Food Fight: Dana Goodyear on Renegade Chefs vs. Regulators


The culinary world is preparing for a looming food fight, with adventurous eaters and chefs on one side, and the law on the other. Author Dana Goodyear spoke with Reason TV's Alexis Garcia about how underground chefs, raw foodists, and exotic eaters will cope with an impending crackdown from the Food and Drug Administration.

Originally published on July 7, 2014:

"We are heading toward a clash," says Dana Goodyear, author of Anything That Moves: Renegade Chefs, Fearless Eaters and the Making of a New American Food Culture. "What's happening in the food world is that chefs and diners are demanding greater variety and less oversight and our regulatory system is not set up for that."

The rise of foodie culture has made the adventurous palate mainstream. It's no longer uncommon to see exotic ingredients such as offal, insects, or even dirt on restaurant menus. 

Goodyear, who also writes for The New Yorker, describes foodies as people who are passionate about food and dining experiences. "Whereas other people may care about literature or film or sports, a foodie cares about food," states Goodyear. "I think that's a really new thing in this country—that there are people who are activists around access to food and ingredients and food experiences."

While Goodyear sees the foodie movement as an indicator that American food culture is becoming more democratized as more choices are made available to consumers, the regulatory regime that has been built around ensuring food quality has proven outdated and unable to handle the artisanal, homegrown movement. 

"[T]he way in which that initial legislation—the Pure Food and Drugs Act of 1906—has been built upon has really encouraged the industrialization of food and it's really only possible for very large producers to comply perfectly," says Goodyear. "A lot of people are feeling now that smaller scale producers who may not be able to afford the manpower to keep up the paperwork that's required for compliance are actually practicing safe food." 

The growing tension between regulators and food producers has led to more innovation in the fine dining world as chefs seek new ways to offer people unique dining experiences free from the bureaucratic headaches that typically consume restaurant operations. Pop-up restaurants and underground supper clubs are just some of the more inventive ways chefs are able to experiment and provide new dishes to customers.

Goodyear describes her experience at an underground supper where cannabis was the featured ingredient as an illustration of the growing disconnect between regulators and foodies. "That was a really fun dinner because it really got to the heart of chefs innovating and experimenting and using ingredients that are not typically thought of as food ingredients," says Goodyear. "And then here it is an ingredient that is actually a Schedule I drug."

Produced by Alexis Garcia. Shot by Zach Weissmueller, Tracy Oppenheimer, and Will Neff. Music by ProleteR. 

Approximately 9 minutes. 

NEXT: Peter Suderman on Obamacare: The Story So Far

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Two already today. How much does reason pay for residuals?

  2. OT: Just found out today that my county’s trespass on county property ordinance is titled “Trespass on Public Property”.

    1. How is that possible?

      1. The public is everyone but you.

      2. How is that possible?

        Parks are closed at dark here. Can’t have people enjoying themselves at unapproved hours.

        1. Funny you mention that. The beach is open here 24 hours a day, but the parking lots close each night. A very crafty way to keep out the undesirables….

          1. I know a Bruce Merbaum who would beat the closure at certain hours of land access to one beach by swimming onto it from private property with the owner’s permission.

            1. You can park on the street here after hours. However, there is no street parking. If you want to go to the beach at night, you have to walk quite a bit, or know somebody who lives nearby.

    2. Because all public property is theft.

    1. “Employees who are working are expected to be free from the influence of alcohol or any other drug, legal or illegal, that could affect job performance or risk the health and safety of themselves or others,” she said.

      Oh, I didn’t realize they had a test to determine if you were under the influence of pot?

      1. Just find the employees with the munchies who want to play crazed jazz music.

  3. Was that supposed to be some variant of kanom krok that chick was making?

    1. On topic: I just found a never ending supply of bird chilis. Plus a good bottle of Vi?t Huong fish sauce (complete with crystals).

      My game hen recipe is never gonna be the same.

      1. Technically, the supply is limited by the number of atoms in the universe. :-p

        1. Unlimited for me. As many as I care to eat. I’m not sharing with you or your blog.

  4. The Onion comes out strong in favor of anarchism:…..ett,36361/

    1. I thought The Onion only ran faux stories. When did they start running serious stuff?

      1. I thought The Onion only ran faux stories.

        You’re thinking of MSNBC.

      2. Noting that it has had thousands of years to develop a more agreeable option, humankind expressed bewilderment this week that it has yet to devise a better alternative to governing itself than always letting power-hungry assholes run everything, sources worldwide reported.

        Individuals in every country on earth voiced their frustration that, in spite of generations of mistreatment, neglect, and abuse they have suffered at the hands of those in positions of authority, they continue to allow control over the world’s governments, businesses, and virtually every other type of organization and social group to fall to the most megalomaniacal pricks among them.

        I could have wrote that.

        1. written

          1. You could edified it too

            1. Edited

              1. Sure, since H&R have finally added their new edit feature, why didn’t I think of that?

              2. Hey Gilmore — I met Matt Welch this week at Freedom Fest and told him I was part of the commentariat here at HnR. He asked what I thought of the “Gilmore fashion critique” during The Independents! I was about to answer him when someone interrupted and we didn’t get to chat again.

                1. AND NOTHING ELSE HAPPENED

                2. What were you going to answer?

                  And did he try to score pills from you?

                  1. To be honest, he kind of took me by surprise with the question, I don’t know what I would have said. Probably something innocuous.

                    I was more impressed that he even knew to bring up the posting name Gilmore.

                    Regarding pills, no, he didn’t ask for any, because our two-sentence discussion didn’t get to the point where I revealed I’m a physician. But I did have a long talk with a couple of Reason staffers, and even got invited to sit at the Reason table for tonight’s conference-ending dance party (but I flew home last night, I really can’t take Vegas for very long, and by last night it had been three full days.)

                    I’ve been very active in my professional research on methods of reducing coercion in ER care for psychiatric emergencies, and the greatly improved outcomes that result by being collaborative rather than coercive, even with acutely dangerous individuals. I’ve published a lot in peer-reviewed journals but thought that Reason might be interested in a brief article written for a general audience. There seemed to be a lot of interest, so perhaps you’ll see something by me on this site in the future.

                    1. Welch has GILMORE-induced PTSD. On one of the hate mail segments Bernie mentions GILMORE and they all tensed up like they were going to be rapped on the nose with a rolled up newspaper.

                    2. I believe it’s in this one.

                    3. Overall, I’d highly recommend the Freedom Fest for next year if you might be interested. Though there were about 2,000 people in attendance, it had a really intimate feel and the speakers were excellent and quite accessible.

                      I met Steve Forbes, Grover Norquist, Greg Lukianoff of FIRE (we talked for about 20 minutes!), Charles Murray, Dinesh D’Souza, and was just a few feet away from John Stossel, Kennedy, Whole Foods CEO John Mackey, and many others I can’t remember right now.

                      But the best was getting to meet my idol — PJ O’Rourke. I got to shake his hand and tell him I owned all his books going back to the Lampoon days. I may never wash my hand again!

                    4. The freedom fest is on my to-do list. Got another baby due in a month, so it won’t be happening anytime soon.

                    5. While he, of course, used a wipe instantly, like Mr. Monk. (I haven’t met Andy Breckman, either.)

                    6. That’s great to hear, and I look forward reading it.

                      I remember watching the live press conference by the Russian Navy after the Kursk sank, and there were grieving family members screaming in the audience. The police casually walked over to the loudest family members and injected them with something until they were heavily sedated and quiet.

                      It’s one of the more appalling things I’ve ever seen.

                      “and even got invited to sit at the Reason table for tonight’s conference-ending dance party”

                      Are you admitting that you don’t know how to dance?

                    7. Are you admitting that you don’t know how to dance?

                      I think I know how to dance, but no one would accuse me of being any good at it.

                      I was tempted to stick around, but it would have meant having to pay a lot to change my flight back, and trying to get the hotel to let me stay an additional night (which probably would have been fairly easy, though, Vegas wants you to stay).

                      One part wish I could have live-blogged here was a debate on raising the minimum wage. They got some professor from UNLV to be the ‘pro’ side, and he was full of such crap that Derpetologist would have had a month’s supply of quotes.

                      But I did admire that the guy was at least willing to make his “pro” presentation in front of a crowd very hostile to his ideas. It was something he probably never encounters in his cloistered academic world. You could only hope that perhaps he might realize that this is the response most free-market people might get in his world, and learn from that, but I doubt it. More likely he went back to the faculty lounge talking about the scary drooling mouth-breathers he had to lecture.

      3. The only thing they left out is that there is this one strange and luddite type of tribe that still agrees that psychopaths and megalomaniacs should still rule over the rest of us, the tribe call themselves ‘progressives’.

  5. or even dirt on restaurant menus.

    Come on, dude.

    1. That’s a thing. If you hand out reusable menus to customers, it’s part of the health inspection.

    1. Well, to be fair, all those carriers protect half of Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, S Korea and a few odds and ends I’ve surely missed. It’s just that those countries don’t pay for them.

      1. We should start charging for our protection. “Nice country youse got there. It’d be a shame if anything was to happens to it…”

        1. That’s how we get votes at the UN.

        2. How do you think we finance endless trillion dollar budget deficits?

  6. “[T]he way in which that initial legislation?the Pure Food and Drugs Act of 1906?has been built upon has really encouraged the industrialization of food and it’s really only possible for very large producers to comply perfectly,”

    Well, yeah. The purpose of legislation like this is to protect established businesses from competition. That’s how the government grows the economy: by making competition illegal.

    1. I can’t let this slide; the PURPOSE of the legislation was to make industrial food businesses stop cutting corners and poisoning the public. Whether they did that much, in actual practice, is something I can’t answer, but they were thought to.

      Over time those businesses morphed to fit the market that the legislation defined. What would you have them do? And when some new business comes along and wants to change the rules that are underpinning their businesses, they squall. How not?

      Now, this isn’t to say that the legislation is good, or justified, or necessary, or not stifling legitimate competition.

      But “The purpose of legislation like this is to protect established businesses from competition.” is an oversimplification.

      1. I disagree. The STATED purpose may have been to stop businesses from poisoning the public, but stated purposes and ACTUAL purposes are rarely the same.

        When legislation is passed that requires every business to adopt the practices of an established business with political connections, the actual purpose is to prevent entry into the market. Regardless of what the stated purpose may be.

        1. But the 1906 act did not require that. In fact, even the subsequent amendments didn’t. However, that has tended to be the effect of many of the regul’ns adopted to effectuate the act.

        2. The trap you are falling into is the assumption that regulation is necessarily INTENDED to protect The Interests. It may be. But even if it isn’t, over time circumstances with bring about the result you complain of.

          And the reason I hammer on this is because your position allows well intentioned meddlers to tell themselves “Well, WE aren’t passing laws just to protect Big Business, so our laws won’t do this”.

          It will. Almost inevitably.

    2. Pure Food and Drug Act- one of the greatest bands of the ’60s.

  7. Rick W. Perry, yet another Texan dumbass, attacks Rand Paul in WaPost editorial:…..story.html

    The Terrorists are winning!

    1. While I’m not 100% certain, I think that article is several years old.

      1. No, it is from yesterday and is about ISIS – this past week’s fake scandal. The Caliphate is upon us!

    2. Where’s the emails, dickweed?

      1. I’m 8% certain they’re somewhere

  8. OT: PSG must be kicking themselves for splashing $85M on David Luiz.

  9. While I don’t want to eat any bugs or dirt, I totally defend the right of everyone to feel free to do so.

    1. More real food for the rest of us!

    2. Black ants taste like lemon drops.

      And if you eat grasshoppers, either chew them well or pull the legs off first or they will spread eagle and get stuck in your esophagus.

      The full extent of my bug eating knowledge.

      1. Beondaegi (???) doesn’t taste so bad, but has a very earthy scent.

        You can buy it in a can, but it’s better from a street vendor.

        1. Yummy.

          Your “earthy scent” remark reminded me that I tried earthworms too. Tasted just like dirt. The instructor said if you soak them in water first, that goes away.

          1. Then they taste like … water?

            1. I’m guessing they’d taste like either earthworm or chicken.

          2. Yummy.

            Decent after drinking food. Certain seasons you could smell the vendors a few blocks away which was…unpleasant.

          3. Sere school?

            I used to ski at June Mountain as a kid, and the mountain warfare guys would be cross country ski training with rabbits in cages. It was pretty obvious what was going to happen to the rabbits.

            1. Yep.

              When I went through, you were assigned a “class” of maybe a dozen guys. There were probably a dozen such groups. Each group got a bunny. Thumper tasted pretty good.

              We actually ate pretty well during the survival part.

              After a couple of days with the instructor they gave us a couple of hours to forage/catch food on your own. There was a small stream. That night we pigged out on roughly 30, 6-8″ brooktrout.

            2. How much skiing could a mountain warfare guy do in a cage, let alone a rabbit?

  10. I don’t know about you guys, but fuck global warming. It’s like… 81 outside.

    1. 73 here with a nice breeze.

      I could hop on the freeway and be in the desert in 90 minutes, where it is 110F right now. Nice to have that option.

    2. 81?? I’d kill for that right now — it’s 102 here!

      1. 98 here in Austin.

        It’s OK. Beats being cold.

        1. 80+ in mid Michigan and just started raining – will drop to 70 in a bit.

          This summer is pretty close to fokin’ perfect. Just enough rain, not to hot (so far). YES!

          1. Except for the Michigan part.

          2. 80 and about 110% humidity in SE Michigan, but not raining yet.

            Spent the day wondering why I was so hot/sweat dripping off me, finally figured out it was just that humid.

            On the plus side, the motorcycle now has new chain, new sprockets, new oil, and a bunch of new parts, and is running pretty decently.

        2. Because putting on a sweater is so annoying.

          Heat is awful.

    3. 89? here in DC. Not too humid.

  11. I’m tired of Goodyear already.

    1. I’m on to Pirelli and Michelin, personally

    2. But seriously, folks, the loophole she speaks of at 6:20 relies on the fact that most product-regulatory laws are predicated on the “intended” use of a commercial article. It’s perfectly legal for you to lie to someone who sells you a product about what you’re going to use it for so that they don’t intend your use of it that way (such as as food), and then if you yourself are not subject to the regs, it’s legal every step of the way. Basically we’re talking off-label uses here.

  12. UN calls for Israel-Gaza ceasefire

    The problem has been finding a form of words that Arab nations, represented on the Security Council by Jordan, find meaningful but which the US, Israel’s close ally, could also agree with

    Oh, FFS! How about drawing stick figures?

    1. *Whispers*
      “Psst! I think we can trust the arabs!”

  13. Woo-hoo! Mostly peaceful!

    “Twelfth of July Orange parades in Belfast pass off mostly peacefully after nationalists call off protests over decision to block part of their route

    “Up to 50 parades planned this evening in Belfast at conclusion of annual Twelfth of July commemorations

    “Police and Orangemen hopeful that demonstrations, often marred with violence in the past, will be peaceful

    “Comes hours after a High Court judge upheld block on Orange parade through nationalist area of the city

    “Man, 28, stabbed during a fight between republican and loyalist factions at 3am this morning, police have said”…..route.html

    1. To be perfectly fair, Orange parades really ought to be relegated to the same sphere as Klan rallies, or at least Columbus Day celebrations.

      1. Really? Why on earth?!

        1. Because for some reason here in the US the Irish Catholic terrorists are plucky upstart rebels and the Irish Protestant terrorists are just terrorists.

          The headline could just as easily be written “Mobs Assault Peaceful Parade.”

          1. Indeed.

  14. Teacher at Kentucky college holds Civil War role-playing game:

    “”The best part of the class was butting heads against others,” said [student Stuart] Marshall. “I had two members of the class arrested and executed for treason against myself and other members of the government. They have been resurrected into new roles and I’m sure they’re already plotting against me again. But that’s the fun of it.””


    1. They have been resurrected into new roles and I’m sure they’re already plotting against me again. But that’s the fun of it.

      He sounds like he’s trying to make up for the fact that True Blood is winding down.

    2. We did some fun stuff like this in my high school. I was Judd Gregg (R-NH) in the Senate role play, and I kicked ass. Made faux Ted Kennedy my prison bitch, even though he was Majority Leader.

      In AP US History I played Hugh Johnson, head of the National Recovery Administration as a blowhard fascist moron. The girl playing Frances Perkins complained I was hamming it up, not playing the roll accurately. But I nailed it. Had direct quotes and everything.

  15. I’m mildly curious about cooking turducken for the next holiday meal. Anyone ever tried it?

    It looks like it might just be a novelty. However, stuffed with the right kind of sausage, it could be totally delicious.

    1. Twice. The first time it was quite good, the second time our oven was acting out some kind of teenage rebellion and it turned out less good.

      1. You made it yourself both times?

        I’m thinking each part needs to be brined before stuffing…

        1. From scratch, no. I don’t remember where the first one came from, I think an uncle did it on a lark. The second one we got deboned and already constructed from whole foods and just brined and cooked it, but our oven was cranky and it was a hell of a lot more trouble than we were expecting.

          1. I did not know Whole Foods offered that service. I’ll check today, as I am having their brisket and short ribs for dinner anyway.

            1. I think they just do it seasonally and you have to get an order in early.

              1. I’m out of duckfat and decent beer, so I’m going today anyway. I shall inquire forthwith.

                I’m thinking that if it has a shitload of lemon, garlic, salt, and bay leaf, it could be pretty damn good.
                And it just might fit in my turkey deep fryer.

                1. If my grandma has already had her bath, am I invited?

                  1. That’s not how it works. You leave early to give her a bath, and then lie about it and say you’re going to hook up with a supermodel.

                    1. Hmm, fine. I’ll bring some bourbon.

          2. I think an uncle did it on a lark.

            The chicken was stuffed with a lark? Or smoking a Lark? (Or driving one?)

    2. I’m put off by any food with “turd” in its name.

  16. 8 states that bar atheists from elected office…

    1. Still, candidates for office who are openly atheist face discrimination at the polls.

      They say that bolded part like it’s a bad thing. People should be a hell of a lot more discriminatory at the polls.

      1. On that criteria?

        1. On whatever criteria they choose. No one is fit to rule over others.

          1. First of all, you are equivocating. While discriminate can mean merely distinguishing after careful consideration it also commonly refers to distinguishing on unjust criteria (in fact, that’s the first definition on Merriam Webster).

            Secondly, given that, your reply is pretty morally abhorrent.

            1. your reply is pretty morally abhorrent.

              Is it now?

              1. If you want to defend judging people based on unjust criteria I’m not going to stop you, it’s probably not the craziest thing you write here

                1. lol what?

                  1. The Post article said atheists faced discrimination at the polls. By this they clearly meant “he practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people”. In a Nelson Muntz moment, you thought to say ‘ha-ha, people should be more discriminatory when they vote!’ of course meaning ‘people should make fine distinctions when they vote.’ So, the joke was on you, they had used the term in the most common way. As is your way you seemed to want to double down insisting that people should discriminate using whatever criteria they want. Of course this includes patently irrelevant or unjust criteria, so if you’d like to triple down and defend that, be my guest.

                2. Jesus. If you want to pick an argument, stick to the pedantry. Don’t force it.

                  1. He’s gotten more ridiculous lately. I’m starting to believe in the Tulpa theory.

                    1. “I’m starting to believe in the Tulpa theory.”

                      Aren’t you Tulpa? I’ve often thought so (though on a thread recently the idea you were ‘American’ was floated). Tulpa identified as from Virginia and, like yourself, leaned right and posted a lot on the weekend threads.

                    2. Tulpa is a carpetbagging fuck from PA. You can call me whatever you want boyo, but don’t ever call me a fucking yankee.

                      American is an anti-Semitic socialist. I’m a philo-Semitic Heinlein/Rand/Rothbard/Jefferson mashup.

                      It’s cute that you think I lean right though.

                    3. I stand corrected, I did not know Tulpa was a transplant.

                      Of course, where I live Virginians are essentially Yankees, so there’s that.

                  2. As is often the case, you’re not sure what you’re talking about, except you don’t like the guy who you think picks on conservatives. Predictable much?

            2. “your reply is pretty morally abhorrent.”

              Is it morally abhorrent to eat a dick, Bo? Because you should eat a dick.

              1. Is it morally abhorrent to eat a dick, Bo?

                Not if everyone consents! Right Mr. Meiwes?

              2. Keep it classy SForza!

                1. Are you suggesting that it isn’t classy to eat a dick? How dare you discriminate against classy dick-eaters!

            3. your reply is pretty morally abhorrent.

              I fail to see how.

              While I personally have voted for plenty of atheists and/or other non-believers, I dont see how excluding someone whose basis of morality is so different from ones own is abhorrent. Seems pretty damn reasonable to me.

              Do you find it morally abhorrent that I discriminate against progressives at the polls?

              1. Do you find it morally abhorrent that I discriminate against progressives at the polls?

                Blue Tulpa? Well, how does Red Tulpa feel when libertarians refuse to vote for conservatives?

                The funniest thing about is latest snit fit is that he has utterly misunderstood me and worked himself up into a high moral dudgeon based on that misunderstanding.

                1. “he has utterly misunderstood me”

                  I think you misunderstood what the Post wrote, ran with it, and now feel the need to defend it.

                  1. I think you misunderstood what the Post wrote, ran with it, and now feel the need to defend it.

                    lol wrong again.

                    1. lol? Do you work in a summer camp, or you attending one?

                    2. lol sick burn there. Real top notch.

                      Keep burning those strawmen.

                    3. I was insulting the juvenile ‘lol,’ no strawman.

                    4. Bo, your War on Straw never ceases. You are the Paul Wolfowitz of strawmen battle. There is never a time you aren’t champing at the bit to get at one.

                    5. See my comment below, here we are comment two about strawmen, still not saying what you’re even referring to.

                    6. See my comment below, here we are comment two about strawmen, still not saying what you’re even referring to.

                      Dude either you’re constantly deliberately misinterpreting my words, or you’re fucking stupid.

                      Or both. Both is an option as well.

              2. “I fail to see how.”

                Remember, I said, and the WaPo clearly meant, discrimination is defined literally as “the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people.” It’s by definition morally wrong.

                “Do you find it morally abhorrent that I discriminate against progressives at the polls?”

                I don’t think that is unfairly treating them differently. You are not discriminating because of some irrelevant characteristic like their religious background, race, etc., but because their views are immoral and destructive. I share that discrimination.

                1. It’s by definition morally wrong.

                  What nonsense.

                  1. For the fourth time, if you want to defend judging candidates by irrelevant characteristics like race, gender, etc., knock yourself out.

                    1. Haha there you go again, putting words in my mouth.

                    2. No, just your words.
                      Virginian|7.12.14 @ 6:15PM|#

                      Still, candidates for office who are openly atheist face discrimination at the polls.
                      They say that bolded part like it’s a bad thing. People should be a hell of a lot more discriminatory at the polls.
                      reply to this
                      Bo Cara Esq.|7.12.14 @ 6:17PM|#

                      On that criteria?
                      reply to this
                      Virginian|7.12.14 @ 6:22PM|#

                      On whatever criteria they choose. No one is fit to rule over others.
                      reply to this

                    3. Haha so you did read it, and you still missed the point. Your issue is that you’re about half as smart as you think you are.

                    4. See, you said people should discriminate at the polls ‘on whatever criteria they choose.’ This includes irrelevant criteria like those I named, and it’s plain that what the Post meant at the start.

                    5. Also, here is a sure sign of someone trolling: they don’t ever answer substantive criticisms other than to say ‘lol, you don’t get it!’ or the like, never saying what they were saying.

                    6. No, you Aspie fuck. You quoted my words, a simple declarative sentence, and you still missed the point. You did that because you’re not actually hear to exchange ideas, you’re here to try to validate your pathetic existence.

                      On whatever criteria they choose. No one is fit to rule over others.

                      That’s literally the only thing I said there: that no one is fit to rule over others, and that all candidates for office are by definition attempting to obtain an immoral position of power over others. I honestly don’t care on what basis people vote against immoral scumbags.

                    7. That’s a pretty weak walk back. Even were we to accept this revisionist attempt at what you were saying, I don’t buy that you yourself even buy it. Do you think, for example, that Rand Paul is an immoral scumbag attempting to gain an immoral position of power over others, and that people should discriminate against him, for example, on criteria like being a Southerner, or his religious background, or because he’s short?

                    8. Why is this so difficult for the supposed Arbiter of Libtertarianism to understand?

                      I don’t think that the coercive State is a good idea. I want it gone. I don’t want to select a kinder master, I want to tear down the plantation.

                    9. I took it from the beginning that he is one of those voting is immoral peeps. I dont see any walkback. Liberty magazine did a poll in the 90s and 1/3rd of their subscribers thought voting was immoral.

                      And by that standard, Rand is a scumbag.

                2. How is basis of moral foundation irrelevant?

                3. “You are not discriminating because of some irrelevant characteristic like their religious background, race, etc.”

                  How you choose to define yourself conveys what you think is important, and what you think your voters find important.

                  In my experience, most evangelical atheists are tedious ideologues with a persecution complex, and the want support from people like themselves.

                  This has nothing to do with whether they’re right or wrong, or whether they’re good people or bad people. It signifies to me that there are probably other people more suited for positions of authority.

        2. On that criteria?

          On the criteria that they showed up to run.

          In my world, that’s grounds for arrest.

    2. the Supreme Court ruled in a 1961 case that a Maryland man appointed as a notary public didn’t have to declare his belief in a supreme being to hold office, arguing it violated his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Since then, these restrictions haven’t been enforced

      What?! A GD *atheist* could be witnessing my signature?!

    3. “No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.”

      Gets you out of jury duty, too, I suppose.

      1. And out of Heaven. Not sure the trade off there, as I’ve had a painful stretch of jury duty

        1. I got to find a pretty obviously guilty man not guilty (of the felony charges, we still found him guilty of misdemeanors) because the fucking prosecution was clueless. And they lost some of the physical evidence. To be fair to the prosecutor, having your only witness be hostile didnt help matters much.

          It was a painful two weeks, but also kind of fun.

          1. Mine was Probate Court. It was appalling.

  17. Oh no! NYT frets about guns allowed at AL polling places…..polls.html

    1. Not even going to click.

  18. So, I accept a permanent job offer in Anaheim and then the next day get asked to interview for an even better job in Phoenix.

    Unfortunately my new job schedule makes it hard for me to schedule a phone interview and I can’t very well take time off on my first week. What should I do?

    1. Can’t do it at lunch break via your cell?

      1. Not enough time, unfortunately. The recruiter says I need at least an hour set aside for the interview.

        1. Explain the circumstances, see if they can do it before or after work or on the weekend.

          1. Yeah, I asked for it to be at 6 since I get off work at 5 and she said she would email me Monday morning to see if that works.

            If not I might just make up an excuse for needing a half day on Tuesday to go to the DMV or something like that.

            1. Fake a seizure.

              1. Stop being a bad influence on him!

                1. Pl?ya Manhattan. isn’t getting him to watch Doctor Who, is he kibby?

                  Glass houses and whatnot.

                  1. Doctor Who sucks.

                    1. I liked the ‘Blink’ episode she showed me, but I don’t see myself become much of a fan.

                      But, as I noted last night, the robot Dalek that can follow you around and talk to you is possibly the greatest toy ever.

                    2. I like Steven Moffat and the Weeping Angels are great. It should be noted that an episode with very little actual Doctor is considered one of the best episodes of the new series though.

                    3. I like Steven Moffat

                      *shakes head sadly*

                    4. *shakes head sadly*

                      Oh, come on. Sherlock is thoroughly enjoyable. I also liked the original British version of Coupling, which was like Friends, but raunchier.

                    5. I liked both of those but his mangling of Who makes his name right up there with Berman, Braga, and Pol Pot.

                    6. I like Steven Moffat and the Weeping Angels are great.

                      Moffatt was great when he wasn’t in charge. Now that he’s in charge it’s self-indulgent bilge – almost unwatchable. I defy anyone to explain what the hell happened in most of his episodes last year.

                    7. I defy anyone to explain what the hell happened in most of his episodes last year.

                      Ah, so the fact that I haven’t seen anything from series 7 may explain why I’m baffled that Cdr Lytton thinks he’s vying for nicole’s tiara?

                    8. Moffatt was definitely better when not in charge — but I still stand by his first season as showrunner. It was delightful & had a dreamy, fairytale quality to it that a children’s show should have.

                    9. Remind me to replace all his batteries before you come back so you can witness all the destructive glory. & watch him terrify the cats.

                    10. watch him terrify the cats.

                      This needs to be on YouTube.

                    11. Oh wait, there are apparently several videos already. Of course.

                    12. If I ever see that robot, I’m going to blow it up with one of the last M-1000s remaining from my childhood.

                    13. !!! WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU???

                    14. I know! I only have 3 M-1000s left!!! You can’t get them anymore, not even in Mexico.

                    15. Sheesh, real pyros make & set off ground bombs that make M-1000s seem like silence. I remember coming back from a shoot in Weedsport NY where the people in charge wouldn’t let Gary light one of his can-sized salutes even hung well off the ground, and he couldn’t adapt it to aerial from a mortar, so he lit it & threw it over a cliff at the Del. Water Gap, where it went off close to a ranger station.

  19. Your nut punch of the day:

    Cop attempts to shoot dog, hits 10 year old boy in the leg instead

    And if that weren’t enough to make you reach for an ice pack, there’s this journalistic pi?ce de r?sistance:

    The deputy’s gun fired one shot, missing the dog and hitting the child. It was not clear if the gun was actively fired by the deputy.

    1. That’s just basic journo ignorance. My mom was a reporter and then an editor. I’ve sat at table with half a dozen media types, and they all refused to believe it when I told them that a modern pistol simply will not fire unless the trigger is pulled. A Glock does not go off when dropped.

      1. Most guns nowadays, it requires a trigger pull AND thumb squeeze. It’s true of all of my Springfield XDs.

    2. It’s still the police department’s fault for hiring a gun with clear mental issues that resulted in it committing an act of violence against a child.

    3. The deputy’s gun fired one shot, missing the dog and hitting the child. It was not clear if the gun was actively fired by the deputy.

      How does one “passively” fire a gun? Or did the gun fire itself? I do so hate it when my inanimate objects take on a life of their own and start harming others. It’s just so frustrating. I had to get rid of a very sharp kitchen knife because it kept passively plunging itself into house guests during the night.

      1. This is why you have to lock them up, jesse. You know when one will load itself and “go off”. Tricky little things…

        1. you *never* know, etc. etc.

      2. All of my handguns have striker plates. They don’t go off when you drop them, even if they are loaded and cocked. The only way to fire the gun is squeezing the rear grip and the trigger SIMULTANEOUSLY.

        I’m pretty sure the gun was actively fired by the deputy. In the .0001% chance that it wasn’t, it still doesn’t matter. He pointed the loaded at something, and he’s responsible for that.

      3. So I’m assuming this brave, child-shooting hero is in the hospital in critical condition from the results of his failure to kill that vicious animal?

        1. The article is light on details about the dog that he was afraid of, so I assume it was something viscous like this

          1. I was expecting the toilet paper puppy.

          2. I think it was something a little less sticky.

    4. The latest Salondotcom tweet is eerily applicable.

    5. The deputy’s gun fired one shot, missing the dog and hitting the child. It was not clear if the gun was actively fired by the deputy.


  20. Got called for jury duty next week, so went in to work today to update the operating review materials in case I can’t be there Tuesday. Rode the Mighty Ninja? – what a superb ride – about an hour each way, it was way hot and sunny. Noyce.

    Was supposed to start raining at about 7:00pm – it started at 6:00 just as I was pulling into town. Haven’t gotten rained on in awhile – it was refreshing. Not a thunderstorm – those are no fun to ride in. Just some lolwut rain – also noyce.

    Clears up overnight so – Ima go to church tomorrow, watch the MotoGP race, and get drunk and stay up late since I don’t have to be to court till 8:30. I’ll let you know how fast before they kick me off if I get that far in the process…

    Everyone have a nice rest of weekend! Even the trolls.

  21. Suddenly beginning to realize how awful I am at unpacking. Is there some trick to this that I’m missing?

    1. I’ve been in my new place for six weeks. Half my books are still in boxes.

      1. My books are all on shelves — not the shelves they’re supposed to be on at all, but it will do until I figure out my bookshelf again.

        Everything else…..not so much.

        1. One thing that was great about this move was that after a year in my last place, I still had stuff packed there. So I figure anything I’ve not touched in a year I didn’t really need. So I ditched a lot.

      2. I’ve been in my house for 8 years, and all of my books are still in boxes (except for kids books, I didn’t have kids back then).

    2. It depends: how comfortable with a mess are you?

      If very, then no. If not so much, dump your boxes in the middle of the floor and then obsessively put things away so that you don’t feel like you’re on the verge of madness.

      I tend to have a touch of the OCD though.

      1. That’s actually not a terrible idea. Maybe I will just dump one box as an experiment & see if it bothers me enough to do something about it.

      2. I should have done that before I left last week. Darn, missed opportunity!

      3. I’m so doing that the next time we move.

    3. If you move again, and things are still in boxes? Throw them out.

      1. Some things are childhood books that I’m keeping in case I have kids. If I don’t, I’ll give them to my niece & any siblings she might have. Most of it is stuff I do actually need but have just been doing without for the past few weeks.

    4. Prescription amphetamines.

      1. Can you provide these for me?

        1. I was offered Adderall last week by one of my kid’s moms.

          1. I’m confused by the pronouns here. All I understand with some certainty is that you were offered Adderall. You should accept the offer, and keep it for a rainy day, such as tax season….

            1. Virginian is just more evolutionary fit than the rest of us. He’s cast his seed far and wide so that his progeny has a higher likelihood of surviving into adulthood and passing that genetic material on.

            2. lol yeah phrasing there. I’m a counselor at a summer camp.

              1. My understanding is that some moms pinch off of their kids’ prescriptions to enhance their sex lives. You might not have understood what you were being offered.

        2. Easiest place to get them is on campus. You’re a little too late.

          1. Pshaw. My office is literally a block from ASU & I can probably still pass for a college student.

            1. The school shrink gives them away like candy. It’s probably the only thing he prescribes. Study DSM IV, and go in for an appointment.

              1. Oh I thought you meant students selling their own stashes. At UA it was impossible to get a ‘script for anything so I just stopped trying.

      2. That’s your solution for everything.

        1. Not for social problems. I would prescribe booze for that.

  22. Cooking with cannabis is just being pretentious. “Look at me! I’m sufficiently enlightened to cook with pot! Put another star on my liberal elite membership card!”

    But dirt? Dirt?!?!? That’s just stupid.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.