Austin City Limits Fast Food Restaurants?

A proposal in Austin, Texas, could ban fast food restaurants—and maybe even ensnare the city's beloved food trucks.

(Page 2 of 2)

Austin's proposed resolution and ordinance may seem novel, but the fact is we've seen this story play out elsewhere.

Los Angeles first proposed a moratorium on new fast food restaurants in 2007 in an attempt to combat an obesity rate of 30% in South Los Angeles. The proposal became law in 2008.

A 2009 RAND study, funded by the National Institutes of Health, poured cold water on the notion that banning fast food establishments would stem rising obesity rates.

Why?

"If you look at it per 100,000 residents, the area is not overrun with McDonald's," study co-author Roland Sturm said in 2009, referring to South Los Angeles. "The story about fast-food chains does not hold up."

This year, the city mulled putting an end to the ban.

One possible reason? Obesity in South Los Angeles, 30% in 2007, had climbed to 33% by 2012 despite the ban on new fast food restaurants.

Like Los Angeles, Austin is both a fantastic city and a fantastic city in which to eat. It boasts one of America's most vibrant and important food truck scenes. It's home to America's largest healthy organic grocer, Whole Foods. And its barbecue is among the country's best. It's got all those great options, and everything above, below, and in between.

Let's hope that an Austin that's great in large part because it offers so many food choices won't be made less so by a misguided city council proposal to ban fast food.

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.

  • Ted S.||

    They might want to create a healthy food zone around the school by not teaching children to carb-load.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    Health class should include a section on how the government has taught America to turn their livers into pâté de foie gras.

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    "It's a cookbook!"

  • Live Free or Diet||

    How To Best Serve Americans?

  • sheila124||

    my best friend's ex-wife makes $74 an hour on the laptop. She has been out of work for five months but last month her pay was $21054 just working on the laptop for a few hours. explanation...... ....................

    ⌘⌘⌘⌘⌘⌘⌘
    http://www.tec30.com
    ⌘⌘⌘⌘⌘⌘⌘

  • sheila124||

    my best friend's ex-wife makes $74 an hour on the laptop. She has been out of work for five months but last month her pay was $21054 just working on the laptop for a few hours. explanation..........................

    ⌘⌘⌘⌘⌘⌘⌘
    http://www.tec30.com
    ⌘⌘⌘⌘⌘⌘⌘

  • Mustaf Herod Apyur Poup'r||

    Dammit! I live in an Austin suburb. It's a nice area, but for the fuck ups like the retarded city council members.

  • ||

    Austin would be great if it wasn't for the people who lived there... ;)

  • wareagle||

    it's more the people who are moving there, convinced that the failed utopia they left can be recreated elsewhere.

  • Locke||

    I say the same thing about the entire state of California. It's a great, beautiful state, ruined by progressive jackoffs

  • XM||

    If you live in So Cal, the parts of the state that are really beautiful is like 5,7 hours of drive away.

    The beaches are just OK, Big Bear is all right during winter time. Otherwise you're surrounded by malls, starbucks and.... starbucks.

    Bay Area and the Northern part of the state has nice sights, but you would have to pay me to live there. Really, because I can't afford to live in SF.

  • entropy_factor||

    can confirm, too many bicycles and hipsters

  • ||

    I was just taken to task in my hockey pool (of all places) for using the word 'retard' in an email.

    The reason? It 'might' offend some who may have mentally challenged people in their families. 12 years in the pool and this has never come up. Ironically, I'm the one with autism and mental illness in the family! A couple of the guys wanted me to apologize and asked to whom exactly? I respectfully told them to fuck off. Them and their PC corporate bull shit. Funny thing is, they banned swearing.

    Did I mention it's a hockey pool?

    The world has gone fucking insane.

  • ||

    Holy shit, these fucks wouldn't last 10 minutes in my fantasy football league.

  • ||

    Yeah. It pisses me off. I'm considering quitting because I'm vulgar and disgusting. Bunch of nannies.

  • Killazontherun||

    You should bully them. Guys like that tend to be the worst pack herd cowards.

  • Johnimo||

    You are so correct. It's the insanity of a whole group of people who can't recognize the truth. Remember the writer who pointed out that, in individuals, insanity is quite rare, but in groups (think "Truthers") it's actually quite common.

    I fear it will take a real kick in the face to bring most folks around. I can only advise complete honesty and bluntness with these people. Sounds as though you've implemented this directness with your friends. Good!

  • ||

    Yeah but think I'm "crazy" and would not back down. I then asked them to give me a list of words I shouldn't use to which the usual "you're paranoid" retorts came about. One I'm going to write 'fat' and someone will take offense. Why, just last week I used 'midget' and no one came to the defense of little people. The whole thing is so stupid.

    They basically take offense because society dictates you should.

    Not because they're principled.

  • Boisfeuras||

    Remember the writer who pointed out that, in individuals, insanity is quite rare, but in groups (think "Truthers") it's actually quite common.

    "Insanity in individuals is something rare—but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule."
    - Friedrich Nietzsche

  • Robert||

    No, it's a hockey rink. Make sure you get that right; if it's a hockey pool, you need better refriger'n.

  • ||

    Hardee-har-har.

    Good one.

  • Lord Peter Wimsey||

    Best to live just outside Austin. Lower tax rate, cheaper homes. But you have to commute into austin, which can be a pain.

    I drive in when I want something. And I usually regret it once I hit the traffic.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I've only been to Austin twice but it seems to be the garden spot in Texas. Houston and Beaumont would be the festering canker sores.

  • John C. Randolph||

    If by "garden spot", you mean "knee deep in bullshit", you'd be correct.

    -jcr

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    He means "garden spot" the way we mean "Garden State": festering canker sores on the body politic.

  • ||

    Any place that has Whip In, Strange Brew, Antonelli's, and statues of Willie Nelson and Stevie Ray... well, let's just say that if you can't appreciate that, you've got a festering cunt for brains.

  • General Butt Naked||

    +1 Mad dog margarita

  • ||

    Oh yeah, and Flip Happy. Jesus, them's some awesome crepes.

  • ||

    Beaumont gets a mention, but Fort Worth, San antonio, Waco, Denton, etc., get left out? I say you revisit Houston. It has some amazing things going on- as does the rest of the state. Of course, there are those who try their hardest to mess it up.

  • Lord Peter Wimsey||

    Garden Spot (definition) - crowded, expensive, elitist, rights-violating, politically-correct shit-hole filled with VERY RICH liberals who "hate the rich" and who hire an army of spi... er, minorities to do their menial labor...because they care.

  • Pompey||

    Houston and Beaumont would be the festering canker sores.reply to this

    Yes. Must be all that ethnic diversity. And the thriving technology sector.

  • ||

    Don't engage it. It has ok clue of what it speaks. Ever.

  • ||

    *no

  • Pompey||

    Citation please. Presence of Team Red.

  • ||

    What?

  • Redmanfms||

    What?

    Murken maybe?

  • ||

    Me? No. I was trying to tell him to not feed Obama's Dildo.

  • Jordan||

    It's the lack of zoning laws. Stalin's Buttboy can't abide a lack of central planning.

  • Johnimo||

    ... and the failure of Houston to regulate all those fast food places. Surely a canker with it's utter failure to institute some asshole's version of Utopia.

  • JidaKida||

    I think such places should be banned altogether!

    www.Privacy-Web.tk

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    Bot's got the banhammer...

    ...And the hammer is his penis.

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    Well, the penis is the handle, and the nutsack is the punchy part.

  • ||

    So, if MacDonalds shuttered its drive through window and had its staff bring your food to your table they would no longer be 'fast food'?

    Aside from just being awful, how is McDonalds food worse than Chinese buffet or Mexican ?

  • LynchPin1477||

    Many years ago, our local McDonald's was running a Tuesday promo: candlelit dinners. I was pretty young, and I think I may have actually cried a little bit at the thought of someone actually going on a romantic Tuesday date for a candlelit dinner of Big Macs and fries.

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    Our Wendy's used to have polka night on Tuesdays...

  • Swiss Servator craves Rösti||

    That is all kinds of excellent.

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    Tanz' den Ententanz!

  • LynchPin1477||

    Is this back when they still had the salad bar where you could make taco salads?

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    Among other things, yes.

    However, I just ate the little ham squares.

  • Pompey||

    Too bad one couldn't compliment that meal with a premium boxed wine. Franzia brand ...a leather satchel within a beautiful cherry wood box to replace the aluminised mylar and corrugated paperboard. I can taste it now, accentuating the thousand Island dressing. Mmmmm

  • Ted S.||

    Didn't Burger King try bringing your order to your table 20 years ago?

    And the difference between McDonald's and Chinese buffet is that the wrong class of people eat at McDonald's. But you probably knew that.

  • ||

    I think the trouble with McDs is their success. Invariably these people's hate is directed at anything they perceive as a free market success. Walmart, McDonalds, etc.....corporations.

    Truth is, however they label themselves, given their way, they would make the country indistinguishable from the old USSR.

    They dont really give a shit about food or the chirrens.

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    You give them far too much credit: They wouldn't stop until it was indistinguishable from Democratic Kampuchea.

  • Robert||

    Didn't Burger King try bringing your order to your table 20 years ago?


    Yes, and I don't care if they do finally deliver it now, it's cold and I want my money back!

  • Snark Plissken||

    Highlighted by that Bullshit! episode where they served yuppies fast food on plates and told them it was healthy. They loved it of course.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Aside from just being awful, how is McDonalds food worse than Chinese buffet or Mexican ?

    McDonald's IS NOT awful. I eat there three, maybe four, times a year, and I'll proudly admit that I enjoy EVERY SINGLE bite.

    From a business standpoint, they are to be worshiped and emulated. The pinnacle of capitalism. Give the public EXACTLY what they ask for, as fast as humanly possible, inexpensively. From product development to marketing, this company has their shit wired. GENIOUS! The shining symbol of American greatness. I get a tingle up my leg just thinking about about their business model.

  • ||

    I agree with everything you said except that their food is awful. AWFUL. Nothing subjective about it at all...nope, not a bit.

    I broke down and ate there about half a dozen times in the last ten years and every time I felt like I had swallowed bricks and couldnt shit for three days. I suppose I could have remedied that by eating at Taco Bell.....ugh.

    Whatever....if people like it and want to eat it, more power to them.

  • Bobarian||

    McRibs are fucking awesome!

    That is all.

  • Wizard4169||

    I'm currently disgusted with my local McD's (WTF is the point of fast food when it takes fifteen minutes to get a Quarter Pounder and fries?), but I'll be back just as soon as the McRibs return.

  • ||

    I agree Francisco.

    I take my daughter there from time to time. We have a healthy diet at home so we make the rational decision of going because she enjoys it.

    Speaking of American genius, I was just in Disney. Unbelievable. Just staggering what they pulled off. I could write a book. The first few times I was there I was just a kid/teenager (80s and 90s) and didn't pay attention like I did this time around. What I saw was American capitalism at its glorious height.

    I went with my eight year-old and wife who has severe allergies. I never had such service paying that close attention to her and executing it flawlessly. They really know how to make things as easy as possible for families.

  • Irish||

    I hate their food if I end up having to have it more than once in a week because I'm on the road or something. If I have McDonald's once a month though, the sugar and salt almost gives you a high.

    Of course it's terrible for you. That's why you don't eat it for every meal. The left wing obsession with McDonald's is almost as pathetic as their obsession with Walmart.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Walmart...the second best business model in the free world.

    I see a trend here.

    Giving the customer EXACTLY what they want at a low price = baaaaad

    Because profit.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Yes, but to some extent it depends on the customer being served. See, Apple is great, because they tend to cater to the "right" people. Target is better than Walmart because the "right" people might consider shopping there. And the typical sugar-drenched Starbucks drink is as unhealthy as anything you get at McDonalds - but don't you dare put them in the same category.

  • mtrueman||

    "The pinnacle of capitalism."

    The food they sell is heavily subsidized by the tax payer.

  • LynchPin1477||

    I have little doubt that they would be just as successful, even if they didn't benefit from corn subsidies.

    The fact is, government is so invasive that it is hard to find any industry that doesn't in some way use or benefit from a government subsidized product or service. I don't fault McDonald's for that.

    I don't have the boner over McD's that Franco does, but their success is pretty damn impressive.

  • pan fried wylie||

    How does McDonalds benefit from corn subsidies? Potato or wheat subsidy, sure.

    Aside from the high fructose corn syrup, I can't recall anything they sell that uses corn as an ingredient.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Beef uses corn.

  • pan fried wylie||

    *facepalm*

  • Homple||

    Price of corn for animal feed is very high because of ethanol requirements in gasoline.

  • Redmanfms||

    Price of corn for animal feed is very high because of ethanol requirements in gasoline.

    This. Beef prices have steadily risen, despite King Corn.

    It's also worth noting that mtrueman is concern trolling, which has become his new favorite tactic. If you don't acknowledge the presence of a subsidy (tax or direct) somewhere in the production line (or even tangentially related to production), he will accuse you of supporting subsidies and thereby proving that libertarians are hypocrites.

  • mtrueman||

    " he will accuse you of supporting subsidies and thereby proving that libertarians "

    This commenter said that McDonald's was the pinnacle of capitalism. And I point out that McDonald's deals in 'government' subsidized products. Your error lies in assuming that the original commenter is a libertarian. He is rather a garden variety statist. Your impulse to come to his defence is admirable but misguided.

  • Redmanfms||

    This commenter said that McDonald's was the pinnacle of capitalism. And I point out that McDonald's deals in 'government' subsidized products. Your error lies in assuming that the original commenter is a libertarian. He is rather a garden variety statist. Your impulse to come to his defence is admirable but misguided.

    And you a worthless fucking liar troll.

    You claim they rose on subsidies, then provide no evidence of this and then attack the guy (who made no mention of subsidies or his support thereof) of supporting these subsidies.

    Fuck you, you fucking lying piece of shit.

  • mtrueman||

    "benefit from a government subsidized product or service"

    Don't you mean a tax payer subsidized product or service?

    I think McDonald's is most noteworthy for its introduction of industrial techniques to the restaurant business. Not something I appreciate, I prefer a congenial family atmosphere in the restaurants I chose, but 'they' certainly approve.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Eating a McGriddle is like having an orgasm in my mouth. It lasts about as long, too, and afterward I feel like shit. But for those few glorious bites, it is amazing.

  • Killazontherun||

    Except when they bowed to the public health lobbyist when they were on their saturated fat ban kick and stopped making their fries as yummy by cooking them in animal fat. I'm still a little angry about that.

  • Generic Stranger||

    It was the vegetarians that got them to switch, not the health nannies.

  • Killazontherun||

    I recall Kessler under H. W. Bush making a stink about McDs and the saturated fats, but it does seem like eons ago, so maybe wrong.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Maybe it was a combination, but when I worked for McD's back in high school the franchise owner told me it was because of the vegs.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    So, if MacDonalds shuttered its drive through window and had its staff bring your food to your table they would no longer be 'fast food'?

    Let's be perfectly clear. There is no FAST food in Texas. There is nothing FAST in Texas.

  • Lord Peter Wimsey||

    "Not fast food, Jerry. Good food, quickly."

  • seguin||

    Except for the Texas Mile, John Hennessey, Jim Hal Foyt.

  • ||

    That's really the downfall of these laws. I don't see any way to define "fast food" that doesn't also hit relatively healthy options like Subway, or the local Falafel joint.

    What they really want to ban is food that contains a lot of fat - burgers, fries, tacos, fried chicken. But writing a regulation that bans outlets on the basis of fat content would be too complicated. Nevermind the whole carb debate.

    There's no inherent link between food being "fast" and being "unhealthy". It's just an arbitrary designation.

  • Robert||

    Relatively healthy like Subway? Deli is healthful now? Salted meat that they don't even slice on the spot like a real delicatessen, but pre-slice and serve dried out? Cheese as the default on every sandwich, rather than uncheesed as the default in a burger joint? Chips rather than fries, to maximize the grease-to-potato and salt-to-potato ratio?

  • LynchPin1477||

    From now on, your 1500 calorie meal will only contain all natural, organic calories, will take at least 10 minutes to make, and will cost 50% more. Health utopia for all!

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    Could any of you Texans tell me how long Austin has been an exclave of Portlandia?

  • LynchPin1477||

    I'm not a Texan, but isn't it basically since the 60s or 70s?

  • Ken Shultz||

    I'm thinkin' it must have been that way going back to Willie Nelson's day, at least.

    There are other places in the South like that, with Ashville, North Carolina and maybe Athens, GA being something like that.

    It used to be different, though. There used to be honest liberals, who didn't believe in force and believed in freedom and constitutional rights, etc.

    But there's a much bigger gap between what academics know and what the average person knows--a bigger gap than there was 30 years ago--and I suspect that's bent the academics towards authoritarianism lite.

    There didn't used to be such a big gap. And it can be a problem for libertarians, even, tolerating the qualitative preferences of ignoramuses like Tony. If you thought we could build Libertopia--if only we ran over the qualitative preferences of ignorant people like Tony, wouldn't running him over seem really attractive?

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    Are you talking about what academics know, or what academics "know"?

    My sarcasmometer runs on coffee, and I am brewing refining a new pot at the moment...

  • Ken Shultz||

    We know a lot more than we did 30 years ago. I think that's one of the reasons why academics these days are more enamored of utilitarianism than they used to be--there's just so much more to do!

    We can measure stuff we couldn't really measure before. We have access to data streams we never had before...

    And a lot of the people who argue against what intellectuals know are doing it for reasons that aren't entirely intellectual. I find myself being skeptical of global warming claims--sometimes because I don't like the solutions the left is offering, I question the validity of the data.

    I think that's pretty common among average people.

    But intellectuals think of that the way they think of what the Catholic Church did to Galileo. And, unfortunately, the fact that it's impossible for them to make qualitative judgements for other people gets lost in their visceral reaction to what they see as the stupidity of Inquisition like thinking.

    But we do have a lot more data than we did 30 years ago. Creationism probably wasn't as unreasonable 30 years ago as it is today, and that's just one example. We all believe things for reasons that probably wouldn't stand up to academic scrutiny--even if those things are true. But academics look at that kind of knowledge the way we look at Tony.

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    I'm not really seeing thirty years as being a significant benchmark -- perhaps fifty, and definitely a hundred. How much less informed and enlightened was the average intellectual in the 80s?

    What kinds of intellectuals do you even have in mind, here? Those most predisposed to the "pretense of knowledge" and the "fatal conceit" are those least likely to have made any such strides over the past three decades, either as individuals or as a class. Moreover, data alone is insufficient for anything like proper knowledge or wisdom, which is ultimately what is at issue (since this is philosopher kings all over again).

  • Ken Shultz||

    We know more about almost everything than we did 30 years ago. In terms of data accumulation, GPS wasn't up and running until 1994. Now we can track things like never before. Transistor counts in line with Moore's law are--how many more times what they were 30 years ago? Isn't that 2^15? How much more do we know about the genome?

    Whether we know more isn't the question; the question is still about qualitative considerations.

    "Unfortunately, the fact that it's impossible for them to make qualitative judgements for other people gets lost in their visceral reaction to what they see as the stupidity of Inquisition like thinking."

    They set a speed limit, but I enjoy going a lot faster than that through the twisties in the mountains on my motorcycle. In fact, I enjoy hitting those high speeds in the twisties--up to certain limits--more than I fear the risks to my safety.

    How can anybody qualify where that limit is but me? How can anybody but me correctly estimate where the curve of how much fun I'm having intersects how much risk I'm willing to accept?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Nowadays, intellectuals can compute how much it costs society for me to take that risk. They look at the risk statistics, figure out what the costs are in terms of healthcare resources, and then look at what it costs to police those mountain roads so that one less speeding motorcyclist wipes out. They can monitor it with wireless devices we never had before powered by solar panels.

    Then they can set the speed limit accordingly, and put the correct number of cops on that road--at the right times of day--and who can argue with their methods, their data, or their conclusions?

    Still, all they've done is institutionalize their own qualitative preferences and imposed them on me. Maybe I care more about having fun than I do about the costs to society. Maybe we, as a nation, qualitatively value freedom, and that qualitative value can never show up in any of their spreadsheets as anything but a #VALUE! error.

    That's their vulnerability, not their data.

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    I think what you are describing is, again, the availability of data -- something I did not dispute. However, to go further is to fall into the very "pretense of knowledge" that I invoked earlier. Data is not knowledge proper, and the amount of data available to intellectuals has simply outstripped their capacity to utilize it in any way relevant to what I am discussing. You don't even need to bring in subjective value, although I agree with you along those lines...

  • Ken Shultz||

    Sounds like we agree on a lot.

    I'll just say that having all that new data means that academics have analyzed all that new data and formulated conclusions about it.

    But, taking myself as an example, I already know how I feel about using the government to heap prohibitively expensive regulation on carbon intensive activity--and that's without even looking at the data. And I don't really care what the next batch of data says about it either; for qualitative reasons, I still think...

    Meanwhile, more data keeps coming in, and academics keep analyzing it and forming their conclusions. We can call those conclusions "knowledge" or something else, but there's a lot more of it than there used to be--in every field I can think of.

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    Actually, we might not agree on as much as I had hoped, if you meant your first statement literally: We are absolutely overwhelmed with data, to the point that it cannot be utilized by intellectuals in any way relevant to this discussion. We need decentralized mechanisms, institutions, and systems for utilizing this data -- more than ever before. Markets are the classic example of this, but Wikipedia (for all of its faults) will do just as well. The intellectual as planner and director is less up to the task than at any point in human history, because the parameters of the task simply overwhelm human capabilities. Actuarial tables and genomes are a testament to these realities, not empowerments of the "intellectuals," many of whom have progressed little in their knowledge these past decades.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    "I find myself being skeptical of global warming claims--sometimes because I don't like the solutions the left is offering, I question the validity of the data models."

    The data itself is the inconvenient truth that the CAGW believers deny in favor of models which by their very definition are wrong to an unknown degree.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    I disagree, Ken. I doubt individuals know much more than they did thirty years ago. Collectively we hold more knowledge, and what knowledge we have is certainly more available to anybody who has a passing interest than ever before. But if they are paying attention, then individual intellectuals should be impressed with just how much they don't know about the things outside of their area of expertise - or even within it.

    Maybe the move to authoritarianism has more to do with regaining control over a world that suddenly seems more uncertain and frightening than ever.

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    Exactly, Fatty. That data -- that collective knowledge -- means that they are obsolete as "intellectuals," i.e., Mandarins. We are seeing the (mostly) impotent fury of their separation anxiety: Never again can they hold the same position of relative power through knowledge. And they are pissed, and frightened.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The only intellectuals I ever met who were worried about their own obsolescence were teaching Greek or Latin.

  • wareagle||

    I live in Asheville and will confirm your assertion. And there are very few honest liberals. Just a bunch of proggies.

  • SIV||

    DIE HIPPIE SCUM!

    I always thought I caught a whiff of patchouli from your comments.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    But there's a much bigger gap between what academics know and what the average person knows--a bigger gap than there was 30 years ago--and I suspect that's bent the academics towards authoritarianism lite.

    I'm not sure if this is meant as sarcasm.

    If meant sincerely - it's flat out objectively false.

    Information is much more widespread that it was 20 or 30 years thanx to the internet and other communication advances, so the gap in knowledge is smaller, much smaller than it has ever been.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I think people know more than they used to, and the internet has certainly made more knowledge more easily available than it's ever been before, but even if the knowledge of average people has gone up substantially, I think the collective knowledge of our academics has gone up exponentially.

    I suspect a lot of that knowledge is so specialized that most people never even hear about it unless it has an impact on some political issue somehow.

  • AdamJ||

    The Willie hippies mostly just wanted to be left alone, and Austin still has a lot of that sentiment left over. I'm sure it will disappear soon enough, but that's no different than anywhere else.

  • Ken Shultz||

    And all those Willie hippies (honest liberals) weren't academics.

    I think they sort of grew out of the environment having a bunch of college kids around tends to create, but they weren't academics themselves.

  • Jon Lester||

    Athens has more conservative government lately, although nominal party affiliation really doesn't mean a thing on the municipal level.

    Rolling Stone recently ran a badly-sourced story online, making the premise that polling station consolidation equals racism. Rather than talk to anyone on the commission, or anyone from Flagpole or the Banner Herald who actually cover local politics, they took the word of a local Democrat activist I know, who is kind of like an old maid and a cat lady rolled into one.

  • ||

    Better part of a decade, at least. Austin's a neat place to visit, but the influx of techies and other assorted hipster assholes have assured that city a bleak, disastrous future.
    If you want a semi-cool but definitely will "Texas" kind of town, try San Antonio.

  • ||

    *still "Texas".

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    My parents are vacationing there as we speak (write?), so I will get to hear all about it when they return to my godforsaken part of the country.

    I would certainly prefer visiting there to Austin...

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Dear Zod, man. VACATIONING in Texas? Where do they live, Hell? ;-)

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    It's a vacation in the way that Dante's Inferno describes a vacation, so you are in the right ballpark.

    But in all seriousness, I think they mostly wanted to see historical shit, visit Mexico, and stay with some friends down there. You certainly wouldn't catch me vacationing there -- or anywhere in the forty-eight, for that matter.

  • entropy_factor||

    mexico is 5 hours from Austin brah. Doubt they headed down there. And Texas is wayy better than y'all give it credit for.

  • seguin||

    It's my state, and I love it, but unless you're into Spanish Colonial or Texas Revolutionary Era history, there isn't much to see and do.

    Although there are hidden gems like Lost Maples, Palo Pinto, Hill country stuff alongside modern stuff, like F1 racing.

  • seguin||

    *Much to see and do that other states with large population centers don't also have.

  • Terr||

    I would recommend Fort Worth under that description if you're young and working with no kids.

  • ||

    But stay the hell west of the trinity.

  • Terr||

    Absolutely. Fuck Dallas.

  • ||

    As a resident of Big Douche, I can attest to this sentiment.

  • Snark Plissken||

    Well Slacker came out in 1991...

  • AdamJ||

    I live in Austin (10 years now) and have a brother in Portland. They are not even close on the scale of "stupid-liberal." The city planner types and "new urbanism" folks here do love Portland an try to emulate it as much as possible (they love street cars and bicycles), but there are too many conservatives, libertarians, independents, and non-morons for the progs to get their way. They are mostly just the loudest. there are hipsters here like there are hipsters in every city. They tend to confine themselves to certain areas and can't travel that far on ther fixed gear bikes. The city council is rotten, but mostly in a cronyism sort of way, not necessarily in a dumb progressive sort of way.

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    Damn good to hear, sir! -- this makes me slightly less unproud to be an American.

  • bob sacomano||

    I concur AdamJ. My life has been just about evenly split between Austin and Los Angeles, and as scary as Austin is trending in its efforts to copy everything LA or Portland (plastic bag bans! Traffic cams! Police cars changed from blue/white to LA's militaristic black/white), there are still just too many libertarians and conservatives here for the progressives to truly win. Still, the Cali refugees are having an impact, which is what led me to slap a bunch of Austrian and pro-capitalism bumper stickers on my car recently and to revel in the jaundiced eyes cast my way on Mopac and 360.

    Austin will persevere, and perhaps even revolt in time as the progressive derp continues its everlasting quest to achieve total paternalism. It certainly helps that we have a good libertarian-minded local talk radio guy (Jeff Ward) who has a good bit of influence.

    Also, first post on Reason! Long time lurker who has enjoyed some epic ROTFLs of late, particularly Epi's schadenboner chronicles of which I most certainly can relate.

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    Welcome to the jungle.

  • the lina||

    i'm a long time lurker as well (and female libertarian..shhhh) just wanted to pop out of my corner and say hi to all my fellow austin residents. hi!
    also, i hate our city council. it seems every week they are coming up with some new money waste stupid idea...god forbid they actually address issues that affect the city as a whole...like i dunno...the traffic??

  • entropy_factor||

    go home Californian, you are making my traffic worse.

    in other news, single member districts for city counsel will even out the Team Blue overload we have now. I just want my goddamn plastic bags back.

  • ||

    Reminds me of the episode of Portlandia where they contemplate banning mittens.
    The intro has them discussing with the mayor all the things they could ban, and have this idea of calling it the "banned-wagon" and have people throw things they would like to ban on the banned-wagon.

  • AdamJ||

    It does make me die inside a little every time I hear a councilman or city official decry that "we need more density and affordable housing, so lets make it more difficult and expensive for developers to build downtown." But some people are just idiots.

  • OneOut||

    There was never a Rubicon moment. It's reputation grew as a party town. That attracted the youth of course. They never grew up and as more and more "party first" people stayed it became an enclave of mindless Democrats who tried their best to emulate the Progressives of other states because that meant they were cooler than mere Democrats. Austin has pretty much sucked the majority of Utopians from the rest of Texas.

    We like it that way. It's like putting a poultice on other cities to draw out the poison.

  • trshmnstr||

    Austin has pretty much sucked the majority of Utopians from the rest of Texas.
    If only it got the rest of them too. When I moved down to Dallas, almost everybody was uniformly in the "*fap**fap**fap* Auuuuustiiiin!!!!" camp.

    I went down there to visit, and found it to be rather underwhelming. It's like the entire city is consumed by the arts district (which is cool, because there's great food and stuff), but at the cost of terrible traffic and crappy weather.

    There are some really awesome places like Lake Travis, but it dispelled me of any notion that I want to move there. Especially, as I was carrying out a bunch of groceries in my arms without a bag.

  • seguin||

    I remember in the late 90's and early 2000's when a lot of the punk rockers in the Dallas scene started moving down to Austin as though it were some kinda Mecca...most drifted back, complaining about hippies and high rent.

  • Ken Shultz||

    This is like what happened in Berkeley.

    http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.....the-Planet

    I understand Austin is the Berkeley of Texas; do I have that right? In Berkeley, they eventually went so far as to ban giving out toys with happy meals.

    It's amazing how quickly intellectuals can go from thinking they know what's best to forcing everyone else to do whatever. And that impulse doesn't even have anything to do with being knowledgeable--it's an instinctive reaction to seeing themselves as intellectually superior to those around them.

    ...as if anyone could ever be sufficiently intellectual so as to make qualitative choices for other people.

  • AdamJ||

    Again, Austin is nowhere near Berkely on the spectrum. Just seems that way because its buried in the rest of Texas. Chicago, NY, Boston are all more "liberal" than Austin. All the businesses and people that are moving here are at some level moving here because it is cheaper and less regulated. At some level they understand that. And like I said, the old hippies here want to be left alone, not told what to eat. They do hate corporations, but mainly due to some nostalgic time that never really existed we're corporations weren't everywhere.

  • Ken Shultz||

    They both tried to ban how close fast food restaurants could be to public schools.

    It really is like what happened in Berkeley.

  • Swiss Servator craves Rösti||

    Texas is fairly clever to herd all that prog-derp into one concentrated area, as an example/warning for the rest of Texas to observe.

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    It's almost like bilateral, hipster Apartheid.

  • ||

    But voluntary!

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Texas is fairly clever to herd all that prog-derp into one concentrated area

    Also makes it easier to nuke the site from orbit.

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    Can we see all the smog smug from space? It's the only way to be sure...

  • AdamJ||

    You'd rather live in Dallas or Fort Worth or anywhere in west Texas? Filled with judgmental, religious Repulicans wearing Texas Flag shirts (google Dennis Paul's campaign site), spouting off about Mexicans, preaching the good word, hating gays, uncomfortable with blacks, and paying lip-service to constitutional government (until it comes to equal rights or anything besides the 2nd Ammendment). Nope. The most palatable places for a libertarian in TX are Austin and Houston.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    You have a cartoonish vision of Texas. How many tips do you get in your Kos tip jar?

  • Irish||

    It's always 1964 in the South.

    Always.

  • AdamJ||

    I've lived in Dallas, my wife lived in west Texas for a horrible year, and I've visited all over and lived in the state for over 10 years. My post was cartoonish, but it was to counter the cartoonish version of Austin.

  • ||

    It's cartoonish but I would agree that as a libertarian other than being here in Houston I'd rather be in Austin.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Ok, but that's a far different thing you're saying.

  • OneOut||

    Hey fellow Houstonian.

    I'm down on the water in Clear Lake.

    Nice to know there are at least two of us around.

  • AdamJ||

    Just saying that the conservatives in TX would love to restrict your freedom to have a sectarian education, get a divorce without consulting your priest, learn about evolution in schools, marry a dude (if you're a dude), smoke drugs, allow immigration, etc. these people hold public office, meaning there's a large enough group of folks that voted for them. Did I mention I live in TX?

  • ||

    I've lived in Texas all 38 years of my life; I won't deny that the socon types you describe exist, but I believe that you are overstating their power and influence.

    Gay marriage - not legal in Texas, but its not as though Texas is in a tiny minority there.

    Drugs - also prohibited, also not unique to Texas

    Immigration - perfectly legal, but people do come across the border illegally. You're not going to find very many people here against legal immigration, but of course the Tony/Shrike set considers "legal immigration" code words for racism.

    The Moral Majority peaked 30 years ago, and in ten years they'll be about as impactful politically as Lyndon LaRouche.

  • OneOut||

    Most people who live in Texas don't even have a priest.

    i suppose that sheds light on the rest of your post.

  • OneOut||

    My above post was supposed to be Adam

  • OneOut||

    As someone who has lived their entire 57 years in Texas I feel uniquely qualified to say your post is full of shit.

  • Jquip||

    I

  • LynchPin1477||

    RACIST!

  • Jquip||

    lulz, guess I shouldna used the less-than sign.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    I went to Chick-fil-a a couple months ago, and they brought my food to the table. In fact, it was the best "fast food" meal I've ever experienced. I sent an email to corporate complimenting the restaurant. I got three phone calls from different levels of management, interviewing me about my experience.

    Anyways, fuck Austin city council and their War on People and Things We Don't Like.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Chick-fil-a is the shiznit.

    That chicken sandwich they make on those biscuits is probably the best thing you can get at a fast food restaurant, anywhere, that doesn't have bacon.

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

  • ||

    Why do you hate gay people?

  • Jquip||

    They don't taste like chicken.

  • playa manhattan||

    That place is a well oiled machine. They blow sunshine up your ass as soon as you walk in the door.

  • OneOut||

    The attitude of the employees of Chic-fil-a's is incredible.

    I hadn't been to one in a while until a few months ago. I was taken aback at how friendly and helpful they were. Most amazingly it was sincere as well, no pasted on smiles.

  • ||

    Hell, I was recently at one in a mall food court, and they were great. Which is crazy, since the employees at mall food courts tend to be assholes, in my experience.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    We munch on brussel sprouts an d kale
    Deep in the heart of austin
    Were much more liberal than boston
    Deep in the heart of austin

  • LynchPin1477||

    There is nothing wrong with Brussels sprouts or kale.

  • seguin||

    Yeah...I love both and can't stand progs.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Yeeeeeeeeee-ha!!! Ah'm the rootinest, tootinest, granola-ist hippie in the whoooole state of Texas! And I don't take kindly tofast food chains in this community, no sirree! So why doncha take yer big macs and yer big gulps and just mosey on outta here, afore I really get mad... (fires pistols in the air)

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    Remember the à la Mode!

  • From the Tundra||

    Winner.

  • Swiss Servator craves Rösti||

    Seconded.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Groooooaaaaan!

    Extra points because I watched that flick for the first time last night.

  • OneOut||

    ROFLMAO

  • From the Tundra||

    There are more reasons to hate the resolution, not the least of which is that it would undermine parental control.

    I'm guessing that undermining parental control isn't something the proggies are losing sleep over.

  • Jordan||

    President of Mongolia gives a speech extolling freedom while visiting North Korea.

    A speech given at Kim Il Sung University in Pyongyang by the president of Mongolia late last month has caused raised eyebrows for its starkly critical portrayal of the follies of tyrannical rule and the repression of human rights.
    [...]
    “Over twenty years ago, the sheer share of the private sector in Mongolia’s GDP was less than 10%, whereas today it accounts for over 80%. So, a free society is a path to go, a way to live, rather than a goal to accomplish.”
    [...]
    I believe in the power of freedom. Freedom is an asset bestowed upon every single man and woman. Freedom enables every human to discover and realize his or her opportunities and chances for development. This leads a human society to progress and prosperity. Free people look for solutions in themselves. And those without freedom search for the sources of their miseries from outside. Mongols say, “better to live by your own choice however bitter it is, than to live by other’s choice, however sweet”.

    Can you imagine Obama saying anything remotely like this, even in the U.S.? He'd sooner denounce this guy as a Kochpublican Teahadi, I'm sure.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "What is best in life? To crush the communists, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their fellow travelers."

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Alternate joke: "F______ Mongorian capitalists!"

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    Now we know why communists like to build walls!

  • Slammer||

    That wall, comrade, you didn't build that.

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    But we like it, so we can keep it, right?

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    "Oh, and our capital is even less pronounceable than your capital!"

  • ||

    Wow. Hearing a pol say that is bizarre. Kudos to Tsakhiagiin Elbegdorj.

    I imagine is jugears tried to say that he would choke.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    That's heartening. I've always wanted to visit Mongolia.

  • Jquip||

    Nawp, can't imagine here in the US. We're too busy reinstating religious dietary restrictions.

  • seguin||

    Holy shnickety, give this man the Republican nomination and I might just vote R.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    McDonald's should build a fleet of food trucks to troll all those places, pumping out clouds of sweet-smelling french fry vapor while parked perpendicular to the flow of traffic on public streets.

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    Denis Leary approves this message, and, if there are no investment opportunities available on the ground floor, would at least subscribe to your newsletter.

  • Jordan||

    Boston PD Folds After Doubling-Down; Withdraws Felony Complaint Against "Photography is Not a Crime" blogger.

    The Boston Police Department agreed to withdraw the felony complaints against myself and PINAC associate Taylor Hardy on the condition that readers stop flooding their phone lines with calls demanding that they withdraw the complaints.

    As if I would have any say in that.

    But to paraphrase my attorney: Please. Stop. Calling. They get the message.

    Ha ha!
    /Neslon Muntz

  • Snark Plissken||

    Very nice. Although the cops got off way too easy, and without admitting any guilt of course.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Power to teh peeps!

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    The Supremes say: If you like your beard, you can keep your beard...at least until further notice.

    A killer serving a life sentence in Arkansas says that his Muslim beliefs require him to have a beard. Prison grooming regulations say no. He took his case up to the 8th Circuit federal appeals court, which turned down his claim to religious freedom.

    Representing himself, he asked the US Supreme Court to hear his case. The Supremes haven't decided on whether to do so, but they just ordered that, until they've finished with the case, prison authorities must let the prisoner have a half-inch beard.

    http://religionclause.blogspot.....gives.html

    The court's order:

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/or.....r_2dp3.pdf

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    Peter the Great, Czar of all Corrections.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    on the condition that readers stop flooding their phone lines with calls demanding that they withdraw the complaints.

    OFFICER

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Whoops.

    No repeats.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Reverse nut punch:

    "Researchers at Granada University in Spain have found that beer can help the body rehydrate better after a workout than water or Gatorade."

    http://www.washingtontimes.com.....zw.twitter

  • Swiss Servator craves Rösti||

    As if rugby players have not known this for....decades!

  • From the Tundra||

    Ah yes, cold beers in the locker room after hockey - even shitty beer tastes great!

    Quite a statement from the cardiologist:

    Dr. Juan Antonio Corbalan, told the paper he long has recommended barley drinks to professional sportsmen after exhausting activities.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    And applying Francisco's law of extremes...

    ...if one beer is good, extreme quantities of beer is extremely good.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Bill de Blasio to businessmen: "Everything you heard about me is true. . . I am not a free-marketeer. . . I believe in the heavy hand of government." And this was *before* he was elected Mayor of NY.

    NY Post: "Nor do the businesses that are here really want to move to Texas. But they will if they have to — if crime is high, for example."

    http://nypost.com/2013/11/16/d.....SocialFlow

  • Jordan||

    NY Post: "Nor do the businesses that are here really want to move to Texas. But they will if they have to — if crime is high, for example."

    Or they'll move to bankruptcy court.

  • ||

    "....de Blasio’s been elected mayor with a resounding 73 percent of the vote..."

    Fucking idiots get what they deserve.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    “We basically said don’t raise taxes,” one bank executive said. With the “heavy hand” of Bill de Blasio, higher taxes are just the beginning of the business community’s problems.

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    Heavy hand + limp wrist = knuckle dragger

  • ||

    Even if they were able to get rid of de Blasio they would still be stuck with the 73% who elected him.

    If I were a NYC business I would be packing my shit up and moving.

  • Irish||

    New York City has an 8.7% unemployment rate. How high do you think it will get by the end of Di Blasio's tenure?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    I think a Detroit-level implosion would be possible if Wall Street were more mobile. NYC gets to tax the whole country/world through Wall Street and that's really the only thing keeping them afloat.

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    Too bad they vote in national elections, for the world's most powerful superstate. Unless you start spacesteading, New Yawkers will probably fuck you one way or another...

  • Rhywun||

    Fucking idiots get what they deserve.

    After the lowest voter turnout since ladies got the vote. Maybe the 10% of us who actually voted for him deserve it, but not the rest of us.

  • ||

    It was an outburst. I agree with you.

  • Hyperion||

    No amount of retard is enough for the New Yorkers. One day they shall achieve the ever elusive peak retard.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Given the economic powerhouse that is NYC, how long will it take to turn it into Detroit?

    Any bets as to whether it can be done under this guy's tenure or is that too far to fall that quickly?

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    If this is mostly serious, I will wager hard against New York taking the fall. The city has too much going for it, as much as it pains me to say that...

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    And how long ago was it they said similar things about Detroit?

    NYC is the only liberal stronghold that hasn't yet imploded. I suspect its only because it was so much more powerful to begin with. Now they have a full fledged socialist as mayor and business will flee when the negatives outweigh the positives.

    It will be interesting to watch.

  • Irish||

    NYC is the only liberal stronghold that hasn't yet imploded.

    And that's only because they turned away from the brink in the last 2 decades. They were imploding in the 70's and 80's and saw a renaissance under Giuliani.

    There is nothing more pathetic than the fact that Giuliani, a very mediocre human being, was so much better than the mayors that came before him that his mere presence allowed New York to rebound.

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    It was a long time ago that anyone sane said similar things about Detroit.

    You and I are probably in total agreement about the utter badness of Detroit and New York politics, but places like New York prove Adam Smith right: There is, indeed, a lot of ruin in a nation. And as much as I may loathe some of those other liberal strongholds, "imploded" is far too strong a description of their general condition.

  • ||

    The most likely scenario for an NYC implosion actually already passed with the Financial Crisis.

    Finance is the only sector in NY that comes even close to comparing to Detroit's auto industry, as far as size relative to the city.

    A crisis didn't take it out (thanks to all the sector's capture of DC), and the city would likely be able to fill in around any kind of Detroitesque 50 year decline.

  • Pathogen||

    Don't kid yourself, Peak Retard™ is a myth... there will always be an "And 1"..

    10 Let "And 1" = "And 1" + 1
    20 goto ∞

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    So, Progressives are the Buzz Lightyears of Retard?

  • Pathogen||

    In many ways, yes...

  • Irish||

    NY Post: "Nor do the businesses that are here really want to move to Texas. But they will if they have to — if crime is high, for example."

    I don't even think they need crime to be high. If they can't turn a profit, they'll bounce.

    They don't need to go to Texas though. Tennessee, Kansas, either Dakota...all fine choices.

  • Hyperion||

    The bad thing is that millions of them will flee their dystopia to those other states and then strive to turn them into the exact same thing that they fled from.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    See the front range in CO.

  • Terr||

    Thinking of this always gives me a sad. :(

  • Entropy Void||

    See southeast Florida.

    One of my favorite phrases: "I-95 goes both ways, Bitch."

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    The more likely beneficiary, if you need a coastal presence, is either PA or VA.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Yeah, they would probably just all move to NOVA. Get closer to the power in DC.

  • OneOut||

    That would be a long drive for a 24 oz. slurpee.

  • Slammer||

    Creating a Healthy Food Zone Around Schools by regulating the Location of Fast Food Restaurants (and Mobile Food Vendors).

    Regulating = Creating! Yes! Limiting something expands it! Control is better! The State involved makes it healthier! Taking away choices improves things!

    Fuck off.

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    It's just the tip a little nudge...

  • Pathogen||

    "Regulating = Creating! Yes! Limiting something expands it! Control is better! The State involved makes it healthier! Taking away choices improves things!"

    Yeah, that's working out fabulously in the health insurance market.. among others..

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    MSNBC finds a nut - many states allow rapists to claim custody over children conceived in the rape:

    http://www.msnbc.com/disrupt/w.....null-cnull

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Let me guess that one of two things is happening here:

    1. The allegation of rape was never proved or
    2. We're talking about statutory rape.

    Those are my guesses, sight unseen. Am I right?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    This reform proposal* would allow the mother full custody rights if she presents "clear and convincing evidence of rape."

    If states don't already have such laws they certainly should. If a reform bill was proposed, that indicates that there are states which don't follow the proposed reform. But I could be wrong. The media accounts suggest that there are states without such a sensible law.

    http://beta.congress.gov/113/b.....2772ih.pdf

    *Disclaimer - this is a Congressional bill and I think reform should be at the state, not federal level.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    You should only be declared a rapist in criminal court, duly convicted by a jury of your peers, beyond a reasonable doubt. Anything else is anathema to freedom.

    Why should there be a lower standard elsewhere?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    The victim isn't a party to a criminal prosecution and can't initiate one.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    There's no victim until there is a conviction. You're just being circular.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    What if she wins a civil case with a preponderance of the evidence standard? Victims are found to exist in these cases all the time.

    In fact, I would strip custody rights from rapists found liable in a civil case.

    In fact, I would impose a rule that, to get child custody, you have to marry the mother. If you neglect that step before getting her pregnant, then oops, you should not get custody. That was the old rule before the glorious Sexual Revolution.

  • Irish||

    What if she wins a civil case with a preponderance of the evidence standard? Victims are found to exist in these cases all the time.

    In fact, I would strip custody rights from rapists found liable in a civil case.

    Really? Why? There's no other instance in which rights are stripped from a loser of a civil case. You have to pay, but you lose no other rights.

    Why is rape a magic crime that means you should lose rights without being convicted? I'm sorry, but I thought in a free country you get to keep your rights unless you've actually been found guilty in a criminal court.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    We're discussing the "right" of a man who fathered a child out of wedlock to have parental rights over that child - I think the right in question is fairly tenuous and shouldn't actually exist in the first place - though the Supremes say the "right" must be respected.

    To exercise his right to child custody, the law should require a man to be married to the mother. And then the law should protect him against loss of custody unless he personally commits some serious wrong against the child or the mother (adultery, desertion, abuse of mother or child, and very little else).

    It is my understanding that, in family court, a married father can be stripped of his paternal rights by at best a preponderance of the evidence, and without proving any fault on his part, if the mother gets tired of the marriage. And now we're discussing allowing greater rights to the father of an illegitimate child than to a married father, even if there's proven misconduct on the illegitimate dad's part? That's messed up.

  • Irish||

    In fact, I would impose a rule that, to get child custody, you have to marry the mother. If you neglect that step before getting her pregnant, then oops, you should not get custody.

    Wait, what? So if I'm a man who gets a woman pregnant, and that woman is a drug addict who treats the kid like a dog, I should not be allowed to take my own child out of that hell hole because I don't want to marry a drug addict?

    That's lunacy.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    The child in that case should be taken from the mother whether or not the dad wants to have custody. Then the dad and potential adoptive parents can fight it out over who would provide the best home environment.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    "The child in that case should be taken from the mother whether or not the dad wants to have custody."

    Many times the only person who is aware of how mom treats the kid is dad. So dad institutes an action to allocate parental rights to himself and take them from mom. What's the problem with that sort of self-interested self-help?

    It's funny you think CPS is some kind of organization that gives a shit. Yeah, let's put more kids into the foster system. There's the ticket.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "It's funny you think CPS is some kind of organization that gives a shit."

    Wow, more straw men. Please, keep trying for peak retard.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    I practice family law and you're so far from knowing what you're talking about it is painful.

    First of all, I have no idea where you get this idea that a married father can be stripped of his parental rights. What does that even mean to you?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I said paternal, not parental. You are so wedded to your idiotic and unjust family laws that you are ignorant of the paternal right to raise and direct the upbringing of his children. If you think he can exercise that right through weekend visitation or what have you, you are so invincibly ignorant that I don't know what to say.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    "You are so wedded to your idiotic and unjust family laws that you are ignorant of the paternal right to raise and direct the upbringing of his children"

    That's what PARENTAL rights are. I don't know what law books you've been reading, but it's the 21st Century. Womens can vote and stuff.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    You misquoted me, retard. And I defended maternal rights below.

    You might want to take a few CLEs, or for that matter retake law school, before embarrassing yourself with your claims of legal knowledge.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Parents are now equal in our system, Eduaard. Sorry to burst your 18th century bubble.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    You're batting 100 so far with the straw men. I simply pointed out that you misquoted me.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I don't think that someone who shows ignorance of the various burdens of proof and thinks there is no victim except in a criminal case should be criticizing others for ignorance of the law, retard.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    "I don't think that someone who shows ignorance of the various burdens of proof and thinks there is no victim except in a criminal case should be criticizing others for ignorance of the law, retard."

    There isn't a "victim" in civil cases. There is a Plaintiff and there is a Defendant. If the Plaintiff wins, he gets a judgment. He is never referred to as "the victim".

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    You seem to forget that your previous postings are available for all to see, which makes it difficult for you to shift your position like this.

    You said there was no victim prior to conviction. Even accepting your retroactive pretense that the discussion was limited to criminal cases (the very point in dispute), you are pathetically ignorant of the definition of victim in those cases.

    Your vast ignorance includes the definition of "victim" in victims-rights laws - a definition which doesn't wait to be triggered until a conviction.

    But keep amusing us with your legal "learning."

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    That's a lot of bluster for attempting to walk back your ignorance of civil cases.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    So, you're not even going to defend yourself now that I've caught you with your pants down with a legally-incorrect definition of "victim"?

    Go on, throw out a few bright shiny things to distract the reader.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Nope. You're still wrong. Legally speaking, only criminal case have victims. Civil cases don't. The end.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    A victim of rape is a woman who has been raped. A rapist is someone who commits rape. The end.

    And of course, you still haven't bothered to defend your ignorance about victims-rights laws. I can certainly understand. Like I said, you're just throwing out bright shiny things in hopes the reader won't notice your glaring error.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    If you cannot be trusted to give an accurate definition of "victim" in the criminal-law context, how can you be trusted to give a definition of "victim" in the public-policy context?

    Again, in the criminal-law context your definition of victim is that "There's no victim until there is a conviction."

    Just to give one example, the federal victims-rights law disagrees with you.

    "For the purposes of this chapter, the term 'crime victim' means a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense or an offense in the District of Columbia."

    Curiously, given the assurances you have given the reader, it may interest you to know that the victim's rights apply in "any court proceeding involving an offense against a crime victim" - not just post-conviction proceedings as you ignorantly insinuate.

    http://www.justice.gov/usao/eo.....ctims.html

  • Kid Xenocles||

    ""For the purposes of this chapter, the term 'crime victim' means a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense or an offense in the District of Columbia.""

    For the purposes of this discussion, let's say that a person can be considered a rape victim even if the attacker is never convicted. That makes sense. What does not make sense is legally treating someone as a rapist without his being convicted for that crime in accordance with his legal rights.

    The most likely counterexample you might raise is OJ, who was acquitted of murder but found liable for the deaths of the victims. But those are two different charges. Murder has a strong definition to satisfy and a high standard of proof to convict. OJ is not - legally speaking - considered a murderer today, and he cannot be stripped of any rights on that basis.

    What you are proposing is that the legal system should be able to treat people like criminals - to include the specific label associated with the crime - without being convicted by the criminal system. It's an end-run around due process.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    That begs the question of whether depriving an unmarried father of custody on the ground that he did a rape constitutes a criminal punishment. *If that were true,* then of course we'd have to wait for a criminal conviction. That's the whole point at issue.

  • Kid Xenocles||

    Rape is a crime defined by statute. If you are proposing to have the legal system treat rapists - which is to say, people who have been determined to have committed the crime of rape - differently from the rest of the population, I don't see what else you can call it other than a criminal punishment.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Someone found liable in civil court for forcing sex on a woman is treated differently from the rest of the population because he has to pay damages to the woman and the rest of the population doesn't.

  • Kid Xenocles||

    What else would you take away from this person? Would you have him register? Would you bar him from buying guns?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "Would you bar him from buying guns?"

    No, but there are laws which do so in the context of domestic-violence restraining orders. In this situation, I would agree that we should wait for an actual felony conviction before disarming him. Fair enough.

    I start with the proposition that an unmarried father's "right" to custody over his children is actually on a lower level than the right to bear arms. Getting married before having children is a failsafe way to avoid having to worry about this right.

    Well, not failsafe, because I suppose a really crafty geneticist could get some cells from a man and do some gene-engineering stuff to make the unwitting man the father of the child. But I'm talking the generality of cases.

  • Kid Xenocles||

    And in all this you still haven't told us why we should default to the mother in unmarried couples. Women are free agents; for all we know she vetoed the marriage.

    My cousin's marriage ended after her infidelity and by the time the custody hearing got to court she was an obvious drug addict in an abusive relationship with her new boyfriend. She would have gotten custody had her own mother not gone to court and asked them not to award it to her - and even then it was a close decision. So as far as I'm concerned this is a solution looking for a problem. If it's that clear he's a rapist they should take it to criminal court. If it's not that clear there's no reason to add to a deck already stacked against him.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "My cousin's marriage..."

    That's a fairly awful story, and it seems to underline my points if a wife can cheat on her husband and become an addict and still the custody issue is regarded by the courts as some kind of delicate Solomonic problem.

    If the husband didn't do anything wrong, I'm not sure why there should be even an attempt to take away his custody rights.

  • Irish||

    A victim of rape is a woman who has been raped. A rapist is someone who commits rape. The end.

    Legally a rapist is someone who is convicted of rape in a criminal court of law.

    Get this civil court bullshit out of here. A civil judgement does not make you legally guilty of anything. As such, you should be treated by the law like anyone else.

    The end. That's how the rule of law works.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Our debate is over the proper procedure to ascertain who is a rapist.

    A rapist is a rapist before the procedure begins, and he'd be a rapist even if there was no proceeding. If he's *not* a rapist, then all the legal proceedings in the world wouldn't make him one - though it *would* under your definition that a rapist is someone convicted of rape.

    You would describe an innocent person as a rapist - I wouldn't.

    Of course, on the flip side, the rapist keeps his rights unless those rights have been limited by law after due process.

    For instance, if a civil trial finds that someone is a rapist, then he can be forced to pay damages.

    Now, the very question at issue is how an unmarried father can be deprived of his paternal rights on the grounds that he's a rapist. No point trying to define the issue away.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    What about shared parenting? Visitation?

    Oh wait, you don't know anything about those things because you haven't studied the subject.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Right, I was defending the right of innocent fathers to shared parenting and visitation. Could the straw men get any sillier?

  • Fluffy||

    And then the law should protect him against loss of custody unless he personally commits some serious wrong against the child or the mother (adultery, desertion, abuse of mother or child, and very little else).

    Why should it matter if he commits some "wrong" against the mother?

    Particularly adultery?

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    See, Eduaard doesn't believe parents have rights. Only married parents, apparently, have any rights to parent their children.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Yes, much better to be complicit, as you admit, in a system which ignores the rights of the innocent married parent (who could of course be the mother). But continue to defend your retarded family laws, I'm sure they bring you good money.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    What does "innocent" mean to you here? You're using a lot of legal language incorrectly.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Perhaps I'm discussing innocence in the sense of, you know, not having done anything wrong. But you are more sophisticated to use that definition in a blog discussion of public policy.

    Man, even a graduate of the Close-Cover-Cefore-Striking Correspondence School of Law wouldn't make the errors you're making.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    But all you're doing is defining "innocence" in a way that suits you:

    1. Innocence means not doing something wrong.
    2. What does wrong mean?
    3. Whatever suits Eduaard's moral sensibilities.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Using your legal knowledge, what makes a father (or mother, to avoid your straw-manning) innocent in family court?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Wow, if that's all it takes to shut you up, I should have done it earlier.

    What makes a father or mother innocent in family court?

  • Irish||

    Yes, much better to be complicit, as you admit, in a system which ignores the rights of the innocent married parent (who could of course be the mother).

    What rights of married parents are ignored? You're the one that's arguing men should have no right to custody of their own children unless they allow themselves to be forced into a marriage. You therefore have no moral authority to talk about 'innocent' anything since you've admitted that you're perfectly fine denying legally innocent men their parental rights.

  • OneOut||

    If you like your rights you can keep them.

  • Fluffy||

    In fact, I would impose a rule that, to get child custody, you have to marry the mother. If you neglect that step before getting her pregnant, then oops, you should not get custody.

    As long as that is accompanied by a rule that says you can't get child support payments unless you married the father, I'd be totally fine with that.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    The old rule, IIRC, was that the mother could not collect child support in her own right but that if she went on welfare the govt could recover the costs of welfare from the dad.

  • Fluffy||

    The old rule, IIRC, was that the mother could not collect child support in her own right but that if she went on welfare the govt could recover the costs of welfare from the dad.

    This is an absurd rule.

    If the state does not want to make welfare payments, it should simply stop making them.

    They shouldn't be entitled to entrap me into obligation for their purely voluntary action.

  • ||

    Awesome idea, I lose all parental rights to my child simply because I don't toe the lion and have the state recognize my relationship.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Marriage doesn't derive from state recognition. It would exist in a state of nature.

  • Irish||

    Yes, but the marriage we're talking about IS a state institution. In a state of nature I could do whatever ritual I want and declare myself married. What you're talking about is not allowing men to have parental rights unless they partake in a state licensing regime.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Licensing is optional. Marriage has been recognized even in the absence of a license.

  • Irish||

    Licensing is optional. Marriage has been recognized even in the absence of a license.

    You keep saying things that are completely unrelated to your earlier argument. How could marriage related to parental rights exist in the absence of a license? If there's no legal license, anyone could say 'I am totally married to that woman!' and your scheme of not allowing fathers to have parental rights if they aren't married totally falls apart.

    It may be true that marriage would exist without state recognition, but it couldn't exist without state recognition if you're linking it to state recognition of parental rights.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I would say the state recognizes rights but does not create them.

    Now that begs the question, what are those rights? If there's a natural parental right independent of marriage, then the state should recognize it regardless of the positive law.

    If certain rights are associated with marriage, then these rights exist whether the state recognizes them or not.

    Now, the state hasn't always required marriage licenses. To this day, a few jurisdictions treat you as married if you live together and hold yourself out as husband and wife. Marriage licenses are a much more recent development than govt recognition of marriage.

  • Irish||

    And yet the government in your example still needs to recognize the union. Here's what was initially said:

    Awesome idea, I lose all parental rights to my child simply because I don't toe the lion and have the state recognize my relationship.

    In your instance, the state still needs to recognize the union. It's ludicrous that I couldn't have access to my child when I've legally committed no crime, broken no law, and been convicted in no court.

    You have yet to explain how you can argue that a judgement in a civil case, with a lower burden of proof than that required in a criminal case, can be used to strip a parent of the right to have custody of their child.

    If you are not convicted in a court of law, you are not fucking guilty. If you aren't guilty, you should have the same privileges and rights as every other legally innocent person in America.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "Awesome idea, I lose all parental rights to my child simply because I don't toe the lion and have the state recognize my relationship."

    Do you think you're quoting me?

  • Irish||

    No, I'm quoting the person you replied to which kicked off this subdiscussion. He made that quote, and you responded by saying that marriage exists in a state of nature.

    Your entire point is that I have no custody rights unless I marry the mother, which would of course need some sort of legal recognition by the government. Stop with this fucking sophistry, and just answer the question as to why you think an individual should be treated differently under the law when they have not legally committed any crime.

    Why should someone not found guilty of rape nonetheless be treated as if they had been convicted? Why should someone be treated different under the law when they are legally innocent? And how can you possibly claim that this isn't a total subversion of due process and the rule of law? You have yet to answer these questions in any way.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    The optimal environment for raising children is to have their married father and mother raise them.

    Which isn't to say that ideal can always be attained, but the government should encourage it.

    So here's what the government should say to guys - "you want custody over your children? Fine - get married and we'll protect your custody rights unless you f___ up and beat your wife or kids, desert them, and a few other major exceptions."

    I would ask - why should a married father who has not been found guilty of *anything* have his custodial rights denied *or abridged* by the state?

  • Irish||

    That's not government 'encouragement.' That's government threat. You're threatening to remove a child from his own father solely based on the fact that the father isn't married.

    And what if the woman says no? What if the woman is a terrible person the father really shouldn't marry? You still haven't explained why the default position is to the woman and the father must go on his hands and knees and beg for marriage if he wants custody.

    I would ask - why should a married father who has not been found guilty of *anything* have his custodial rights denied *or abridged* by the state?

    When has this ever happened? How could a married father have his rights be denied or abridged when a married couple would have joint custody? What on Earth are you even talking about? You're now arguing against something that does not happen and in favor of a vile and sickening encroachment of state power onto the personal lives of individual men and women.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "You're now arguing against something that does not happen"

    Interesting. I wonder in what sense this "does not happen," or for that matter in what universe.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Let's see, joint custody as described by a divorce lawyer:

    ""One parent will be designated as the "residential" parent with whom the child resides."

    And there's more:

    "Joint custody has gained both notoriety and popularity over the past several years. At its best, joint custody allows for the maximum involvement of both parents in the lives of their children - signaling to the children that, despite their parents' differences, their needs are what is most important. At its worst, joint custody can serve as a source of ongoing disagreement and litigation between the parties - signaling to the children that they are merely pawns in their parents never-ending battles."

    Sounds exciting!

    http://www.divorce-law-illinois.com/custody.html

  • Fluffy||

    Marriage doesn't derive from state recognition. It would exist in a state of nature.

    Dude, you're all over the place.

    This statement can't be squared with your other statement declaring that fathers outside of legal marriages should have no parental rights.

    Because any of those men could just jump up and down declaring that they were in a "state of nature" marriage (whatever the fuck that is).

  • SugarFree||

    Eddie is so concerned with the victims of rape that he wants to use the state to force them to stay pregnant with the rapist's child.

    He cynically suggests changing the law about a rapist's parental rights only in order to reduce the likelihood that a woman would get an abortion rather than have to fight over parental rights with her rapist.

    Ultimately, he doesn't give a shit about women who have been raped except insofar as he can convince, bamboozle or force them to remain incubators for rapists.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    So the only way to care about women is to let them kill their children? That's a fascinating assumption, but I have the impression that we've had this discussion before. Therefore, please refer to previous discussions on this topic for the various perspectives.

    Are you acknowledging, by the way, that denying custody to rapists would "reduce the likelihood that a woman would get an abortion?"

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    A CNN article - they are marginally less crazy than MSNBC, and they make the same claims.

    ""How could I possibly entrust my beautiful ... baby to him," [Shawna Pruitt] wondered, "but beyond that I didn't know how to spend the next 18 or more years of my life tethered to my attacker."

    "...Prewitt, who was raped at the age of 21, is now a custody rights attorney, and is working to enact new federal guidelines that would push states to pass laws to strip rapists of their parental rights to children they fathered through rape."

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/01/.....d-custody/

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    What problem are we solving here? A rapist is going to be found unfit 100 out of 100 times.

  • Irish||

    According to that, the man was convicted. In that case, yes he should be stripped of his rights as a father.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Ding ding ding!

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Irish, are you saying that you don't believe in the reformative powers of the American penitentiary system?

  • SIV||

    No Texas "barbecue" is among America's best

  • AdamJ||

    Are you from KC or NC?

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    Probably Memphis... Ha!

  • Warty||

    Shut the fuck up, idiot.

  • AdamJ||

    Because I've never had KC BBQ, but that NC vinegar pork BBQ is shit compared to brisket, ribs, and sausage.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    I'm fine with all of it because I'm a good American male, not some effete picky lady.

  • Snark Plissken||

    Yes, it's terrible how New Mexico BBQ overshadows it.

  • ||

    Ugh, here we go with the best BBQ argument again. Yall always get it wrong.

    Let me just set you people straight right now. The best BBQ in the world is at my house.

    (Last night grilled 1/2 lb, bacon wrapped, onion, jalepeno, garlic burgers and pork ribs over oak and hickory. YUM.)

  • Hyperion||

    The best grilling is churrasco style. I've become a complete convert to grilling that way.

  • Snark Plissken||

    Did you use the convection fan in your oven or just the broil setting?

  • ||

    Ha.

  • AdamJ||

    He started it!

    I actually love it all, with NC being last. It's all cooked meat after all.

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    No deep-dish Carolina brisket?

  • Hyperion||

    NR, but during my Friday afternoon commute home, I once again, inadvertently found myself tuned into NPR. There's a local show on at that time and I learned that the only reason that the Dems in Congress are starting to turn against Obamacare is that they are jealous of the great leadership of our greatest president ever. Their attempt at hiding from reality is now turning into a complete laugh fest. It's almost pathetic to the extent that you could feel sorry for them, if you didn't realize how truly dangerous their stupidity is.

  • ||

    "... the great leadership of our greatest president ever."

    They mean that floundering buffoon that tells different , conflicting lies every other day, changing his policies unpredictably by the hour? Holy shit, you are correct, that is a riot.

  • Hyperion||

    In their mindset, the fact that you feel that way can only mean that you're a racist. If you were black, it would mean that you're jealous.

    They figured that out all on their own, so they must be really smart, no?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Free people look for solutions in themselves. And those without freedom search for the sources of their miseries from outside. Mongols say, “better to live by your own choice however bitter it is, than to live by other’s choice, however sweet”.

    So Mongolia is like the Texas of China?

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    Imagine Walker Texas Mongolian Ranger, with a fucking falcon.

    No wonder they basically conquered the world, once...

  • Pathogen||

    Well, yeah.. that, and.. stirrups..

  • Gorilla tactics||

    those were the avars not the mongols, whitey already had stirrups by then

  • Robert||

    Yeah, but all the Avars did was hoard, causing a great deflation.

  • Robert||

    That was what the Niebelungenlied (and hence the Ring Cycle) was about: the conquest of the Avars by the Franks. The song was based on a pun: The Ring was the name of the innermost, circular fortress of the Avars. Clever allegory.

  • Irish||

    From Instapundit:

    NO, IT’S BECAUSE HE’S A FUCK-UP. YOU’RE NOT HELPING BLACK PEOPLE OUT BY BLURRING THE DISTINCTION. Oprah Winfrey: Americans Disrespect Obama Because He Is Black.

    One of the great joys of the last few years has been watching Barack Obama slowly beat the sympathy out of Glenn Reynolds and make him more and more radical.

  • OneOut||

    I'm wondering what they did to get her back on their side.

    Last I heard she had been banned from the glorious inner circle of light by Valerie Jarrett and the First Gardener who both felt threatened by all that is Oprah.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I once again, inadvertently found myself tuned into NPR.

    The Radio Pixies put super glue on your tuner?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    AP, via WaPo

    President Barack Obama’s health care law risks coming unglued because of his administration’s bungles and his own inflated promises.

    To avoid that fate, Obama needs breakthroughs on three fronts: the cancellations mess, technology troubles and a crisis in confidence among his own supporters.

    Working in his favor are pent-up demands for the program’s benefits and an unlikely collaborator in the insurance industry.

    "Unlikely collaborator" you say.

    Are these guys really that dumb, or do they just think their readers are?

  • Sevo||

    "Working in his favor are pent-up demands for the program’s benefits"

    I'm not seeing either the benefits or any 'pent-up' demand.
    I guess if you think the benefit is free shit, there's always demand for that, but maternity coverage for Mr. and Mrs. Sevo ain't making me wait with baited breath.

  • ||

    I did tell y'all the story about my grandfather's friend, standing in the middle of the boat he had overloaded, repeatedly yelling "It'll float!", while the water quickly filled the boat and it sank to the bottom, didnt I?

    He was still saying "It'll float!" while he stood waist deep in the water and the boat was firmly on the bottom.

    True story.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    The one thing they cannot spin is reality.

    No matter how much they lie, reality ALWAYS prevails in the end. It implodes because it must. It was designed to implode. It has no choice.

  • Terr||

    Then there's the plastic bag ban. Dammit, Austin.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Weep for America.

    “I’m tired of being slapped in the face,” said John Gilman, who has worked at Boeing for nearly 40 years. “Building airplanes — it takes years of training and skill. The people who run this company used to understand that. But now it’s run by bean counters and lawyers.”

    Gilman was among the thousands of factory workers voting on Boeing’s take-it-or-we-leave proposal Wednesday. The anger was palpable. The president of the local machinists union had called the proposal “a piece of crap.” Others referred to it as “the Walmartization of aerospace.” As they voted, vultures circled, among them Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, who tweeted last week that his low-tax, low-wage state was ready to help Boeing.

    One of the more tedious laments of our day is the bromide that we don’t make things anymore in the United States. In fact, we make plenty of things, including world-class airplanes. But the question is whether we can still pay the people who make them a decent wage.

    I feel so ashamed, Comrades.

    I have betrayed the Spirit of the Revolution.

  • Irish||

    As they voted, vultures circled, among them Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, who tweeted last week that his low-tax, low-wage state was ready to help Boeing.

    Low wage? A Texan can afford to make much lower wages because of the lower taxes. A Texan making $10 an hour almost certainly has a better quality of life than a Californian making $15 an hour. That's not even getting into the fact that a Texan is far less likely to make $0 due to being unemployed.

    This tends to get left out of the sort of analyses they run in the New York Times. I wonder why.

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    Gordon Gecko raided their fridge, once. It's really that simple.

  • Fluffy||

    What Boeing’s riveters, line-assemblers and welders want is a thimble of respect. People have been building flying machines in this region since young Bill Boeing rolled seaplanes out of a barn nearly 100 years ago. The machinists didn’t ask for hefty pay raises or new benefits as a condition to keep the much-promoted 777X production in this region. They just wanted to preserve what they had — jobs that could pay up upward of $80,000 a year, with a guaranteed pension.

    Why don't workers in South Carolina deserve a thimble of respect?

  • Irish||

    They just wanted to preserve what they had — jobs that could pay up upward of $80,000 a year, with a guaranteed pension.

    We just want respect and we want it in the form of a guaranteed $120,000 a year worth of wages and benefits!

  • Pathogen||

    "Why don't workers in South Carolina deserve a thimble of respect?"

    Because they're a bunch of mutinous, union busting, wage-killing scabs... and, one day, their uppins will come?

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    Protectionist Mad-Libs! Let's play:

    "People have been building _______ in this _______ since _______ _______ed out of a _______ nearly ___ years ago."

    Take it from there, gang!

  • Robert||

    I need an adverb, another adverb,...

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Zod bless the free market. It is working EXACTLY as it's supposed to. Business goes where it can make the most money. It's THAT simple.

    Oh, and FUCK UNIONS! They CAUSED their own demise and when given the chance to help themselves, they elected to commit suicide.

    As a Boeing customer, I couldn't be happier.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    The NYT is against taking jobs away from hard working Americans, and giving them to downtrodden foreign sweatshop workers in exotic locations like Texas and South Carolina.

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    *Resists urge to make secessionist joke*

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Progress through stasis! Change through inaction! Fix it (but don't change anything)!

  • LynchPin1477||

    They just wanted to preserve what they had — jobs that could pay up upward of $80,000 a year, with a guaranteed pension.

    How do you finish that paragraph with that sentence and keep a straight face? "All I want is for everything in my life to be perfect! Is that so much to ask?"

  • ||

    I seem to recall the management at Boeing complaining about the unions repeatedly shutting their factories down with strikes, to the point of nearly putting them out of business.

    Fuck them, the unions engineered their own demise.

    I keep thinking of ding dongs.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Great moments in Western Civilization.

  • Slammer||

    OT: I work about 5 blocks away from di Blasio's house. Every night my scooter ride takes me down his block. Now that he's the Mayor Elect they've parked a cruiser with one or two uniforms outside the house. They are always the fattest fucking cops I've ever seen. Must either be a coveted assignment or a punishment detail.

  • Jon Lester||

    I guess if something happens, they'll just shoot, without giving chase.

  • Rhywun||

    They stand around doing nothing all day in one of the safest neighborhoods in the city for a nice paycheck. They probably love it but that would be punishment for me.

  • Jon Lester||

    They may honestly believe their own crap, but it sounds to me like they're really insulating the children against low-income people.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Got it in one.

  • Fatty Bolger||

  • Robert||

    "If you like your period, you can keep your period. Plan!"

    Ew.

  • ||

    Bryan ‏@dreanguish 9h
    @vpostrel @reason FWIW http://reason.com/blog/2013/11.....nt_4136290

    Virginia Postrel ‏@vpostrel 7h
    @dreanguish I appreciate @reason commenters' introspection and apologies/explanations. Now could they watch the video?

    Virginia Postrel ‏@vpostrel 7h
    “@dreanguish: @vpostrel @reason FWIW http://reason.com/blog/2013/11.....nt_4136290 …” Reason commenters discuss my earlier tweet.

    Virginia Postrel ‏@vpostrel 7h
    @dreanguish Commenters make @reason look like it's written for juvenile fratboys. Angry letters were about issues, not hair & booze.

    Virginia Postrel ‏@vpostrel 7h
    @dreanguish I'm too earnest for @reason today. @nickgillespie's ironic sensibility is more suitable to the audience.

    Jim Epstein ‏@jimepstein 6h
    @vpostrel YouTube comments (all vids, not yours particularly) make H&R's by comparison read like senior faculty notes on a PhD dissertation

    Caleb Turberville ‏@CalebTurbervill 2h
    @vpostrel I'll do one better. Not only will I watch the video, but I'll also buy both of your books.

  • Irish||

    Wait...she wasn't offended by anything anyone said, she's upset that we didn't talk about the video?

    So she's not actually upset by anything relevant or offensive, merely that we went off topic?

    Postrel, why have you forsaken me?

  • ||

    Commenters make @reason look like it's written for juvenile fratboys. Angry letters were about issues, not hair & booze.

  • Pathogen||

    Trollollolollolo

  • Irish||

    She's just too earnest for us. I feel like if Postrel gets this upset by off color and off topic comments, she probably shouldn't be writing about politics in the internet age.

    It kind of comes with the territory.

  • Pathogen||

    This is why we can't have nice things...

  • ||

    I think it could be partly that, but also partly that the comments come off as way worse than they are if you don't understand the in-jokes or know who the trolls / socks are.

  • Irish||

    I like Postrel. I think The Future and Its Enemies is a very interesting book and I generally enjoy the articles I've seen her write for Time and Bloomberg.

    I just have difficulty feeling sympathy when she gets upset over something that is very minor and then plays it off as just being too 'earnest.'

  • Killazontherun||

    Chelsea Girl was slumming with the libertarians for a while when the right set did not feel so threatened by us. Even Andrew Sullivan gave it a spin for about a year just before the great Obama arrived, and we fell out of fashion. Whatever rationale, we're 'vulgar', 'juvenile', engaged in 'frat boy humor', will do for the sake of achieving distance. We never changed, Virginia never changed, fashion changed.

  • ||

    Indeed. I've become quite sensitive nowadays to just how much fashionability affects such things.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Virginia Postrel ‏@vpostrel 7h
    @dreanguish Commenters make @reason look like it's written for juvenile fratboys. Angry letters were about issues, not hair & booze.

    Good, good...

  • The Late P Brooks||

    reality ALWAYS prevails in the end.

    2 + 2 = 4

    And they all lived unhappily ever after.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I'm too earnest for @reason today.

    Boo hoo. She should go read that tedious, cloyingly earnest crypto-philosophical grudge fuck between libertarius, Tulpa, and some other tedious concerntroll douchebag from last night. Maybe it would cheer her up.

  • ||

    By the fact that she mentioned Nick being more suitable with his "ironic sensibility", I think she may have been serious about her being "too earnets" -- i.e., acknowledging that it's partly a matter of taste, and her taste doesn't fit.

  • RBS||

    tedious, cloyingly earnest crypto-philosophical grudge fuck between libertarius, Tulpa, and some other tedious concerntroll douchebag from last night.

    That sounds terrible.

  • Killazontherun||

    Glad I missed it.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    People have been making the finest quality buggy whips, by hand, using nothing but the best and straightest whale penises and braided mastodon ear hair (finer than frog's fur, and much longer!) since time immemorial, and we resent being put out to pasture by a bunch of uppity whippersnappers who think a bunch of mamby pamby lady-fingered stockholders should glom onto the fruits of our labor!

  • The Late P Brooks||

    You know, I would have thought a thing like Twitter to be much too frivolous for truly Serious Thinkers.

    Huh. I learn something new every day.

  • Fluffy||

    GET OFF VIRGINIA POSTREL'S LAWN

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    It may have been Postrel's lawn, but it sure as shit was the Chief's Jacket's boat!

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Speaking of Austin, Texas- F1 qualifying is under way.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    The real tragedy would be letting this one go to waste.

    Police said Mr. Wafer claimed he thought someone was trying to break in and the shooting was accidental after he opened the main front door to investigate. That doesn’t explain why he did not call 911 or why he opened the door with a shotgun in hand.

    Whatever the outcome of the case, the tragic death of Ms. McBride was another symptom of a gun culture where private citizens are too often heedless of gun safety.

    In a nation armed to the teeth, the wrong circumstances and misunderstandings lead to sudden death and injury in thousands of cases a year. Lawmakers should consider the lives cut short like Ms. McBride’s when they fail to tighten gun safety laws.

    Never presume to take it upon yourself to provide for your own security. Especially in a place so well known for the efficiency of their public services.

  • Irish||

    Yes, why would anyone living in a place as well run as the Metropolitan region of Detroit want to provide for his own safety?

    One would think that the 40 minute wait times someone could expect in Detroit for the police to show up might have something to do with the desire to have a firearm. Those forty minute wait times? It's the result of funding for police being gashed so that they can pay off pensioners from 40 years ago.

    It's always interesting to me that the most violent places in the country are virtually all run by Democrats but the violence is never their fault. It's always their political opponents who have nothing to do with the governance of these areas.

  • ||

    When your political strategy is to buy votes with free shit and then keep people dependent on government assistance, invariably you will create a garbage strewn wasteland populated with violent , angry people inclined to criminality.

    You will also need someone to pin the blame on.

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    "It's the result of funding for police being gashed so that they can pay off pensioners from 40 years ago."

    Like a dog that understands only its name, that's all they hear from your statement.

  • Pathogen||

    One would think that the 40 minute wait times someone could expect in Detroit for the police to show up might have something to do with the desire to have a firearm."

    40 minutes? only in the ritzy parts of town... How about "never..."

  • Irish||

    But authorities took 19 days to get a rape kit containing DNA samples from her to a State Police lab for testing, blaming a bureaucratic delay. After arresting the man on July 29, however, an assistant prosecutor rebuffed a warrant request, asking for a search of his home and more witnesses. Residents in southwest Detroit took matters into their own hands after local police delayed prosecution on a suspected rape in their neighborhood.

    Wow. How can those morons at Raw Story post this and still be the worshipful little government servants that they are? You'd think a 'bureaucratic delay' of 19 days for a rape kit would clue them into the gross negligence of the public sector.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    So the official position of the NYT is that they want to ban shotguns? Has Joe Biden weighed in on this yet? How about Obama?

  • cw||

    where private citizens are too often heedless of gun safety

    But those public citizens (police) always take heed of gun safety! They never mistakenly shoot and kill innocent people, their property, or their dogs!

  • Pathogen||

    And.. sometimes each other.. and sometimes themselves

  • Pathogen||

    And even... the boss..

  • BiMonSciFiCon||

    "Austin City Limits..." What you did there...

  • BiMonSciFiCon||

    "Austin City Limits..." What you did there...

  • BiMonSciFiCon||

    I saw it twice, apparently.

  • Pathogen||

    In stereo (where available)

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Libertarians Are Not the Tea Party

    A new report, however, finds the link between libertarians and the Tea Party is weak at best. In fact, according to an in-depth survey by the Public Religion Research Institute released Tuesday, most libertarians don’t identify as Tea Party adherents, and less than half consider themselves Republicans. Among Republicans, meanwhile, those who are libertarians tend to have views and priorities distinct from many of their fellow GOPers.
  • The Bearded Hobbit||

    Austin City Limits

    I can't believe that I'm the only one who caught this.

    IOW, ISWYDT

    ... Hobbit

  • The Bearded Hobbit||

    Damn you BiMon!!

    BH

  • BiMonSciFiCon||

    I, too, was surprised no one caught it. I had to do a ctrl+F to make sure I was the first.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    The rich, getting richer.

    The fact is indisputable: productivity -- output per worker -- nearly doubled over the past 30 years. Yet the real pay of most workers increased much more slowly, and the hourly pay of many groups of non-supervisory workers barely budged at all. So what happened to the gains of higher productivity?

    They showed up in an increased share of income accruing to owners of capital and in the pay of top earners, whose compensation consists disproportionately of -- guess what? -- stock options and stock grants that give them a share of the increased growth and income that comes from capital. The net result of this shift has been the well-documented increase in the wealth and income of a small number of Americans and American families, while the income and wealth of most Americans has grown little, if at all.

    I can't help wondering if this takes into account deferred compensation like health and retirement benefits. Also, working conditions.

    I would be delighted to see workers getting true profit sharing, but that would mean taking on the risk of not getting bonuses in lean years. I'm pretty sure the unions are on record as opposing that.

  • cw||

    And more people own more things than ever before due to prices they can afford because...wait for it...productivity gains.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    The fact is indisputable

    shift has been the well-documented

    Zero sum game.

    derp

  • General Butt Naked||

    I would be delighted to see workers getting true profit sharing, but that would mean taking on the risk of not getting bonuses in lean years.

    Hell, stockholders lose money when the company's stock goes down. Could you imagine advocating someone working a year for a negative income?

  • johnl||

    Does this mean Austin plans on cleaning the bathrooms in their parks? Or are kids supposed to drive home if they want to use a bathroom and wash? Because when my kids need to use a bathroom at the park, we drive to the nearest McDonald's.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    But you cannot expect the working man to act on his own behalf.

    One way to avoid the danger of inequality subverting democracy, then, and at the same time to improve corporate America's overall economic performance, is to create tens of millions more citizen capitalists by giving workers stock in their companies -- enough to focus their efforts on improving firm performance. In short, we favor employee stock ownership based on grants of stock to broad-groups of workers rather than workers buying shares with their wages or savings.

    Now, we're getting somewhere.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Our forefathers, George, John, Tom, James, and even Alexander, would, we believe, approve of this path for overcoming the danger to the country of wealth inequality. The Constitution begins, "We the People," not "We the Billionaires." We will better preserve or restore the reality of "We the People" if more of us have an ownership stake as well as work stake in our economy. The founders believed that a democratic republic required wide ownership of property and a bustling middle class to ensure its very existence.

    "We the billionaires" haha. How droll.

    They seem to somehow have failed to notice government policies and incentives which drive ever-greater consolidation and increasingly large and centralized businesses. And, oddly, more centralized control also results in more centralized income.

  • Irish||

    We will better preserve or restore the reality of "We the People" if more of us have an ownership stake as well as work stake in our economy. The founders believed that a democratic republic required wide ownership of property and a bustling middle class to ensure its very existence.

    Um...no they didn't. If they did, I don't think Washington would have been so upset when good King George took his land in the Ohio territory and gave it back to the native tribes.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Hi Irish, But don’t you see, Washington was a LEGAL human while the native tribes-peoples were ILLEGAL people? King George was mentally insane and just did not see the distinction. We as Euro-derived pepples born on American soil are legal people, if we PROUDLY call ourselves Americans… And others are all ILLEGAL people, whose rights are highly suspect to say the least… They just MIGHT have been born 5 yards on the wrong side of the border, ya know… And they might even have been so un-American as to have dubbed themselves with un-American internet names such as “Irish”! “America (except for native America), Love it or Leave it!” … A Proud LEGAL Humanoid (Y’all illegal humans take a hike!) … Born on the RIGHT side of the rail-road tracks, I am, with the RIGHT kind of birth certificate; “Show me your papers, please, Citizen… Or ARE ye?”

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    See 8

    I've been boning up on my logical fallacies lately and my wife sent me this. Libertarian fallacies... he addresses ROADZ and SOMALIAZ.

    Good read.

  • ||

    I always refer to that site.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Strutting autocratic martinet whines like a little girl.

    New York City’s police commissioner, Raymond W. Kelly, said he “resented” the way the Democratic candidates for mayor criticized him and the Police Department while they were campaigning, according to an interview in Playboy magazine that was released this week.

    Mr. Kelly, who Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio has said will be replaced, said the candidates were “pandering to get votes” when they criticized the department’s policies, particularly its stop-and-frisk tactics. Without mentioning any of them by name, he accused the candidates of turning on him in public to curry favor with voters.

    “I know all these people,” Mr. Kelly said, according to a copy of the published interview provided by the magazine. “They all claimed to be friends of mine until the mayoral campaigns.”

    Those poopyheads don't appreciate how awesome I am! They'll be sorry when I'm gone.

  • Robert||

    I'm just jumping to the bottom of the comment thread to muse about how and when "society decided" that "fast food" was at least vaguely bad. When I was a panelist for many years (1980s, into the '90s) in the American Shoppers Panel and answered surveys on eating habits, they did have a definition of "fast food restaurant" that distinguished it from "cafeteria", but the distinction was a fine one. So there isn't much material difference between the institutional eating kids would do in a school cafeteria and eating out in a fast food joint. Yet society has become imbued with the notion of relative badness of fast fooderies in a way that is too pervasive to bother acknowledging. It's just one of those "everybody knows and accepts" things, yet I don't remember anyone ever arguing for it—or against it, for that matter. Partly it's the negative cachet that chain businesses have long had as opposed to Mom & Pop places that are not only owned by Mom & Pop but look different from Ma & Pa's across town; but the food itself?

    Sometimes these undiscussed society-wide attitude changes are for the better, as when male homosexuals and Chinese Americans lost their negative cachet, although in those cases that's regression to the mean. When something takes on a negative cachet, it's often just...weird.

  • Rufus J. Fisk||

    Alright....this is my first time posting but I have been a long time reader, especially the comments sections. I look up to you folks highly to form my own responses to asinine D's and R's talking points. But you guys definitely need to start feeding those "trolls" that come on this website. I have seen you guys proclaim not wanting to "feed the trolls", but in my opinion that is how you get outsiders who read these comments to be able to see the weakness of the progressive/neo con agenda. So PLEASE for the love of Spaghetti Jesus feed them!! We need to see how to properly respond to these jerk offs.

  • Rufus J. Fisk||

    also, I have been drinking. Vladimir Vodka and Diet Sprite. Insult me at will.

  • Robert||

    The food itself at a fast foodery is just luncheonette food served a little faster. And the worst people used to say of luncheonette food was that it led to heartburn.

  • ||

    Here is a better idea - ban any new government facilities within a mike of an existing Fast food outlet

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement