NYC Council Bans Public Vaping Because It Looks Too Much Like Smoking


FIN e-cigarette ad

Today the New York City Council approved an ordinance that prohibits the use of e-cigarettes in all the places where smoking is prohibited, which is pretty much everywhere except private residences and some outdoor locations (not parks, though!). The ban takes effect in four months, although business owners will have another six months to post "No Vaping" signs.

Why did the city council decide to treat vaping like smoking (a policy that most Americans reject, by the way)? Not because e-cigarettes, which contain no tobacco and produce no smoke, pose a hazard to bystanders, which is the usual excuse for smoking bans, but because they look too much like regular cigarettes:

City Council Speaker Christine Quinn said the ban will make it easier to enforce the city's Smoke-Free Air Act, which banned smoking in bars, restaurants and other indoor public spaces.

"Because many of the E-cigarettes are designed to look like cigarettes and be used just like them, they can lead to confusion or confrontation," Quinn said.

Similarly, Councilman James Gennaro, the ban's main sponsor, worries that e-cigarettes' superficial resemblance to the tobacco-burning variety will confuse children, undermining decades of education aimed at convincing the nation's youth that smoking is dangerous and totally uncool. While these explanations are utterly implausible, they do reflect the true, subrational motivation of e-cigarette prohibitionists: They are appalled by this product because the battery-powered devices remind them of the real thing, triggering all the emotions of disgust, contempt, and self-righteousness they associate with smoking.

Yet it is this very same resemblance that makes e-cigarettes such a promising harm-reduction tool, one that mimics smoking while delivering nicotine to the lungs without the myriad toxins and carcinogens generated by tobacco combustion. Hence anyone concerned about the health effects of smoking should welcome this product. But for control freaks like Quinn and Gennaro, the cigarette form has become such a powerful symbol of evil that they have lost sight of the health-based rationale for their opposition to smoking, the upshot being that they support a policy that's apt to result in more tobacco-related disease and death, the opposite of their ostensible goal.

NEXT: Calif. Mulls Mandatory Kill Switches for Smart Phones

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.


  2. They are appalled by this product because the battery-powered devices remind them of the real thing, triggering all the emotions of disgust, contempt, and self-righteousness they associate with smoking.

    ...because they are animists and have totemized cigarettes. Anything that resembles them is just as evil (they did this with candy cigarettes very early on; it's no surprise to see them do the exact same thing here) and must be stopped, because to them the terrible totems have supernatural powers of evil and coercion. Yes, they're that stupid.

    1. I believe you nailed this along time ago, and ever since you talked about their projectionist behavior, I spot it everywhere.

      1. Good, I'm glad. These types of behaviors are very primitive, completely irrational reactions that need to be pointed out, exposed, and ridiculed at every opportunity in order to shame and embarrass the irrational scum who seek to ban shit. The more people that recognize that this is straight-up animism, the more likely these dirtbags will eventually get called animists by someone. I would really like to see their reaction to that.

        1. And I'm not just referring to animism, I include the projection too. Rubbing a shithead's face in their own projection is a great way to break their brain.

        2. People who smoke cigarettes are physically violent bullies. Getting hit in the face by cigarrete smoke causes physical pain and difficulty breathing. The victims have every right to use force to defend themselves against their attackers.

    2. Nicotine is a great drug, deeply satisfying, extremely addictive, but not very harmful on its own. I think part of their motivation to ban ecigs is they don't want people enjoying nicotine without being punished by the harm that accompanies cigarette smoking.

      1. Well, nicotine is a powerful poison in higher concentrations. But regardless, you may be right that there's a Puritan "someone somewhere might be enjoying themselves" aspect, but in cases like this it's so fucking obvious that they hate the e-cigs because they're just too similar to the real thing for the animists to handle.

  3. I guess with this logic drinking water in public places could misconstrued as drinking vodka or apple juice be confused with whiskey.

    1. Don't get me started on eating bananas. What are we teaching our children.

  4. New Yorkers should organized Vape-Ins in front of City Hall.

  5. Caught some of the crap on this on proletariat radio, about "they're not regulated!"

    It's great how the mindset has shifted to "you can't do it unless it's been regulated"

    1. Didn't you get the memo? Freedom doesn't mean liberty anymore. Freedom means asking permission and obeying orders. How can something be free if it's not regulated? Who gives permission? Who issues orders? How can you be free without authority telling you what you may or may not do?

      1. More than that - how would you know if you were doing it wrong?

        1. Ding ding ding. You nailed, I think. They need to appeal to authority to justify their decisions, because they can't justify them themselves. It is a complete and utter lack of self-reliance.

          1. I frequent a lot of boards for computer games and everytime someone wants a code or a mod for a game there's always someone who admonishes them for cheating.

            How can you cheat in a single-player game - *I'm* the one making the rules here! But there response is that I'm not playing the way the game was intended - who the fuck cares what the developer's intent was?

            1. Cuz the developer intended for you to experience the game in a specific way. By using cheats you can't really say you are playing the game as intended. It's like if you skip every other page of a book, did you really read it?

              1. You could skip every three pages of Galt's soliloquy and still get it. Ditto a lot of literature out there.

            2. Because cheats are generally boring. Nice false equivalence.

  6. New-ish here. Been lurking for a while, signed up a few weeks ago. Love this site, mostly for the comments. Posted on another thread that I'm in the Bar/Restaurant industry in NYC. BK to be exact. Anyway...

    This is beyond silly, but no surprise, really.

    And while it's easy for a bartender to yell at a cigarette smoker to get outside because it's so obvious, how are they going to control the vapor smokers? They can take one hit and you'd never know if you're working on an order in any manner. And I'm sure the establishment will get the ticket like they always do.

    Just more regs. Fuck this place.

    1. I love this place, too. I lurk more than post because of working the night shift at the factory. With 3 weeks off, I will be posting frequently.

    2. "BK to be exact. Anyway..."

      Burger King? Did you march for $15?

      1. Pretty much walked into that one, LOL.

    3. They can take one hit and you'd never know if you're working on an order in any manner. And I'm sure the establishment will get the ticket like they always do.

      Feature, not bug. How else do you expect the cops and the Board of Health to keep their beaks wet?

  7. Megan McCardle inexplicably claims that the Pajama Boy is not a real ad, it's just meant to troll conservatives and raise money from OFA's liberal base.

    Here argument seems to give OFA far too much credit:

    Here's the tell: Pajama Boy is not a good ad. Whatever you think about progressives, they are in most ways perfectly normal people. Normal people do not, at the age of 26 or so, want to spend their holiday in footy pajamas, listening to their parents harangue them about fiscal responsibility. Good ads usually do one of three things: they make you want to be more like the person in the ad; they make you want to date the person in the ad; or they engage you and the maker of the ad as knowing co-conspirators in laughing at that terrible person in the ad, whom you are not at all like in any way.

    Megan: Yes progressives are generally just normal people. But this ad was not made by the average prog, it was made by a hyper-activist organization that was spawned by Barack Obama's reelection campaign.

    The people working for OFA are not normal people. They're the liberal equivalent of the weird guys who attend Young Republican meetings. They would absolutely think this is a normal ad that people would like because they're crazy.

    1. "Pajama Boy is not a good ad."

      She got that part right. It is not a good ad because it reveals too much about the people that made it.

      1. A better ad would be to post a pic of Loughner, and say " You better get some Obamacare"

    2. But for some reason progs are really, really going to bat for Pajama Boy

      This is not to say I didn't also try to capitalize on the story?I did reach out to Ethan to see if he'd talk about the blowback he's been facing as Pajama Boy, but his employer isn't letting him give interviews.

      Way to bury the lede.

      So, what have we learned from these tatters of information?

      1) Ethan Krupp is a human being.

      2) Ethan Krupp is a human being who lives in Chicago.

      3) Ethan Krupp is a human being living in Chicago who works for Organizing for Action.

      4) Despite working for OFA, Ethan Krupp has had critical thoughts related to the Obama campaign.

      5) Ethan Krupp is a human being living in Chicago who works for OFA and who appears to enjoy the taste of bacon.

      It's a shame Linda Taylor didn't have an Instagram account to be so thoroughly psychoanalyzed. Unlike during the Reagan era, Taylor's misdeeds would have been discovered within 24 hours, and heaven knows they would have been much more interesting than a filtered photo of bacon. And unlike Taylor, Ethan Krupp is effectively getting called a pansy, not for actually doing something wrong, but for letting his employer associate his face with a policy people don't like.

      And he agreed to be a face for these people. No sympathy.

      She then asserts, like McArdle, that OfA is playing the right because they're geniuses.

      1. The only place I've heard homophobic slurs being hurled around in relation to this guy is when leftists try to claim the right is being homophobic.

        I haven't seen a legitimate writer on the right, as opposed to some dweeb in a comments section, say anything about Krupp being gay. They've said he looks infantile or like a little boy which is more of an attack on the general infantilization of American adults.

        I personally think the rights attacks from that vantage point are dead on. I don't know how anyone can look at that picture without thinking that there's something deeply wrong with the way the Democratic party views young people...sort of like there's something deeply wrong with how they view women.

      2. Of course they're going to bat for Mongoloid Boy. Because for all their denials that he's just an ordinary guy, he was specifically designed to appeal to them, and does. They're not defending Mongoloid Boy; they're defending themselves. TEAM BLUE's attacks on Joe the Plumber did the same thing to TEAM RED. They felt that a guy that pretty well represented them was being unfairly attacked.

        All the butthurt and defensiveness that you're seeing come out after Mongoloid Boy got (rightly) savaged is directly the result of TEAM BLUE seeing themselves in Mongoloid Boy. The more they claim he doesn't represent them, the more it means he does.

        It's actually pretty amusing. This could escalate into some serious lulz.

      3. She then asserts, like McArdle, that OfA is playing the right because they're geniuses.

        I haven't seen one smart move from the left on Obamacare, yet, and neither have they made one now.

        1. That's probably because the only smart move would be to disassociate themselves from it, which naturally isn't something they're going to emphasize. They'll just stop going to bat for it, and the void will be filled by someone else.

    3. I guess I'm not normal because I would totally love footy pajamas, and I'm 30.

      1. You are absolutely correct. You are not normal, even for here. A real libertarian would wrap themselves in the tanned hide of a polar bear (or possibly a panda), and wear baby seal fur footies.

    4. Wow. I'm sorry to tell you, Megan, but yes, there are many 26 year olds who want to lounge around in pajamas and drink hot cocoa. A typical 26 year old Facebook user sees this picture on their feed? It wouldn't be out of place for them to respond, "Yayy! Thats y i luv chrismas!!"

  8. B..b..But..But...Confusion! Confrontation!

    Fuck off, asshole.

  9. The social engineering efforts of these fascist fucks puts the Nazis to shame.

    Sometimes Godwining is appropriate.

    1. Speaking of which... the ban on Big Soda failed so instead they recently plastered the inside of every subway car with anti-soda propaganda. Instead we are to give our children "skim milk or sugar-free tea". Yeah, right. At least they left out the fake amputee this time.

      1. My aunt always drinks hot water at dinner.
        Maybe start giving that to the kiddies

        1. My aunt always drinks hot water at dinner.

          That's sick.

          1. Dissolves sugars sticking to teeth, kills some forms of plaque, probably a wise thing to do. Did your aunt have a nice grill?

  10. Did you see Jewel's dress on TV tonight?

    I'll be in my bunk.

    1. Yes, very nice. Fills that thing out nice.


      1. She is aging very well. Not Jennifer Aniston-well, but well nonetheless.

        1. You are correct. I think Aniston looks better now than we she was younger.

          1. I absolutely agree with this. It is remarkable.

  11. IOW we're too lazy to distinguish between a thing and a different thing that might look something sorta like the first thing.

    1. It's also shaped like a penis.

  12. We're doomed. I literally heard a progressive talk about the Duck Dynasty guy today and say "Demonizing a sexual preference is not protected speech, like shouting fire in a crowded theater."

    This is a level of gross stupidity I have never seen before. There are so many things wrong with that sentence that I honestly think I could bash that guys head in and he wouldn't get any dumber.

    1. It's the difference between reacting and responding.
      I like to think that we libertarians try to respond. Responding involves taking a step back, think things through, applying some principles, rethinking things, and then coming up with a response.
      Reacting involves having an emotional reaction, doubling down on it, and then reverse engineering some stupid rationale like the example you just provided.
      These people aren't necessarily stupid. It's just that they react emotionally instead of thinking first. It's easier, and more people do it which makes it popular.

    2. TEAM BLUE/progressives/whatever the fuck you want to call them have been aggressively pushing a "no comment or idea is too stupid to be ridiculed, ever, from within the TEAM" concept for some time now. It's their strange, but strangely effective, way of producing people who literally have no concept of logic, integrity, consistency, or reality to become their mass of sheep supporters. It's like a boot camp for doublethink and completely disassociating any thoughts from any other thoughts, thereby enabling the sheep to bleat out one idea and then immediately contradict it in the next sentence and not even blink. It's been quite effective, too.

      1. Intent trumps result because intent refers to the feelings that conjured up the comment or idea. To question intent is to question what someone feels.
        People who use their brains only for reverse engineering excuses for their emotions simply cannot comprehend the concept of conjuring up comments or ideas any other way. Therefore people who think first are characterized as people with evil emotions and intentions. How else could they come up with such comments and ideas? They're bad people.

        1. You make good points but I think it goes beyond emotion; I think the point is to train the sheep to just blurt out and regurgitate talking points, not even based on emotion, just based on orders. They're trained to never even think for a fraction of a second about what they say, ever, for any reason. Emotion comes into it in that doing so makes them feel smug and maybe like they're so much better than you, but the stuff they spew is stupid beyond even just emotional reaction. It's retarded. They've been trained to not care if they sound retarded, just to be happy and thrilled they've had a chance to regurgitate the masters' talking points.

          1. They get a catharsis out of it, too, screaming at opponents.

            1. That's the angry guy on the street or playing guitar with Audioslave. Most leftist feel a poignant, quiet dignity that they savor with their hot cocoa.

              1. Really? Because it strikes me that most leftists are pathetic and miserable people who never seem happy.

                1. Maybe I've just been screamed at too many times.

                  1. Most of the lefties I've been exposed to over the years are academics, teachers, artist and some programmers with odd ideas, so, little screaming. Then again, maybe I just give off a vibe that it is a bad idea to scream at me. I'd like to thin that, but no, it's probably just a Southern culture thing, manners, and politeness.

                2. This.

    3. What if the theatre is on fire? Can I still yell fire.

      1. No, a union worker has to shout it.

        /Dave Barry

      2. Ban theatres:


        Sadistic bastards falling on our heads and shit.

  13. From blogger Sister Touldjah - catastrophic insurance now legal - for people who lost their insurance under Obamacare. The junkiest of junk plans - but if your policy was' nt cancelled, it still probably isn't an option for you. If you can follow, which I'm not dure I do.


  14. I'm just paranoid, right?

    Canada Free Press (CFP) letter writer, Bruce Butler from Englewood, Florida, who writes "the trial balloons are floating" hits the nail on the proverbial head with today's wake up call:

    "The trial balloons are floating. They were launched over the weekend. First by the President when he suggested that he might remain in Washington, DC after 2016 so his girls wouldn't have to change schools. Second by one Jonathan Zimmerman, a history Professor writing in the NY Post who opined that Obama needs a third term."

    1. I called this years ago, so don't try and steal my thunder. In any case, I recently felt that I was wrong because he's become such a lame duck, but one should never underestimate the stupidity of his true believers.

    2. I honestly can't see that happening. It would require a Constitutional amendment. Not even the Obama administration and the Democrats are stupid enough to think they can accomplish that, assuming they would even want to.

      1. You mean there are laws that Obama can't issue an exemption for? Tell me more about this novel concept.

    3. Yes, you're just paranoid.

      If Obama tries to extra-constitutionally hold on to power, he'll be removed by a military that will not tolerate that sort of shit, just like when that socialist fuck Zelaya in Honduras tried to hold on to power illegally and unconstitutionally.

      Yeah, the same shitheads who claimed Zelaya's removal was a "coup" will similarly say our military performed a "coup" in actually defending the Constitution, but they're, as I said, shitheads.

      1. Do you really think the military would do that? Obama has largely gutted the officer corps at high levels. They're all lefties...

  15. I tried to do a quick spelunking of Kos to see if anyone mentioned this ban. Nothing yet. Quick read of politics headlines on HuffDuff's mobile site showed nothing as well.

    I did learn that someone on Kos wants a cabinet Secretary of Technology to oversee government IT. And pants shitting about "assault nerf guns with ammo clips"

    1. In fairness, I voted in their poll and 50 of the 71 votes say that it's no big deal.

      It is a bad sign that there is anyone who seriously thinks nerf guns are the road to school shootings, but even in a fever swamp like the Daily Kos it's far from a majority opinion.

      1. Most of the comments are fairly sane, although the one taking the kid's Lego guns is pretty nuts.

        1. Daily Kos is surprisingly not horrible on guns. Of course they blabber on about SENSIBLE GUN CONTROL! like assault rifle bans and such, but I haven't seen much from Kos in which they've flat out called for total gun bans.

          I actually saw an article on there once where someone was saying we should ban and confiscate all firearms, and he got torn apart in the comments section.

          1. Huh.. I haven't looked deep enough, I guess.

            Although I bet you could get support for all semi and handguns on there without much trouble.

            1. Yeah. Someone posted the article here a few months ago. A Kos Kid said that Obama could just straight up ban guns by executive order, and the guy immediately got mocked.

              Several of the people on there said that they owned firearms, liked hunting, and thought a gun ban was a terrible idea.

              This is why the left is doomed to lose on gun control. A large portion of the Democrat base is actually not anti-gun, whereas the Republicans have very few anti-gun people in their base. It means that the Democrats are too fractured to get the push that the hard left wants.

              1. I once pointed out to a democrat who was arguing that only the military and cops should be in possession of firearms that both groups vote Republican by a wide margin. Since the Democratic party is the only thing standing against the forces of fascism doing so would only get closer to having a right wing coup taking over. She asked me to leave the party because I was scaring her. Never once raised my voice, or grabbed a titty or in other way made a spectacle of myself, she just didn't like what I had to say.

                1. Cost her boyfriend his job a few months down the road because I refused to go to bat for him when he got in some trouble. Fuck him, he didn't lift a finger to help me that night at their place. What comes around goes around.

                  1. Fuck him, he didn't lift a finger to help me that night at their place.

                    I'd like to think that guys who marry shrews like that deserve what they get, but I'm one to talk.

                    Besides, you should know better than to talk to people.

                2. Progressives don't like having conversations about issues that they haven't thought through. Unfortunately, in their case this means they can discuss no issues since they rarely think.

                  I once had a prog tell me that energy policy was no place for politics because not 'doing something' about renewable energy would make us all die in fire.

                  I pointed out that this is an idiotic argument. Of course American energy policy is an issue worthy of discussion and debate. It's important issues like energy policy that are most worthy of debate.

                  They try to end conversations because they can't win arguments and don't have evidence for their positions. This is why left wing T.V. shows try to shut out conservatives and libertarians, it's why they are constantly gibbering about how we shouldn't discuss important issues because we need 'immediate action' and it's why they're always trying to boycott people like Rush Limbaugh.

                  They don't want to beat Rush Limbaugh in an argument. They want to drive him off the air. That tells you all you need to know about the vicious authoritarians we're up against.

                3. Well, since you had already been asked to leave, you made sure to grab a titty on the way out, right?


                  1. I took an unopen bottle of liquor I claimed I brought with me and then spent the rest of the evening at a strip joint.

                    1. Sounds like a better time, anyway.

              2. Just got done working a job with a Madison, Wisconsin prog. He hunts more than most rural Southerners I know.Upland birds, waterfowl, deer.

          2. So basically they act concerned but not crazed?

          3. XM Commie's evening host has Kos on Thursday afternoons. Leading up to the Colorado recall, he was calling out all stops, trying to get donations to the candidates. Think he actually admitted that it was a grassroots effort.

            He wanted the win to show politicians nationally they could do gun control and win.

            I didn't catch the aftermath.

  16. Can you vape THC in Colorado?

  17. People who vape (vapers?) are guilty of thought crimes. They like nicotine.

    They must be eliminated.

  18. Everything is political

    Despite the repeated snubs and the impolite request, Rudolph demonstrates his utility in brilliant form. At which point all the reindeer decide that they love him. Notice that they still don't apologize.

    Perhaps I am wrong, but this strikes me as a terrible, terrible lesson for kids.

    At the very basic level, "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" presents a fairly grim, Hobbesian vision of society: If you want to be accepted, you have to prove your economic utility?which, in the case of magical flying reindeer, appears to only involve the annual sleigh-pull.
    Still, plenty of parents might actually think that Marxy understanding of the world is accurate, gloomy as it may be to force your kids to sing about it on the holidays. What no one should accept, though, is the unkindness of it all. Here is what the song makes clear: Donner, Prancer, Blitzen and the gang are assholes. They bully, they exclude, they come running for help after their inevitable screw-ups. You get the sense that, even at the end of the song, their newfound love for Rudolph doesn't have much to do with affection. They've realized he's going to go down in history, and now hope to say they were pals with him way back when. They want to name-drop, not make up for their dickishness.

    Is this satire? It must be satire, right? But it's TNR so it can't be.

    1. Is this satire? It must be satire, right? But it's TNR so it can't be.

      It doesn't matter.

      If everything is political, nothing political.

    2. The worst thing about the song is the way it spoils other holiday fables. Just try to reread Clement Clarke Moore's "'Twas the Night Before Christmas" after thinking through the Rudolph story. The famous poem apparently takes place on a fog-free Christmas Eve. So there they all are on the roof with such a clatter: Vixen, Dancer, Prancer et al. Sweet! Until you think about how there's some unhappy red-nosed outcast back home, shut out of even the reindeer games.

      This sentence is the literary equivalent of Pajama Boy.

      1. No, the worst thing is these fucks get paid to write this crap.

      2. If you read it as a parody, it's hilarious.


        1. They aren't chattel slaves, but I can guarantee you Santa does not pay them a living wage and they aren't unionized.

          They probably get the cost of room and board deducted from their pay.

          1. They can't leave the North Pole!!! Never see elves anywhere else, do you?

            1. I view it as more like a town of coal miners. Everything is owned by the company, but they are still willing employees that get paid for their labor.

              And elves do to exist elsewhere in the world. As noted Santa critic Gnome Chomsky has pointed out, a better economic system for elves has been proven to exist: the Keebler elves live in a a forest and bake cookies, all under an anarcho-syndicalist system.

      4. I have a feeling that the writer associates with Rudolph way too much.

        1. The 'shut out of even the reindeer games' part made me laugh so hard.

          It really is wonderful.

          1. Here is what the song makes clear: Donner, Prancer, Blitzen and the gang are assholes. They bully, they exclude, they come running for help after their inevitable screw-ups. You get the sense that, even at the end of the song, their newfound love for Rudolph doesn't have much to do with affection. They've realized he's going to go down in history, and now hope to say they were pals with him way back when. They want to name-drop, not make up for their dickishness.

            Somebody's reliving high school...through Rudolph! Why is abject patheticness so fucking funny?

    3. I wonder how the writer feels about Frosty.

      1. Frosty was a monster, a irreverent snowman that taught kids its okay to buck authority to have fun.

        For starters, why aren't those kids in a public school? And what makes them think they can just walk around town without adult supervision? Frost even endangers them by leading through a traffic stop, ignoring a police officer's demand to STOP.

        And let's take a look at Frosty himself: he wears a top hat so he's obviously a wealthy libertarian that's only befriended the kids so he can exploit them later. He also has a corncob pipe, which means he's promoting smoking as well. My guess is Frosty is a shill for Big Tobacco.

        1. Yes, he is leading them to the monocle factories

  19. Fail. Everyone knows that smoking does make you look cooler.

  20. NYC council is also a baseless fragment of dust called universal non. This whole pile of shit called human existence is a lonely path to ending. You moron piles of fluffy worthlessness we only live so long. And your klutzmuffin dumbpile poopstack brains called the NYC council of the planets most moronic fucking idiots have lost all connection to reality you microscopic slivers of ignorance. Your empty bullshit ends in pron 20-45 years... and you... well cease breathing... you coffin vegetables...!

    1. What are your thoughts on the latest geopolitical happenings?

      1. I doubt the geopolitics of Bizarro world would have much relevance to us.

          1. Needs more [brackets]!!!!

    2. Jesus. When reasonable hides someone, there's a reason.

  21. NYC Council Bans Public Vaping Because It Looks Too Much Like Smoking They're Craven, Mendacious Fucksticks Who Crave Power Over Their Fellow Man, More Than Anything.

    1. True, but that heading is too long. Pixels cost money, don't you know.

    1. Oh man, I fucking hope so. If so, this will be a shitstorm to end all shitstorms.

      1. I think the ultimate NSA shitstorm would be discovering that Obama used it against Republicans. It has been suggested that that could be something in Snowden's dead man switch files.

        1. I read about one guy from the NSA said that Snowden took the keys to the kingdom.

          I always thought it would be too soon to call Snowden a hero, but with each new revelation, the fact of this becomes clearer.

          + He have up a job in Hawaii making 200k a year.
          + Gave up great looking girlfriend.

    2. *Grabs Popcorn*

    3. Have there even been rumors that some other country (China?) has tried something like that?

  22. No where to hide:


    Over the past week, Malta, the Netherlands, The Islands of Bermuda, and three UK Crown Dependencies ? Jersey, Guernsey, and the Isle of Man ? signed various agreements with the United States to implement FATCA.

    "FATCA continues to gather momentum as we work with partners worldwide to combat offshore tax evasion," said Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Tax Affairs Robert B. Stack. "This large number of signings in one week alone sends a strong signal to tax evaders everywhere: international support for FATCA is growing."

    You can feel the gloat in the man's words. That should show those dirty capitalist!

    1. Godammit, will they ever stop.

  23. This TNR piece got me thinking: Why does no one talk about the very dark underpinnings of the Santa Claus story in the first place?

    This is a man who just suddenly appeared, already fully aged and white bearded, in the Netherlands in the middle ages. Following his appearance, he bummed around the Germanic states for a little while before deciding to live in hermitage at the North Pole.

    Why would someone who is supposedly so 'jolly' choose to separate himself by such a large distance from the rest of humanity?

    Think about what we actually know about Santa Claus. He watches our children at all times. The only way he can do this is through a massive network of spies, something I find highly unlikely, or through out and out omniscience. He gives these children, after weighing their sins and judging them naughty or nice, various sorts of presents, an old, strange man currying favor with young children that he keeps under constant watch. Further compounding this man's already disturbing sexual tendencies is his living arrangement: Despite the fact that he lives with an age appropriate woman, he nonetheless spends most of his time surrounded by stunted dwarves at work on conveyor belts.

    It is relatively obvious that we are dealing with some sort of immortal pedophile who breaks into our homes once a year and holds an entire race of noble creatures in toy making bondage.

    And this callous motherfucker is worried about Rudolph?

    1. Popular to common belief. The elves look more like this.

    2. Santa is Odin, dude. http://infolocata.com/mirovia/.....a-is-odin/

      1. Interesting link. Makes sense that the stolen holiday of Saturnalia has a Norse icon. But everybody knows Festivus is THE winter holiday.

  24. Rudolph isn't the worst Christmas song, it's clearly this song that trivializes consent, reinforces sexist stereotypes, and promotes rape culture that's the worst.

    1. The first time I really listened to those lyrics even I was a little weirded out by it. Just goes to show how much culture has changed, I guess.

      1. Meh, the girl clearly allows herself to be seduced, even if it's against her better moral judgment given how gossipy her neighbors are and judgmental her family would be.

        Consider the lyrics:

        I wish I knew how - (Your eyes are like starlight now)
        To break this spell - (I'll take your hat, your hair looks swell)

        I ought to say no, no, no - (Mind if I move in closer?)
        At least I'm gonna say that I tried - (What's the sense in hurting my pride?)

        The only thing that really stands out as creepy from a modern perspective is when she asks what's in the drink he gave her, but since it's 1949 you could just assume there's alcohol in it and not any sort of drug.

        1. Yeah, but that's just it. I can't help but at least consider the possibility of date rape.

      1. Wrong.

        ^This is the worst Christmas song.

        1. Nope

          I worked at a grocery store while in college, and there is NOTHING worse than hearing this shit 12 times in one shift.

        2. Nope

          I worked at a grocery store while in college, and there is NOTHING worse than hearing this shit 12 times in one shift.


        1. I don't understand the vitriol she gets from some guys. If I had a shot with her I'd definitely be as persistent as the guy in that song.

          1. Who directs vitriol at her? I mean, how...that statement just doesn't make any sense to me.

            1. There are some commentators here, who's names I honestly forget, that don't like her. I don't get it either.

            2. I like her, but the song is all creepy.

          2. I LIVED 500 Days of Summer!

            The following is a work of fiction. Any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental. Especially you Amy Birtel...


            Zooey is hot!

    2. She can't leave, because of the implication.

  25. One nitpick for me are commercials for adult products, cars and jewelry usually, where Santa is the pitchman. Sure, sell the kids some shit you goofy old elf, but leave us the hell out of it. We grew up and found a better way to have fun.

  26. Former CIA chief: Snowden should be "hanged by the neck until dead"


    No comment I can think of that I'd want publicly out there.

    1. And people wonder why he fled overseas before everything went public.

    2. This guy should be hung by the neck until dead, or better, yet, his head on a pike.

  27. Since someone brought out the covers

  28. Why stop at banning e-cigarettes? Ban bubble gum cigarettes too! They sure look like tobacco cigarettes. Bubble cigs could be a gateway for kids to pick up a nicotine habit!


    1. I thought they already did ban those?

      Looks like several countries, but not the US at this point.

  29. I wrote to my council member:

    Dear Council Member Chin,

    If the City Council is going to ban e-cigarettes, they may as well ban bubble gum cigarettes too. Bubble gum cigarettes, as e-cigarettes, look just like tobacco cigarettes. Plus, bubble gum cigarettes pose no threat to anyone just like e-cigarettes. To make things worse, bubble gum cigarettes are used by children! It's a no-brainer to ban bubble gum cigarettes!

  30. So at this point is the population of NYC in a state of learned helplessness, yes?

    Has the ever-invasive ordinances prohibiting sodas, trans-fats etc. finally cowed the entire city?

    I just don't get it.

  31. McDonald's reportedly has 10 million pounds of chicken wings in cold storage after sales fizzled

    The wings, which represent 20% of the chicken wings produced for a promotion, are in frozen storage, writes Julie Jargon at The Wall Street Journal.

    McDonald's was "unable to sell enough," according to Jargon.

    Earlier this year, CEO Don Thompson said that the chicken wings aren't the smash success it had hoped for.

    While Mighty Wings apparently met internal targets, the item "was not strong enough to offset" weak sales trends, Thompson said on a conference call.

    Here are some of the reasons they flopped.

    Price: In McDonald's terms, Mighty Wings are a premium product. The wings come in packs of three for $3.69, five for $5.59, and 10 for $9.69. Thompson said the prices, which are similar to Buffalo Wild Wings, were "not the most competitive."
    Spice: Thompson said the wings were too spicy for many customers' tastes.
    Appearance: The Mighty Wings looked too much like "McNuggets with bones," writes Susan Berfield at Bloomberg Businessweek.
    Economy: Many McDonald's customers are still struggling financially?and are more likely to spend their hard-earned money on a tried-and-true favorite.
    The fast food giant is currently implementing a plan to get rid of the wings.

    Add them to the value menu?

  32. Find the mistakes.

    Tonight's Episode: $10.10 Minimum Wage Would Actually Create New Jobs: Study


    1. If the minimum wage rose to $10.10 per hour, as Senate Democrats and President Barack Obama propose, 27.8 million workers would see their wages go up as a direct or indirect result of the boost, according to the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank. These workers would take home about $35 billion in additional wages and they would probably spend it, as low-income people living with little financial cushion cushion tend to do.

      The result: During the initial phase-in period, the U.S. economy would grow by about $22 billion, EPI found. The growth in the U.S. economy would result in about 85,000 new jobs, according to EPI. That counters arguments from conservative economists that raising the minimum wage could actually hurt the working poor by making employers hesitant to hire more workers. (A notion that's been proven wrong by some economists and remains hotly debated.)

      It's the Great Multiplier Effect, Charlie Brown! Amazing what kind of nonsense you can drudge up when you assume that money = wealth.

      1. I got the answer to my comment below:

        If the minimum wage rose to $10.10 per hour, as Senate Democrats and President Barack Obama propose, 27.8 million workers would see their wages go up as a direct or indirect result of the boost, according to the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank.

        Huh. Once again an economic study finds exactly the conclusion that helps the researchers.

        Considering that I was able to call this without reading the article, it tells you about economics qualifications as an actual science...as in, it doesn't have any.

        1. the use of statistical inference to make observations and predictions of future behavior concerning the market is valid. It's the theoretical framework they're starting off with that is bullshit.

          If a large prominent group of modern-day physicists, for ideological reasons, decided to return to the theoretical model of luminiferous aether as the medium for the propagation of light, would that invalidate the methodology of physics as a whole?

          1. The problem is that the field of economics is inherently political. Unlike other fields, every question in a economics is a matter of public policy.

            It is therefore a ripe field for political hacks seeking to manipulate numbers to reach their chosen conclusion. You don't see people going into physics with the specific goal of proving one position. By and large their goal is to be right.

            This is simply not the case with economics. An awful lot of people desire to be tools for their chosen political party.

            1. I won't argue with that at all. Though, I could imagine an economist just wanting to know how people acquire, use, and share resources just out of curiosity. However, even then, you run into the is-ought problem.

              Unfortunately, economics deals with people. And people are messy. Furthermore, as people are observing people, a true objectivity is impossible. I guess we'll have to wait for the aliens to arrive before we can attempt to develop objective economic models.

    2. You aren't dragging me into one of these cherry picked purposefully political studies, Archduke.

      I'd love to know what reason these people had for running this study. I notice a strange tendency for economic studies to conform to the preexisting opinions of the people who run them almost 100% of the time.

      There should actually be a study done about that. How many economic studies have findings that conflict with the political views of the researchers?

      1. Second Round: Fark comments on the article!

        1. In all seriousness, the answer to "where do we stop" is really simple - you stop when raising a marginal raise of the minimum raise reduces the employer's marginal profit to 0. It's not complicated in theory. Now, that can often be a difficult number to actually figure out in practice, so there's a good amount of haggling to be done on the specifics. But its hardly a difficult problem of theory.

          I guess businesses exist purely to provide jobs to the proles.

          1. In all seriousness, the answer to "where do we stop" is really simple - you stop when raising a marginal raise of the minimum raise reduces the employer's marginal profit to 0.

            What. Every employer's marginal profit is completely different. You can't raise the minimum wage for every job in America and have it reach a magic level where every employer's marginal profit is 0.

            And what does he mean by marginal profit? Marginal profit differs depending upon how much is produced, what technology is available, the cost of labor, and the demand for the product. It is therefore constantly changing and can't be managed on a macroeconomic level.

            Where do these people get this shit?

            But its hardly a difficult problem of theory.

            Yeah, just like Communism. It wasn't a hard problem at all, in theory, to redistribute wages from the Capitalist oppressor and then allow the state to wither away so that we would all be living in a stateless utopian commune.

            The practice proved mildly difficult.

            1. A lot of these Progs think they mouth something into existence without realizing cost and complexity.

        2. I like that they just take the word of a think tank that is admittedly left-wing.

          So if I posted an article from the Heritage Foundation about the negative impact of immigration on the American economy, these people would believe it right?

          Or would they rightfully point out that Heritage has a horse in that race and should be viewed with skepticism?

    3. I loved, loved, loved this response:

      In short, it won't allow THEM to keep exploiting the millions that need work and have no choice but to take a job that is suddenly, "only worth", $8 an hour. You know, that same job that in 2006 paid $14 an hour but for some odd reason just isn't "worth" that wage anymore to the employer that's been pulling down record profits quarter after quarter since 2008. Gee, I wonder how in the midst of such a poor economy with such poor consumer demand, you can rack up those kinds of profits...unless of course it's from the garbage wages you can get away with paying desperate people and hanging the axe of becoming jobless over people for not increasing their productivity to cover your reduced workforce...Crank it to $10.10 and you create something else, too: Employers will stop looking for bottom of the barrel worker types that have long term histories of low skill, low wage work. For $10 an hour they will want a lot higher quality worker than they've been hiring. It won't be worth hiring some 20 year old dolt when you can get an adult with far better work ethics that's been around and knows what a job is all about and takes pride in their work. I think it would be a huge game changer for the older jobless worker.

      Thanks for proving those "conservative" economists' point for them, you bigoted decrepit old selfish fuck!

      1. If the commenting system at Huffington Post was the worst on the internet I would respond to that guy wit that observation.

        The idiot that just admitted that raising the minimum wage is detrimental to the poor!

      2. WOW! That guy is seriously arguing that it's a positive thing to destroy entry level positions for poor people.

        This liberal is quite literally arguing that consigning the low skilled to perpetual poverty is a good thing.

        Fuck these people.

        I also like this:

        In short, it won't allow THEM to keep exploiting the millions that need work and have no choice but to take a job that is suddenly, "only worth", $8 an hour. You know, that same job that in 2006 paid $14 an hour but for some odd reason just isn't "worth" that wage anymore to the employer that's been pulling down record profits quarter after quarter since 2008.

        What minimum wage job paid $14 in 2006? This job does not exist.

        More importantly, this person has apparently discovered supply and demand. Although his claim that jobs which paid $14 in 2006 pay $8 now is a complete lie, his point about wage depression is accurate.

        Why is that? I know! Because with large numbers of unemployed people, there is an oversupply of workers and not enough jobs for all of them. This results in low skill jobs in particular being able to find workers to fill them at lower wages because so many people need work.

        This is why the best way to improve incomes is NOT through idiotic minimum wage laws that wouldn't actually work. It's through tightening up the labor market through general job creation, which will result in rising wages.

        1. Huh? You mean supply and demand?

          I read something about that being a thing once. I thought it was just considered old fashioned.

        2. This liberal is quite literally arguing that consigning the low skilled to perpetual poverty is a good thing.

          Hey, he got his entitlements by working for them! So hands off his Medicaid (that he will still benefit from while working his retirement job at the Home Depot just so he has something to keep himself busy with) you stupid, young no-respect for your elders having Teabagger!

  33. From a New York Times article about Obamacare:

    "A couple months ago I was especially glad we had insurance when I was rushed to the hospital for a "minor" heart problem that I was not aware of. A shot in the arm fixed it in about two minutes, and I was released 48 hours later (no surgery, only some "tests"). The hospital bill was $40,000, but thanks to medicare and my supplemental policy I'm still solvent."

    I think this person is a liar, but can't prove it. What heart problem can be fixed with a single shot in the arm?

    More importantly, what shot in the arm costs $40,000 when you're out of the hospital in two days?

    1. My mother just had stint surgery which was in out procedure, and it was 37000. This could be what he talking about.

      1. I admit that I've never attended medical school, but I don't believe stents are applied via a hypodermic to the arm.

        1. I can see a lay person confusing a catheter with a shot in the arm. Glad he's able to stick us with his medical bill.

  34. Serious question: Has any government banned "smoking" a pretend cigarette?

  35. I dont think that is going to work out very well.


  36. Hitting someone in the face with second-hand smoke causes physical pain and difficulty breathing and constitutes battery, a violent crime. I do not support bans on smoking in places like restaurants where people have ACTUALLY consented. But the mere absence of a sign on the wall that says that the restaurant is not a boxing ring is not consent to getting slugged in the face. The victims of such violence have a right to defend themselves and recover damages from their attackers.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.