Jon Stewart

Jon Stewart Nostalgia Trip: The 2010 'Rally to Restore Sanity'

As the Comedy Central host enters his final week, we look back at his 2010 political rally on the National Mall.

|

With just one week left in Jon Stewart's tenure as host of The Daily Show, it's a good time to revisit the "Rally to Restore Sanity And/Or Fear," a three-hour live show on the Washington, D.C. National Mall, meant to satirize and/or provide a counter-point to Glenn Beck's months earlier "Rally to Restore Honor."

Reason TV was on the scene. To watch our coverage, click above. Here's the original writeup:

Reason.tv was on hand for the Rally to Restore Sanity And/Or Fear hosted by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert at the National Mall in Washington on Saturday, October 30, 2010.

The crowd was huge, the weather fine, the signs memorable, and the people…well, let's just say they were there too. Some were apolitical and just out for a fun day, some were big fans of Comedy Central's best-known personalities, some were inadvertent dadaists, and more than a few defined sanity strictly in terms of heartily agreeing with themselves.

About 6 minutes. Shot and edited by Jim Epstein and Meredith Bragg, with assistance from Josh Swain. Interviews by Michael C. Moynihan and Nick Gillespie. With help from June Arunga.

Advertisement

NEXT: 9 + 10 = 21?

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.

  1. “Jon Stewart Nostalgia Trip: The 2010 ‘Rally to Restore Sanity'”

    The fact that he called it the Rally to Restore Sanity pretty much explains everything wrong with Jon Stewart as succinctly as it can be explained.

    1. Jon Stewart always spoke truth to power.

      1. *correction

        Jon Stewart hummed truth to power while providing it vigorous, impassioned fellatio

      2. He spoke of the abundant absurdity in all human nature. And there is a whole generation he educated — maybe not so much educated, let’s say “piqued” their interest with parody and exaggerated body and facial gestures. I think as the show progressed his audiences did not want to be left out of the mainstream (joke), so they kept themselves informed–that’s a powerful tool he wielded and he will be greatly missed like no other before him. Teachers everywhere wish they had just a smidgen of that magic. Kudos to all his writers.

        1. Bullshit. Jon Stewart’s fans were not generally particularly informed, they just laughed at easy jokes directed towards people they were supposed to hate. Same with Bill Maher.

          “And there is a whole generation he educated”

          Maybe the reason most people my age are gibbering morons is because they were ‘educated’ by Jon Stewart.

          1. So what Irish said.

          2. Like the imbecile at the end. he sounded edumacated.

          3. I beg to differ, they were more informed than if they did not watch his show. I’m not sure why that offends you ? Maher leans a lot, Stewart for the most part dished it 360 and a maybe a few more turns for good measure.

            I know you guys love to argue- this is only my opinion and it is not going to change the world in any way.

            1. “I beg to differ, they were more informed than if they did not watch his show.”

              Joseph Goebbels salutes you!

          4. I grew up with him, watched with Kilborne before Stewart took over. Loved it. At some point I realized him and Colbert were FOS mostly. Once Obama got elected he became a complete hack. Maybe he always was, but it seemed like he was “punching up” with Bush. I suppose he was always doing the same schtick, I just didn’t notice. Stewart served cake, and I loved it.

          5. One of the many ironies lost on Stewart is that he greatly contributed to the left-right divide that he complains about.

        2. +“Teachers everywhere wish they had just a smidgen of that magic”

          To make stupid people feel like they are smarter than everyone else. Yes, magic.

          1. Stupid people ? Now really, and who may I ask are the smart people? You?

            Well, then I do believe in magic *Gilmore*.

            Any motivation towards any knowledge, is a good thing.

            1. He didn’t motivate much of anyone toward “knowledge.” Instead, he motivated a whole generation to proudly say they get all their “news” from him, and make up stupid rationalizations as why that was virtuous.

              I’d say that’s the opposite of “knowledge.”

            2. The smart people aren’t socialists. Smart people are reasonable. Pretending that socialism has had two centuries of failure that created nothing more than abject human misery, and yet it’s still somehow your preferred policy, precludes ones from having genuine intelligence.

              1. Not being able to distinguish authoritarian regimes in China and the USSR from modern social democracies has got to be the clearest sign of intelligence ever.

              2. i think you got that backwards. it’s not believing in socialism that makes someone stupid, it’s being stupid that makes someone believe in socialism. i dont even think “stupid” is really the right word, it’s more “(intentionally) ignorant of history”

        3. He spoke of the abundant absurdity in all human nature. And there is a whole generation he educated

          Translation: He was a smug and humorless douchebag who enstupidated a wide audience.

        4. “” so they kept themselves informed””

          lol

          you actually believe that “millenials ‘reading headline news’ simply so they could understand his one-dimensional political humor” constitutes ‘being informed’

          oh, that’s rich. You get a gold star for priceless-arrogant-retarded my friend.

          1. You get a gold star for priceless-arrogant-retarded my friend.

            Thank you sweet, I’ll wear it with pride.

            Hey, they thought about something else besides useless celeb gossip for thirty minutes.
            I don’t know about you, but I’m grateful for that! I know many of those millennials, and they don’t want to know much about anything going on around them except what exclusively pertains to their own personal lives. Food, housing, work, recreation, and relationships. So what if it was one-dimensional political humor (which wasn’t always the case), there is a good possibility that they formed their own political views sparked by innocuous humor. Where exactly is the harm? Anyways, chill- he’s leaving.

      3. Riiiiight, Crusty Juggler.

        If the sitting President of the United States begs you not to go, you’re not doing the “speak truth to power” thing very well.

      4. Jon Stewart always spoke power to truth.

        FIFY.

    2. Doesn’t this describe partisan individuals of all stripes? Progs think anyone who disagrees with them is an extremist. Centrist means leftist in their heads. Conservatives wouldn’t use the word sane, but the same logic applies to their insults.

      The end of the Cold War made it easier for both parties to embrace their extreme fringes…except us dangerous libertarians. Both parties just agreed we are dangerous lunatics.

      1. I should add, the drift has been gradual, and both are pretty oblivious of the change.

      2. well we want to limit their power, which, if it ever gained traction, would be a very dangerous idea to them

    3. Preach it! Men in bunny suits and middle-aged women with Hulk Hands will lead us to the promised land!

    1. Nothing screams libertarian more than defending the symbol of a movement to base an entire nation on slavery!

      1. An excellent summary of what SIV…*didn’t* say.

        1. Why would you interject yourself into a squabble between Bo and SIV? Why would you do this to yourself?

          1. Squabble? I don’t even recognize its existence and never engage with it. Unlike a bunch of fucking retards around here.

            1. SIV takes the high ground like Bedford Forrest at Fort Pillow.

        2. Im doubting this is your first SIV post Eddie.

          1. I don’t know what that means, but fortunately I don’t care.

            1. SIV posting a ‘see, this black person is fine with my Confederate monument’ would be like you posting a ‘see, even this pro-life person agrees with me on this abortion practice!’ Anyone whose familiar with your histories would get what’s going on there.

              1. “Anyone whose familiar with your histories would get what’s going on there.”

                I’m familiar with my history and I have *no idea* what you’re yammering about.

                1. Woosh

                  1. Yes, Bo, even prolife people agree with me about abortion.

                    1. I meant pro choice there.

                    2. So you’re saying that some prochoice people agree with me about abortion? You flatter me!

                    3. I hate to repeat myself, but SWOOSH

                    4. Nike agrees with me, too?

                    5. Bo’s pro-life screwup there is a great example of why there should never be an edit button here. We’d miss more than just John’s malapropisms.

                2. My history is more advanced than yours. I waited longer.

                  1. When did Bo return ? Got I missed the little fella spewing stupid all over, great for a laugh !

      2. This is my ignoring your dipshittiness face *dipshit face*

      3. Bo would you support banning it? Not too good on the first amendment huh?

        1. No I wouldn’t. I don’t think the Confederacy should be monumentalized on public property, but of course private ones are fine.

          1. What would you propose be done with stone mountain? My understanding is a human can fit in the horse’s nose…that is pretty big

            1. It would be fairly low on the list of monuments to be moved or changed for that reason.

              1. What monuments would be removed and what would it accomplish?

                1. A monument is literally an enduring statement, a declaration set in stone or cast in iron. Our governments should not continue statements supporting a movement we all would at some level (I hope) say we repudiate.

                  Let me ask you a question, at the least, should governments continue to spend money and time maintaining such monuments?

                  1. You didnt answer the question. Please do that first. Not sure i have seen the government supporting slavery at all. What does removing accomplish? Do you think we should rename new york city and various other locations as well? Since in your logic this is endorsing slavery

                    Yea if statue is for a museum type thing. It doesnt make sense to me to erase the past. If the people want it down then bring it down.

                    If it makes you feel better to pretend it never existed that is your right.

                    1. My answer was that it would stop continuing statements of homage to a movement in our history with the primary aim of preserving enslaving people.

                      A lot of Confederate monuments are rather tame memorials to ‘those who died.’ But others are clearly paying homage and support to the cause of the Confederacy. The latter are the problem.

                      And it’s not ‘erasing history’ anymore than the Ukranians that toppled long standing statues of Soviet leaders were ‘erasing history.’ The monuments I’m talking about are incredibly selective and distorted markers of history at best.

                      Now perhaps you might answer my question? Should governments continue to expend to maintain monuments paying homage to the Confederacy? If so, why?

                    2. This is why I don’t have two shits to give. I could really care less about government monuments.

                      I hear that Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. Who gets the contract to take a wrecking ball to his memorial?

                      I also understand that George Washington was a traitor, Abraham Lincoln violated the constitution a few times, and that the Vietnam War was evil.

                  2. Nuke Lenin’s Tomb Now, dammit.

            2. Bocialism has destroyed dozens of threads. The Bocialist only exists to promote Bocialism. The symbols and tenets of Bocialism are enduring, and cannot be erased, only blocked.

              1. “Bocialism”

                Top kek

          2. The government could sell all the monuments to private organizations or individuals.

            The government would make money on the original sale and not have to pay for upkeep.

            Would that solution satisfy you?

          3. “No I wouldn’t. I don’t think the Confederacy should be monumentalized on public property, but of course private ones are fine.”

            Stone Mountain was private property when carved. And then bought by the State of Georgia in 1958. Obviously the State of Georgia isn’t obligated to please anyone who’s not a Georgian citizen.

        2. The only right it supports is its right to jerk off when people argue with it.

      4. Nothing screams libertarian more than defending the symbol of a movement to base an entire nation on slavery!

        You got it!

        That’s why we must ban the imagery of Nazis, Soviets, Red Chinese, anything to do with the British.

        All ‘militias’ must be disbanded and never spoken of again.

        Christians? Well, they gotta go too.

        Batman – he’s right out. So is Superman and Wonderwoman.

        Gotta get rid of all the streets named after Cesar Chavez and MLK.

        Whoo! The list goes on and on. We must purge the country of the hint of any problematic history.

        1. Batman, Super — what?

        2. umm … I agree that the state should not spend tax dollars on any cartoon related monuments. its part of my longstanding maxim: ” No taxation for (graphical) representation.”

      5. “Nothing screams libertarian more than defending the symbol of a movement to base an entire nation on slavery!”

        Egyptians, knock down those pyramids!

        Romans, knock down that Colosseum!

        Brits, knock down that Tower of Lindon!

        China, knock down that wall!

        Boo Scary demands it!

      6. Nothing screams libertarian more than defending the symbol of a movement to base an entire nation on slavery!

        Though I something something with what you say, I would something something your right to say it.

    2. Good thing Mrs Powell drove to the park and attended a pro-flag rally to show her support. Imagine what would’ve happened to her if she just posted her sentiments on twitter

  2. No

  3. Several amusing things in the video.

    DEMONSTRATOR: “When people go around with Hitler moustaches, this doesn’t contribute to constructive debate?”

    Q: “So when people called Bush a fascist…”

    DEMONSTRATOR: “Oh, well, Bush was, you know.”

    Q: “Are right-wingers crazy?”

    DEMONSTRATOR: “Oh, sure, look at Glenn Beck!”

    Q: “Are there crazy people on the Left?”

    DEMONSTRATOR: “Probably, but I can’t think of any examples.” [picture of demonstrator with sign saying “I masturbate and I vote”]

  4. I am not a fan of the government flying confederate flag as i dont support that and dont really like it in general. Though i recognize it may mean different things to others. The flag is made to represent a concept, not the other way around. If individuals, museums etc want to have it that is their right…just as you can burn and piss on the flag

    Banning the flag being had by individuals and or removing memorials is not going to magically erase racism or the past…but bo is free to argue otherwise

    1. I’ve lived in the South, with a brief exception all my life. I love it here, it’s quite full of good people. And if you look at its history there’s lots to be proud of. But the period of the Confederacy was just not one of them, and it shouldn’t be paid homage to by the government on public property.

      Of course though people should be able to put whatever they wasn’t on private property.

      1. Or, as I like to put it to my prog friends, “it’s too bad the South has so many flags, statues, buildings, etc. commemorating racist Democrats.”

        1. #NameThatParty

        2. Strangely it’s not the Democrats defending them now.

          1. And you may notice that the Republicans aren’t exactly defending them either.

            1. A lot aren’t, but that’s where what support there is for it is coming from.

              1. Who would that be? What are they specifically supporting?

                1. You can ask the twenty state reps that voted to keep the flag up about that.

              2. That’s probably because the campaign to remove the Confederate flag was started by Democrats to distract attention from their party’s failures at home and abroad. Now Republicans are split – some want to take down the flag to deprive the Dems of their silly talking point, others see no urgency in taking it down now after it’s flown for several decades before the Democrats needed a symbolic punching bag.

                1. Yes, it couldn’t have been a long held opposition to public of display of symbols of slavery. They all had to have this bad motive.

                  You’re like a caricatured example of the kind of partisan mocked up thread.

                  1. If “long held opposition” meaning “ever since we realized we could use this issue to take the public’s mind off our policy failures at home and abroad,” then sure, it’s *really* long-held.

                    Black people have never liked that flag, but that’s been a constant since 1861 – the question is what changed recently? Democrat pols decided to use the act of a homicidal maniac as a segue into making the Confederate flag a club to use against Republicans. The *intelligent* Republicans have decided that the only to win this game is not to play, and they’ve been working to get the flag taken down (except in places like cemetaries where it won’t be meant as endorsement).

                    Other Republicans didn’t get the message and seem to think that that which was OK *before* the Dems’ tactical decision to exploit the flag is *still* OK even after the Dems made that decision.

                    1. You’re missing out that a lot of Democrats, pols and not, are black (and vice versa) and there have been attempts to remove or have balanced these monuments for a long time, and it hasn’t recently come from heavily Republican circles. The shooting proved to be the catalyst for a lot of those people to renew those attempts, but if you asked them if they would have supported the same changes before the shooting most would have said yes.

                  2. If so why wasnt it done much earlier if what you say is correct?

                    1. Because lots of people didn’t like it but didn’t see the URGENCY of fighting it…until the Dem Party leadership thought that exploiting their party’s old racist symbols was the way to keep the voters’ attention away from the Donkey Party’s failures.

                    2. So most everybody saw it was wrong but it took these cynical opportunist to get them to act on it?

                    3. Like I said, if the Repubs were smart (which is hardly guaranteed), they’d pull down all confederate flags from public property. Flying these flags simply isn’t worth the risks of Democrats getting elected.

                    4. Of course, if it isn’t the flag there will be some other issue the Dems will use to say, in effect, “sure we haven’t been able to solve the country’s problems, but you better vote for us anyway or the REPUBLICANS WILL COME TO COOK AND EAT YOUR CHILDREN!”

                    5. Why do you think about in such partisan terms? How about they should be removed because it’s the right thing to do. Crazy, huh?

                    6. “Why do you think about in such partisan terms?”

                      You mean, why do I inject partisanship into the Democratic Party campaign to win elections on the Confederate flag issue?

                      Gosh, I dunno, maybe because I don’t like it when people piss on my leg and tell me its raining.

                      The abstract, nuanced merits of the issue could produce results on either side.

                      We could survive with or without this symbol on public property. Considered in itself, it’s hardly the most important issue ever.

                      But as a lever to get Democrats into power, it is a toxic and radioactive issue.

                      Republicans perpetuate all sorts of corrupt policies while in power. The Democrats perpetuate those same corrupt policies, and also add new ones.

                    7. At some point in life you have to stake your positions on principles (‘it’s wrong to monumentalize a movement devoted primarily to preserving slavery, so yes let’s remove those’) not on principals (‘hmm, who’s pushing this, do I like them and think they’re up to no good, well yes so I oppose it because while I think the above I don’t want to give them the satisfaction’). Of course some Dems push this for crassly cynical partisan reasons, but who cares? If I happen to agree with them on this its despite that.

                    8. “(‘hmm, who’s pushing this, do I like them and think they’re up to no good, well yes so I oppose it because while I think the above I don’t want to give them the satisfaction’).”

                      Of course that is not my position, since I said these flags should come down.

                      It becomes harder and harder to reply to you without using the phrase “lying POS.”

                    9. Your obfuscatory tactics and historical illiteracy are astounding. You’ve demonstrated aptly that you know very little of American history, especially of the Civil War. What’s your goal?

                    10. What’s your goal?

                      Same as always- trolling. He’s a second-rate sock puppet. Why bother to respond?

  5. That shows how the left has moved the needle, where “sanity” is defined as believing in socialism.

  6. I miss Mike Moynihan

    that is all.

    1. We still have Shikha.

      1. YOUR JUST BEING MEAN NOW

        1. You know who we really should miss? Postrel.

  7. May as well OT this thread on the Confederate flag rally today. National news coverage was quite thin but both Raw Story and the WSJ focused on images of some 3% militia carrying semi-auto military style rifles.

    Portrait of the non-artist who did most of the work on the world’s largest bas relief:

    Roy Faulkner

    1. Shouldn’t we rename July and August too? Both months are government commemorations of tyrannical racist imperialist slave-owners. And the current calendar is a papist invention designed to allow the standardization of Easter! And considering the time period Gregory XIII has some unpleasant aspects.

    2. Everybody against Stone Mountain is in the pocket of Big Sandblaster. There, I said it. Wake up, sheeple

    3. More fun history of it:

      “The carving was conceived by Mrs. C. Helen Plane, a charter member of the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC). The Venable Brothers, owners of the mountain, deeded the north face of the mountain to the UDC in 1916….Fundraising for the monument resumed in 1923. In October of that year, Venable granted the Klan easement with perpetual right to hold celebrations as they desired.[9] The influence of the UDC continued, in support of Mrs. Plane’s vision of a carving explicitly for the purpose of creating a Confederate memorial. The UDC established the Stone Mountain Confederate Memorial Association (SMCMA) for fundraising and on-site supervision of the project. Venable and Gutzon Borglum, who were both closely associated with the Klan, arranged to pack the SMCMA with Klan members.[10] The SMCMA, along with the United Daughters of the Confederacy continued fundraising efforts. Of the $250,000 raised, part came from the federal government, which in 1925 issued special fifty-cent coins with the soldiers Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson on them, but would not allow the politician Jefferson Davis to be included.[11] When the state completed the purchase in 1960, it condemned the property to remove Venable’s agreement to allow the Klan perpetual right to hold meetings on the premises.[10]”

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_Mountain

  8. Time to admit you were wrong?

    Higher wages a surprising success for Seattle restaurant

    They only had to raise prices 21%. No problem though, “supportive customers are leaving additional tips”. Best part of the article:

    Downtown Emergency Services Center, which relies heavily on government contracts to provide housing and other services for chronically homeless residents, might need to cut those services unless the city boosts its funding.

    “The economic justice that would be happening for our employees would be borne by our clients, who are extremely vulnerable people,” executive director Daniel Malone said.

    All the government money has to go to employees now, sorry homeless people. Hey, I bet they could get some of those homeless people to do the job for less than $15 an hour.

    Second best part:

    Brett Richards, a 50-year-old singer and guitarist, has worked 25 years in food service, including the past eight at Ivar’s. Before, he made minimum wage, plus tips. Now, he gets $15 an hour, including a share of the 21 percent menu price increase, plus any additional tips customers leave.

    25 years experience and still making minimum wage? Well, at least he is proof that one could survive at the old minimum wage rate.

    1. None of that says anything at all unless you also know everyone’s annual take-home before vs. now. Including the restaurant owner.

      Raising prices 21%…sure, the market might bear it. But why should it? short of a business pricing their product and their wages according to what they think makes them the most competitive?

      hell, for all you know this particular business is booming now…. because their local competitors have decided to move to Idaho. means nothing.

    2. From the article:

      For some of the restaurant’s lesser-paid workers ? including bussers and dishwashers ? that’s meant as much as 60 percent more. Revenue has soared, supportive customers are leaving additional tips even though they don’t need to, and servers and bartenders are on pace to increase their annual pay by thousands, with wages for a few of the best compensated approaching $80,000 a year.

      ORLY?

      80,000 / 52 / = $1538.46 per week.

      If you’re only working 40 hours that’s over $38/hr.
      If you’re working 60 hours a week and paid overtime for 20 hours, then you’re still making almost $22/hr.

      Who makes that kind of hourly rate in food service?

      1. Nobody. The article is a dishonest puff-piece posing as “news”.

        1. Rhywun|8.1.15 @ 8:54PM|#
          “Nobody. The article is a dishonest puff-piece posing as “news”.”

          Correct; bullshit.
          NO restaurant prices their foods 21% under the market pricing anywhere, let alone in a competitive area like Seattle.
          Does not begin to piss the sniff test- stinks to high heaven.

          1. piss the sniff test

            John?

            1. Busted! Where’s the fing edit tab?

      2. If you count tips, some wait staff and bartenders can make a ton. You’d be surprised.

        It’s not unusual for them to make more than their direct supervisors.

        Still a bullshit article though.

        1. This reminded me of an article from WSJ a couple of years back.

          http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB…..0943682222

          wait staff at top-tier restaurants can earn $80,000 to $150,000

          I worked in the f&b industry for most of my 20s in the midwest and I didn’t know anyone approaching that level of pay, but I knew plenty of people living comfortably. One single parent bartender in her late 30s had a kid and really nice house with acreage. She tended bar at a country club and was also an assistant manager. She probably made 15-20 an hour plus very generous tips.

          1. Of course this is at a restaurant that charges $100 a plate. I think it’s great that a good server can make fools part with their money so easily, but let’s not pretend that this is a career for normal people.

            1. My wife and I eat out often enough and there are restaurants we visit where it is obvious the wait-staff are making careers of it.
              But those are places where dinner and a couple of drinks are north of $200.

              1. Yeah, I was using “career” in the “living wage” sense. There are lots of people who make a career out of (say) low-wage waitress jobs but I don’t expect that to be their family’s only source of income.

                1. A waitress can make a “living wage” in a cheap place so long as it’s very busy, has quick turnover, and she can handle the work load.

                  1. This. Every city has food service “professionals”. Not everyone can make a career out of it, but that’s true of everything.

                  2. This. Every city has food service “professionals”. Not everyone can make a career out of it, but that’s true of everything.

                    1. “HA!”
                      Do I detect disagreement?
                      Where’s Hamster?

                    2. No disagreement, I am just playfully tugging on lap’s pigtails after her double-post.

        2. yeah ive seen a LOT of waiters refuse a promotion to GM cuz they’d make less money. definitely depends on the type of restaurant, but the nicest place i ever worked ive seen waiters make $1000 in six hours.

      3. The increases are based on higher wages plus customers tipping 20% of the 21% higher prices with a “no-tipping” policy.

        I wonder how the other Ivar’s employees feel about not being cut in on all that extra cash?

        Even Ivar’s isn’t expanding its new policy to its quick-service seafood stands.

      4. supportive customers are leaving additional tips even though they don’t need to
        .
        Is that even legal? Could I do that anywhere? Like if I were really concerned about the people getting minimum wage at the Starbucks where I get my whipped cinnamon triple-soy mocha latte frappacino every morning I could voluntarily give them an extra buck or two instead of just smugly posting a #hipsterlivesmatter on my Twitter feed? Why did nobody ever tell me there’s a government program whereby you can just take matters into your own hands like this?

    3. “you don’t have to tip”

      And the servers don’t have to give a shit about the service they provide. Progress!

      1. So leave just the tip.

    4. If there was any sanity in this world, we would already be paying Mr Richards to perform his art full time.

      /say the re-turners to Sanity.

    5. Why, this is proof it would work anywhere! Everyone can afford to pay 20% more to eat out on the regular like hipsters in Seattle! And surely this is going to last. People won’t eventually begin going elsewhere once some time passes.

      1. It could work everywhere …Hold on a second. It looks like this Seattle restaurant (Ivar’s Salmon House) is scamming everyone.

        They don’t need to increase prices 21% to pay a living wage. Not even close:

        Would you pay 17 extra cents for a Big Mac if it meant the person who prepared it could earn a living wage? What about an extra 30 cents each time you ate out at any fast-food restaurant?

        These are the small prices we would have to pay on average to ensure that fast-food workers around the country earned an hourly-wage of $15, according to a new study by researchers at Purdue University’s School of Hospitality and Tourism Management …

        Ghiselli used data from both the National Restaurant Association and Deloitte & Touche to estimate how much fast-food companies would need to boost sales given varying changes in the minimum wage. Assuming the industry maintained its current profit margin of 6.3 percent ? which, to be fair, is fairly slim ? hiking the pay floor at fast-food restaurants to $15 an hour would mean just a 4.3 percent increase in prices.

        Looks like I’m going to have to take this to twitter to get some #economicjustice

        1. I always love this:

          assuming the industry maintained its current profit margin of 6.3 percent

          If raising the price has no effect on sales, then why don’t they just increase the price now regardless of what the minimum wage is?

          1. If raising the price has no effect on sales, then why don’t they just increase the price now regardless of what the minimum wage is?
            .
            You are assuming the business owners are in it for the money, but keep in mind that business owners are capitalists and therefore evil. Fast food restaurant owners keep their prices artificially low to seduce customers into consuming lots of lots of that unhealthy crap just because they enjoy thinking of the long-term pain and suffering they are causing their victims. That is much more evil than just raising prices and sticking the extra money in their pockets instead of giving their employees raises.

            1. “You are assuming the business owners are in it for the money, but keep in mind that business owners are capitalists and therefore evil. Fast food restaurant owners keep their prices artificially low to seduce customers into consuming lots of lots of that unhealthy crap just because they enjoy thinking of the long-term pain and suffering they are causing their victims.”

              This is 100% true, except for the 50% of the time when they are either selling to the poor/wymenz/minorities or paying them. In which case they are 100% in it for the money!
              Either way its 100% of the time both ways!
              /proggie

        2. How would one double their labor expense yet somehow only need to increase prices or revenues by 4.3 pct

          1. If labor were a small portion of the input costs, it would be possible, but in a restaurant, I’m pretty sure labor is either the largest cost or next to it.

            1. Yea see that was my impression

            2. Not to brag but many years ago I was an assistant manager at a pizza delivery joint, when we did the books at the end of the night labor costs were usually 15 to 20 percent of the take. A sit-down restaurant would probably be a bit higher.

              1. I’ll ask a friend who runs a bar and grill, but my impression was, cooks, bussers, wait-staff, back office meant far more than food/bev or fixed costs.

              2. I managed a pizza place on the weekends back in the college days. And labor costs were around 15% on Friday/Saturdays, 20% on normal days, but could easily be 30% on a slow week day.

        3. “Would you pay 17 extra cents for a Big Mac if it meant the person who prepared it could earn a living wage?”

          No, because I don’t consider making Big Macs to be a career. I worked a lot of minimum wage shit jobs when I started out – these assholes want to ensure that those jobs won’t exist any more.

          1. Besides, the issues confronting those who sell something are not the customers’ problem and any seller who presumes otherwise will shortly be corrected in his opinion.

            1. Yeah, I was going to say that I don’t give a shit what they make but I didn’t want to sound like a jerk 🙂

              1. I made my living in sales for a very long time, and whoever you’re selling to doesn’t have to say it, but believe me, no customer gives a shit about my problems or my company’s problems.
                What’s more is you might get one ‘sympathy’ sale out of it, but you just booked your customer on a guilt trip. Next time you want an appointment, you can be sure they’re ‘busy’ that day. And every other day, too.

          2. “Would you pay 17 extra cents for a Big Mac if it meant the person who prepared it could earn a living wage?”

            No. No. Fuck no. What kind of self-pitying loser would even think to ask such a thing?

            1. THAT’S more like it!

              1. I mean, when that little fucking orphan is whining at you that he wants more, what are you supposed to do? Not hit him?

                1. I’m wondering, if indeed we do see $15 an hour really become commonplace, how long it will take until we hear that no one can possibly support a family on that, and we need to go to $25?

                  By the way, for as much as we all ridiculed the Occupy groups, isn’t it something that many of their goals (like monster minimum wage raises) are becoming reality, while the Tea Party movement, despite swinging the 2010 election, never changed a damn thing?

                  1. By the way, for as much as we all ridiculed the Occupy groups, isn’t it something that many of their goals (like monster minimum wage raises) are becoming reality, while the Tea Party movement, despite swinging the 2010 election, never changed a damn thing?

                    You can pacify both groups by tossing them half a loaf at the most. OWS types wanted socialized medicine and a guaranteed minimum income; they’re getting Obamacare and minimum wage hikes.

                    The Tea Party wanted a reduction in the size and scope of government. The Republicans told them, “Vote for us, here’s some small government rhetoric.” By the time election season had passed, the Tea Party was so overrun with Socons, Neocons, and even establishment Republicans that the original thrust of the thing was already forgotten about. But hey, the GOP took back the House, and isn’t that the Important Part?

                    (Where’s that emoji for “vomiting in my mouth”?)

                2. +1 how’s he ever gonna learn

    6. Supporters of living wages fall largely into two categories: unions and people who are well off and divorced from how the poor live. Both groups could care less about the cost of living going up for the poor in these cities.

      If they really wanted to help the poor they’d reduce the high taxes most of these urban areas have, taxes which are often regressive.

      1. Lay off the Boster….this is a pretty sensible post if he’s not kidding.

    7. Revenue has soared, supportive customers are leaving additional tips even though they don’t need to, and servers and bartenders are on pace to increase their annual pay by thousands, with wages for a few of the best compensated approaching $80,000 a year.

      Holy shit. $80k/yr waiting tables?

  9. Bo should any pics of woodrow be removed?

    1. Woodrow Wilson is a borderline case.
      He’s certainly a reprehensible figure imo, about whom more people should know.

      But Wilson can be said to have had a long career not all of which was deplorable. The difference with the Confederacy is its primary raisin d’?tre was an evil thing: the preservation and perpetration of slavery. To paraphrase Lincoln: if slavery can’t be repudiated what can?

  10. I see I didn’t miss anything by skedaddling out of this thread when Bo showed up.

    1. When Irish looks at Stone Mountain he sees a monument to the horrors of the institution of slavery that the government the men depicted swore to protect. It’s in how the figures crook their necks, you see!

    2. No. He left some piles of shit, but you can stay upwind.

    1. I botched that! In my defense I am not well, or something. This is what I intended. For those poor people who watched, I just meant to share the final twenty seconds.

  11. Aug 1, 2015

    When will Reason stop this government commemoration of a racist slave-owing imperialist tyrant?

    1. Truly Cato’s primary goal in life was to preserve slavery.

      See, no one, at least here is arguing that historical movements and persons with flaws, sometimes horrible ones even, can’t be honored due to an appreciation of their main or primary aims. Instead, it’s that a movement which primarily had a horrible aim such as preserving slavery should not. That’s such a low bar that it’s incredible to see people who ostensibly name their movement after liberty not get it

      1. Truly Cato’s primary goal in life was to preserve slavery.

        Moron.

      2. I love how you arbitrarily dismiss entire societies that had massive slave institutions. Bo, you are aware that the Roman state actively passed laws to restrict the manumission of slaves, i.e. to preserve slavery. And Augustus passed laws restricting manumission to everyone over 30, i.e. to preserve slavery. If we actually applied your moronic notion of iconoclastic history consistently, we should be renaming August right now.

        Do you really think Confederates were some horrible monsters just obsessed with slavery moreso than societies that institutionalized a system of military expansion and slavery and actively restricted freeing slaves? Because it’s hilarious that you paint yourself as some humanist individualist libertarian and then spend all your time collectively demonizing people because of your pathetic national angst.

  12. Please stop feeding trolls, folks. This is so disappointing. Just please stop. That is all.

    1. Maybe you should offer to pay them an extra 17 cents to stop.

    2. This is frankly incredible. That not a poster defending government homages to the Confederacy but the one countering him is considered a ‘troll’ to the commentariat here shows how sickly anomalous things have gotten in the commentariat here. From Volokh to Cato to BHL government monuments to the Confederacy are roundly, unequivocally denounced, and indeed no Reason writer defend them. But in the comments here defenses are the order of the day. The commentariat here, apart from the group militantly focused on keeping this place devoted primarily to their companionship and social needs (setting up meet and greets and swapping recipes) has become a place more in tune with the 20 GOP state reps who voted against removing the flag of a movement created primarily to preserve slavery while styling themselves ‘libert’arians. Outside of this warped, cancerous bubble no one seeing that kind of thing is going to buy that. At this point you have to blame Reason itself for somehow going from a well known left libertarian magazine to one whose discussion boards have become a place where the flag and monuments of the slave preserving Confederacy have become a cause defended.

      1. I mean, if you don’t like me, sure. I don’t post here to be liked or for companionship like quite a few others. And you don’t like a lot of the activists (SJWs no doubt) and Democrar Party pols (who can safely be assumed to be cynically opportunist and corrupt) who have taken up this issue. But that doesn’t obligate you to support government displays of tribute to a cause whose brief existence was devoted to preserving actual slavery. You’ve become a discussion board where libertarian principles yeilding what should be no brainier conclusions (I’m for liberty and against government, so government displays paying tribute to a cause devoted to slavery, no thanks! Duh!) get subsumed to tribal regional loyalties and/or the simplistic need to be on the opposite side of ‘SJWs’ 24/7, regardless of what they might be saying in any particular instance.

  13. My apologies for summoning the sockpuppet. Now who will apologize for helping it jerk off?

    1. Sometimes you *really* want to explore the abandoned old house, even when everyone in the audience is yelling at the screen, “don’t go in there!”

      1. Until Bo started engaging you I hadn’t noticed what a hyper-partisan Republican you were. I guess mainly that is because you avoid any interaction with me.

        1. Turd, most everybody here ignores your sorry ass.
          Go fuck your daddy.

          1. GO TEAM RED! GO GO GO! GO TRUMP!

            1. Palin’s Buttplug|8.1.15 @ 10:28PM|#
              “GO TEAM RED! GO GO GO! GO TRUMP!”
              Can you not read?
              Turd, most everybody here ignores your sorry ass.
              Go fuck your daddy.

        2. “you avoid any interaction with me”

          Well, one reason for that is that you take someone’s remarks, as here:

          “Republicans perpetuate all sorts of corrupt policies while in power. The Democrats perpetuate those same corrupt policies, and also add new ones.”

          And translate that to “hyper-partisan Republican.”

          I think the word “distortion” is absolutely the most charitable term one could use for this sort of thing.

  14. Have fun with Tulpa, kiddos.

    1. It’s the webmaster I feel sorry for when he’s in a thread like this. They probably have to call in a Hazmat team to clean up the crap smeared all over the walls.

    2. Unless I’m missing a “spoof” there is more than one person with access to the shriek account.

      1. Tulpa has trouble keeping up the voices of his characters when he’s drunk or lazy.

    3. TUUUUUULLLLLLPAAAAAA.

  15. A little contest is due here. The Glenn Beck rally filled with the nutty Tea-Bagger crowd holding signs saying ‘KEEP YER GODDAMN GOVERNMENT HANDS OFF MAH MEDICARE!’.

    That was the impetus for the Sanity rally.

      1. Interesting how one sign, likely hoisted by an agent provocateur, became the mainstream press’s example of the thinking of all involved in the Tea Party movement? Why doesn’t that ever happen with any of the many daffy signs seen at any Leftist cause parade? (I remember “Lesbians for Palestinians” being a great one I saw once.)

        1. Beck’s a troll and laughing all the way to the bank, like Rush. I’d bet Rush is the most compensated troll in history.

          That’s the difference the progs and SJW’s actually believe the bullshit they spew.

          1. progs and SJW’s actually believe the bullshit they spew

            Some of them on the ground do, but don’t think for a moment that prog politicians believe the nonsense they’re bleating. You think Hilary, Schumer, and Deblasio give two shits about the common people?

    1. So they countered a nutty rally among people who live in an echo chamber and have absolutely no capacity for self-introspection with one of their own?

    2. If only Bush had kept his goddamn hands off Medicare – but that’s the GOP for ya.

      1. Cmon, dude! MORE Medicare is good according to the Teabaggers! did they protest Medicare Welfare Part D in 2003? Hell no!

  16. *steps in, looks around, slowly backs out

    1. Bar the door when you get outside. This thread is a shit show.

      1. Don’t be so tough on yourself.

  17. We’re all psyched about the GOP debate Thursday, I’m sure.

    I want blood and puke on the stage.

    I want the Donald to tell Taco Rubio to “Drink some water, boy”. I want this fucking throwdown to happen, Peanuts!

    1. Taco Rubio

      Because Cubans eat tacos.

      Dumbass.

      1. I also love how Palin thinks casual racism (admittedly incorrect and moronic racism, but that’s Buttplug for you) is acceptable if it’s the GOP.

    2. What are they debating?

      1. Trump’s rogaine combover?

  18. I came here to chew bubble gum and seek out Agile Cyborg. And we’re all out of Agile Cyborg. So I’ll just excuse myself and chew bubble gum.

    RIP Rowdy Roddy PIper. And this thread.

    1. RIP Rowdy Roddy Piper

      And none so poor to do him reverence
      – Julius Caesar. Act III

      I myself find his death oddly sad. He was someone only people of our generation might ever know, and ever understand why he might have had some significance. in my measure, he was the working-mans hero of pro-wrestlers, the articulate truth-speaker in a world of very shoddy entertainers, and a loser in a world where people much like him made millions doing exactly his bit – e.g. the rambo’s, the schwartzeneggers, the dolphs, etc.

      he never actually found a way to cash in at all on his ‘beefed-up tough guy’ persona, despite the fact that he actually projected far more personality and charisma than many of the others.

      I think his passing raises the question of whether there will every be “working man’s heroes” again in the media.

      It used to be that icon of “blue collar tough guy” was something universally accepted as a ‘needed media role’

      Now, we have Pajama Boy

      1. You’re right, this thread *is* depressing.

        RIP

      2. “I think his passing raises the question of whether there will every be “working man’s heroes” again in the media.”
        How ’bout that guy who does the TV show on jobs no one else wants?

        1. Mike Rowe?

          yes, but he’s not an entertainer.

        2. BRRRUUUCE.

  19. Rand Paul is DOOM in this upcoming debate. DOOM BITCHES!

    No way his subtle NAP arguments score any points among these GOP goons with blood dripping from their mouths.

    DOOM! 2% bitches!

    1. Turd, most everybody here ignores your sorry ass.
      Go fuck your daddy, 8% of the time.

  20. Bocialism has destroyed dozens of threads. The Bocialist only exists to promote Bocialism. The symbols and tenets of Bocialism are enduring, and cannot be erased, only blocked.

    1. I count seven incredibly wrong items in that picture. Not factually wrong or anything, just…wrong:

      1) That record got played quite a bit, as the wear on the cover seems to indicate. Something that stupid shouldn’t have been played once
      2) “Uncle Jemima”??
      3) Academy Award Winner Karl Malden? I’m not too familiar with the man’s work, but nothing
      in what I have seen suggests he had Oscar-type range
      4) “The Adventures of Bullwhip Griffin”? Nothing about that title is appealing
      5) Readings of LBJ speeches? Dear god, why oh why?
      6) Clown faces covering tits. WTF?
      7) Mercury Living Presence

      1. Clearly that Album is from hell. Not sure how SIV got ahold of it. Hmmm… Satan Incarnate V?

      2. “Academy Award Winner Karl Malden? I’m not too familiar with the man’s work, but nothing
        in what I have seen suggests he had Oscar-type range”

        Robert Redford is the most overrated actor of human time. Comparatively, Malden was an acting powerhouse.

  21. WTF are you even talking about?

    Malden was a mentor to the then green Douglas spawn on “The Streets of San Francisco”.

  22. Obama to require steeper emissions cuts from US power plants

    One guy will require all the power plants in the country, serving some 320,000,000 people to emit less CO2. One guy.

    NEW YORK (AP) ? President Barack Obama will impose even steeper cuts on greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. power plants than previously expected, senior administration officials said Sunday, in what the president called the most significant step the U.S. has ever taken to fight global warming.

    How did we get to a place where we put this much power in one person?

    http://www.seattletimes.com/na…..er-plants/

    1. There is insufficient drive to force the Congress into maintaining its authority. When the executive branch usurps powers, we lack willpower as a nation to deny it. Incremental usurpations of this sort are the foundations of tyrannies, and Obama’s exactly the sort of detestable totalitarian to take advantage of our moral weakness as a society.

      1. I think when the rolling blackouts start, they’ll begin to care again…

        1. When the rolling blackouts start, our countrymen will cravenly and helplessly turn to their omnipresent government to nourish and guide them, having relinquished their independence and humanity to the authority of the state. God save us all.

          1. This. Because the rolling blackouts will be the fault of corporate greed. And the Koch brothers.

  23. I haven’t been a regular on this website for long enough to discern all of the local trolls’/jackholes’ minute facets and characteristics, but what’s the story with Bo Cara?

    1. Purple monkey dishwasher.

    2. Fat pimply-faced loser pedant who couldn’t even get laid in college and likes to troll

      1. Involuntary celibacy might explain why he’s seemingly decided to wage war upon sanity. He’s unbelievably disingenuous.

  24. Stupid libertarians just don’t understand! Smart college people watch John Stewart! They’re like really smart and stuff! So if you watch John Stewart then you’ll be like really smart and stuff like the really smart and stuff college people who watch John Stewart!

    1. *Jon*

      derp

      Like a good Jew would have a Christian name like John.

      super derp

  25. Once my mom lost her oncologist halfway through chemo because of ObamaCare, Jon Stewart stopped being so funny.

    Jon Stewart made people laugh at us for being upset about having our rights violated.

    Fuck Jon Stewart.

    He really is after our guns, too.

    1. Sorry to hear that, Ken. Hope the best for you and your mom.

      1. Yes, that’s horrible, I hope things turn around.

      2. She survived, and she’s been cancer free for quite a while now.

        At the time, though, watching him make jokes about ObamaCare critics was…off putting to say the least–when your mom’s following a course of treatment prescribed by one doctor and your employer has to switch polices that don’t cover that doctor–because the standard of care they offered was too high or, ostensibly, not high enough because it didn’t offer free dental care for babies.

        She had been going to the best oncology center in La Jolla, too, basically the center of Biotech Beach. Probably no better cancer center in the world.

        20 years from now, millennials won’t remember what it was like when we could make more choices for ourselves about our healthcare, but I’ll remember. And when I do? I’ll always see Jon Stewart laughing in my mother’s face.

        1. I’m glad to hear she’s recovered. Don’t consign this country to the slaughterhouse of civilization just yet — we may still reverse our fortunes, and rebuild this Republic.

        2. “She had been going to the best oncology center in La Jolla, too, basically the center of Biotech Beach. Probably no better cancer center in the world.”

          They caught it at it’s earliest possible stage on an experimental machine that ObamaCare specifically meant to tax out of existence, too!

          It was so small, they wouldn’t have found it on any other machine in existence at the time.

          Probably saved the insurance company a fortune, too, because the sooner you catch cancer, the less expensive it tends to be to treat. That’s why private HMOs like Kaiser first started offering free breast cancer screenings. It was a cost saving measure for them. But that’s the way capitalism works. Investors, inventors, and entrepreneurs improving our quality of life and making things affordable.

          Medicare and Medicaid back in the ’90s wouldn’t pay for breast exams unless there was already some symptom there to justify the cost of the test. So the survival rate of breast cancer patients on Medicare and Medicaid was much lower than it was for HMO patients and the cost of treating breast cancer on Medicaid and Medicare was much higher–because the public programs wouldn’t catch the cancer until it had spread and was already causing more problems.

    2. Jon Stewart and the professional slavers his retarded worldview promotes seek to transform us into broken, dependent serfs. I’ve never understood so many people’s glorification of him.

      1. That’s why I refuse to refer to this loathsome, self-hating Jew by his fake Hollywood stage name.

        Go away forever, Jon Leibowitz, you sorry-ass big government Obama knob-gobbler.

  26. I made it 15 minutes and 45 seconds. Anyone up for a dare?

    http://bossip.com/1149599/must…..man-video/

    1. I’ll need plenty of whiskey, and something to punch between segments of the clip.

  27. As with any satirist, the true measure of Stewart’s success is how many he irked along the way, particularly those who are a self-serving, sanctimonious lot.

    Judging from the comments here, he succeeded. Well done, Jon!

    1. Sure, he got his. Made a ton of money telling making stupid people feel smart.

      Of course the consequence now is a generation of liberals such as yourself incapable of arguing with or understanding your opponents.

      To quote Dean Wormer: “Smug, dumb, and liberal is no way to go through life son.”

      1. Successful once again!

    2. Speaking of “self-serving, sanctimonious“–you’ve just described yourself and Jon Stewart. Stewart’s humor is self-serving in that it serves him and his Team. It’s sanctimonious in that he makes himself and his Team out to be morally superior to those who disagree. What’s not to like–if you find yourself on his Team.

      1. That’s it? “Yeah, you are !”

        Can’t come up with anything original? Why not ” my Dad can beat your Dad,” wadair?

        1. Why come up with something original when the truth will suffice?

    3. When I read that comment I read ‘statist’ instead of ‘satirist.’ I makes more sense that way, especially coming from you.

      1. No problem, sarc! Reading comprehension was never a strong suit for you!

        1. Oh I comprehended your comment just fine. Looks like you didn’t comprehend mine.

          *hint* – You and Jon are both statists.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.