. even complete fools can be right about some things.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    The reason why someone would quote Mao to a leftist would be because you think Mao carries some authority with the leftist. It is at best a strange appeal to authority (strange because you yourself would not accept the person as an authority).

  • Virginian||

    The reason why someone would quote Mao to a leftist would be because you think Mao carries some authority with the leftist.

    The reason I drop the Mao quote about power flowing from the barrel of a gun is because it's true. Power does flow from the gun, which is why it so vital that every man be armed. Mao understood that truth, which is why the second half of the quote is about his Party controlling all the guns.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -How would a waiting period have a serious damaging effect, unless a cooling-off period would actually cause the parties to reconsider and stay together? If so the children, and the broader society, would benefit.

    This is a very paternalistic statement. You presume to know that children will be better off if their parents who want a divorce ultimately decide to stay together and to establish a general rule that will override the parent's assessment of their situation and their decision.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    The evidence is in, and it turns out that divorce is harmful to children and other living things. See Judith S. Wallerstein, Julia M. Lewis and Sandra Blakeslee, *The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce: A 25 Year Landmark Study.* Note from the title that the authors didn't set out to show divorce to be bad, but the empirical evidence (following the children of divorce over 25 years) forced them to admit it was harmful.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    This is not a settled matter. For example, when one compares children of divorced parents to children of unhappily married families the issue is not clear.

    But more importantly this at best shows some correlation, not what is best in every circumstance. So such a law will in fact require some couples who are absolutely correct in assuming that their marriage is over and not conducive to their children's well being to stay married for a year. That is as paternalistic as all get out.

    I would be willing to bet that you generally do not want the government to decide what is 'best' for children and then make general rules which their parents must abide with regardless of any contrary beliefs or opinions the parents might have. You just do not see this is a subset of that.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "For example, when one compares children of divorced parents to children of unhappily married families the issue is not clear."

    Yes, they found that children of divorce aren't worse off than kids in really dysfunctional households, but this doesn't describe the majority of divorce situations. So among intact couples, you have to really scrape the bottom of the relationship barrel to find parallels with "normal" divorce situations.

    And I don't think that the "I want a divorce *now,* I don't want to wait a year" types are thinking of their children.

    Again, in abuse situations the abused spouse can just move out - and under the old law, the victim would get to keep custody. Our new "no fault" system allows the abuser to try and convince the court that, in a nonjudgmental manner, he or she would be better for the kids, even if his/her abusive behavior harmed the kids by messing up the marriage. What a victory for abuse victims!

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    In fact, the old law allowed abuse victims to get a judicial separation, plus custody, plus getting to keep the house. They just couldn't remarry, but the priority is to escape the abuse, not run into another marriage (which may well replicate the abuse cycle anyway).

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    It seems I was unfair to the FRC, their model law has a abuse exception:

    http://www.frc.org/onepagers/m.....h-children

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -they found that children of divorce aren't worse off than kids in really dysfunctional households, but this doesn't describe the majority of divorce situations.

    It might if people were forced to stay together! Of course, I find it hard to believe that the majority of divorce situations are not dysfunctional or heading that way, almost by definition.

    -I don't think that the "I want a divorce *now,* I don't want to wait a year" types are thinking of their children.

    You do not think so, but these adults, who are in this situation and know the intimate details, think so. But your opinion should override and control over others?

    As to your last point, what makes you think no-fault divorce leads to a better case for an abusive spouse to make for custody? There is not a determination of abuse necessary to prove for the divorce itself but it can be a subject for custody hearings under no fault divorce laws. On the other hand, what you would prefer is that the victim of some horrible abuse be forced to stay legally married to her abuser for a year to 'think about it.'

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "On the other hand, what you would prefer is that the victim of some horrible abuse be forced to stay legally married to her abuser for a year to 'think about it.'"

    My understanding is that the old law* allowed a judicial separation - without the right to remarry but with the innocent spouse living apart from the guilty spouse, and if applicable collecting support, with the innocent spouse retaining his or her parental rights. While no-fault can in effect punish the innocent spouse by potentially taking away his/her children. What a message that sends to abuse victims - sure you can get a divorce, but maybe we'll take your children if you do so!

    *Actually, if we're talking the US the law often also allowed either divorce *or* judicial separation in abuse situations.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I do not think your understanding is correct.

    Before no-fault divorce laws and after such laws a spouse can take the children and move away, and in response the other spouse can seek judicial action to retain custodial rights.

    In the old laws the divorce itself was not granted until some fault, which could be abuse, was proven. If this were proven then it certainly weighed heavily in custody determinations. The difference in current law is that one need not prove abuse to get divorce, but one can certainly bring it up in custodial proceedings.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    This is not a settled matter. For example, when one compares children of divorced parents to children of unhappily married families the issue is not clear.

    There's also the possibility that the personal factors that lead to the failure of their marriage also lead to their failure as parents.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Eduard, you may be interested in this article which shows that Wallerstein's work is perhaps not as definitive or as final as you seem to present it.

    http://www.scientificamerican......r-children

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Interesting, but the summary doesn't seem like a ringing endorsement of divorce:

    "Many of the 1.5 million children in the U.S. whose parents divorce every year feel as if their worlds are falling apart. Divorcing parents are usually very concerned about the welfare of their children during this troublesome process. Some parents are so worried that they remain in unhappy marriages, believing it will protect their offspring from the trauma of divorce.

    "Yet parents who split have reasons for hope. Researchers have found that only a relatively small percentage of children experience serious problems in the wake of divorce or, later, as adults."

    So parents can tell their kids, "Mommy and Daddy are splitting up, and it's going to feel like your world is falling apart. But don't worry - only a *relatively small* percentage of children will experience *serious* long-term problems. So we're going to roll the dice, and hopefully your problems will be below the serious level, so suck it up and be resilient!"

  • ||

    The evidence is in, and it turns out that divorce is harmful to children and other living things. See Judith S. Wallerstein, Julia M. Lewis and Sandra Blakeslee, *The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce: A 25 Year Landmark Study.* Note from the title that the authors didn't set out to show divorce to be bad, but the empirical evidence (following the children of divorce over 25 years) forced them to admit it was harmful.

    So what? Even if that happens to be true, what business is it of yours? How dare you claim to impose your will on others?

    Froot Loops are bad for children. Whether my kids eat Froot Loops or not is none of your goddamned business!

  • LynchPin1477||

    What damage could arise from forcing people who don't want to be together to stay together for a year? Other than the damage to liberty...

    - It could exacerbate bad feelings, making it less likely that they will have an amicable relationship down the road. That could hurt the children.
    - It could lead to an even messier and more protracted divorce, which could also hurt the children.
    - It could discourage someone in an abusive relationship from getting out of it. That could hurt the children.

    That's just off the top of my head.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I haven't read the proposal, and if it forbids an abused spouse from leaving his/her abuser, I would be against it. But if your concern is abuse, why would a waiting period before remarriage hurt?

  • LynchPin1477||

    I thought this was a waiting period before getting a divorce. If it is a waiting period before remarriage then that changes the argument a bit. But I still think it would be awful.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    It's before divorce. But this adds to the time you have to wait to get remarried. At least, until reformers change the bigamy laws.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Correction: as I acknowledge elsewhere, the FCR model bill has an abuse exception.

  • ||

    How paternalistic is a law that says 'no, we realize in your opinion you think your marriage cannot work, but you guys have to wait a year and think about it.'

    When you behave as children asking daddy gubmint to give you his blessing on your relationship in the form of a license to seek rent, complaining about his paternalism in relinquishing his blessing has a delicious tinge of caveat emptor to it.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    This is as nonsensical as saying that people who ask for drivers licenses deserve to get tickets for not wearing a seatbelt.

  • ||

    Except that you have to have a driver's license to drive, or you go to jail. Nobody forces you to go beg the local clerk to legitimize your relationship with a license. It's entirely optional.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Well, use incorporation then. It is like arguing that people who incorporate their organizations deserve to have [corporate restriction X] happen to them.

  • ||

    I've often experienced the same satisfaction watching certain corporations who ingratiate themselves to the government becomes its victim as well. But it's a fair point.

    However, you could at least possibly make the argument that there is no other way to secure the limitation of liability that incorporation provides (since the government has monopolized it). With the exception of immigration, the same isn't true of marriage. By definition, you are entering into the institution to ingratiate yourself to the government. Calling it paternalistic because of a waiting period is just a little ironic, IMO. It's inherently paternalistic and ridiculous. So much so that I couldn't imagine anyone inventing it if it didn't already exist.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Well, I think it all started when the government made marriage a prerequisite to having sex/living together (laws against cohabitation) or of having your children recognized by the state.

  • CatoTheElder||

    ^THIS.

    Gubmint needs to get out of the marriage business. It has utterly corrupted the institution of marriage.

  • William of Purple||

    unless you're a Christian Florist.
    Then the government needs to totally throw your ass in jail for not decorating a gay wedding.

  • LynchPin1477||

    I didn't read the article but based on the quote you provided, you're assuming an awful lot. Including, it would seem, that the cited study showing the dangers of porn was well done.

  • General Butt Naked||

    that the cited study showing the dangers of porn was well done.

    Yurp.

    When I see some nutbag "family council" type freak telling me I can't look at porn because it harms society, it reminds me when one of those green weenies from some "sustainability council" tells me I can't eat me because it harms society. Gee, that "study" you published perfectly confirms all the things you've been saying all along. Do you want a donation?

    That these un-rigorous, piece of garbage papers showing the most tenuous of correlation continue to get news time shows the dreadful lack of scientific knowledge in the journalism field.

  • Dweebston||

    one of those green weenies from some "sustainability council" tells me I can't eat me because it harms society

    To the extent that you're externalizing the inevitable costs of healthcare by eating yourself, I would agree with them. Nobody should be encouraged to consume themselves.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Sarah Palin warned us of this. Don't act so surprised.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I do not know if there is evidence it is damaging. I know there are people who do bad things who claim to have been influenced by porn, but the fact that most people that enjoy porn do not do such things and that trends of porn prevalence and these bad things seem uncorrelated suggest to me it is not porn which causes the bad things.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I think his focus was not on the Ted Bundy or Castro types, but on students getting bad ideas about sexuality which might affect their marriages and/or family lives in a non-dramatic but real manner.

    Again, the quoted critics probably believe that what you read and see can influence you, they simply don't object to the message of porn.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    There is also evidence that porn is not damaging, or even positive. And let's be real here. You can create studies that "prove" that almost anything is harmful, or not, depending on how you design the study and what you focus on.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    If someone can read a long, text-filled book (like the Bible or Atlas Shrugged) and be influenced by it, how can they not be influenced by vivid images of explicit sex? I'm not talking about going off to commit mass murder, I'm talking about finding one's wife unsatisfying because she isn't a porn actress (for example).

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Some people read Atlas Shrugged and it changes their lives, others it bores them to tears or does little or nothing for. I think this shows the thing itself exerts very little influence.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I said it *can* happen.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    First, a book is not the same as a porn video. But assuming it has a similar ability to influence, why do you assume the influence of must be negative?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    The influence of what? Books or porn?

    I watched a traditional porn movie in college, or part of it because I walked out from boredom. But there's a pornographic all-text short story I read as a adolescent which still stimulates me. And the general message is that women are there for the pleasure of men, they love extramarital sex, that there are no consequences of same, that a long-term relationship with a woman involving mutual sacrifice and love, even as you grow less physically attractive with age, is boring and useless compared to doing it with hot chicks.

    I can't speak to the message of deviant porn, not being very familiar with it.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I would describe that as omething triggered, or sparked, some taste you had, and I am not sure it was a 'bad influence,' especially one worth worrying about.

  • LynchPin1477||

    I'm not attacking you here. I respect your opinion that porn can and often is degrading to women. But I think you are making some bad assumptions.

    1) Just because pretty much all porn focuses only on sex and not on loving relationships doesn't necessarily mean that it damages loving relationships, any more than a romance movie that focuses only on romantic love necessarily damages a couple's sex life.
    2) Just because someone gets off on the idea of having wild sex doesn't mean they will act on it. My wife and I both have fantasies that we would not act on. We share them with each other and it actually improves our sex life.
    3) Not all porn is about anonymous, butt pounding sex with chicks with fake tits. There is a market for porn that is much more realistic, romantic, and yes, even beautiful. It is a small market but it is growing precisely because many people find traditional porn so ludicrous. And it is often specifically marketed to couples.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Something else to consider. This is just speculation on my part, but insofar as porn could have a negative influence, its possible that some of that stems from our society's attitudes about sex. I see parallels with drug prohibition. The moral prohibition on public display of sexuality can actually make it harder for people to find healthy outlets for their urges. Self control is important, obviously, but using guilt to suppress ones desires is rarely healthy.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I understand your points, but the new porn you describe sounds to me like it's moving into the romance movie category, which is a different animal. Couples can see themselves in the characters of such a movie - "the protagonists in that movie worked through a major misunderstanding and their love ended up even stronger" is a different message from "I'd sure love to be that FedEx delivery guy doing it with those lonely housewives."

  • LynchPin1477||

    No, the new porn I describe is not a romance movie in the slightest bit. It is 100% straight up hardcore pornography. The romance, and sometimes even beauty, comes in the way people are having sex and the way it is portrayed, not from any plot or overarching message.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Interesting. I was not aware of this.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Though you don't strike me as being interested, if you are, you can look up Comstock films. That used "real" people, who were pretty ugly, but it demonstrates the idea. X-art has infinitely higher production value and better looking actors, but is a little closer to traditional porn. Still a far cry from Vivid or GGW.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Comstock? As in Anthony?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Would not your concerns apply to a wide range of fantasy interests? I mean, sword and sorcery books or movies are bad because the world is not really as noble or magical. Action films are bad because they give an unrealistic sense of how exciting the world is and what one man or woman can achieve. Etcetera.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I'm not sure it's that simple. The overarching message of the movie matters. A *Lord of the Rings,* or maybe even a *Harry Potter,* could be said to use fantasy elements to show a broad moral theme of struggling to overcome evil. Likewise an action film where the protagonist is fighting bad guys who threaten his family, overcoming great odds. When these movies are at their best, it's the *bad* guys who use reckless violence, while the good guys only use violence in self-defense.

    In contrast, in certain movies the "hero" is a robber or really enjoys shooting people - and the bad guys are even worse.

    So such a movie might have a good or bad influence depending on the overall context.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    It's the difference between having Gandalf speaks eloquently against wishing death even on Gollum, or the hero tells the helpless villain that "I won't kill you because then I'd be no different from you," versus a movie where the "hero" goes around wasting his enemies (after the plot softens up the audience by making the enemies really nasty and killable).

  • Fatty Bolger||

    I meant that a video doesn't necessarily have the same influence as a book, but even if we assume it does, it doesn't meant that the influence has to be negative.

  • ||

    Assuming the influence was negative, it still tells us nothing about the wisdom of a ban. The standard "You aren't free unless you're free to be wrong" logic would still apply, as it does to every vice or poor decision. Once you reach adulthood, you should be free to fuck up your life with impunity -- and as importantly, you alone should bear the consequences.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Absolutely. Eduard is not advocating a ban, though.

  • ||

    The organization whose logic he's defending is calling for one on college campuses, so I applied the transitive - perhaps too hastily.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I'm talking about finding one's wife unsatisfying because she isn't a porn actress (for example).

    And that wife could find her husband unsatisfying because he doesn't treat her like Fabio does on the cover of her steamy romance novels.

    Seriously, if one is allowing a pornographic image to get in the way of forming a natural, healthy and loving sexual relationship with one's spouse, there are deeper issues at play.

    Give people some credit. We don't consume images and text mindlessly and react on instinct. That kind of thinking died out in the mid-60's with the Behaviorists and only exists now in the minds of Congressmen.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I think the socon concern is porn *addiction,* and yes, that can reflect underlying problems, but it can also exacerbate those problems. Drug addiction can represent an underlying problem, but it's still better to be off the drugs than on them in that circumstance.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    And as with other concerns, they can be concerned about it, but that in of itself does not justify legislation.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I don't think pornography is addictive by itself. The similarity using drugs and/or alcohol, gambling, viewing pornography, shopping, etc. all have is that they are all behaviors that have the potential to produce a pleasurable state through the brain's production of dopamine.

    A person who has an "addictive personality" has the potential to become addicted to any pleasurable behavior.

    That having been said, personally, as a Buddhist, I believe over-consumption of pornography (like over-consumption of food and drink) is not only physically harmful but has the potential to be spiritually damaging as well. The Buddhist spiritual path is one that requires one to master one's sense desires. Seeking to inflame one's sense desires is counterproductive to what a follower of the 8-fold path is trying to accomplish.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    That having been said, personally, as a Buddhist, I believe over-consumption of pornography (like over-consumption of food and drink) is not only physically harmful but has the potential to be spiritually damaging as well.

    But even that mindset in absurd. What is "over-consumption?" Will what defines it be the same for everyone? If I rub one out to porn 5 times a week, is that over-consumption? How about 5 times a day? If I am capable of rubbing one out 5 times a day without undue injury (seriously unlikely) or having it affect the things I need to do in order to lead a productive life free from transgressing on others, why should someone say that it constitutes over-consumption just because most dudes' dicks would be rubbed raw and a 5 times a day porn-n-jerk habit would likely be detrimental to their productivity?

  • Nazdrakke||

    But even that mindset in absurd

    Damn, my religion is absurd. Guess I'll just give up on the whole Middle Way thing, and thanks to Sevo I don't even have Christianity to fall back on.

    What is "over-consumption?"

    Good question. Other good questions: What is liberty? What is the freedom to answer that question for oneself? What is using one's personal morality to assist in interpreting the world as long as one refrains from initiating force against others?

  • Irish||

    Damn, my religion is absurd.

    He wasn't calling Buddhism absurd, he was arguing that you need to define over-consumption. You can't say 'over-consumption is bad because X' without saying what over-consumption is. If someone watches lots of porn but it does not impact their day to day life, I have trouble seeing that as 'over-consumption.' And if someone is so obsessed with pornography that they allow other aspects of their life to atrophy in the pursuit of porn, then I hardly think the problem was porn.

    In that instance, the problem is the individual and if their obsession wasn't porn it would have been something else. I'd argue that people who are obsessed with porn would find some other obsession if porn wasn't available. The issue in that case isn't porn, it's the mental issues an individual has that leads them to try filling a void through obsessing over something.

  • Nazdrakke||

    Just busting balls, really. Not trying to slam anyone.

    Aside, I won't speak for HM, but for myself this is not entirely a "mental" question, but a spiritual one, and the calculus for determining the desirability or level of a thing is a bit different.

  • Xenocles||

    How is that any different than finding your wife unsatisfying because she isn't the 20-something starlet of the week you saw in the latest film, or being disappointed because she isn't interested in the sex position you read about in an advice column?

  • ||

    If someone can read a long, text-filled book (like the Bible or Atlas Shrugged) and be influenced by it, how can they not be influenced by vivid images of explicit sex?

    Yep, sounds like we should ban the Bible.

    And what the fuck is wrong with explicit sex?

    I'm not talking about going off to commit mass murder, I'm talking about finding one's wife unsatisfying because she isn't a porn actress (for example).

    How about the fact that that is none of your fucking business?

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Well, there is kind of a major distinction between say, Atlas Shrugged or the Bible and Anal Ladies of Lauderdale XXV. Atlas Shrugged is influential because of the ideas it presents. The Bible is influential because of the spiritual message it relays. That having an orgasm while looking at a really attractive woman feels really good is usually something adolescent boys pick up on with or without porn.

  • hotsy totsy||

    Seems to me there was an actual study reported a couple weeks ago here at Reason where porn consumption was negatively correlated with incidence of rape. In other words, more porn=less rape.

    Everything else, such as "wouldn't a husband be less attracted to his wife because she didn't look like the 20 year old porn actress" or "wouldn't people become addicted to porn?" is pretty much speculation.

    And I do think almost everyone would agree that less rape is a more desirable social outcome.

  • Nazdrakke||

    OT: LOVEINT

    —National Security Agency officers on several occasions have channeled their agency’s enormous eavesdropping power to spy on love interests, U.S. officials said.

  • Nazdrakke||

  • Cdr Lytton||

    Hey, they're just protecting America from the threat of dependapotomuses.

  • Brett L||

    Has anyone seen my surprised face? I can't find it anywhere.

  • Sevo||

    MMMMMMMMMMMM, soda cookies!

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -One More SoCon Anti-Porn Screed

    -In light of this, it is positively Orwellian to suggest, as Forman does, that America is free because it produces hardcore pornography. The authors of the First Amendment would claim the opposite — that acceptance of pornography tends to destroy our capacity for freedom in both a personal and a political way, and therefore should be proscribed. The Founders forbade pornography not only because it subverts virtue, but because it attacks the political foundations of society. Though largely consumed in private, pornography becomes a political problem when it is widespread because it undermines chastity. Chastity is not only a moral virtue; it is also indispensable to political order.

    -Censorship of pornography is a sign of a morally healthy society that can distinguish between obscenity and free speech. From the time of our Founders until not too long ago, America was a place that not only forbade hardcore pornography but, through its laws and social mores, actively encouraged lives of virtue. These formative influences made it clear that sex belongs within the context of the family. Lack of censorship is a sign of a society that no longer cares about these distinctions or has lost its ability to make them. That is why the legal presence of pornography harms even those who do not use it.

    http://www.crisismagazine.com/.....cs-of-porn

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I'm skeptical of the effectiveness of censorship, simply because of the technical challenges, but I wouldn't mind segregating porn into a .xxx domain to make it easier to block.

    Beyond that, a campaign of education would seem to be the best bet. That is, if you assume that (a) porn isn't exempt from the general rule that what you read and see can influence you one way or the other and (b) that the message of porn is degrading.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Or you could just let people decide for themselves how they feel about porn.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    And you could make the case to them that they should voluntarily abstain.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Or criticize those who make such an argument to others.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Sure, but forcing porn into a special domain or going on some government funded campaign to educate about the dangers of porn is every bit as nanny state as bans on big gulps.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I wouldn't be for a *government* education campaign, given the record of government education.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Sorry, I interpreted it that way since you brought it up right after censorship.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    And the record of government labeling requirements, which you advocate for in this instance, is so much better?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Truth in labelling, dude!

  • ||

    No it isn't. Is it nanny state to not allow shops to sell cigarettes to children?

  • BardMetal||

    "No it isn't. Is it nanny state to not allow shops to sell cigarettes to children?"

    No it's just racist to ask for an ID, because according to Democrats minorities are unable to get IDs.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Is it nanny state to not allow shops to sell cigarettes to children?

    Yes, though most libertarians would agree that children represent a special case where some paternalism is warranted. Still, it is better that it come from the actual parents instead of the state. Either way, I don't think porn qualifies.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Let me clarify that statement. Cigarettes and some other drugs have demonstrably harmful side effects, and I'm not against prohibitions against selling to children given the special case they represent, though there are definite gray areas not worth getting into right now.

    But I'm not at all convinced porn is harmful in that way. And even if it could be shown to be, I'd probably still be against things like a .xxx domain. Technology would move so much faster than the law that attempts to limit access to porn would almost certainly fail, so that the only outcome would be to limit someone else's freedom and kickstart yet another cycle of endless government regulation.

  • Plopper||

    I used to love porn when I was a kid. I found playboys in the woods when I was in elementary school, downloading porn GIFs (not the animated kind) from dialup BBSes in the early 90s when I was in middle school, and by the time I had entered high school I was downloading insane amounts of porn off of USENET before most people even knew what the internet was.

    Guess what? I think it prevented me from being nearly as deviant as I would have been because I could release my sexual urges. Also in high school instead of going around getting high school girls pregnant and getting forced to marry at very young ages like some of my friends I just jacked off and ignored the stupid cunts.

  • BardMetal||

    What wrong with an .xxx domain name to make it easier for parents to block?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Nothing, if it's an initiative by the porn industry itself and not forced upon them by government diktat.

    Movies, video games, and comic books have done quite well rating and policing themselves.

  • Nazdrakke||

    Nothing, if it's an initiative by the porn industry itself and not forced upon them by government diktat.

    Color me skeptical, but I don't think that's quite what they have in mind.

  • SweatingGin||

    The big thing wrong with it is then giving someone the authority to, presumably, pull registrations on com/net/org/us/biz/info/co.uk/etc. due to content.

    Maybe Lobster Girl can be enough to get a registration pulled.

  • Nazdrakke||

    I'm skeptical of the effectiveness of censorship

    And yet, here you are, at Reason of all places, shilling for it..

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    The only censorship I advocated was a .xxx domain - but my primary focus is on voluntary education.

  • ||

    I don't see that as censorship. It would simply make porn easier to block for parents and corporations.

  • LynchPin1477||

    It is no different that Bloomberg's big gulp ban. Remember, he didn't want to stop you from drinking lots of soda (you would still be able to get refills or two cups of smaller sizes), he just wanted to make it harder. This is no different.

  • BardMetal||

    An .xxx domain name doesn't make it any harder to access porn unless your a kid on your parents computer.

  • Plopper||

    I used to masturbate to porn all the time when I was a kid, and I attribute it at least partially to me not knocking up some underage girl and being forced into a deadend marriage at a very young age like many of my peers.

    Why shouldn't kids be able to access porn?

  • ||

    It is no different that Bloomberg's big gulp ban.

    IMO, it's more akin to zoning laws. Except that adjacency doesn't exist in cyberspace, so there's not even a theoretical case to be made for nuisance avoidance.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    It is not censorship, but it is government interference in the same vein as required government labeling.

  • ||

    Or not selling cigarettes to 12-year-olds.

    I realize this makes me worse than Shriek.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I do not think they are analogous since the .xxx labeling is something that is put upon adults because children MIGHT be involved in viewing. The restriction on selling cigarettes to 12 year olds stands entirely, but no more than, on the idea that children should not be free to contract. You cannot sell this to them. The labeling requirement says 'you must label your product so, even if most of your transactions involve adults.'

  • Nazdrakke||

    I wasn't even supposed to be here today.

  • ||

    You could pass a law outlawing the sale of pornography to minors without forcing an entire class of business to use a particular TLD. In fact, there already is one.

  • Nazdrakke||

    Of course we respect the 1st amendment, we have Free Speech Zones!

  • ||

    Strawmen gonna straw.

  • Nazdrakke||

    Bullshit, it's the same mentality.

  • BardMetal||

    "Bullshit, it's the same mentality."

    Explain to me how an .xxx domain prevents any adult from accessing all the pornography they want on their own computer?

  • ||

    Bullshit, it's the same mentality.

    Like the mentality that anyone who is opposed to the WoD wants to put heroin vending machines in elementary schools?

    Having a domain that is easily blockable by schools or parents is not the same thing as trying to limit the access to adults.

  • ||

    I don't even know how the government would enforce that since ICANN is still, thankfully, a private corporation.

    Again, forcing all businesses of a certain nature into a particular TLD is more akin to zoning. Zoning is pretty much bullshit anyway, but the few practical arguments in its favor simply don't apply to the internet.

  • ||

    Zoning physically displaces people and distorts the market. Having all porn on an xxx domain doesn't mean it should be unavailable to anyone, just easier to block by parents, corporate firewalls.

  • ||

    Zoning physically displaces people and distorts the market. Having all porn on an xxx domain doesn't mean it should be unavailable to anyone

    You could argue it may distort the market. It also imposes considerable additional costs on businesses that would have to purchase new TLDs to comply with the law. But more importantly, it's an entirely arbitrary restriction on the freedom of the business operator.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -Having a domain that is easily blockable by schools or parents is not the same thing as trying to limit the access to adults.

    Exact same logic as requiring Wendys to put certain nutrition information up on their order board in big font. Do you support that?

  • ||

    Exact same logic as requiring Wendys to put certain nutrition information up on their order board in big font. Do you support that?

    No I don't support it, and it is not exactly the same thing at all. Any adult can look up that shit on their webpage, if you don't want your kid eating there, don't take them there. If you don't want your kid seeing porn, you have to take measures to stop that also, it is, of course, the parent's responsibility.

    But having porn on a .xxx would make it easier and saner for parents and corporations to delineate it. I don't see why this is a crazy unreasonable thing to say.

  • ||

    I don't see how you think commentators on a libertarian website would think censorship is reasonable. Stop advocating force and some people here would agree that porn sites should be encouraged to move to .xxx.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -it is not exactly the same thing at all

    Sure it is. The idea with the required labeling at Wendy's is so that people can clearly see what they are getting and avoid it if they want to. With the .xxx requirement the same thing is going on.

  • ||

    You can encourage people to use .xxx for porn but if the porn purveyors choose not to that is none of your business. It isn't their job to do your parenting for you.

  • ||

    You can encourage people to use .xxx for porn but if the porn purveyors choose not to that is none of your business. It isn't their job to do your parenting for you.

    Then why should it be 7/11's job not to sell a kid cigs or heroin if it were to be made legal?

  • ||

    How are you not understanding that the ability of children to purchase porn has fuck all to do with forcing all of those businesses to use a completely different TLD than the rest of the internet? IT'S ALREADY ILLEGAL TO SELL PORN TO KIDS. For fuck's sake...

  • ||

    How are you not understanding that the ability of children to purchase porn has fuck all to do with forcing all of those businesses to use a completely different TLD than the rest of the internet? IT'S ALREADY ILLEGAL TO SELL PORN TO KIDS. For fuck's sake...

    If you want to argue that it won't make a practical difference that's something else altogether and you are probably right. Maybe you could get a little more butthurt first.

  • ||

    If you were advocating that porn sites have an age filter then sure that would be analogous. But you are not, you are more advocating that 7/11s only operate in a certain part of town because they happen to sell cigarettes.

  • Irish||

    In fairness, age filters do shit all to stop teenagers from getting in.

    I say this as a former 14 year old.

  • ||

    Not mentioning that roughly 117% of all the porn consumed on the internet is pirated.

  • ||

    Well yes, but it is still the parent's job to make sure their kids aren't watching porn.

  • ||

    If you were advocating that porn sites have an age filter then sure that would be analogous. But you are not, you are more advocating that 7/11s only operate in a certain part of town because they happen to sell cigarettes.

    That is silly. The internet is not a virtual mall with space at a premium. Anyone can click on any webpage as long as their isn't someone like a corporate or parental filter blocking them. In fact, it could be easier to find porn.

  • ||

    Who cares if space isn't premium, you still have no right to force people into a domain just because you have trouble parenting your kids.

  • ||

    Who cares if space isn't premium, you still have no right to force people into a domain just because you have trouble parenting your kids

    And the state has no right to tell 7/11 who it can sell cigs to?

  • ||

    You are still conflating two things that are utterly unrelated. It's illegal for Hot XXX Bitches Incorporated to sell their wares to kids regardless of whether their URL is hotxxxbitches.com or hotxxxbitches.org or hotxxxbitches.xxx. Forcing them to spend thousands of dollars acquiring a .xxx TLD doesn't add or remove one from tittle from the existing law making it illegal for them to hock porn to kiddies.

    A better analogy would be if 7/11 had to hide their cigarettes behind a curtain so no kids could catch a glimpse of them. Now wait, where have I heard that before?

  • ||

    You are still conflating two things that are utterly unrelated. It's illegal for Hot XXX Bitches Incorporated to sell their wares to kids regardless of whether their URL is hotxxxbitches.com or hotxxxbitches.org or hotxxxbitches.xxx. Forcing them to spend thousands of dollars acquiring a .xxx TLD doesn't add or remove one from tittle from the existing law making it illegal for them to hock porn to kiddies.

    No, I'm conflating anything. Putting the onus on 7/11 for selling cigs or booze to kids makes it harder for kids to obtain those things. Obviously they can still do it.

    Do you think the State has the right to put that onus on retailers? You should answer this before going any further.

    Making a porn only domain could have the same effect on porn availability. Is this a rule of law issue or a libertarian litmus test?

  • ||

    Putting the onus on 7/11 for selling cigs or booze to kids makes it harder for kids to obtain those things.

    And putting the onus on Hot XXX Bitches Incorporated for selling porn to kids makes it harder for kids to obtain those things. That onus already exists without pushing Hot XXX Bitches Incorporation onto a restricted TLD.

    Do you think the State has the right to put that onus on retailers?

    I'd be willing to compromise on the issue and say "yes" in the unique case of children. Here again, the state has already put that onus on pornographers.

    Making a porn only domain could have the same effect on porn availability.

    No. It is entirely different in character. 7/11 doesn't have to change its signage, or change the location of its building, or change its hours, or otherwise interrupt the way it makes itself available to its customers in order to not sell cigarettes to kids, in the exact same way that Hot XXX Bitches Incorporated shouldn't have to change its URL and the digital address of its content in order to not sell pornography to kids.

    Your false analogy is false no matter how many times you repeat it.

    A million times this.

  • ||

    No. It is entirely different in character. 7/11 doesn't have to change its signage, or change the location of its building, or change its hours, or otherwise interrupt the way it makes itself available to its customers in order to not sell cigarettes to kids, in the exact same way that Hot XXX Bitches Incorporated shouldn't have to change its URL and the digital address of its content in order to not sell pornography to kids.

    7/11 doesn't have to change anything because this costly onus of enforcement is already in place. You don't think there is a cost of doing business, procedures, clerks over of age, liquor licenses, violations. Why should 7/11 have to deal with that shit when it ought to be Marlboro and Budweiser's responsibility? After all, these things are already illegal to sell to children, right? At least in the case of the xxx TLD the onus isn't on hapless third party retailers.

    Your false analogy is false no matter how many times you repeat it.

    A million times this.

    Wah. Whereas your analogies are lucid like a unicorn's first tears.

  • ||

    At least in the case of the xxx TLD the onus isn't on hapless third party retailers.

    What? I don't think you know how many porn websites work.

  • ||

    7/11 doesn't have to change anything because this costly onus of enforcement is already in place.

    Right. Let's repeat this one more time. THE SAME COULD BE SAID ABOUT ANY GIVEN PORN SITE. THEY ARE ALREADY RESPONSIBLE FOR KEEPING THEIR PRODUCT OUT OF THE HANDS OF CHILDREN. They are already bearing that cost. They are already legally obligated to comply with that mandate. Jesus Christ man, you can't possibly be this dense. What you're suggesting is that we put an additional impetus on pornographers to obtain, at their own expense, new domains, so that it will be easier for third parties to keep people from finding them.

    This would be exactly like suggesting that, even though it's already illegal for 7/11 to sell cigarettes to kids, that we should make 7/11 relocate to skid row, or black out all of its windows and remove its signage, or lock up the cigarettes where none of its customers can find them.

    Whereas your analogies are lucid like a unicorn's first tears.

    The fact that you either can't follow your own logic or don't understand how the internet works isn't a failing of mine. You're analogizing two things that have no similarity to one another.

  • ||

    Right. Let's repeat this one more time. THE SAME COULD BE SAID ABOUT ANY GIVEN PORN SITE. THEY ARE ALREADY RESPONSIBLE FOR KEEPING THEIR PRODUCT OUT OF THE HANDS OF CHILDREN. They are already bearing that cost. They are already legally obligated to comply with that mandate. Jesus Christ man, you can't possibly be this dense. What you're suggesting is that we put an additional impetus on pornographers to obtain, at their own expense, new domains, so that it will be easier for third parties to keep people from finding them.

    Yes, that is what I'm suggesting. I know it doesn't pass your, and many other's, libertarian purity test, hence all the butthurt, but I see it as a rule-of-law issue.

    This would be exactly like suggesting that, even though it's already illegal for 7/11 to sell cigarettes to kids, that we should make 7/11 relocate to skid row, or black out all of its windows and remove its signage, or lock up the cigarettes where none of its customers can find them.

    No, that is an idiotic analogy. I'm suggesting that a xxx TLD would be something like the current regime of forcing retailers to keep cigs behind the counter and to ID people who want to buy cigs or booze. You are saying the the porn industry is currently in the exact same position Marlboro is when it comes to selling their products. I disagree. If Marlboro could directly sell cigs to anyone on the internet then your analogy might make more sense.

  • ||

    A lot of porn websites are more akin to retailers like 7/11 than producers like Malboro. And those that do both, so what? The website is the retailing aspect of the business.

  • ||

    A lot of porn websites are more akin to retailers like 7/11 than producers like Malboro. And those that do both, so what? The website is the retailing aspect of the business.

    So when a kid wants to buy cigs or booze or heroin (I assume you aren't a fan of the WoD) from a local convenience store all he needs do is click on the button that says, "I AM 18"???

    If society deems that these things should be unavailable to children then a xxx domain is simply a way to help society enforce these mores.

    So the issue, as far as I see it, is how much should the State (or states) set up laws to do so? There are already pretty tough laws and punishments set up to stop people selling these physical things like cigs to children. In fact the whole thing is way, way over the top with some states requiring that everyone be carded, even an 80-year-old geezer, just to buy a damn beer.

    I don't see requiring porn to be in a specific TLD as any more intrusive than the current regime to stop kids from buying smokes. Could there be mission creep? Most likely, yes. There always is. So I guess I would be against it in reality. But I don't think it is an idiotic, or massively statist idea in principle, like I said, more of a rule-of-law argument.

  • ||

    So when a kid wants to buy cigs or booze or heroin (I assume you aren't a fan of the WoD) from a local convenience store all he needs do is click on the button that says, "I AM 18"???

    You're aware that to actually purchase porn from a website you have to provide verification of age, which is usually in the form of your credit card, right? This is where your comprehension is breaking down. A 12 year old kid can walk into 7/11 and feast his eyes on the alcohol and tobacco products all he wants. He just can't purchase any. A 12 year old kid can log onto a porn site, hit the "I'm 18" button, and check out the porn products (and can do so whether he has to type ".com" or ".net" or ".org" or ".xxx"). The illegality comes at the sales stage, which is where a 7/11 clerk checks an ID, or where a payment verification algorithm provided by a content management provider checks and verifies the payment on a porn site. That process of the 7/11 clerk checking ID happens whether the cigarettes and booze are under lock and key, or the store is located in skid row, or you have to give a secret handshake to inform the clerk you want tobacco. And similarly, that process of the payment verification system happens whether the porn site is hotxxxbitches.com or hotxxxbitches.xxx

  • ||

    (cont'd)

    If society deems that these things should be unavailable to children then a xxx domain is simply a way to help society enforce these mores.

    No, it isn't. It does absolutely not one goddamn thing to enforce those mores, because it changes NOTHING about the process of SELLING PORN. It only changes the addresses where the sales can take place. As I said before, you either can't follow your own logic, or you don't understand the backend of how internet sales work. Forcing porn companies onto separate TLDs changes absolutely nothing about the way that they provide porn to customers in exchange for money, except the address they can use. It's an attempt to force the providers into a virtual skid row. Nothing more.

  • ||

    Your false analogy is false no matter how many times you repeat it.

  • ||

    you still have no right to force people into a domain just because you have trouble parenting your kids.

    I'm going to call this the soccer mom tu quoque.

  • ||

    You can call it whatever you want. I'm not accusing anyone of hypocrisy, only of using government force because they are lazy/bad parents.

  • Cdr Lytton||

    The internet is not a virtual mall with space at a premium.

    It kinda is. Domain names are unique. Once hotjezziechix.xxx is taken, no other site can use it. If porn is limited to a single TLD, no other site could use hotjezziechix.com or hotjezziechix.kz or whatever.

    Hey come to think of it, this is setting up for another baptists and bootleggers example.

  • ||

    It kinda is. Domain names are unique. Once hotjezziechix.xxx is taken, no other site can use it. If porn is limited to a single TLD, no other site could use hotjezziechix.com or hotjezziechix.kz or whatever.

    Yeah, that's true.

    And also, ewwwww.

  • hotsy totsy||

    Redact "First Amendment" "Founding Fathers" and "America" and substitue "the Holy Quoran", "The Prophet" and "Saudi Arabia" and I defy anyone to tell me they could tell the difference in thinking.

  • Mike M.||

    So are any of the contributors here at Reason going to say anything at all about the senseless killing of Christopher Lane in Oklahoma, or 88 year old World War II veteran Delbert Belton being beaten to death in Spokane, Washington? Or are they afraid to go down that road for some reason? Martin/Zimmerman sure got a hell of a lot of attention in these parts.

  • Nazdrakke||

    And the libertarian issue in these cases is?

  • BardMetal||

    "And the libertarian issue in these cases is?"

    Nope I assume that Mike M. is attempting race bait some contributors, and is failing miserably at it.

  • Mike M.||

    The right to live is the greatest liberty of them all. You know, the right to be able to walk down the streets without being beaten to death for no reason.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    You know, the right to be able to walk down the streets without being beaten to death for no reason.

    Ok, Lane and Belton could have protected themselves had they been armed.

    But that's not the hobby horse you wish to ride now, is it?

  • Mike M.||

    And if Belton had been armed and shot his killers before they could beat him to death he'd be another George Zimmerman, and we would be talking about it nonstop for the next year.

    Stories are only newsworthy when liberals say they are, and if liberals don't want to talk about them they're "hobbyhorses". Thanks for helping to make my point.

  • Irish||

    And if Belton had been armed and shot his killers before they could beat him to death he'd be another George Zimmerman, and we would be talking about it nonstop for the next year.

    Are you seriously arguing that if teenagers attempted to beat an octogenarian WWII veteran to death and he defended himself people would have turned him into the next George Zimmerman?

    What happened the night of the Martin shooting was very hazy which is what allowed the story to spiral out of control and get manipulated by the left. If an 88 year old defended himself against teenagers, there's no way the same thing would happen.

  • Mike M.||

    Are you seriously arguing that if teenagers attempted to beat an octogenarian WWII veteran to death and he defended himself people would have turned him into the next George Zimmerman?

    Are you seriously arguing that nobody would have done this?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Are you seriously arguing that nobody would have done this?

    You can always find someone to ignorantly rant and rave about a particular topic.

    Thin gruel, Mike, thin gruel.

  • Irish||

    Are you seriously arguing that nobody would have done this?

    No, what I'm arguing is that it wouldn't have carried the same weight as the Zimmerman case and never would have ended up like that. I'm saying that if someone tried to claim that an 88 year old WWII vet was in the wrong in that situation, they would be mocked mercilessly, even by most liberals.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    And if Belton had been armed and shot his killers before they could beat him to death he'd be another George Zimmerman

    You can predict the future now? Or are you merely confusing talking out of your ass with statements of fact?

    Thanks for helping to make my point.

    Of course, your point is that you're a race-baiting, frothing-at-the-mouth, White(?) version of Al Sharpton. I was glad to oblige.

    Indeed, where were you when this story occurred? Why didn't you demand Reason devote several articles to discussion of that case? What's good for the goose, right?

    Again, your main grievance seems to be that Reason isn't your own personal news aggregator. I'm sure if you sent your resume, they might consider you for the position of editor.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    "Stories are only newsworthy when liberals say they are, and if liberals don't want to talk about them they're "hobbyhorses"."

    I agree with this part of your argument, but your frustration over the media's behavior maybe leading you to a conclusion the other incidents just don't prove.

    While both of those black on white crimes are sickening, crime statistic don't point to an increase in this type of crime. You probably already know that most crime is within the same racial and socio-economic demographic (black on black or white on white).

    I get your point if you're frustrated that neither of these cases are being labeled hate crimes. But, just because the Zimmerman case was stupidly constructed by the media using that narrative doesn't mean the idiocy should be encouraged.

    Now, the complaint I've heard that little attention is paid to crime stats within black communities by the media and black leaders is legitimate, imo.

  • Mike M.||

    I agree with this part of your argument, but your frustration over the media's behavior maybe leading you to a conclusion the other incidents just don't prove.

    I completely agree with you that at this point in time there is no proof that these were racially motivated "hate crimes". I strongly suspect that the one in Spokane was, but we just don't know for sure yet.

    But because we don't know, we're not allowed to discuss it at all? Look at how angry Heroic Mulatto is at me just for even bringing this up in the first place. It seems like I hit a nerve there, and a very sensitive one at that.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    "But because we don't know, we're not allowed to discuss it at all? Look at how angry Heroic Mulatto is at me just for even bringing this up in the first place."

    The way you framed it was annoying. And, I wonder if your not projecting your frustration with the unequal media treatment on to blacks in general. Keep in mind, blacks are more frequent victims of crime.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    Ugg. you're

  • Mike M.||

    Keep in mind, blacks are more frequent victims of crime.

    I know, and I am 100% behind ending the stupid drug war, which we all know is one of the main causes of black on black crime.

    But these killings had absolutely nothing to do with the drug war. And we all damn well know that too.

  • hotsy totsy||

    Didn't they arrest the doers? What the hell else is anyone supposed to do?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Look at how angry Heroic Mulatto is at me just for even bringing this up in the first place. It seems like I hit a nerve there, and a very sensitive one at that.

    Anymore amateur psychoanalysis to pull out of your ass? Tell me, what's up with my fetish for girls in cats-eye frame-like glasses? Does it have anything to do with my reoccurring dream where all my teeth fall out?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • ||

    HM, I like the way the link only singles out "conservative" commentators.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    I thought Lane was shot in the back with no warning? If so, being armed wouldn't have helped him.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Dude was Australian. Being shot in the back is like a love tap over there.

  • Gbob||

    I believe that Aussies are at work on a weapon that, when thrown, will actually circle back on itself in a boomerang like fashion. They call it a "Digery-lickitie-doo".

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Lane was shot from behind while jogging, so I don't see how he could have defended himself.

    Belton, on the other hand, should be the poster boy for expanding concealed carry. He definitely could have defended himself.

  • Irish||

    You know, the right to be able to walk down the streets without being beaten to death for no reason.

    This sounds oddly similar to the argument Bloomberg uses to justify stop and frisk.

  • Cdr Lytton||

    Great. EVH is going off on marriage and porn upstream. Now Mike M. is on the verge of kicking off an abortion thread.

    Will no one rid us of these troublesome digressions? I blame reason's staff for not providing adequate articles so the comments sections stay on track. This never would have happened when Postrel was running the joint.

  • BardMetal||

    "The right to live is the greatest liberty of them all. You know, the right to be able to walk down the streets without being beaten to death for no reason."

    Why not just get to the point and say what you want to say?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Why not just get to the point and say what you want to say?

    It's going to take Mike some time to switch over to his "American!" forum handle.

    Give him a few minutes, ok? It's hard to keep track of the conversation with two browser windows open, you know.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    What can be said about it?

    I'll ask you what I do John when he stirs the racebait bucket for political spin - what do you propose be done about the black youth murder problem?

  • KPres||

    What needs to be done is that it needs to be talked about as a black issue, and libertarians need to talk about it that way. The reason is because the statists are disingenuously framing the high murder rate as a as a gun control issue when in fact, white gun-owners don't have a high murder rate.

    If you let the statists falsely frame an issue for their illiberal ends, when you have data that points to a different, truer narrative that you're concealing because you're afraid of being called racist, then your non-action represent a net negative to human liberty.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Yes, how dare Reason not be your own personal news aggregator, Mike!

    Pray tell, what is the libertarian angle on any of those stories? For the Lane case, they're not charging the suspects with a "hate crime," which is positive as hate crime legislation is stupid. They killed a man, that warrants a harsh enough punishment without having to add thoughtcrime to make it sound worse.

    Spokane was just a tragedy; nothing more, nothing less. There is no connection to the liberty movement in the events of Spokane. If you just want to get your frothing-at-the-mouth Yokeltarian hate on about the race of the suspects and victims, I suggest you visit Stormfront, or perhaps VDare.

    (Though I suspect VDare will be consumed with articles attempting to prove that Mexicans are worse.)

    Hope that helps.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Yokeltarian

    Can I just say that this term is every bit a dumb and stupid as Cosmotarian?

    Why? Because it wrongly conflates country-folk with wrong-headed conservatism disguised as libertarianism. Surely there are plenty of NYC dwellers who think abortion is wrong and that blacks are the root of all crime. There is nothing rural-centric about the mindset you're trying to describe.

    Call them what they are: fucking conservatives trying to co-opt the libertarian moniker.

    Ditto for Cosmotarian.

  • Irish||

    Martin/Zimmerman sure got a hell of a lot of attention in these parts.

    Yes, and it was primarily to point out the idiocy of left-wing ideas about the Zimmerman case. It's not like Reason came out against Zimmerman.

    So are any of the contributors here at Reason going to say anything at all about the senseless killing of Christopher Lane in Oklahoma, or 88 year old World War II veteran Delbert Belton being beaten to death in Spokane, Washington?

    Why, so that you can write some racist bullshit and wave your hands in the air angrily? Unless government had some hand in those murders, I don't see the interest a libertarian political magazine would have in them. Unless someone writes a 'Lane Law' trying to outlaw firearms, what would Reason's interest in this story be?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -Martin/Zimmerman sure got a hell of a lot of attention in these parts.

    Because it was used to attack gun rights.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    And stand your ground laws.

  • Mike M.||

    By the way, are regular non-LEO citizens even legally allowed to get carry permits and be in public armed in the state of Washington? My guess is they're probably not since the state is almost completely controlled by liberal democrats, but I honestly don't know, so I could be wrong about that.

    As for Christopher Lane, as a foreigner legally in America on a student visa, it would have been pretty much impossible for him to legally buy a gun at all, much less get a carry permit if he had wanted to. Though I agree that him being armed likely wouldn't have helped him at all, being that the cowardly scum allegedly shot him in the back.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    are regular non-LEO citizens even legally allowed to get carry permits and be in public armed in the state of Washington?

    According to Dunphy, yes.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    According to Dunphy, yes.

    Though he may well be right, using Dunphy as a source for anything is idiotic. He's too slimy to trust that his accounts are correct.

  • Generic Stranger||

    In this case, Dumphy was right. There are currently no states in the union that don't have provisions for concealed carry, and Washington is a shall-issue state.

  • Virginian||

    Pretty sure Washington has pretty good gun laws for a blue state. Kind of like PA that way.

    Spokane is a Western city, not a Left Coast city. It's a lot more like Idaho then Seattle.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I see somebody is beating the fuck out of his family values hobbyhorse.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    That's mainly because the Time article annoyed me. "Look at these weirdos worried about porn! And look at these enlightened college professors who use porn in their classroom!"

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    To be fair, I don't know if using porn *in the classroom* would be a turn-on. It may not be. "Now if we turn to this freeze-frame here, do you agree with the camera angle?"

  • Brett L||

    Oh look, the hairy-man-ass angle. Everyone's least favorite. What do you think the director is trying to say about the monotony of anal sex with this angle?

  • ||

    Oh look, the hairy-man-ass angle. Everyone's least favorite.

    Clearly you've never met Warty.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    What do you think the director is trying to say about the monotony of anal sex with this angle?

    In porn? Absolutely nothing.

  • anon||

    To be fair, I don't know if using porn *in the classroom* would be a turn-on.

    Depends on what kind of fantasies I'd had about the teacher or other classmates.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Obamacare’s Hierarchy of Privilege
    No one who favors the law wants to be bound by it.

    “Comprehensive” today is a euphemism for interminably long, poorly drafted, and entirely unread — not just by the people’s representatives but by our robed rulers, too (how many of those Supreme Court justices actually plowed through every page of Obamacare when its “constitutionality” came before them?). The 1862 Homestead Act, which is genuinely comprehensive, is two handwritten pages in clear English. “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” is 500 times as long, is not about patients or care, and neither protects the former nor makes the latter affordable.

    So what is it about? On Wednesday, the Nevada AFL-CIO passed a resolution declaring that “the unintended consequences of the ACA will lead to the destruction of the 40-hour work week.” That’s quite an accomplishment for a “health” “care” “reform” law. But the poor old union heavies who so supported Obamacare are now reduced to bleating that they should be entitled to the same opt-outs secured by big business and congressional staffers. It’s a very strange law whose only defining characteristic is that no one who favors it wants to be bound by it.

    A reminder that private sector fraud can't compare to the fraud committed by government.

  • CatoTheElder||

    “the unintended consequences of the ACA will lead to the destruction of the 40-hour work week.”

    I seem to recall one of the central objectives of the labor movement was to obtain a shorter work week.

    Be careful what you wish for, for you may very well get it.

  • Irish||

    Salon hilariously tries to claim that it's the right who try to turn everything racial.

    Granted, given Mike M. up above, there are certainly conservatives who are unhinged about black on white crime and seem to want to use these crimes for racist purposes. That said, this entire cycle of hate and racemongering was set off by the left's need to distract from their own failures by turning Trayvon Martin into a racial martyr when he was no such thing.

  • ||

    there are certainly conservatives who are unhinged about black on white crime

    To be fair, although I can't speak to Mike M's motivations, I think the thing a lot of conservatives get frustrated with is the trivialization or outright denial of black on white crime, while there is massive sensationalism when the races are reversed. It's more about the double standard.

  • Irish||

    I would agree, but some cons take this to a bizarre extreme and a legitimate obsession with all black on white crime. I am aggravated by the double standard, but I don't think we should stoop to the same level as the drooling mouth breathers who make up the modern left.

  • ||

    Yeah, there's always that contingent as well. Race hustlers gonna race hustle.

  • BardMetal||

    We shouldn't stoop to the same level, but you can't be surprised when people start to react very emotionally when they see the same double standard time after time.

    Sadly the left in this country is destroying a lot of the progress made since the civil rights era, in order to score some cheap, and very short term political points.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I think the thing a lot of conservatives get frustrated with is the trivialization or outright denial of black on white crime,

    By whom? From what I see, the two cases mentioned previously are getting a hell of a lot of play on CNN, and while I shudder to enter the fever swamps of FOX or HuffPo, I assume they are giving them similar coverage.

    To reach back a little further in the past, are you saying the O.J. case was "trivialized"?

  • ||

    From what I see, the two cases mentioned previously are getting a hell of a lot of play on CNN

    But the racial angle isn't being beaten into horse pulp like, for example, the Trayvon Martin case, which became a national "teachable moment" for the entire print and broadcast news media.

    To reach back a little further in the past, are you saying the O.J. case was "trivialized"?

    I don't recall there being any racial component attributed to his motivation for the murders. The racial hysterics were about OJ being victimized by bigoted LA cops who used the word "nigger". This, again, gets back the original point.

  • ||

    Mind you, don't mistake me for arguing that there actually was a racial component in OJ's motive for murder. I'm just saying that the media didn't fabricate one and then sensationalize it into a national news story for the better for of 2 years like they did with the Martin case. Or, to go back a little further, the Duke lacrosse rape case, etc.

    The people who have to ascribe a racial motive to everything are kooks. But I think some on the right who may at first appear that way are simply trying to highlight the disparity of the media narrative in these types of cases more generally. If 3 white teenagers beat a black vacationer to death after one of them had tweeted "90% of all blacks are bad. I hate them", I think the coverage would be much more frenzied than the previously mentioned case.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I don't recall there being any racial component attributed to his motivation for the murders.

    You don't remember the speculation that OJ was extra angry because his White wife was cheating on his with a White dude? All the extra attention paid on his interracial marriage and the potential "friction" it caused? Perhaps my antennae were extra-sensitive in picking up that rhetoric, but it was there.

  • anon||

    You don't remember the speculation that OJ was extra angry because his White wife was cheating on his with a White dude?

    Wait, are you serious?

    ahahahahhahaa

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I'm not saying that's what I thought, but there were talking heads who stated that very argument.

  • anon||

    That's simply amazing how someone could gloss over the entire "Wife's fucking someone else" part to say "Oh, he's only mad because they're both white."

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I believe the argument was that interracial marriages are inherently less secure than intraracial ones, so a man like OJ always had that fear in the back of his mind, and when it proved to be true, he snapped.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    I'm not saying that's what I thought, but there were talking heads who stated that very argument.

    The OJ case gave at least one of the modern talking heads, one of the worst I might add, her big break from legal consultant to full-time babbler of nonsense.

  • ||

    You don't remember the speculation that OJ was extra angry because his White wife was cheating on his with a White dude?

    You may have me there. Full disclosure: I was 8 years old when the case was unfolding, although my parents obsessively watched the trial gavel to gavel on that badass new cable channel CourtTV.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • ||

    Actually, I do remember that one. Here again though, I don't know that it rose to that level of a broader racial narrative like some of our more recent media-hyped cases. Race was a component of the OJ case, but I think in a different way.

    Of course, back then on any given day you probably didn't hear the word "hate crime" on the news, and the climate was just different than today. I guess that's really the crux of it. It seems like there's a more agenda-driven climate now (maybe there was then too).

  • BardMetal||

    "I don't recall there being any racial component attributed to his motivation for the murders. The racial hysterics were about OJ being victimized by bigoted LA cops who used the word "nigger". This, again, gets back the original point."

    It's all part of the leftist worldview. In their eyes the white guy is always the oppressor, and the black guy is always the victim. News stories that don't fit this narrative don't get the same air time.

  • BardMetal||

    "By whom? From what I see, the two cases mentioned previously are getting a hell of a lot of play on CNN, and while I shudder to enter the fever swamps of FOX or HuffPo, I assume they are giving them similar coverage."

    Can you name one black on white hate crime that has gotten the media attention of the Zimmerman case? Or one where the racial aspects are even mentioned?

  • anon||

    Can you name one black on white hate crime

    There's no such thing because OPPRESHUN! OTHERED! SOMETHING!

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Can you name one black on white hate crime that has gotten the media attention of the Zimmerman case?

    How far back in the past can I go? Because in the 70's the (real) Black Panthers were all over the news, bro.

  • Irish||

    I understand that stuff like this HAS happened in the past, but in modern times I don't think you can compare the media coverage and speculation caused by a white on black crime with that of a black on white crime.

    Every summer there are flash mobs that attack white people in major cities across the country, and we are informed by the media that the perpetrators are 'youths.' If the same thing were happening with the races reversed, the media obviously would not be so hesitant to make race a part of it.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Fair enough.

  • BardMetal||

    "Every summer there are flash mobs that attack white people in major cities across the country, and we are informed by the media that the perpetrators are 'youths.' If the same thing were happening with the races reversed, the media obviously would not be so hesitant to make race a part of it."

    You know they do the same thing in Europe to play down the whole Muslim aspect.

  • BardMetal||

    "How far back in the past can I go? Because in the 70's the (real) Black Panthers were all over the news, bro."

    So you have to go back 40 years ago to find a black on white crime where the media actually played up the racial angle?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I didn't realize there was a statute of limitations on my memories.

    But if you want to focus on the here and now, I do think the media is playing up the race of Lane's killers. Considering they took the time to scour one of killer's Twitter account so they could breathlessly report that he wrote that he hated 90 percent of White people.

  • Irish||

    Haven't a lot of those stories come out of the Australian and British media? I know that the American media didn't release pictures until after the Aussies already had.

    I'd have to see where these stories originated. If the origin of the stories were Australian and British papers, as many of the earlier stories were, then that would actually support the point that the American media is avoiding it.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    That's a good point.

  • BardMetal||

    "Considering they took the time to scour one of killer's Twitter account so they could breathlessly report that he wrote that he hated 90 percent of White people."

    I guess I must have missed that report. What news network reported that?

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Twitchy maybe? Regardless, I can guarantee that something like that from a white murderer would surely be enough to have the media screaming "hate crime!" from the rooftops.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • BardMetal||

    Well I guess I was wrong on this one. It seems that the news media is mentioning the racial angle.

  • Killazontherun||

    Can you name one black on white hate crime that has gotten the media attention of the Zimmerman case?

    OJ on Nicole and Rom. Okay, what do I win?

  • Calidissident||

    Once again, people are totally failing to realize why the Zimmerman case got the attention it did. It wasn't just because a white(ish) guy killed a black teenager. It got the attention it did because the cops didn't arrest him (not saying they should have btw) and it wasn't a clear-cut case where we know what happened. It was a self-defense case that people disagreed on, and it could be used to stir up controversy. The Lane case (and the other one) is in no way comparable. It's a clear-cut instance of murder. They've admitted to it. They're going away for a long time. Nobody is defending them. Also, one of the guys is white, and another half-white. It wasn't 3 black teens like certain outlets are claiming.

    Similarly, there was a case in Wisconsin recently where an old white guy (clearly unjustifiably) shot and killed a 13 year old black kid because he thought he had previously stolen something from him. That case hasn't gotten much attention, even though it's a much better example of a heinous white on black crime. Why? Because nobody is defending the shooter, and everyone agrees he should be locked up.

    The vast majority of murders in this country are intraracial. Liberals went stupid over the Zimmerman case, but the obsession with black on white crime by some conservatives is just as annoying.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    I think a lot of that is just reaction to the race baiters and hypocritical coverage by the media. Without Martin/Zimmerman it's just a blip on the radar.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    The right is worse than the left as far as the media is concerned. All of AM talk radio are race-baiters as well as Fox News. The left has the usual two race-mongers (JJJ and Sharpton) but generally avoids the subject out of political correctness.

  • Irish||

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    You forget tragic mulatta Melissa Harris-Perry.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    She's purged her white heritage.

    Some kind of genetic experiment, or something.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Conservatives rightly say that no one watches MSNBC. So how can they rep all Democrats?

    You think Dem heavy Massachusetts is into Toure? Does he play in Iowa - which Obama won twice? Toure and MHP are nobodies.

    You have committed the logical fallacy of hasty generalization.

  • BardMetal||

    I can't tell if he's being sarcastic or not.

  • Irish||

  • ||

    Not to mention that nonsense with the fucking rodeo clown.

    That's no way to talk about the president...

  • Generic Stranger||

    That's a foul insult, and I demand you retract it. Rodeo clowns do not deserve to be slandered in that manner.

  • Nazdrakke||

    This is quite possibly the most ludicrous sky-is-green thing you have ever posted here. Quite an accomplishment.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I am a clear winner here.

    I have no doubt many in the Peanut Gallery associates Democrat with "black activist". It is ridiculous. They are EXACTLY the same - not.

    Yet on wingnut AM radio Obama is a Kenyan anti-colonial Saul Alinsky black agitator - all code for "uppity Negro".

    Yes, and he is the same one who is chummy with Goldman Sachs and all of Silicon Valley.

    Yes, the lay rightwinger is worse, no question.

  • Nazdrakke||

    Purely as a humanitarian I have to point out that if you keep your projector cranked to this level for much longer you're gonna burn that sucker out and I don't know that you could bear the blackness of your intellectual vacancy for long enough to repair it. You might just want to dial it back to "but BOOOSH" for a little while just to be safe.

  • Irish||

    Yet on wingnut AM radio Obama is a Kenyan anti-colonial Saul Alinsky black agitator - all code for "uppity Negro".

    As someone whose dad actually listens to AM talk radio every time I'm at his house, I have yet to hear this argument from anyone. The place I most frequently here Obama referred to as Kenyan is on left-wing sites where they're trying to mock conservatives by beating up strawmen.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Citing a recent Forbes article by Dinesh D’Souza, former House speaker Newt Gingrich tells National Review Online that President Obama may follow a “Kenyan, anti-colonial” worldview.

    Gingrich says that D’Souza has made a “stunning insight” into Obama’s behavior — the “most profound insight I have read in the last six years about Barack Obama.”

    “What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?” Gingrich asks. “That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior.”

    http://www.nationalreview.com/.....bert-costa

  • John||

    Neither De'Souza nor Gingrich are on radio. And that is two people you fucking retard.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Fucking AM radio ran with this bullshit racist line for months.

    Hannity lived off this racist shit.

  • John||

    Fucking AM radio ran with this bullshit racist line for months.

    Says the shitbag who claims to never listen to it. Go post somewhere else. No one cares here. Find some place where the poster have double digit IQs like you do. They might be dumb enough to listen to you.

  • Irish||

    I never once heard Hannity claim Obama was a Kenyan. I have never heard of Limbaugh making that argument. I have never heard of Medved making that argument or Dennis Miller. I don't think Mark Levin ever made that argument. I could see Beck making that argument because he's a crazy motherfucker, but I don't think any of the other big names in talk radio ever claimed that Obama was a Kenyan.

    Of the top ten talk radio hosts, how many of them argued that Obama was a secret Kenyan?

  • Banjos||

    "I could see Beck making that argument because he's a crazy motherfucker,"

    Even Beck makes fun of Birthers.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Hey Banjos,

    What happened to Sloopy, I haven't seen him post here for a long time.

  • Banjos||

    He was offered a new job in Southern CA which sucks a lot more of his time, pays a lot more, but he has been working non stop.

  • Irish||

    You specifically argued that everyone on AM talk radio is a racist who believes Obama is a Kenyan. When called on this, you cited two people, neither of whom are on AM talk radio.

    The argument I'm making isn't that conservatives aren't sometimes racists, it's that racism is an active policy of the left. Small government conservatism could exist without any racial undertones, the modern big government left could not exist without using racism to drive vote turnout and fire up their base. Racism is a driving force of the modern left in a way it simply isn't for the right.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Racism is a driving force of the modern left in a way it simply isn't for the right.

    You just jumped the shark with a record high.

    The whole "birther" and "unAmerican" and "welfare queen" memes are extensions of the Southern Strategy that the right feeds on to maintain their Southern bloc.

  • John||

    Birtherism that was started by the Hillary Clinton campaign. Tell us more about Thomas white wife, you racist fuck. Come on Shreek. You know you hate him for it.

  • Irish||

    Birtherism that was started by the Hillary Clinton campaign.

    That has a strange tendency to be forgotten by liberals.

  • CatoTheElder||

    It's really unfair to tar the entire modern American left by calling it racist.

    Seriously, only a fraction of the left is genuinely racist, and its magnitude is probably about the same as the right's.

    However, race obsession is indeed one of the central organizing principles of of the modern American left.

  • Irish||

    However, race obsession is indeed one of the central organizing principles of of the modern American left.

    Isn't 'race obsession' essentially the same thing as racism? If someone said 'I'm not racist, I'm just obsessed with what race someone is' what would your opinion of that person be?

  • Mike M.||

    However, race obsession is indeed one of the central organizing principles of of the modern American left.

    And right on cue, Martin Luther King III proclaims that being white is a "license to commit murder", as if he heard you and wanted to prove your very point.

  • CatoTheElder||

    D'Souza's "Kenyan, anti-colonial" worldview argument is not inherently racist. Only a race-obsessed person would read it as such. The fact that the father in "Dreams from My Father" was black is merely incidental in D'Souza's argument. The emphasis is on anti-colonial. The "Kenyan" part is relevant only because Kenya was British colony.

    OTOH, a few visits to Free Republic suggests that maybe half of the residents there are obsessed about the Kenyan part with respect to the birth certificate. There are in fact some nuts over there.

  • Agammamon||

    Aaaand he's not calling Obama a Kenyan.

  • BiMonSciFiCon||

    I would not want to play golf with you.

    PB: I had a three.

    Me: Are you sure? It took you two tries to get out of the bunker and you three putted.

    PB: I had a three. I am a clear winner here.

  • Warrren||

    If there's anything he is intimately familiar with it's his putz.

  • ||

    Palin, seriously. What an incredible assertion to make publicly. I guess we live in a Bizarro world now.

    Progressives are OBSESSED with race. Shit, I couldn't go through a god damn class in university without them going on and on and on about race and culture.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    "..there are certainly conservatives who are unhinged about black on white crime and seem to want to use these crimes for racist purposes."

    They're just frustrated with the obvious double standard. I think they want to make the rational racist argument, but are fearful of the blow-back so just point and scream about the hypocrisy.

  • CatoTheElder||

    The Zimmerman-Martin story initially appeared to have the makings of a real Man Bites Dog story.

    Zimmerman. The name conjured up fantasies of a genuine neo-Nazi. Trayvon's sweet, youthful photograph. White Man Murders Black Youth, Police Do Not Press Charges is a compelling story. Add to that the prospect of creating the impression that armed racists were using SYG to murder minorities, bring in the race hustlers, and the story became so irresistible that even when the facts were finally learned, the media could not let it go.

    It was an unusual story, not an ordinary, everyday occurrence like young black men murdering other young black men, or innocent bystanders, or even a random white person in boredom or a gang initiation. These are stories of local interest, perhaps, but they have no legs as national stories.

  • SForza||

    "Zimmerman. The name conjured up fantasies of a genuine neo-Nazi."

    Wait... what? Zimmerman is a Jewish name. It conjures up images of Holocaust survivors, not Neo-Nazis.

  • anon||

    Well, I believe we all called it: Feinstein doesn't give a fuck.

    ""Clearly, any case of noncompliance is unacceptable, but these small numbers of cases do not change my view that NSA takes significant care to prevent any abuses and that there is a substantial oversight system in place."

  • Nazdrakke||

    Procedures we followed, totality of circs, FYTW.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Yep, she was just mad about being left out of the loop. Now that she's back in, all is well.

  • Cdr Lytton||

    "Of course Senator. You're now fully informed. Would we lie to you (again)?"

  • The Late P Brooks||

    In theory, pervasive unconstitutional spying on Americans not specifically suspected of any wrongdoing is bad. But we're from the government, and we're here to help.

  • anon||

    Dick Cheney: Don't conflate the NSA with the IRS.

    No problem, Dick. We aren't all fucking retarded.

    I'm now convinced there's nothing evil about the Bush admin, because evil people can't be this dumb.

  • Cdr Lytton||

    Cheney, speaking at the Steamboat Institute Freedom (hah hah!) Conference:

    “The first thing you do is you get yourself a new commander in chief,” Cheney said when asked by his daughter, who is running for U.S. Senate in Wyoming, for his thoughts on the issues surrounding the NSA’s surveillance program.

    As long as our guy does it, it's ok!

    But there aren’t any really good examples out there how the NSA programs have been abused

    LALALALA STILL CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALA

  • avocats||

    An ongoing debate about government: evil or dumb? I waver. because some of it is just SO stupid . . . .

  • anon||

    EPA employee stole $886K from the agency

    “There appears to be corruption to the umpteenth degree,”

    Naw, really?

  • anon||

    Colorado State Senator says blacks and hispanics are poor because fried chicken.

    Fuck you bitch, everyone loves fried chicken. Because it's fucking delicious.

  • BardMetal||

    Wow that is pretty racist.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    It's more contrived bullshit.

    Here's the quote:

    “When you look at life expectancy, there are problems in the black race: sickle-cell anemia is something that comes up, diabetes is something that’s prevalent in the genetic makeup and you just can’t help it,” Marble said. “Although I’ve got to say, I’ve never had better BBQ and better chicken and ate better in my life than when you go down south and you — I love it.”

    It's just bullshit political pandering that race pimps are lying about.

    Fuck em.

  • Cdr Lytton||

    Nothing about the high carb content of watermelons and collard greens?

  • CatoTheElder||

    I really don't get this notion that fried chicken, barbeque, watermelon, and collard greens are particularly African American. They are, in fact, common to the southern cuisine, and quite delicious. Only a Yankee, a Yankee transplant, or perhaps a southern elitist raised on steak and lobster, thinks otherwise.

  • CatoTheElder||

    That said, in my youth the purveyors of the best barbeque were African American. Their establishments were not fancy, but their cuisine was fantastic. We have some great barbeque in Texas, but nothing is as good as the Memphis-style barbeque served up in small establishments just east of the River in KY and TN.

  • ||

    Marble went on to mention how Mexicans eat vegetables in Mexico but stop eating healthily when they immigrate to the United States.

    Which is why Mexico has a 3% lower obesity rate than the US.

  • Irish||

    Those aren't even current numbers. Mexico just passed us as number 1 in obesity like 3 weeks ago. It was big news.

    Her argument is idiotic because Mexicans hardly eat healthy food, but I don't think it's as racist as people are making out. Her argument is essentially that people in poor neighborhoods often eat unhealthy food which results in many negative outcomes. Isn't that the exact same argument liberals make when they talk about 'food deserts?'

  • anon||

    Isn't that the exact same argument liberals make when they talk about 'food deserts?'

    Yeah, but that's different. Good intentions, etc.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Food desserts sound tasty!

  • Killazontherun||

    Mexico is not a poor country. It is an extremely stratified one due to having their very own communist revolution even before the Russians. The diet of rich Mexicans are worse than the poor. An aunt of mine married into Mexican oil money. My stomach was not ready for the gastronomical excesses when I visited many years ago.

  • Calidissident||

    I think fried chicken is pretty low down on the list of why blacks and Hispanics are poorer than whites. BTW, it's interesting to note that despite being poorer and having a higher obesity rate, Hispanics have a longer life expectancy than non-Hispanic whites

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Sickle-cell anemia has nothing to do with one's diet.

  • Irish||

    She didn't say it was.

    “When you look at life expectancy, there are problems in the black race: sickle-cell anemia is something that comes up, diabetes is something that’s prevalent in the genetic makeup and you just can’t help it,”

    She's saying that black people are predisposed to sickle cell and diabetes, but that unhealthy diets harm their life expectancy in other ways.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    You can't be predisposed to sickle cell; either you have it or you don't. With type-2 diabetes, I can have a genetic predisposition, but if I eat right, it will never express itself. Sickle cell, on the other hand, is present at birth and there is nothing short of a bone marrow transplant that will change how your body makes red blood cells.

  • Irish||

    What I mean is it's more prevalent in black communities. It's like Tay-Sachs is to Jewish people. If both your parents have sickle cell, you will have sickle cell. If your parents are carriers, you could also get sickle cell. The people who have sickle cell are almost all black, just like Tay-Sachs is far more common among Ashkenazi Jews. Irish people are also more likely than average to end up with Tay-Sachs.

    At no point did she argue that what you eat effects whether you will get sickle cell. She just said that black people are more likely to have it.

  • BardMetal||

    " Irish people are also more likely than average to end up with Tay-Sachs."

    I thought Irish people were more likely to end up with alcoholism.

  • Irish||

    We're also more likely to starve when the potato blight comes.

  • SForza||

    We Welsh folks will starve in solidarity.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I don't think she argued that diet effects the expression of sickle cell, but that diet can influence the health, negatively or positively, of someone with sickle cell, which with the exception of folic acid, the science is still out on that one. (As a layman, I've researched this at length because my daughter has a similar hemoglobinpathy: thalassemia.)

    As for her statement, you can't look at them separately. The fact that she brought up diet right after mentioning sickle-cell and diabetes is strong evidence for, what we call in the field of Pragmatics, "implicature".

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Yeah.

    Or she's just a dumb politician doing what politicians do. Repeat platitudes and try to flatter people into liking them.

  • BiMonSciFiCon||

    As someone eating fried chicken right now, I agree.

  • Cdr Lytton||

    Just reading the Wiki article on SRI:

    SRI's first research project investigated whether the guayule plant could be used as a source of natural rubber. During World War II, rubber was imported into the U.S. and was subject to shortages and strict rationing. From 1942 to 1946, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) supported a project to create a domestic source of natural rubber. Once the war ended, the United States Congress cut funding for the program; in response, the Office of Naval Research created a grant for the project to continue at SRI, and the USDA staff on the project worked through SRI until Congress reauthorized funding in 1947.

    Oh yeah babe, I'll pull out when you tell me to.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Stop the presses, you guys! Remember the Mutiny on the Bounty (TM)? Fletcher Christian, the leader, leading the mutineers and their brides to Pitcairn Island? Well, Fletcher's great (X3) grandson just died. He was a radio DJ, Pitcairn's connection to the outside world, made himself controversial by criticizing some Pitcairn guys having sex with young girls, and befriended the great (X3) grandson of Captain Bligh.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08.....share&_r=0

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Now see, if I got as many responses to my Mutiny on the Bounty posts as to my social issues posts, I would post as many responses.

  • brokencycle||

    Two things.

    1. Why is a math teacher doing this? I could see some science class doing it but not math.

    2. I wouldn't expect a double stuffed Oreo to weight twice as much. It doesn't have twice as many cookie exteriors, so that needs to be factored in. You would need to weigh the cream only.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    1. Why is a math teacher doing this? I could see some science class doing it but not math.

    Perhaps he's teaching ratios?

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    He might also be teaching inferential statistics since this would be an interesting experiment to illustrate what kind of conclusions you can draw from experiments.

  • brokencycle||

    Good point.

  • John||

    This is a hell of a statistic

    Today, only about 7% of recent college grads come from the bottom-income quartile compared with 12% in 1970 when federal aid was scarce.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/.....rialPage_h

    So all of those federal billions that were spent in the name of helping the poor go to college were really just a giant wealth transfer from the taxpayers to a bunch of campus assholes.

  • Sevo||

    John,
    Tony Judt makes the point that quite a bit of the Euro socialist activity just takes money from whomever and rewards the middle class.
    Who goes to Opera?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I'm always down for a good production of Don Giovanni.

    Jus' sayin'

  • Sevo||

    Yeah, but in the government production, he gets lectured to death by Gloria Allred.

  • Cdr Lytton||

    Forty years ago, you could pay for tuition and your expenses by working part time. Heck, lower barriers to workforce entry, both by less crendentialism and regulatory B.S., meant a HS grad (which includes college students) could move into good paying jobs for a couple months in the summer, leave for the school year, and come back the following summer.

    Now, you'd need a college degree, the company would take half the summer to go through the hiring process, and turn down the college student anyways because they wouldn't be around long enough to justify the hiring.

  • Sevo||

    Your tax dollars at work!

  • LynchPin1477||

    "If the federal government keeps on putting more and more money in the system," he noted at the State University of New York at Buffalo on Thursday, and "if the cost is going up by 250%" and "tax revenues aren't going up 250%," at "some point, the government will run out of money."

    Note that for the record: Mr. Obama has admitted some theoretical limit to how much the federal government can spend.

    If only. In his mind this is probably just an argument for higher taxes.

  • GLK||

    You will Love Regulations. Love Government. Love punishing the Capitalist rip-off artists. Trust Government. Trust the Courts. Make the Fat Cats pay. Welcome to the new anti-Capitalist America. Funny, since it was Capitalism that brought us the good health we enjoy and the modern conveniences we hold dear. But never mind. It is all evil now. The godhead told us so. One of us, one of us, one of us...

  • avocats||

    No offset for sparing you that missing amount of "creme" (i.e., hydrogenated oil or somesuch)?

  • William of Purple||

    Cheryl Cole's new tattoo

  • sticks||

    Who?

  • William of Purple||

    Cheryl Ann Cole is an English recording artist, songwriter, dancer and television personality.

  • Generic Stranger||

    So, she covered a gorgeous ass in ink that will look like shit in 20 years. It's a fucking travesty.

  • William of Purple||

    Shut Up About Batfleck: Bryan Cranston Is Playing Lex Luthor In The ‘Man Of Steel’ Sequel

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Oooh, I don't know about that one. He's a great actor but if he plays another bald master criminal the audience is just going to see Walter White.

    Clancy Brown isn't too old to play him, is he?

  • Robert||

    And Lyle Talbot is too dead.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    But what's John Shea up to these days? His Luthor was one of the few things I remember about 'Lois and Clark'.

  • Killazontherun||

    Bale's acting chops are first rate, but come on, it's just Batman. You don't need a master thespian for the role. The Ben haters are being as ridiculous as those My Little Pony freaks. Or, is it Rainbow Brite that grown men ass burgers have become obsessed with? Anyway, same contingent of mindlessness invested in product.

  • ||

    You sure are obsessed with who likes children's shows, and mens' asses as food. Might want to get that checked out.

  • Killazontherun||

    Hey, if that hit too close to home, MY BAD!

  • ||

    Just worried for your mental health. I recommend avoiding Saturday morning television. And remember, AC (Cannibals Anyonymous) is always there for you.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    This is a very angry thread and I don't think I like it.

  • ||

    Who wants a hug?

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Wouldn't Nabisco reasonably be granted a margin of error for producing their Double Stuf Oreos? You can't expect a cookie that is mass produced on an assembly line to be exactly twice as filled with cream as a regular Oreo each time.

    I think the math teacher did a neat little experiment, but was his sample size big enough to significant?

  • Robert||

    1.86 times more than


    Then it must have 2.86 times as much as the regular Stuf cookie. Problem solved

  • ||

    No, the "1" in the "1.86" is the original amount, the ".86" is the extra. You're just adding a normal cookie amount onto the double stuf amount.

  • Robert||

    Then like Linnekin, you don't understand the difference between "as much as" and "more than". I'm sure he meant "1.86 times as much as", or ".86 times more than", but that's not what he wrote.

  • Xenocles||

    OT: I added a Campden tablet to one of my wines after racking and it blew up on me. I'm pretty sure the ferment is done but apparently it hadn't degassed yet. Lesson learned: there can be a lot of trapped gas even with no airlock activity.

  • Xenocles||

    On a similar note I just noticed a dead fruit fly floating in the airlock of another batch. I have no idea how it got in there.

  • Warrren||

    There is no fruit fly.

  • Xenocles||

    Certainly not now.

  • Cdr Lytton||

    I never knew $10M could bring so much unhappiness to my life. Every where I go, there are Cover Oregon billboards, radio ads, and not one.. but TWO TV ads for this crap. It didn't sound any better in the original Russian either.

    Here's a sampling for those of you lucky enough to have missed the HyR post or live anywhere else:

    http://www.theportlandegotist......ver-oregon

    Oh, and apparently you can get more artwork off of Cover Oregon's FB page too.

  • Nazdrakke||

    If you really want to torture yourself you could do like I do and wander down underneath the Hawthorne Bridge and talk politics with the Occupy people at during their drum-thing. It can get interesting.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Can't I just stand at the top of the bridge and hurl insults? And sometimes garbage?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    This is a very angry thread and I don't think I like it.

    There can be no conscientious objectors in the culture war.

    WHOSE SIDE ARE YOU ON?

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    STOP YELLING AT ME!!!

    [runs off sobbing]

  • ||

    Oh now I see. You're one of them.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I just noticed a dead fruit fly floating in the airlock of another batch. I have no idea how it got in there.

    Spontaneous generation.

    duh

  • Xenocles||

    Oh, we have them all over the house. They're everywhere regardless of cleanliness and the open ferments don't help (though they're "particle tight," so the flies can't actually get to them). But the airlock is one of those single-path ones has that lid with the small holes in it.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Anna Gunn: Viewers hate Skyler White because she's a strong female character

    My character, to judge from the popularity of Web sites and Facebook pages devoted to hating her, has become a flash point for many people’s feelings about strong, nonsubmissive, ill-treated women. As the hatred of Skyler blurred into loathing for me as a person, I saw glimpses of an anger that, at first, simply bewildered me.
    [snip]
    As an actress, I realize that viewers are entitled to have whatever feelings they want about the characters they watch. But as a human being, I’m concerned that so many people react to Skyler with such venom. Could it be that they can’t stand a woman who won’t suffer silently or “stand by her man”? That they despise her because she won’t back down or give up? Or because she is, in fact, Walter’s equal?
    [snip]
    But I finally realized that most people’s hatred of Skyler had little to do with me and a lot to do with their own perception of women and wives. Because Skyler didn’t conform to a comfortable ideal of the archetypical female, she had become a kind of Rorschach test for society, a measure of our attitudes toward gender.

  • Irish||

    I actually agree to an extent. A lot of people seem not to like her because she has problems with Walt cooking meth.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    I can see where she is coming from, although I think she downplays the fact that Skyler often makes poor decisions and, before she started laundering the drug money, had the option of leaving Walt and going to Hank and the DEA.

    It's not like she's helpless or trapped since she's always had the means to walk away. Heck, her divorce attorney told her that all she had to do was turn him in and she'd be in the clear.

  • Killazontherun||

    Actors really have to be careful when they play rolls that are in the least bit controversial. The late, great Carol O'Connor got a lot of harassment back in the 70s from random individuals coming up to him and mistaking him for Archie Bunker. No telling what kind of lunatics she deals with out there.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Yeah, I hope people don't mistake Jack Gleeson, who is apparently a very nice, intelligent young man that would rather be a scholar than an actor, with Joffrey.

  • hotsy totsy||

    Or Ralph Cramden.

  • Killazontherun||

    My nephew is exactly what she describes. He really hates on the action girls. I can't talk about Lost without hearing a ten minute whine about Kate. He was ecstatic about the conclusion of the season finale of The Walking Dead as a character he had a hate on blew her brains out. Hates Summer Glau in Firefly (I just find it boring, but her existence is one of the finer things about life on planet Earth if you ask me).

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Well to be fair, Kate was an annoying character who's decisions were often rash and ill-advised. In one of her flashbacks she gets her childhood best friend and the father of a little boy killed because of her selfish behavior. After that I didn't have any sympathy for her.

    I know which Walking Dead character you're talking about and she also made frustratingly bad decisions, so I can understand why people who don't take a show about zombies seriously would be okay with her dying.

    I don't know how anyone can dislike Summer Glaur or the River character, so that might be misogyny.

  • Killazontherun||

    You are right about Kate. I lost sympathy when in a flashback she orchestrates a robbery that puts many lives at jeapordy just to retrieve a toy. However, he will derail any discussion of Lost with a rant on Kate. You could be talking about the numbers and Hugo, and he goes into Kate. Talking about the long con on Locke, Kate. So, I try not to mention the series in front of him. There is something going on beyond mere annoyance at a character.

  • Robert||

    Then you didn't realize how important that ostensible toy was.

    Look at the flashback where she ostensibly retrieved that toy from a time capsule. Notice her flared sleeves and how her right hand was up while she was in the car on the way to the burial site. Then slow the action down just after the lunch box was dug up. Notice what she does with her left hand after the box is opened and before she removes the baseball cap. (Remember that Jack outed her as a sleight of hand artist. Takes one to know one, but that's another story.) That airplane was not buried!

    Where do you think it wound up after we last saw it? Why do you think the thing protected by the lock in the basement of Swan was called a "fail safe"? What do you think Locke meant when he said, "I made a strong case for you?" Lost was full of hidden word plays.

  • Killazontherun||

    Dang, now you make me want to pour through the show again! That horrible sop to the studio and network ending was a misdirection too? I'm going to find flash forwards embedded in the first three years before the mindblowing third season finale that reveal a truer ending, right?

  • Robert||

    http://users.bestweb.net/~robgood/teach , but it doesn't have my most recent findings. Right now I'm learning that there was more of Dept. S in Lost than I originally realized back in 2005. Why do you think Charlie's signet ring said "DS"? It refers both to the TV series and the band, Department S, that was named for it. Seems like half the episodes of Dept. S are echoed on Lost, most notably "Six Days" (wherein an airliner lands 6 days late, the passengers not being aware of any such lapse in time), "One of Our Aircraft Is Empty" (previously noted), and "The Duplicated Man", wherein someone impersonated a cripple for years, then killed off his persona by ostensibly blowing him up in an airplane in flight (observed by others) that someone had made sure he got on. It's hilarious to view and/or read the source material and recognize themes and scenes in Lost.

  • Irish||

    Well to be fair, Kate was an annoying character who's decisions were often rash and ill-advised.

    Kate was a horrible character and hating her makes an awful lot of sense, since she just fucking sucks. She also derails cool plot lines by turning them back to that idiotic Jack/Sawyer/Kate love triangle. I'd actually argue that Kate is a fairly sexist character though. She is ostensibly action oriented, but her only actual purpose when it comes to the plot is to serve as a love interest for Jack and Sawyer who are the actual heroes. No decision she makes in the entire series is unrelated to some man.

    Skyler, on the other hand, seems a much more normal character to me. I can see someone behaving like Skyler if put in that situation, and she makes decisions that are actually important to the series, as opposed to just being a love interest. She can be annoying, but no more so than some of the dumb decisions Walt makes or the periodic Jesse hissy fit. It seems that hating on her while not taking Walt's frequent stupidity into account could very well come from misogyny.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    I'd actually argue that Kate is a fairly sexist character though. She is ostensibly action oriented, but her only actual purpose when it comes to the plot is to serve as a love interest for Jack and Sawyer who are the actual heroes. No decision she makes in the entire series is unrelated to some man.

    Agreed. Juliet, Sun, and Ana Lucia were better developed characters and thus more interesting to watch.

    Skyler, on the other hand, seems a much more normal character to me. I can see someone behaving like Skyler if put in that situation, and she makes decisions that are actually important to the series, as opposed to just being a love interest

    I think Anna Gunn is terrific in the role, but reacting the way she does not mean she is a strong character since until recently she's had a way out from Walter in Hank but didn't take it because she lacked the courage to do so.

    I think you can compare her to Kelly MacDonald's character Margaret on 'Boardwalk Empire'. She's Nucky's mistress and later wife who, like Skyler, benefits monetarily from her spouse's illegal activities.

    But unlike Skyler, Margaret has the strength of conviction to leave Nucky when he starts acting cruel to her and puts her children in danger from other gangsters. And this is during a time period of the 1920s when women had much fewer options. To me that's more impressive, even if, as you point out, Skyler may act more like a real person would.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    Margaret left Nucky because she thought he killed Owen, or, at least, was responsible for Owen's death.

    She really wasn't a strong character. They did a bit with her and the medical heath center for women, but that felt a bit out of context.

    She was a particularly weak women, in my mind. She was almost always reactive. She responded to men, never taking the initiative. She responded to Nucky when he pursued her and then repeated the same dynamic with Owen. That's her nearly fetal flaw.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    She was a particularly weak women, in my mind. She was almost always reactive. She responded to men, never taking the initiative. She responded to Nucky when he pursued her and then repeated the same dynamic with Owen. That's her nearly fetal flaw.

    That's a fair point, but since she's a poor Irish immigrant with two young children there aren't many options for her. Nucky was, as she put it, the first man in her life that wasn't cruel to her. Being attracted to him was understandable.

    Yes, she got swept up with Owen, but Owen did seduce her and manipulate her growing rift with Nucky, I never liked him for that reason.

    Where we last left off she refuses to come back to Nucky because the lifestyle he offers her is tainted by blood money. That's making a stand instead of waffling and I actually liked her a lot more after that last scene. Getting the abortion was also asserting control over her life.

  • Robert||

    You just don't realize what was lurking beneath the surface of Lost. What do you think Kate meant when she told her son that if Mr. Choo-Choo went in the tunnel, he was never coming out? You would know if you read "The Lost Special" by A.C. Doyle, the story after which Lost was modeled and named, or if you watched the Universal movie serial adaptation.

    Why do you think Kate didn't want to have a DNA test? Hint: It wasn't about her baby; it was about her! They showed us two Lockes, but did you think he was the only character with a double?

  • Killazontherun||

    When I see headlines like this used to excuse NSA's perverted behavior, it really grinds my kidney stones:

    Fake social network PRSM demonstrates we're willing to share everything anyway.

    The dismissive attitude of that headline misses the point, the mark, the entire ballpark. Those blinds you keep on your windows, who decides when they go up and they go down? Why should you have more of a say than the neighborhood peeping Tom? Does the fact you routinely keep them up change his legal status to any degree? No, it doesn't. He's still not allowed to come in your house and open your blinds just because you only shut them for the few minutes of the day you take to change your clothes. It's still your choice how much you share. Your window, your blinds, your computer.

  • Xenocles||

    I assume the headline was thinly veiling a subtext of "But you share your data with korparashuns, so why not the government?"

  • Killazontherun||

    Pretty much. I've noticed it enough times to suspect it as either a planted meme or so derivative of a commonly held mind set to be an inevitable outcome of a social pathology. Most likely the later in most instances, but we're dealing with the intelligence community and that's a whole different ball game of manipulation.

  • Nazdrakke||

    Choice.. the problem is choice.

  • RightNut||

    Oreo double stuf, with 1.86 times as much filling!

    Much better.

  • Guy LaGuy||

    Stupid fat americans eating stupid fatty foods.
    Obesity & Diabetes: America's Top Exports

  • General Butt Naked||

    How would you know living somewhere else? Perhaps on your visit here you saw a lot of obese people, but not all Americans are fat.

  • Guy LaGuy||

    US has 310 Million people. 33% are 'obese' by your governments measurment. 33% of 310million is over 100 million people.
    There are 62 million people living in the UK.
    There are therefore more fat americans than British people.

  • John||

    If you think that the government measurement is meaningful, which it is not. And having spent more time in the UK than I bet you have ever spent in America, the UK is every bit as obese.

  • Irish||

    US has 310 Million people. 33% are 'obese' by your governments measurment. 33% of 310million is over 100 million people.

    According to government standards Brad Pitt is overweight. So is virtually every NFL player. I agree that a lot of Americans are fat, but the government's primary goal is to overstate the problem so that dumb people will ask the government to 'do something!' Based on your posts, it appears that they've succeeded.

  • General Butt Naked||

    There are therefore more fat americans than British people.

    Yup. There's also more skinny americans than british people. Not that I consider the british "people" in the strictest sense of the word.

  • Knarf Yenrab (prev. An0nB0t)||

    Most importantly, is it gee lah-gee or g.eye lah-g.eye?

  • Lady Bertrum||

    "Stupid fat americans eating stupid fatty foods."

    Fatty foods - foods high in natural fats - are good for you and don't cause obesity.

    You should have said stupid Americans eating stupid sugar and carb loaded foods.

  • hotsy totsy||

    Stupid British brushing what few teeth they have with sugar.

  • John||

    My God MLK III is a piece of shit. If the race hustlers and their white liberal enablers idea now is to claim that white people are all vicious murderers, do they expect to engender anything but contempt among whites?

  • Irish||

    No. Their goal is to create antipathy among black people and hispanics in order to stir up their base. It's the sort of textbook divide and conquer racial strategy you tend to see in third world kleptocracies where the government officials convince people to ignore their incompetence by blaming all the problems on the Jews, Asians, or whites.

    The American left has literally adopted the racial attitudes of banana republic dictators.

  • John||

    The problem is that the Zimmerman case crossed a line. The deal was always white people didn't mention the unpleasant facts that young black men are a menace to themselves and most of society in return for not being called racist. The race hustlers and liberals in the Martin case broke that peace by claiming that it is white people who victimize blacks not the other way around. So, now white are going to point out all of the unpleasant truths that show what a tremendous lie that claim is.

  • John||

    Ann Althouse said...

    Ever wonder why right wingers feel "toxic" to lefties, why they don't want to go anywhere near them?

    This is why.

    I'm trying to tell you.

    8/24/13, 9:33 AM

    http://www.blogger.com/comment.....8107837632

    Ann Althouse in reference to big meanie conservatives having the nerve to point out black on white crime in response to liberal claims that the Martin case means white people are dangerous to young black men.

  • Irish||

    The comment she's responding to:

    What do you mean "go looking" for cases of black on white violence? Nobody has to "go looking" for them, because you can't step into most neighborhoods or open a newspaper without tripping on it.

    In the Lane case, there is pretty reliable evidence of race hatred as a motive not just for that shooting, but for other crimes as well.

    We also have a number of instances now of black mobs beating white people citing Zimmerman's acquittal.

    It's silly to think that honestly and accurately confronting these facts is "giving up the moral high ground." It is no such thing. And one in no way has to abandon the fundamental opposition to racial discrimination as referred to by Justice Thomas in order to point that out.

    At another level, the media and lefttard community have been grossly hypocritical and corrupt in their treatment of the Zimmerman case, and many others like it. It is useful and appropriate to rub their noses in it.

    Althouse has apparently adopted the Jezebel attitude towards statistics and evidence. That which hurts my feelings must be ignored.

  • John||

    She later claims that she is just trying to be constructive. Few of her readers are buying.

  • Killazontherun||

    Jesse, the Anointed One

    5:55 in. Dude's giving the lecture is a nut, but I couldn't find the Today Show interview from the next morning.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    The link stinks.

  • Killazontherun||

    The Chicago mob is out to get me, LB.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9HeOc4U-S8

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Zimmerman may very well have judge Martin by the color of his skin, but the fact is we know for a fact that the 'creepy-ass cracka' was also judged by his skin color by Trayvon Martin.

    I doubt MLK III or the other race hustlers are going to look into the mirror on what should be a day of reflection. Dose gangsta rap and thug culture really help create a society where people are judged by the content of their character and not by the color of this skin?

  • John||

    Of course not. It enables them to avoid accepting responsibility. And it allows white liberals to pretend they are superior to other whites. It is a win win.

  • John||

    Of course not. It enables them to avoid accepting responsibility. And it allows white liberals to pretend they are superior to other whites. It is a win win.

  • Xenocles||

    Nobody gives a shit about lefty feelings. This isn't Star Wars, here in the real world it's your feelings that lie to you. If you don't have the facts you pound the table with feelings.

  • BoscoH||

    400+ comments and nobody has noted that the "limited edition" megastuff Oreos aren't even all that limited?

  • Warrren||

    Hydrox is better.

  • SIV||

    Finally, a weekend troll comment. I thought my fellow commenters were slipping.

  • Robert||

    I agree about Hydrox. Their stuffing is the same, but their chocolate cookie tastes better.

  • Warrren||

    True.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Technically they are limited.

  • Killazontherun||

    I don't eat them.

  • Generic Stranger||

    I don't eat Oreo cookies all the time, but when I do, I eat the originals.

    Because while the creme filling is good in small amounts, too much of it tastes like wax.

  • Almanian!||

    this

  • Killazontherun||

    That's exactly why I don't. The semi sweet chocolate wafers are good, but I don't like the greasy coating of the filling in my mouth.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    50 years ago the FBI, NSA, and CIA were heavily involved with the monitoring of and harassment of members of the Civil Rights Movement.

    If only Bush were still in office when the NSA scandal broke, then the Democratic politicians grandstanding at today's commemoration to castigate the GOP and SCOTUS on voter ID laws and the CRA would also mention civil liberties.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    My character, to judge from the popularity of Web sites and Facebook pages devoted to hating her, has become a flash point for many people’s feelings about strong, nonsubmissive, ill-treated women.

    I am not an expert, but in the limited number of times I have watched the show, she seemed to be pretty willing to take his money despite whatever objections she may have claimed to have regarding its source.

  • Warrren||

    HuffPo(l Pot) runs a pro Mises article?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....87489.html

  • Lady Bertrum||

    The comments were surprisingly positive. I wonder if the usual HuffPo commenters didn't bother reading it.

  • Banjos||

    "This is the most blatant case of false advertising since my suit against the movie The Neverending Story."

  • Almanian!||

    +infinity

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    If double stuffed Oreos really aren't double stuffed, then that is blatant false advertising and fraud. They deserve to be sued for that. Bring back Hydrox, dammit.

  • General Butt Naked||

    They don't advertise them as being "double stuffed", they merely have the name "double stuf". Stuf isn't even a word. They might as well advertise them as, "NOW! With triple the YURP!!"

  • Warrren||

    Hmmmmmm...Yurp.

  • Archduke Trousersenthusiast||

    ain't no such thang as too much YURP

  • Warrren||

    I love Yurple drank.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Anything that people recognize to be a word is a word. Nabisco came up with the word 'stuf' from somewhere, therefore it has meaning to Nabisco as well as consumers. 'Stuf' obviously implies 'stuff' which is in reference to the creme filling.

  • General Butt Naked||

    My house is filled with stuff and nary an ounce of it is cream.

  • Warrren||

    Uh...except for that little mess I left in your foyer.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Dang man, I thought that was some Yurp, so I put it on my strawberry short cake.

  • Warrren||

    Given how much Yurp I consume, it was probably at least 50% Yurpy.

  • General Butt Naked||

    That's the great thing about Yurp, it comes out just as it goes in. The human body doesn't have the bio-technology to metabolize it.

  • Warrren||

    Which commercial tag-line do you prefer?

    The 70's-80's: Yurp! The slurp that makes you burp!

    The short-lived: Yuuuuuurp! Ah yeah!

    The 90's attempt to appear hip when they updated their recipe: Give yourself a purp, try the freaky-fresh all-new Yurp!

    The MilleniYurp campaign: Get ready for Y2K, with Yurp 2 Night!

    Or the one they're running now?

  • Westmiller||

    Nabisco should pay you the $mill that they'll likely spend to fend off a lawsuit. Maybe you should copyright your explanation?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Salty ham tears...of blood! Abortion doctors whine that there aren't enough babies being killed.

    "There are many ways to pressure an institution into steering clear of providing abortion. In Toledo, Ohio, the last remaining abortion clinic may be forced to close next week after area hospitals refused to provide transfer agreements, citing a desire to remain “neutral” in the abortion debate. Earlier this month, the sole abortion doctor in Green Bay, Wis., agreed to stop providing the procedure after a local private hospital acquired his clinic. This comes as laws tighten[] regulations on abortion providers....

    "In a statement set to be published in the September issue of the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 100 ob-gyns condemn new state restrictions on abortion as a “political regression.” The article, obtained by TIME, criticizes hospitals for relinquishing abortion to stand-alone clinics that are easily targeted by abortion activists, and calls on the medical community to integrate the procedure into women’s-health services and medical training.

    "“In our view, hospitals have disregarded the responsibility that our academic predecessors expected them to assume,” the professors write."

    http://nation.time.com/2013/08.....z2cvt7Bu2N

  • General Butt Naked||

    Babies are terrible things, why would anyone ever complain about there being too little of them? My neighbors have all kinds of babies and they fucking suck. I keep slipping abortion pamphlets under the door, but they just keep pumping out the little shits.

  • Irish||

    Wow. There is some serious trolling going on around these parts.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I have a black belt in troll-fu.

  • Warrren||

    You belt Negroes?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    You're really reaching.

    I understand from the discussion below that you're a syndic, which Wikipedia defines as "a term applied in certain countries to an officer of government with varying powers...Nearly all companies, guilds, and the University of Paris had representative bodies the members of which were termed syndici....Within Syndicalist and Anarcho-syndicalist organizations, a syndic is a member of an autonomous union, also called a Syndicate, which make up the basic organizational unit of society..."

    Wait, the term was "pindick," which Wikipedia defines as...ewwww!

  • General Butt Naked||

    You like babies, Irish?

    Are you some kind of homo or something?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Why should anyone be celebrating a law which forces abortion providers to have transfer agreements/admittance privileges at local hospitals (especially since other practices involving procedures of a similar nature are often not)?

    Yay, more regulation!?

    And please, enough of this 'it's for the babies!' stuff. This is the SoCon equivalent of 'for the children!'

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    For one thing, I'm not insulted by the term SoCon so long as its understood that I think liberty is the best guarantee of social morality and stability. Liberty, of course, includes protection against arbitrary outlawry. If you want to put someone outside the protection of the law, first charge them with some specific crime and give them a chance to show in court to answer the charges. Only if they repeatedly fail to show up would outlawry be a constitutionally-valid response (and even then we no longer use it). Clearly, this procedure is not relevant in the case of babies, so I'm against outlawing them, even if the mother wants it.

    And there is just a *slight* difference between protecting babies from being killed and advocating some dubious policy (like liberal transfer payments, on "for the children" grounds. Yes, if you want to call protecting children from being *killed* as "for the children," be my guest.

  • Sevo||

    ..."Yes, if you want to call protecting children from being *killed* as "for the children," be my guest."

    Yes, Edward, your sperm must be protected! Each one is a "child"!

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Oh, for a second there I thought Bo Cara had gone around the bend, then I realized it was Sevo. Hi there!

  • Sevo||

    Yeah, those darn skeptics are always around the bend.
    Protect you precious bodily fluids!

  • Robert||

    Would you be insulted by the term "trad"?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    If that means traditional, that depends on the tradition. The principles of the Declaration of Independence, and the history behind them, are a good political tradition for me.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    The problem I have is that I do not think anyone on the other side from you sees what is at subject in the abortion debate as 'babies.' So for pro-life people to go on about 'what about the babies!' when you know you have not convinced us babies are at stake seems silly.

    To be honest I do not think even you think of them as 'babies.' If you someone said 'would you like to hold my baby' and held out a six week embryo to you I suspect you would freak out! Maybe you are right and an embryo or fetus has rights equivalent to a 'baby', but there is a reason why we call them an embryo or a fetus and not a 'baby' or 'infant.' There are important differences (and it is these differences that pro-choice people feel are dispositive).

  • Sevo||

    Bo Cara Esq.| 8.24.13 @ 11:00PM |#
    "The problem I have is that I do not think anyone on the other side from you sees what is at subject in the abortion debate as 'babies.' So for pro-life people to go on about 'what about the babies!' when you know you have not convinced us babies are at stake seems silly."

    Bo, this is an appeal to emotion, every bit as sleazy and dishonest as 'for the childrunz!'
    You are also a bleever, so I'm surprised you're upset.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    My faith is based on the ethical precepts of Jesus and not belief in the supernatural claims of Scripture.

  • ||

    I'll give him this, New Buttplug sure is lively.

  • Archduke Trousersenthusiast||

    I thought it was New Tulpa

  • ||

    Wrong commenter, Archduke.

  • ||

    Christfag! Bleevepig!

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "The problem I have is that I do not think anyone on the other side from you sees what is at subject in the abortion debate as 'babies.'"

    Well, duh! (except for some choicers who use the "trespasser" or "conjoined violinist" argument).

    I'm not sure why choicers get to use their preferred terminology, but it's suddenly illegitimate for prolifers to use different terminology which reflects what they actually believe. I thought prolifers were intrinsically dishonest?

    And of course I'd be freaked out if someone handed me a 6-week embryo, since such embryos/unborn babies belong in the womb.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "procedures of a similar nature"

    What are some examples of this, in your view?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    My ideas of comparable procedures include execution of innocent defendants, drive-by shootings, and beating people to death with baseball bats.

    And if doctors did these things, I suppose they could lobby to have them characterized as medical procedures, too.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I doubt you want a law that says you can do a drive by shooting if you have admitting privileges at a local hospital.

    These measures are being passed ostensibly to protect the adult patient, so I mean procedures with similar risk or complication in that vein.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "I doubt you want a law that says you can do a drive by shooting if you have admitting privileges at a local hospital."

    I would if that was the only way to get around a pro-drive-by-shooting decision of the Supreme Court.

    I'm intrugued how the "choice" side first imposes restraints on their opponents and then blames prolifers for trying to work within these restraints.

  • John||

    Police One responds to Balko's book by proving cops are even worse than Balko's accuses them of being

    http://huffpost.com/us/entry/3776501?1377096453

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    The link says "Oh, Noes! A 404!"

  • Almanian!||

    The computer haz a sad :(

  • Archduke Trousersenthusiast||

  • sticks||

    this is a nice,working link

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/radley-balko/

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    The only way to solve this problem once and for all is a constitutional amendment that specifies the legally acceptable amount of error for all product measurements.

  • Almanian!||

    We must do it - for teh childrenz

  • Warrren||

    Between 29% and 45%

  • Almanian!||

    That's acceptable. Yes.

  • Archduke Trousersenthusiast||

    Marvin Gaye III is out to defend his father's legacy against Robin Thicke, who recently filed a suit against the late singer's estate in an attempt to protect himself against copyright infringement suits for his viral single "Blurred Lines."

  • SutureSelf||

    I more or less skimmed the article, so I may have missed this, but how is the length of Subway's "footlong" sandwich measured? Is it based on the length of the bread? Subway is not making a foot-long bread claim, but a "footlong" sandwich claim. If a half inch of lettuce peeks out of one end and an quarter inch of ham peeks out the other side, could that not compensate for any longitudinal deficiency of the bread and make the sandwich, indeed, one foot long or longer?

  • Warrren||

    The used my penis as a guide.

  • Almanian!||

    You're just asking to be abused.

    That's what you want, isn't it, Warren?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I'm going to have to forget this discussion before I go to Subway again.

  • Almanian!||

    Yeah, my time at Subway (which I used to LOVE) ended when both my son and my wife came home with subs with, like, WORMS in them.

    *barf*

    Been Jimmy Johns ever since for me. Too bad - I liked the BMT.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Gosh, I've never had that experience. I hope it's not a thing.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    But at least its *organic,* right?

  • Archduke Trousersenthusiast||

    right. 24 of your penis lengths is one 'footlong' sub

  • Almanian!||

    I told Warren this would happen. He should have known it before he posted. He probably did. He WANTS the abuse.

    WELL, I HOPE YOU'RE HAPPY NOW, WARREN "THE PINDICK OF REASON"!! YOU ASKED FOR IT!

  • Warrren||

    No it's because of a childhood accident I have lettuce, tomatoes and Black Forest ham embedded in my trouser-hoagie.

  • Almanian!||

    Www.....

    Wow.

    Was NOT expecting that. Well played, Warren. Well played...

  • Almanian!||

    Plus the whole "29% - 45%" error factor you note above.

  • gad-fly||

    Food recipes should always be the defense of record. Raw ingredients of the cookie material and the creme material are likely in line with the "double" claim - but subsequent processes such as cooking or whipping could greatly affect the final finished product.

    For example, ice cream making machines put air into the batch of raw materials in order to add smoothness and flavor. No two batches of ice cream will likely have the same "over-run" of air. However, state weights and measure laws do apply to ice cream, so fines are routinely issued for underfills of packages.

  • Anti_Govt_Rebel||

    The litigants were not harmed so the suit should be thrown out.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    So, what do you think of the rumors that Abraham Lincoln was circumcised?

  • Almanian!||

    MONSTER!

    I heard he was circumcised by a local homebrewer who also made the original "artisanal" mayonnaise.

  • ||

    Was this artisinal mayonnaise deepdish mayonnaise?

  • Xenocles||

    Do you think Abraham Lincoln needed to squat more?

  • Xenocles||

    I thought it was "circus sized."

  • Warrren||

    It was a three-ring circumcision.

  • Almanian!||

    The first cut is the deepest

  • Archduke Trousersenthusiast||

    so that's why the south wanted to secede!

  • Xenocles||

    Abraham Lincoln might have been a secret Jew, but the CSA Secretary of State was open about it.

  • Archduke Trousersenthusiast||

    I heard the parchment used for the Declaration of Independence was Thomas Jefferson's foreskin

  • Almanian!||

    What a dick!

  • Almanian!||

    Now I want to be buried by 6 Nabisco workers who make the Double Stuf Oreos™....SO THEY CAN LET ME DOWN ONE MORE TIME.

  • Warrren||

    Can be break you apart and lick your insides first?

  • Almanian!||

    THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID!

  • Almanian!||

    You know who else implied promises he couldn't deliver...

  • Warrren||

    The Rose Garden guy?

  • Almanian!||

    Saturday nights, this is the WORST CHATROOM EVER

  • Xenocles||

    A classic!

  • Warrren||

    I laughed! I cried!

  • Almanian!||

    I'm seeing visions of an OSCAR!

  • Warrren||

    I hope we don't win a Tony.

  • Archduke Trousersenthusiast||

    "Reason Hit & Run is filmed before a live, studio audience"

  • Archduke Trousersenthusiast||

  • Almanian!||

    Wow - that's not even awful.

  • Warrren||

    Scottish mating calls?

  • Almanian!||

    That didn't sound like a sheep...

  • ||

    You know what modern opera really needs? Bagpipes.

  • Warrren||

    I wonder if Bailey Linkdin checks back on his articles. He would be so proud to see one of his food rights pieces generated 600 comments...then he clicks in to the thread....

  • Nazdrakke||

    This is why we need more than one thread on the weekends.

  • Archduke Trousersenthusiast||

  • Almanian!||

    "James Gandolfini's exhumed body being used for 'Weekend at Bernie's' Remake"

    Gerard does NOT look good...

  • Warrren||

    My heart now belongs to Belgium but when it explodes you'll find pieces all over Europe.

  • Archduke Trousersenthusiast||

    Obamacare, is there anything it can't do?

    A 50-year-old man allegedly robbed $1 from an Oregon bank and then waited for police to arrest him so he could get medical treatment, sheriff's deputies said.
  • Archduke Trousersenthusiast||

    Mike Tyson says he's "on the verge of dying" due to ongoing drug and alcohol abuse

  • Warrren||

    Mike Tyson makes bad decisions?

  • Archduke Trousersenthusiast||

    SOLVED: Double Stuf Oreos should be called "Original" and regular Oreos should be renamed "diet"

  • Almanian!||

    BRILLIANT!

    Archduke T for Prime Minister! or President! Depending on your country of origin!

  • ||

    I prefer Double Stuf to be called "Extra Waxy".

  • Nazdrakke||

    So the DoD has officially jumped the shark.

    Under a section titled “extremist ideologies,” the document states, “In U.S. history, there are many examples of extremist ideologies and movements. The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule and the Confederate states who sought to secede from the Northern states are just two examples.”

  • Generic Stranger||

    That's just...what is this, I don't even...

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    In fairness I imagine to the Brits the Founders were extremists.

  • Nazdrakke||

    Yes, Bo, but this document was produced by the United States DoD.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Sure, it is some strange propaganda.

    'In your fight against extremists consider the history of extremism, which of course includes the people who created this nation.'

    But still somewhat true.

  • Nazdrakke||

    The point being that in an entire world history littered with examples of extremism one of the two examples they decided was a good way to introduce the topic of Extremist Ideologies was the American Revolution.

    Link to DoD document. Relevant text stats at page 40.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Yes, a very odd choice.

  • Goldwin Smith||

    Well isn't libertarianism extreme? Even libertarian minarchism is pretty extreme.

    And yes it is pretty strange to say "this country was founded by extremists" when trying to stamp out "extremism." Not to mention isn't statism extreme?

  • Nazdrakke||

    Both Nationalism and Anarchism are found under the heading Extremist Ideologies in the doc.

  • Generic Stranger||

    If you hold a political opinion more strongly than a turnip, you're an extremist! You should only think what we TELL you to think!

  • Goldwin Smith||

    If you hold a political opinion more strongly than a turnip, you're an extremist! You should only think what we TELL you to think!

    If you agree with the Gov all the time then you are being a reasonable moderate.

  • Goldwin Smith||

    So the DOD is calling themselves extremists?

  • Generic Stranger||

    No, because they're TOP. MEN.

  • Warrren||

    Who needs TOP. MEN. When you have TOP. DRONES.?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Did you notice what isn't found under extreme ideologies?

    Socialism, Communism or Fascism.

    Huh.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Page 41 of the document.

    Traits of Extremists

    Character assassination
    Extremists often attack the character of an opponent rather than deal with the facts or issues raised. They will question motives, qualifications, past associations, alleged values, personality, looks, and mental health as a diversion from the issues under
    consideration.

    Name calling and labeling
    Extremists are quick to resort to taunts (e.g., pervert, racist, and crackpot) to label and condemn opponents and to divert others from listening to their arguments.

    Irresponsive sweeping generalizations
    Extremists tend to make sweeping claims or judgments with little to no evidence, often confusing similarity with sameness. That is, they assume that because two or more things are alike in some respects that they are alike in all respects.

    Inadequate proof behind assertions
    Extremists tend to be very fuzzy about what constitutes proof for their assertions and tend to get caught up in logical fallacies ...

    Tendency to view opponents and critics as essentially evil
    Extremists feel that their opponents hold differing views because they are bad, immoral, dishonest, hateful, cruel, prejudiced, etc. and not merely because they simply disagree, see matters differently, or are mistaken.
  • VG Zaytsev||

    cont'd

    Dualism worldview
    Extremists tend to see the world in terms of absolute good and evil, for them or against them, with no middle ground or intermediate position. All issues are ultimately moral issues of right and wrong, good or bad, with the right and good positions coinciding with their interests. Their slogan is often “Those who are not
    with me are against me.”

    Tendency to argue by intimidation
    Extremists tend to frame their arguments in such a way as to intimidate others into accepting their premises and conclusions. To disagree with them is to ally oneself with the devil or to give aid and comfort to the enemy. They tend to be very judgmental and moralizing, allowing them to define the parameters of the debate by keeping their opponents on the defensive.

    Use of slogans, buzzwords, and thought-stopping clichés
    For many extremists, shortcuts in thinking and in reasoning matters out seem necessary to avoid troublesome facts and compelling counterarguments. Simple slogans substitute for more complex abstractions.
  • VG Zaytsev||

    Assumption of moral superiority over others
    The most obvious assumptions are claims of racial or ethnic superiority—a master
    race. Less obvious are claims of ennoblement because of alleged victimhood, a special relationship with God, or membership in a special or elite class and a kind of aloof high-minded snobbishness that accrues because of the weightiness of their preoccupations, their altruism, and their willingness to sacrifice themselves (and others) to their cause.

    Doomsday thinking
    Extremists often predict dire or catastrophic consequences from a situation or from a failure to follow a specific course, and they tend to exhibit a kind of crisismindedness. It can be a Communist takeover, a Nazi revival, nuclear war, earthquakes, floods, or the wrath of God. Whatever it is, it is just around the corner unless we follow their program and listen to their special insight and wisdom, to
    which only the truly enlightened have access. For extremists, any setback or defeat is the beginning of the end.
  • VG Zaytsev||

    Belief that it’s okay to do bad things in the service of a “good” cause
    Extremists may deliberately lie or otherwise distort, misquote, slander, defame, or libel their opponents and/or critics; engage in censorship or repression; or undertake violence in special cases. This is done with little or no remorse as long as it is in the service of defeating the Communists, Fascists, or whomever. Defeating an enemy becomes an all-encompassing goal to which other values are subordinate. With extremists, the end justifies the means.

    Tendency to personalize hostility
    Extremists often wish for the personal bad fortune of their enemies and celebrate when it occurs. When a critic or an adversary dies or has a serious illness, a bad accident, or personal legal problems, extremists often rejoice and chortle about how he or she deserved it.

    Emphasis on emotional responses,
    Extremists have an unspoken reverence for propaganda, which they may call
    education or consciousness-raising. Symbolism plays an exaggerated role in their thinking, and they tend to think imprecisely and metaphorically. Effective extremists tend to be effective propagandists. Propaganda differs from education in that the former teaches one what to think, and the latter teaches one how to think clearly.
  • VG Zaytsev||

    Hypersensitivity and vigilance
    Extremists perceive hostile innuendo in even casual and innocuous comments,
    imagine rejection and antagonism concealed in honest disagreement and dissent, and see latent subversion, anti-Semitism, perversion, racism, disloyalty, and so on in innocent gestures and ambiguous behaviors. Although few extremists are actually
    clinically paranoid, many of them adopt a paranoid style with its attendant projective mechanisms, hostility, and distrust.

    Advocacy of double standards
    Extremists generally tend to judge themselves or their interest group in terms of their intentions, which they tend to view generously, and their critics and opponents by their acts, which they tend to view very critically. They would like you to accept their assertions on faith, but they demand proof for yours.

    Every fucking on of those points applies to progressives in general and President Obama in particular.

    The DOD just labeled the lot of them as extremists.

  • Nazdrakke||

    Ah, you noticed that part. I like in the intro to this section they preface it by saying that normal people will engage in these behaviors sometimes, but extremists make them SOP.

    I'd say that both team red and blue trend this way but for the proggies it is systematic in a way that it is not for others. I mean, leftists write books on exactly how to use the listed tactics as a way to advance the cause.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    And this in a document calling for rooting extremist out of the armed forces.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Here is the definition of 'extremist' from the document

    Extremist

    – A person who advocates the use of force or violence; advocates supremacist causes based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or national origin; or otherwise engages to illegally deprive individuals or groups of their civil rights.

    I actually do not think this can fit the colonists unless the claim is they 'advocated the use of force or violence', which is absurd in the sense which they advocated force or violence (under this definition the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising were 'extremists').

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Very sad in my opinion.

    -The National Zoo’s female giant panda gave birth Saturday night to a second cub, but it was stillborn, the zoo said. The stillbirth occurred about 26 hours after Mei Xiang had given birth to a live cub.

    The zoo said keepers watching Mei Xiang on a panda cam saw her groom the stillborn cub for 17 minutes. But after the grooming stopped, the stillborn cub fell from the mother’s body onto the floor of the den, where it lay, without sound or movement.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....ml?hpid=z1

  • Archduke Trousersenthusiast||

    I don't believe in pandas. Ever look at a panda?
    Every panda looks like someone in a panda suit.

  • Generic Stranger||

    This dude was just really surprised that they animated the "cubs":

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzRH3iTQPrk

  • VG Zaytsev||

    A dead baby panda is a tragedy.

    Ten million dead baby humans are a triumph or freedom, or something.

  • Archduke Trousersenthusiast||

    LOL found on twitter

    NSA: The only branch of government that listens to citizens
  • feinburgrl||

    I don't see the problem with the lawsuit. If they are advertising double the cream then they better have double the cream. If they can't do it then always put a disclaimer saying that the cream will vary with each cookie. Problem solve!

  • Almanian!||

    Wow - welcome to LAST NIGHT'S debate.

    MOVING ON!

    Artisanal Deep Dish Pizza - Mere Abomination or Act of War?

    Discuss.

  • Almanian!||

    SHUT THE FUCK UP! THE MOTOGP RACE IS ON!!

  • Almanian!||

    Can't believe Ducati hosed Nicky Hayden. Well, actually, yes I can. I hope he goes to WSBK - much better racing of late.

  • Archduke Trousersenthusiast||

    Greenpeace is planning some kind of protest at the Belgian GP today.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Greenpeace is planning some kind of protest at the Belgian GP today.

    This could explain the booing during the podium interviews.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Hey Ya’ll! Ignernt, un-churched heathens, why are y’all reading Reason web site on a Sunday!?!?! Not in a church, now, ARE ye? Or are y’all surfin’ the web IN the Church?!?! Maybe worse, I dunno…
    In any case, it being a Sunday, I whipped up a good Scienfoology Sermon for y’all…
    Scienfoology Sermon
    You have heard it said, that “blessed are the poor in spirit”. But verily Government Almighty doth sayeth unto thou, “Blessed are the self-assured, for their glib sound bites make them electable”.
    You have heard it said, that “blessed are those who mourn”. But verily Government Almighty doth sayeth unto thou, “Blessed are the prosecutors who delight in evil, for they shall be able to confiscate the proceeds”.
    You have heard it said, that “blessed are the meek”. But verily Government Almighty doth sayeth unto thou, “Blessed are the arrogant, ‘cause it’s their way or the highway, and because up yours, that’s why.”
    You have heard it said, that “blessed are those who hunger and thirst for what’s right”. But verily Government Almighty doth sayeth unto thou, “Blessed are those who advance my political doctrine and dogma, because, darn it, I’m right and you’re wrong; you elected me, so do what I say.”

  • SQRLSY One||

    You have heard it said, that “blessed are those who show mercy”. But verily Government Almighty doth sayeth unto thou, “Blessed are those who support zero-tolerance laws, and state voters who legalize pot can suffer the wrath of the feds, while getting taxed out the wazoo to bring democracy and freedom to foreign lands.”
    You have heard it said, that “blessed are those who are pure in heart”. But verily Government Almighty doth sayeth unto thou, “Blessed are those who are against terrorism, and if you’re not with us, you’re against us.”
    You have heard it said, that “blessed are the peacemakers”. But verily Government Almighty doth sayeth unto thou, “Blessed are the war-makers, for they increase DoD-related employment in selected Congressional districts.”
    You have heard it said, that “blessed are those who get slapped upside the head by the “no good deed goes unpunished” syndrome. But verily Government Almighty doth sayeth unto thou, “Blessed are those who put their fingers to the winds, and read them correctly. Good luck with that, and, read my lips, no new taxes.”

  • Dan||

    I know you're a food lawyer, and you would tend to worry about frivolous lawsuits, but I think you're missing a major point in this story.

    There isn't any actual evidence that double stuf oreos don't contain precisely double. All this nonsense is based on a stupid experiment a high school science teacher had his kids do. They weren't using calibrated instruments to do their measurements, and the difference they are reporting falls well within the margin of error for a typical low quality laboratory balance. They are also measuring by weight rather than volume, which is how food ingredients are typically measured. And most importantly is the teacher's motivation for doing the oreo experiment to begin with. Which is that these kids are generally very poor students and bad at science, so he was trying to find a way to make science interesting to them.

    This is a much more complicated scenario than simply taking a tape measure to a sandwich. There would have to be something more tangible than a half cocked experiment by a bunch of kids their teacher readily admits are terrible at science before any court would even consider looking at this.

  • wwhorton||

    To all of you who consider this fraud, McDonald's Quarter Pounder with Cheese would like a word.

    Also, if you're from the DC area, we could have a long conversation about "half smokes."

  • jese012||

    my classmate's step-mother makes $74/hr on the laptop. She has been fired for seven months but last month her pay was $18454 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this web site .............. buzz90.com

  • randdy||

    upto I saw the check saying $7450, I didnt believe that...my... brothers friend was like realey bringing in money parttime online.. there sisters roommate has been doing this for under 23 months and resantly repayed the mortgage on their place and bourt themselves a BMW. this is where I went www.jazz77.com

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement