Uber

London Chefs Trade Curry for Cabs, San Francisco Drivers Go Bankrupt, a Medallion Owner Sues, and More Tales From the Global Uber Wars

The great taxi industry upheaval.

|

|||

Oli Khan, the owner of the the popular U.K. Spice Rouge restaurant (and past winner of England's National Curry Chef of the Year prize) says it's harder than ever to attract talented cooks to work in his kitchen because of Uber. In a fascinating FT.com look at the British curry trade in crisis, Khan tells reporter Malcolm Moore:

"A lot of people in London have joined Uber?.?.?.?including chefs, tandoori chefs, waiters, managers — even the owners of restaurants….We do not have the profits we used to and now a lot of people value the freedom of that life…In a cab company you just go there and drive the car." (H/T Benedict Evans' newsletter)

Other recent highlights from the great taxicab upheaval:

  • Yellow Cab Co-Op, the largest taxi operator in San Francisco, announced last week that it's filing for chapter 11 bankruptcy. Uber and Lyft aren't the only factors; a recent injury lawsuit cost Yellow Cab $8 million. "Uber's reign of terror continues in San Francisco," notes The New Republic, meaning these days residents can actually get a light-night ride in the Bay-Area city.
  • The California Public Utilities Commisison just upheld a judge's ruling that Uber pay $7.6 million for failing to meet its reporting requirements in 2014. As the Los Angeles Times notes, the fine "underscores the regulatory and competitive conflict Uber's business model repeatedly faces accross the globe."
  •  The United Spinal Association sent a letter to New York City's Taxi and Limousine Commission accusing it of "acquiescing to a multi-billion-dollar company" by failing to require that Uber cars be wheelchair accessible. The company, which has been sued twice by the group, says its smartphone app makes it easier for disabled customers to order wheelchair-equipped medallioned cabs.
  • The Wall Street Journal reports that the $2 million traffic study that caused such an uproar last year will reveal that Uber hasn't made congestion significantly worse in Manhattan after all. Meanwhile, the New York City Council is readying legislation to regulate e-hail services. Details are scant, but the law may require that Uber accommodate wheelchaired passengers, and there's talk of limiting the company's use of surge pricing.
  • "Uber destroyed me," Philly cab driver Boris Kautsky told the regional outlet Newsworks. Kautsky is suing the San Francisco-based company in federal court for knocking down the value of his medallion from half a million to somewhere in the five figures. "It was going to be my back up for my Social Security check," the driver complained.

For more on the mayhem wrought by e-hailing services, watch "Uber and the Great Taxicab Collapse:"

NEXT: Tim Cook's Message to the White House: Get Behind Real Encryption With No 'Backdoors'

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. “Oli Khan, the owner of the the popular U.K. Spice Rouge restaurant (and past winner of England’s National Curry Chef of the Year prize) says it’s harder than ever to attract talented cooks to work in his kitchen because of Uber.”

    Uh…no, I don’t think that’s it.

    1. Change a couple letters and he’s Oil Khan.

    2. He was a better goal keeper anyway.

    3. Well – its *half* of it. The other half is the shitty pay, long hours, and poor treatment that make driving Uber attractive.

      And – I hate Windows 10’s update system. Used to be when you had updates you simply installed them at the end of the day as you were shutting down. Then it’d finish on startup. Not anymore. Now you have to do the *whole* install and restart bit, *then* shut the computer down.

      1. And you have to go through a rigmarole to download them when you want.

        We’ve got bandwidth caps, and automatic downloads are a nightmare.

      2. I also couldn’t find anything on the size of the updates.

      3. Glad I’ve got you guys to beta test it for me. I try to be the last human on earth to downgrade to a new OS.

      4. I hate Windows 10’s update system.

        Then switch to a Mac or Linux.

        -jcr

  2. To be honest I have never used Uber. I’ve always been a bit concerned about safety. Then again I don’t live in an area that has a heavy utilization of taxis to begin with.

    What has been your experiences with Uber? I am curious.

    1. One of our regulars recounted his experience not long ago. As well as I can remember this is it:

      He and two friends left a restaurant after drinks late at night. They were standing on the street waiting for rides. He and one of his buddies called for Uber rides, the third guy was a union loyalist and insisted on calling a cab instead. Within five minutes the Uber ride arrived and took our commenter home.

      After getting home our commenter went in the kitchen, prepared a snack, then went and propped his feet up in front of the tv. After a bit he decided to call his buddy who had called the cab and check up on him. When the guy answered the phone he was still standing on the street waiting for his cab.

      I am not sure what safety issues you are concerned with. Have you ever ridden in a cab?

      1. Well, in most taxis there is a physical barrier between the driver and the passenger(s), not so much in ordinary passenger cars.

        I checked on the Uber website and evidently Uber drivers have to pass a background check. I wonder how thorough this background check is, compared to a background check that licensed taxi drivers have to endure.

        1. You think a regulation is what keeps you safe?

          Cute.

          Here’s my anecdotal story. I visited NYC in the pre-Giuliani years and got in a cab. The Russian cab driver turned out to be a tad psycho as he flashed his gun around to show how he protects himself. Scared the crap out of us.

          No one gave a shit about background checks then and are a tad too obsessed with them now as if its limited use magically and suddenly keeps them safe. Fine do a background but don’t act as if this the deal breaker when it comes to Uber since the government can easily force them to perform one.

          It’s simple. Yellow cabs across the continent are freaking monopolies. Uber is smashing this monopoly and fail to see this as anything but bad.

          I have to do background checks. Each time the piece of paper comes in, I take it for what it is. A piece of paper because all it shows is the person didn’t do something before or did do something but wasn’t caught. I still have to keep an eye on things.

          1. ‘anything but good’. I wanted to construct the sentence differently – but then I bit into my apple turnover as I typed and got all goofed.

            1. You sure you didn’t bite into your bag of milk instead?

              1. WE USE CARTON.

                And lactose-intolerant.

                BUT THAT’S NOT THE POINT!

                1. Ah – UHT milk. The preferred breakfast drink of poor people and the military.

                  1. Summons Swiss.

                    1. *2 day late narrowed gaze*

          2. Of course a background check cannot detect the criminal intent lurking in the heart of every would-be criminal, but nevertheless, I think the requirement of a background check can serve as a deterrent to those who would otherwise want to use services like Uber to prey on their customers. If Uber did not have a background check requirement then I would not want to use them. I presume taxi drivers have to pass a background check, but if they don’t, then maybe I should not use them either.

            1. Serial killers and rapists will flock to work for Uber!

              Seems like a tiny regulatory issue to harp on.

              1. As opposed to working as cops?

            2. Taxi drivers don’t have to pass background checks. Only *some* of them do. Again – in a few large cities. The drivers where I live, for example, just get a SUV, a cellphone, and a business license and they run people *into Mexico* (if the line’s not too long).

              1. Oh, and into another state (into CA from AZ – as far as Mexicali).

            3. In NYC that background check on a regular cabbie might get you a couple years of history. Their previous 40 years in Pakistan are a black box.

          3. It’s fucking Tulpa. Why are you feeding it?

        2. That barrier is not for *you*, you know. That’s to keep you from harming the driver. And from climbing in over the front seat if the driver’s rigged the rear doors to not unlock as he drives you . . . wherever.

          1. Plus – most cabs *don’t* have that barrier. Its only common (IME) in a small number of large cities in the US.

        3. i can’t remember the last time my taxi had a physical barrier.

          And you can use uber to request taxis. Or licensed black cars. If that is your preference.

        4. Yellow Cab had $1Mn of liability insurance across their entire giant fleet of constantly operating vehicles.

          Regulation didn’t prevent that insanity?

        5. I drove for Uber last spring & summer in Virginia. When I went through the process I got reports from Uber on my background checks. They appear to use something very similar to the NACI method used when people get a job with the federal government and other places that do a BI. NACI is the National Agency Check with Inquiries. I know about this because I worked for the federal government and have had the NACI and security clearance background investigations several times. I am now retired. I am in California for the winter & I cannot drive here because I have a VA driver’s license and automobile.

          Uber runs police checks at local, state, & the federal level for the past seven years. A credit check is done. Sex offenders databases are queried. Your driving record must show that you have a no more than 3 driving incidents in the past 3 years. You must have auto insurance coverage in your state. They validate your Social Security number and do a terror watch list check.

          Taxi companies run very similar checks but each cab commission sets it own procedures. I would not assume that every cab commission check is as good or better than what Uber does. Some may go deeper but I doubt it.

          As with any sort of BI, it is not a guarantee that the worker will not be a bad apple. It is an exercise in due diligence.

    2. Man, Tulpy-Poo, you suck at concern trolling even more than you suck at sockpuppeting. How does it feel to be as pathetic as you? Is it painful at all, or more like a dull ache?

      1. Would you mind explaining what about my comment you believe constitutes “concern trolling”?

        1. Your implication that working for Uber makes one magically more prone to engaging in criminal behavior than working for a cab company. I asked if you had ever ridden in a cab, no answer.

          Yes, you have to pass a background check to work for Uber.
          I think you have to be a felon on parole to work for a cab company. Biggest assholes in the world.

          Go change your pants and get one of these:

          http://www.sigsauer.com/Catalo…..8-sas.aspx

          1. “Your implication that working for Uber makes one magically more prone to engaging in criminal behavior than working for a cab company. I asked if you had ever ridden in a cab, no answer.”

            I said no such thing about Uber drivers, come now.

            Yes I have ridden in a cab before, but I don’t ride in cabs very often, generally only when traveling and I need a ride to/from an airport. I can’t remember the last time I used a cab that wasn’t going to/from an airport.

            1. “I am not sure what safety issues you are concerned with.”

              “Well, in most taxis there is a physical barrier between the driver and the passenger(s), not so much in ordinary passenger cars.”

              Yes, you did.

              Also, that physical barrier is not for your safety, it is for theirs. It offers you zero protection. In fact, it is a detriment to your safety.

              1. Yes, there is a physical barrier, such that, ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL – meaning, IF the percentage of “bad people” driving cabs is the same as the percentage of “bad people” driving for Uber – there is one additional measure of safety in a cab than in an Uber car.

                It is not at all to suggest that Uber drivers are bad people, or anything of the sort. I apologize if I didn’t make my initial concerns clear.

                1. Measure of safety = illusion of safety.

                2. “Yes, there is a physical barrier, such that, ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL – meaning, IF the percentage of “bad people” driving cabs is the same as the percentage of “bad people” driving for Uber – there is one additional measure of safety in a cab than in an Uber car.”

                  So what’s the problem with letting Uber customers take the alleged risk if they prefer, and letting you stick with your unionized yellow cab drivers?

                  1. I am fine with that.

                3. Except that physical barrier could just as easily be used to prevent you from defending yourself (or fleeing) as it could to prevent the driver from . . . what? Slapping you? ‘Cause he can always stop the car and come around the side.

                4. millions of people worldwide using Uber have made it’s company value into multiple billions.

                  And you are afraid a Uber driver will single you out and hurt you ?

          2. And in reference to your gun link – I am not yet at the stage where I feel confident defending myself against any and all potential threats, and thus I still have to trust and depend on others when I conduct my ordinary affairs. I don’t want to knowingly place myself into a situation where I am unnecessarily at the risk of being victimized.

            1. Wtf? Victimized about what?

              You think you’re not a victim of monopolized industries?

              1. Victim of physical violence, mainly.

                1. My advice is take a nice long bath and think really hard about what you said.

                2. My advice is that you take a public bus and dream about your perfect world

          3. It’s fucking Tulpa. Why are you feeding it?

    3. I used it one trip to dinner with friends. 5 minute wait each way. On the other hand, while waitin on way back two cabs stopped to pick us up. On the gripping hand, cabs dont come to my friends neighborhood.

      1. Thank you for sharing your experience.

    4. I had friends over around Christmas, and on of them, a dentist retired from the Air Force, told me he used Uber for the first time at some conference. He couldn’t stop raving about the experience. He’s apparently just recently learning the politics of cronyism.

      I, of course, never used Uber myself as I have a driver’s license.

      1. That is interesting. What did your dentist friend find so remarkable about Uber compared to a taxi?

        1. This is so fucken retarded.

          Tell me. Do regular Taxis suck dick or offer roses? What’s the added value of a FUCKEN TAXI? Did Alex Rigger and Rev. Jim buy a company to offer an entertaining experience?

          Jesus.

          1. Who are Alex Rigger and Rev. Jim?

            1. OMFUCKENG!

              1. I’m sorry but I don’t know who they are.

                1. Drivers on the TV show “Taxi”, played by Judd Hirsch and Christopher Lloyd, respectively. Also, it was ‘Alex Reiger’.

                  1. Thank you for the explanation.

                2. Why not ask one of your other handles?

        2. According to him, the driver was prompt and courteous (friendly conversation, as I recall), something he has not experience often with taxi services. Pretty much what everyone else has been saying. I don’t recall what prompted him to try it in the first place.

          1. That is good to hear. Thank you.

          2. On the other hand, I have canceled uber requests after the drive circled my hotel three times and got lost. But with the app, I know exactly where they are.

            1. As an uber driver let me just say that picking up people from hotel and apartment complexes can be a nightmare. It’s sometimes very hard to get an accurate gauge of where a rider is.

              The gps is mostly accurate, except when it isn’t. Even picking people up in houses is often hard if it’s a house in a neighborhood with small yards. I’m often one street off even when I use the navigation to bring me to the pin.

              But a quick text or phone call almost always fixes it pretty quickly.

    5. I’m curious why you’re such a pathetic loser, Tulpa. Were you born like this? Also, fuck off.

      1. Who is the real “pathetic loser” here? The person who starts and engages in good-faith conversations in a respectful manner, or the person who constantly trolls said conversations and tries to hijack them with false accusations?

        1. The loser is always you, Tulpy-poo. Always.

          1. Whatever you say, champ.

          2. We’re close now. If he doesn’t crack today, he certainly will tomorrow.

            1. I learned the other day when someone on an Internet board calls you “champ”, the proper response is to address them as “challenger”.

        2. It’s Tulpas all the way down.

    6. Its frickin’ awesome. You can get a ride in San Francisco now and you don’t have to deal with some asshole from Yellow Cab who will hang up on you if it’s Saturday night.

      Is it ok to think Uber is ok *and* think that the government should maintain a regulatory framework to control thing like pollution from a factory? I’m a liberal and am trying to avoid being labelled simple-minded, dogmatic, or incapable of dealing with complexity.

      1. Who do you think you’re fooling? Fuck off, Tulpa.

        1. Dude. This is tedious. Tulpa wins every time the comment thread is about him.

      2. “Is it ok to think Uber is ok *and* think that the government should maintain a regulatory framework to control thing ”

        Nope. The reason Uber is better than taxis if *because* taxis are regulated and competition to the has been forceably limited in the past. You’re basically saying you wish the government would do to Uber what it did to taxis – those actions which have given Uber the competitive advantage it needed to compete with taxis in the first place – which would turn Uber . . . into a taxi service with all the problems of the *existing* taxi service that Uber routes around.

      3. If regulations were restricted to things like air pollution, you would have an excellent point.

        But it never is. Next thing you know they redefine carbon dioxide as air pollution. Now I hear that shit all the time. GLOBAL WARMING DENIERS LOVE AIR POLLUTION

      4. “Is it ok to think Uber is ok *and* think that the government should maintain a regulatory framework to control thing like pollution from a factory?”

        What’s wrong with Uber as it is right now? And don’t just say “it’s unregulated” – you’ll need to point out the victims and specify instances of actual harm done by this alleged unregulated state if you want to have a case for regulating them. Something merely being unregulated is not an inherent evil.

        (Good god, I can’t believe I expended effort arguing with this creature. What the hell is this website doing to me??)

  3. Thanks to all for the Steve Smith angle here at Reason.

    Now I understand why Swiss has fun with it so much.

    1. Thanks for the explanation and links that is.

    2. Enjoying the old ‘Steve Smith angle’ huh Rufus?

      1. WHY COME STEVE SMITH NOT ASKED TO COME RAPE RUFUS?

      2. I heard that the backseats of cabs discourage the Steve Smith angle more than Uber cars.

        1. STEVE SMITH DRIVE TAXI CAB ON WEEKEND. GREAT WAY TO MEET NEW PEOPLE TO RAPE.

  4. I haven’t been able to verify this, but the author is a history professor who, presumably, would *never* make anything up:

    “Get your “I Have a Dream” fortune told at a 1-800 number; make a cake with “Batter from a Birmingham Jail”; drink an “I’ve Been to the Mountain Dew Top”; if you’re lost, use the “Where Do We Go From Here” GPS; play in the “Edmund Pettus Bridge Tournament”; get a lottery ticket for the “SNCC Six” game, where you win if you rub off the names of a half-dozen leaders of the sit-in movement . . . and so it goes on. (As I write this, a TV ad has just come on for the “Joseph A. Bank Martin Luther King Day Sale” and I’ve learned that ESPN is airing a national MLK Day NBA game).”

    1. So, basically, MLK is becoming Jesus.

      1. The author may have been indulging in sarcasm, since I haven’t been able to find these alleged sales online.

    2. Yeah I doubt advertising would refer to “Where Do We Go From Here,” and not just because it’s socialist BS, I bet the average member of the public can barely attribute “I Have a Dream” to MLK.

    3. “School kids get exposed to the nature of African American life under apartheid in the South”

      Why don’t those kids get exposed to what it was like being murderd by a Northern union trade worker who doesn’t want those niggers in his union or even doing the same work he does

  5. Cruz apologizes for his NY values comment. You can read it here:

    http://therightscoop.com/cruz-…..e-apology/

    Or you can just read my paraphrasing of his apology: “Fuck you”

    1. “I’m sorry that these humorless idiots who always vote Democrat anyway have their panties in a wad about my hilarious remarks.”

    2. I read that earlier. Thank heavens he is showing some spine.

    3. That’s not bad at all.

    4. Sadly he sucked cop dick in that comment. And apparently being OK with gay and plural marriage is somehow anti-marriage.

    5. Good job, Cruz! I’ve regained some of the interest I lost in you during this last debate.

    6. I accept his apology

  6. In the spirit of Martin Luther King

    “CHICAGO (WLS) — Protesters blocked the entrance to the mayor’s annual Martin Luther King Jr. breakfast Friday morning as they encouraged people to boycott the gathering….

    “Shouting “shame on you, shame on you,” demonstrators locked arms and taunted invited guests as they entered the hotel. At least one group of women needed a police escort….

    “These demonstrators, led by the Coalition for a New Chicago, are part of the same group that disrupted holiday traffic on Black Friday and Christmas Day. They call the protest “Black Wall Street” and chose to march on Friday because it’s Dr. Martin Luther King’s birthday.”

    1. As opposed to the Coalition for a Used Chicago….

    2. I wonder if we could see something similar to 1968 at the democratic convention this year with the BLM fills trying to shut down the show.

      1. we can only dream

  7. US Air Force officials in Georgia are “deeply sorry” for distributing flyers promoting a “Martin Luther King Jr. Fun Shoot” and have removed them. The January 18 event is still listed on the airbase’s website, though it omits the civil rights leader’s name.

    “”It was an honest mistake,” Robins Air Force Base spokesman Roland Leach said in a press release….

    “Tasteless commemorations of King have received attention in the past, though this appears to be the first time a military branch has been involved. Last year, cognac maker Hennessy apologized for promoting “mixed drinks MLK Jr. would be proud of.””

    1. I wonder how many of these same complainants have reached for their fainting couches over the commercialization and otherwise “tasteless commemorations” of significant religious holidays such as Christmas and Easter. Probably none.

    2. What,no M.L.K white sale?

    3. Publix Supermarket ran a Passover ham-sale a few years back.

    4. It has been renamed to the John F. Kennedy Fun Shoot.

    5. That the AF felt the need to address this is why I despise the AF.

  8. Speaking of ‘fuck you’ s, I see Obumbles is still giving away the store. Anything to fuck America. The next year is going to be one hell-of-a ride. Maybe he can turn popular opinion completely away from the dems. Hillary going to jail will be a nice cherry on top.

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/16/…..ers-freed/

    1. I disagree that he’s giving away the store in this instance or that this is a big ‘fuck you’ to America.

      Dropped charges on 14 guys we’d never have gotten our hands on in the first place.

      Released 7 guys being held on *sanctions charges*. Basically these guys tried to do business that the USG said they weren’t allowed to do.

      1. while we may never gotten our hands on them keeping the charges against them keeps them bottled up in Iran or at least not being free to travel the western world where they could be up to no good.

        I am not aware of them or anything they may or may not be accused of but none the less that is the effect of dropping charges whether they did something bad or not.

  9. More outrage

    “Liberty University Law student Eli McGowan said he couldn’t believe his eyes when he realized the day presidential candidate Donald Trump will speak at Liberty University also is Martin Luther King, Jr. Day….

    “McGowan said he and some student allies are planning a peaceful demonstration outside of the security perimeter at the Vines Center on Monday. They plan to hold signs with Martin Luther King Jr. quotes and sing songs about equality and God’s love for all….

    “McGowan is in his first year at the law school, after graduating from Liberty University’s undergraduate program in 2015.

    “In the spring, he was among students who handed out “I Stand with Rand” t-shirts in support of Senator Rand Paul for students to wear at Senator Ted Cruz’s speech at Liberty University’s convocation.”

    1. So is he offended or sumpin ?

      What’s he pissed about. Is Trump too white to be allowed to talk on MLD day ?

      1. At worst, Trump’s a blowhard and if that’s ‘outrageous’, the ‘outraged’ has lived a protected life. FFS, Hillary’s a criminal!

    2. Editor note: Liberty “University” is missing quote marks.

  10. “Uber destroyed me,” Philly cab driver Boris Kautsky told the regional outlet Newsworks. Kautsky is suing the San Francisco-based company in federal court for knocking down the value of his medallion from half a million to somewhere in the five figures. “It was going to be my back up for my Social Security check,” the driver complained.”

    And you would probably just love for the state to use any means, including violence to stop Uber, as so many do. Fuck you and your government protected monopoly, that made it so difficult for individuals to start a business.

    Uber and companies like it, makes it easy, without the coercion, for individuals to start a business, and for folks to get rides that they freely choose to take. Again Boris, you and all the others that enjoyed your state monopoly, and advocate for the harrassment and destruction of free enterprise can go fuck yourselves.

    1. “Uber destroyed me,” Philly cab driver Boris Kautsky told the regional outlet Newsworks. Kautsky is suing the San Francisco-based company in federal court for knocking down the value of his medallion from half a million to somewhere in the five figures.”

      Notice, he doesn’t blame the government for screwing him out of $500,000 for a barrier to entry that didn’t work.

      He blames Uber for not falling victim to the same ploy he did. He should be suing the government to get his $500,000 back.

  11. This is all a preview of what’s to come with driverless cabs, driverless trucks, driverless buses, driverless landmovers, drone pizza delivery, etc., etc.

    It’s kinda a big deal.

    Will somebody please invent the driverless warp drive already? Give it another two decades, and I think I might want off.

    1. Yeah, driverless vehicles are truly frightening. Seems like a method for the state to bring the controlling power of mass transit to the individual.

      1. When they come for my motorcycle, all bets are off.

      2. AAAAAAAAUUUUGH!

        The reigning paradigm in driverless cars is not even V2V, let alone V2I. Hyooog difference. V2I requires the vehicles to communicate with the infrastructure – requiring a huge infrastructure investment with new road sensors and whatnot – and locks us into tech that will be obsolete before its fully deployed along with allowing an avenue for the government to exercise direct control over vehicles.

        The cars that are being developed rely on precision mapping and onboard sensors. They don’t even require the ability to talk to other vehicles – though a V2V capability would greatly increase the carrying capacity of roads.

        There’s simply no more ability for the state to control driverless cars than *drivered* ones.

        1. Honestly, I don’t care. I won’t do it. I don’t have internet-connected thermostats for the same reason. I don’t want the government to have the ability to control the temperature in my house, and I don’t want them to have the ability to control where and when I go in my own car.

  12. “A court has ruled against a husband and wife who own a farm in central New York, upholding a $13,000 fine that was imposed over the couple’s refusal to host a same-sex wedding on their property back in 2012….

    “[Lawyer James] Trainor told TheBlaze in 2014 that the Gifford family would no longer host any weddings on their property as a result of the legal battle.”

    1. To paraphrase Tonio from last week, But we were told this would never happen!

      1. I don’t get this. Why do these people keep trying to buck this head on when the people trying to make you do something you don’t want to do have the power of the FedGov in their back pocket eager and willing to make an example of you and kill your business and livelyhood.

        Go along with these people and just make sure they will never reccomend you to their friends and let word spread that they won’t be happy with the outcome if they do force you to provide your services to them.

        Put salt in the cake, run a water hose over the area where the ceremony is going to be so the wedding guests have to walk in mud.

        Someone who is smart enoough to be self employed is usuall smart enough to respond to a bad review in a way that sends a message to the people he/she does want to associate with and could be a boost to their business rather than a negative.

        1. “Put salt in the cake, run a water hose over the area where the ceremony is going to be so the wedding guests have to walk in mud.”

          You left out the next part: Get sued for discrimination and breach of contract.

          And of course you’ll get even less sympathy from the court/jury/administator than if you forthrightly stated and acted on your beliefs.

          And it will be harder to make a religious-freedom defense – “so you’re saying that your Christian beliefs oblige you to take their money and deliberAtely give them bad service?”

          You may as well say (if we just stick to New York) – “you libertarians can bear arms in New York – just lie on your gun-permit application and invent a bunch of threatening calls you’ve been getting.”

          1. If you’re running your own show, surely you have some half-done important project which could conveniently restart if some customer comes in that you don’t want to serve. Whoops, busy, can I recommend an excellent wedding service for you?

            1. This argument keeps coming up like a Whack-a-Mole, and my reply is always to point out how they can get sued, and during the discovery process (at the latest) the plaintiffs, if their lawyers are any good, should be able to find evidence that the defendant’s excuse was pretextual.

              “Hmmm…it looks here that on the day you were supposedly doing an urgent, important construction project, you were hosting the wedding of a straight couple.”

              Again, should libertarians use lies and subterfuge to obtain gun permits from the government? Would they fell any self-respect if they did? Would they be willing to live with the risks of being caught?

              1. OR…should they challenge the gun laws openly and forthrightly?

        2. The answer to a few jerks imposing their views on you is not to screw someone else.

          1. Which is exactly what the problem is here. You can’t tell them you don’t want them and then screw up the wedding as you will likely lose a huge suit. If you don’t tell them then they are contracting with you in good faith and you are not. That is no less slimy than authoritarians who want to insist hardcore baptists host gay weddings.

  13. There is a lot to lose. Curry houses employ 100,000 people and have annual sales of ?4.2bn, according to data compiled last year by Lord Karan Bilimoria, the chairman of Cobra Beer and a member of Parliament’s curry committee, which advises on government policy.

    A parliamentary committee on curry? They must be joking?!

    1. It’s just Parliament’s attempt to curry favor with people from India.

      1. Aggck!

        You beat me to it.

        1. Second place is first loser.

          1. But what if pictures of the winner show up in Penthouse?

            1. The ladies would have to take a ticket and wait in line, heh heh.

              1. But there’s plenty of me to go around!

                Wait, that made me sound fat.

      2. Actually, it’s an attempt by Britains to curry flavor from India in cultural appropriation.

    2. Not surprising. Why, if Germans can have their beer law, the Brits will have a whole damn committee on curry!

  14. Trans youth worker Ellen Murray Ellen Murray announced Thursday (14 January) that she [sic] will be standing in West Belfast in assembly elections in May.

    “And in doing so, the 22-year-old is the first transgender candidate in Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland.

    “Murray says she looks forward to portraying William of Orange in the Battle of the Boyne parade on July 12.”

    OK, maybe I made up that last paragraph.

    1. Why would an adult vote for a 22 year-old? What possible life experiences can they have?

      Alexander the Great had an empire by 25 but I ain’t seeing much of this these days.

      1. Homophobe! Transphobe! Agist! Cisnormativity peddling shitlord!

        1. I bet this guy – oops, “woman” – identifies as 50 years old, and you need to respect this self-identification.

      2. While I get what you mean Rufus, would you vote for me as a 24 year old libertarian if I were running for city council or something?
        If you weren’t Canadian of course. I can bribe you with Vermont maple syrup.

        1. Good question. I understand some could have an interesting life but you would have to impress me – and chances are you probably could more than Justin Trudeau did!

          I’ve grown hardened and tolerate less bull shit.

          1. Completely fair. I just think it’s a bit silly to dismiss someone by an age. Now ithat makes sense to consider heavily a young person. But a young ideologue, if they share your thoughts, might be an ideal candidate!

            1. Being libertarian would indeed be a plus. I guess my thing would be I would need to get to know the candidate much better if they’re young. I wouldn’t dismiss them outright if I felt they could get the job done. Still, nothing is a good replacement for life experience.

              1. I agree 100%.
                It would be extra hard to run successfully as a younger person. We are not to be trusted!

      3. “Alexander the Great had an empire by 25”

        Keep in mind that life expectancy back then was probably about….25.

        1. I know. They had to make life choices early in life! Technically, I think it was 44 in antiquity. I’m going on memory with that.

          Teacher: What do you want to be when you grow up, Alex?’
          Alex: A country collector.

          Rest of class oohs and ahhs.

      4. Greek culture was spread from Europe to northern India because (or perhaps in spite) of Alexander. But then, much of that spreading happened after his death. Besides, the Greeks were major cultural appropriators. So they shouldn’t get credit for anything.

        Wait, what was the issue again?

        1. That Alexander was MACEDONIAN!

          1. Sorry!!11!!! It’s all Greek to me.

  15. If it wasn’t so harmful, it would be funny. Migrant welcome party turned into rape fest.

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/…..ng-Germany

    1. If only there was a final solution to the Muslim problem, right John? I bet you know just what to do about it.

      1. So, “Germany is letting in the wrong kind of migrants and the United States should take warning from Germany’s example”

        becomes

        “kill the Muslims”

        You know who else exaggerated?

        1. Baron von M?nchhausen?

          1. Uma’s tittles?

      2. I know sarcasmic Muslims are wonderful.

        1. No, John. I’m agreeing with you. They’re animals. They’re not even human. They’re all rapists and killers. They’re all irrational. They cannot be reasoned with. They will not assimilate. Not a single one of them. They’re like rats. When you’ve got an infestation, there is only one thing to be done. You know what it is. You want to do it. Just admit the truth. Admit that there is only one solution to the Muslim problem.

          1. No, John. I’m agreeing with you. They’re animals.

            Yes, we’re all animals, but most societies have developed ways to keep unaffiliated, adolescent males from taking any unprotected female they find– as they do in the wild. There is an obvious cultural clash, here. Too many want to pretend it doesn’t exist or explain it away because it doesn’t fit their Thoreauian view of humankind. It may well come down to a choice between protecting women or protecting one’s illusions of borderless utopias.

            1. Or maybe we could simply punish the guilty?

              1. Where did I suggest punishing anyone? I didn’t even advocate keeping them out. I did point out a cultural clash.

                We westerners don’t lock our women away anymore. We haven’t had to for a few centuries. Europeans– even predominant women– are now calling for reducing the freedoms of women, hard won over many centuries, to protect them from these packs of unaffiliated, adolescent males. You know, it could just be that men and families have good reason for locking their women away. Maybe it’s the predators who are abusing women instead of their family members. Remember that some of these unaffiliated men have abandoned their wives And families. Still, the apologists are more concerned about able- bodied young men instead of the women they attack or the women they leave behind.

                1. What percentage of refugees commit crimes?

                  1. I can’t help but wonder if it were your wife, mother, sister or daughter, if you would be so concerned with statistics. If they spread the pain and suffering over many women and their families, would that be good enough for you? What if your loved one were raped only once when the average was five times– would that be ok with you?

                    I never advocated punishing every refugee for the crimes of a few. But I do say that it’s irresponsible to leave the innocent vulnerable to predictable and terrible crime for one’s ideology.

                2. We westerners don’t lock our women away anymore.

                  -1 Ariel Castro

                3. I get you hyper.

                  But I might add that it isn’t even the young migrants they are trying to protect it is their liberal ideology that multicultralism for the sake of multiculturalism they defend.

      3. If only there was a final solution to the Muslim problem, right John?

        There is a final solution to the muslim’s problem in Germany. It’s a caliphate that suppresses German culture to extinction. The only question is whether or not the Germans will allow that final solution to transpire.

    2. “… but added she felt the event’s student organisers “had learned from the situation”.

      Uh…no, you didn’t. You will, one way or another.

      *I dont understand why these one time, weird sex things keep happening over and over when there is no rape epidemic associated with these peaceful, hardworking immigrants who just want a chance at the good life. I just don’t get it. Where is cytotoxic to explain this for us?

      1. You just want to murder all the Muslims. Sarcasmic told me.

        1. I read John’s stuff about Muslims like reports about cocaine addiction. Just because we acknowledge that crack does terrible things to people doesn’t mean we support the drug war, and just because we’re against the drug war doesn’t mean we have to pretend that slacking off, getting stoned, and playing Xbox all day isn’t loser behavior.

          I’ve seen John suggest that Obama’s plan to triple the number of Syrian refugees to the U.S. may be problematic, and that Europe’s current problems with immigrants from Syria and elsewhere in the Muslim world may be instructive.

          I don’t know that I’ve seen John advocate anything harsher than rejecting Syrian asylum seekers on a national security and concerns for criminality basis–which isn’t exactly an unlibertarian position. I haven’t seen John say we shouldn’t respect Muslim’s First Amendment rights–or Second Amendment rights–or put them all in internment camps, or burn them in ovens a la the final solution.

          So let’s take it easy on each other. I don’t think sarcasmic is advocating that we capitulate to the Caliphate either.

          1. I don’t think sarcasmic is advocating that we capitulate to the Caliphate either.

            That’s the only alternative, Ken. Either you see the Muslim Menace for what it is, or you think Islam is wonderful. There is no middle ground. John told me so so it must be true. So I’m with John now. Eradicate the infestation. It’s either that or you love all Muslims. And since I don’t love all Muslims, we must do as John says.

            1. As someone who really doesn’t think Obama should triple the number of Syrian asylum seekers he lets in over the coming years, I will say that it’s really hard to get that point across when people are piling on with every shitty thing they can think to say about Muslims generally.

              Not that John is doing that, but people down thread are just bashing Muslims generally–from Burkina Faso to Tehran before the Shah–and it’s really hard to pretend they’re just concerned about terrorists and out of control refugees coming here from Syria when they’re just bashing every Muslim they see around the world indiscriminately.

              Anyway, someday when our women are forced to wear burkas and aren’t free to drive or learn to read, you’ll really be sorry you stuck up for the First Amendment, equality before the law, due process, and all that other Constitutional shit, you pro-Caliphate bastard! Don’t you know that bigotry against Muslims and constantly justifying government action against whole groups of people with fear is what libertarianism is all about?

        2. Sadly, it doesnt matter what you, sarcasmic, or I think about it or want. The average European is going to get enough of this shit eventually and that is probably what is going to happen. I can see mass deportations or camps, whatever. I can also see a mass exodus of that scum back to the ME accompanied by rivers of blood.

          A friend of mine worked in Iran for 20 years before the Shah was ousted. His take on this: “They are not civilized. You cannot leave them alone with a woman for even a minute. If you do it is a certainty the woman will be raped.”
          When he told me that I thought he was exaggerating. Apparently he was not.

          Letting these people into Europe by the millions is beyond a bad idea. It is suicide. As a commenter said the other day – leftism is a denial of reality, a rejection of the pursuit of objective truth.

          1. More shit:
            Burkina Faso hotel attack: At least 23 dead and hostages injured in al-Qaeda assault on Splendid Hotel:

            The hotel is popular with Western visitors, United Nations workers, diplomats and and French soldiers based in Burkina Faso for Operation Barkhana, which is fighting Islamist militants across the Sahel region.

            1. What are we supposed to conclude from that–that Al Qaeda is terrorist?

              1. They also seem to be in a bidding war with ISIS.

            2. I guess that hotel wasn’t very splendid.

              1. New sign just wentup: Splendidly Deadly Hotel.

          2. What your friend said about Muslims doesn’t count for shit. And IF IF IF you’re calling for mass deportations or camps on the basis of religion–in Europe or in the U.S.–then you should be ashamed of yourself regardless of whether what you’re saying about Muslims is true.

            If anything, the immigration crisis is likely to get worse if the price of oil continues to fall and stays low. I’m trying to think of how that happening could possibly mean anything but more political instability in the Middle East and North Africa and how that could possibly mean anything but more immigration to Europe.

            1. I am not calling for it. Absolutely not. What I am saying is that that is probably what will happen whether we like it or not.

              Ken, what people say may not count, but what we are seeing in reality does.

              1. Count for what, Suthernboy?

                If you don’t want to round up Muslims and deport them, what are we supposed to make of calling them savages and saying they (Muslims, generally?) can’t be left alone around women?

                You want to invade all Muslim countries?

                What’s your friend’s statement supposed to count for?

                You just want people to be scared?

                What?

                1. I am pointing out reality.

                2. I have made my position clear before. I am not anti-immigration.

                  To sum it up, I welcome people who look at america and like what they see, people who want to come here and make an american life for themselves. People who are willing to give up their life in whatever shithole they come from, put their necks on the line and come here on their own dime. Hell, I will bend over backward for those people.

                  That is not what I see happening in Europe. What I see happening there is an invasion.

                  1. If you want the government to discriminate against Muslim immigrants for being Muslims, try not to get upset if they call you out for what you are.

                    And, by the way, Archie Bunker thought the things he said weren’t bigoted because they were true. But even IF IF IF blacks really were more likely to commit violent crimes, advocating using the government to discriminate against them because of the group they belong to would still be bigoted–do you understand that?

                    Just for the record, I don’t want Obama bringing refugees from areas affected by the civil war in Syria or war with Daesh–of any religion–because I think they’re a security threat. If the government has any legitimate purpose, it is to protect our rights, and if protecting our rights from terrorism and crime requires the government to keep those asylum seeking threats outside of our borders, then that’s what the government should do.

                    But the religion of the asylum seekers has nothing to do with it.

                    Not for me. I’d hate for people to think I opposed tripling the number of refugees because they’re Muslim–I certainly wouldn’t condone the government ignoring the First Amendment or equal treatment before the law in the name of libertarianism.

                    1. advocating using the government to discriminate against them because of the group they belong to would still be bigoted–do you understand that?

                      You can discriminate against someone without violating their rights. I don’t think anyone has the right to be transported and relocated to a new country on the taxpayers’ dime. I think Suthenboy and most of those critical of accepting refugees from Syria feel the same way. You may think it’s a nice thing to do, but it can’t be argued that it’s a right unless you believe in positive rights.

                    2. What if you are responsible for creating the refugees? Are you liable for the damages?

                    3. I would be glad to accept refugees if private charities were paying for them and then I think we’d be much more likely to get actual victims and not terrorists. Speaking of which, I think the risk of transporting terrorists substantially detracts from the goal of helping the ones who are trying to escape them.

                    4. You didn’t answer the question. Is the United States responsible for cleaning up the mess it created?

                      If the State mistakenly put an innocent person in prison for half his life (with the best intentions), would you be in favor of the State paying compensation for its mistake?

                      Or is it just an oopsy?

                    5. “You didn’t answer the question. Is the United States responsible for cleaning up the mess it created?”

                      Think of it this way:

                      Do you believe the German government was morally obligated to let British bombers target civilian populations–without opposition from fighter planes and without anti-aircraft fire–because the German government originally targeted London during the Blitz?

                      I don’t. Defending the civilian population from foreign threats is one of the few legitimate purposes of government.

                      The German government committed all sorts of war crimes, but defending civilian their civil population from foreign threats wasn’t one of them.

                      So, yeah, even IF IF IF the U.S. government had perpetrated war crimes against whomever and made the refugee crisis happen, that would still not obligate the government to abdicate its legitimate responsibility to protect our rights from foreign threats. And if those refugees represent a security threat to our rights, then the government should protect us from them.

                    6. The difference is…Germany initiated the aggression. Iraq, did not.

                      So, yeah, even IF IF IF the U.S. government had perpetrated war crimes against whomever and made the refugee crisis happen, that would still not obligate the government to abdicate its legitimate responsibility to protect our rights from foreign threats.

                      What percentage of refugees commit crimes?

                    7. “The difference is…Germany initiated the aggression. Iraq, did not.”

                      Germany initiating the Blitz would have justified letting the British bomb Dresden and Hamburg without opposition, and in that formulation, I was saying we are like Germany. Just because we initiated an aggression in Iraq does not mean our government is morally obligated to subject us to threats to our rights.

                      “What percentage of refugees commit crimes?”

                      That’s one way to look at it.

                      Another way is to look at what percentage of crimes have been committed by refugees.

                      The news out of Cologne on New Years wasn’t good.

                      The statistics out of Sweden aren’t good.

                    8. Another way is to look at what percentage of crimes have been committed by refugees.

                      The news out of Cologne on New Years wasn’t good.

                      The statistics out of Sweden aren’t good.

                      Well, yes. Everyone knows about the roving Hmong rape gangs terrorizing Minneapolis to this day.

                    9. For what it’s worth on stats, I keep seeing stuff like this:

                      “In particular, immigrants from Africa and South & Western Asian were more likely to be charged of a crime than individuals born to two Swedish parents by a factor of 4.5 and 3.5 respectively. In regard to rape, the report revealed that immigrants were 5.5 times more likely to be charged of rape than individuals born in Sweden to two Swedish parent, although the category of immigrant was not broken down by country of origin in this report [1].

                      Findings from a previous study published by the Swedish government in 1996 determined that between 1985 and 1989 individuals born in Iraq, North Africa (Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia), and Africa (excluding Uganda and the North African countries) were convicted of rape at rates 20, 23, and 17 times greater than individuals born in Sweden respectively. In total, individuals from an immigrant background accounted for 61% of all rape convictions [2].

                      https://ofpsychandsociety. wordpress.com/2015/09/24/ immigration-and-crime-in-scandinavia/

                      Just because I don’t want the government discriminating against people because of their religion doesn’t mean I have to pretend the statistics are other than what they are.

                      I oppose government discrimination on the basis of religion–despite the statistics. But they are what they are.

                    10. Another way is to look at what percentage of crimes have been committed by refugees.

                      ONLY if you’re a collectivist. Do you believe in holding the guilty accountable or are you okay with guilt by association?

                    11. “ONLY if you’re a collectivist. Do you believe in holding the guilty accountable or are you okay with guilt by association?”

                      Rejecting someone for coming from seething anti-American cesspool because they may represent a terrorist or criminal threat isn’t convicting someone of a crime.

                      I’m not talking about throwing these people in prison without a jury trial. I’m talking about denying them entry within our borders. Surely, the government can help these people, if necessary, without bringing them within our borders.

                      . . . or has the government suddenly forgotten how to spend our money?

                    12. We can offer relief to those in the ME without inviting them to move into our guest bedrooms.

                    13. ” Is the United States responsible for cleaning up the mess it created?”

                      The US did not create this mess.

                    14. “What if you are responsible for creating the refugees? Are you liable for the damages?”

                      If the government has any legitimate function, it is to protect our rights. That legitimate function doesn’t disappear because they made a mistake. Causing a refugee problem, no, doesn’t mean the government can abdicate its legitimate responsibility to protect our rights from foreign threats–even if those threats come in the form of refugees we created.

                      Note that we don’t necessarily have to bring refugees within our borders in order to help them.

                      With all that being said, we did not create the Arab Spring. The Arab Spring would have happened with or without our invasion of Iraq. Whether ISIS, specifically, would have been as successful without our invading Iraq is another question, but if we hadn’t invaded Iraq, there is good reason to believe that the Arab Spring would have come to Iraq anyway. . . . and there would still be a refugee crisis.

                    15. but if we hadn’t invaded Iraq, there is good reason to believe that the Arab Spring would have come to Iraq anyway. . . . and there would still be a refugee crisis.

                      But we DID invade Iraq, and ISIS would not exist if we hadn’t.

                      Standard interventionist mess.

                      Not saying ISIS is the sole cause of the refugees….but it is a significant contributor. And they ARE our making.

                    16. The organization which eventually renamed itself ISIS was founded years before we invaded Iraq. It would not have come to prominence or become as successful as it is without the invasion of Iraq.

                      Please see my comment above. Creating a problem doesn’t obligate the U.S. government to abdicate its responsibility to protect our rights from foreign threats.

                      Even so, the refugees are fleeing the civil war caused by the Arab Spring. They’re also fleeing Libya, and that conflict, too, would have happened with or without our participation.

                    17. The organization which eventually renamed itself ISIS was founded years before we invaded Iraq.

                      Completely fallacious. ISIS IS AQI. Period!

                      Where Did ISIS Come From?

                      While extremist groups are generally amorphous organizations, ISIS can trace its history directly back to the Sunni terrorist organization al Qaeda, specifically the Iraq faction, al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). AQI, led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was responsible for scores of bombings, kidnappings and beheadings in Iraq following the U.S. invasion there.

                      Creating a problem doesn’t obligate the U.S. government to abdicate its responsibility to protect our rights from foreign threats.

                      It does however obligate the US government to make reparations to the people whose lives it has destroyed.

                      They’re also fleeing Libya, and that conflict, too, would have happened with or without our participation.

                      Unfortunately, your premise is unprovable. We DID participate. We DID create ISIS. We DID preemptively create a power vacuum in the ME.

                    18. “Completely fallacious. ISIS IS AQI. Period!”

                      Yes, ISIS was Al Qaeda in Iraq, and before it was Al Qaeda in Iraq it was other things.

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant #Historical_names

                      What is now ISIS was founded in 1999. Years before we invaded Iraq.

                      “It does however obligate the US government to make reparations to the people whose lives it has destroyed.”

                      You’re talking about reparations?

                      To the Vietnamese?

                      What about to the “victims” of the firebombing of Tokyo?

                      Since when have countries been obligated to reimburse refugees for the damage they’ve caused?

                      This is something you made up.

                      I’ll tell you what, if it hadn’t been for reparations, we might never have had World War II. How’s that?

                    19. What is now ISIS was founded in 1999.

                      And was NOTHING until the Iraqi invasion.

                      To the Vietnamese?

                      Are you fucking kidding me? Do you have any fucking idea how many Vietnamese refugees the US took?

                      Take, for example, the Vietnamese people who came to the U.S. after the 1975 conclusion of the Vietnam War?a number estimated at 120,000 that year.

                    20. “Are you fucking kidding me? Do you have any fucking idea how many Vietnamese refugees the US took?”

                      Reparations. We were talking about reparations.

                      That’s your word.

                      “It does however obligate the US government to make reparations to the people whose lives it has destroyed.”

                      You used the word “reparations”.

                    21. Yep. Reparations for preemptively starting a war and causing the current refugee issue.

                      Initiation of aggression.

                    22. Do you even acknowledge that the Arab Spring happened and came to Syria, that the Syrian people rose up against Assad, he brought in both Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to put down their insurrection, used his own troops to shell his own people, used WMD against them, etc. . . . and all of that happened without the involvement of ISIS or anybody from Iraq?

                      Or are you just completely oblivious to those facts?

                    23. Here’s an idea.

                      Read through this, and tell me how far you get before you see anything about Iraq.

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Civil_uprising_phase_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War

                      From what I can tell, ISIS didn’t start fighting in Iraq until 2013–almost a couple of years after the protests started.

                    24. “From what I can tell, ISIS didn’t start fighting in Iraq [Syria] until 2013–almost a couple of years after the protests started.”

                      Fixed!

                    25. “Or are you just completely oblivious to those facts?”

                      FDA is religiously oblivious to anything that does not fit into his blame America narrative. Remember, non-interventionism is a faith.

                    26. “But we DID invade Iraq, and ISIS would not exist if we hadn’t.”

                      Yes it would just with a different name.

                      “they ARE our making.”

                      No they aren’t. Standard non-interventionist lies.

                    27. Also, the refugee classification in and of itself is discrimination. Objecting to one more form of discrimination within an already discriminatory system is no better than feminists who object to “sex discrimination” but ignore all of the other discrimination that goes on in hiring. It’s just willful ignorance of human nature and reality.

                    28. “You can discriminate against someone without violating their rights.”

                      You can’t advocate using the government to discriminate against individuals because of the religious group they belong to without being correctly accused of wanting the government to discriminate against people because of their religion.

                    29. I don’t want govt to discriminate against muslims. I want them to discriminate based on why people want to come here.

                      “If the government has any legitimate purpose, it is to protect our rights, and if protecting our rights from terrorism and crime requires the government to keep those asylum seeking threats outside of our borders, then that’s what the government should do.”

                      We are in 100% agreement there. The govt.’s duty is to look after the interests of its citizens.

                      “I’d hate for people to think I…”

                      I don’t give a shit what people think about me so I will not shape my positions with that in mind. I don’t give a shit if people think I am bigoted. I readily admit that I am a cultural bigot, i.e. not a multiculturalist. All cultures are not equal by any stretch of the imagination.

                      I do care what is true and I care about what kind of world my grandchildren will live in. If that makes me a bigot, then I am a bigot. What of it?

                      *wipes spittle from lip and reclines in easy-chair*

                    30. “And, by the way, Archie Bunker thought the things he said weren’t bigoted because they were true. But even IF IF IF blacks really were more likely to commit violent crimes, advocating using the government to discriminate against them because of the group they belong to would still be bigoted–do you understand that?”

                      Immigration is a discretionary act by govts. This makes it a bit different from the way citizens within its borders are treated under the law.

                      I have been puzzling over why this subject is like others where people are at loggerheads. Abortion, 2A, etc. where people basic premises are at odds, passions flare and no headway can be made. I understand those issues, but not this one. I think I miss it because I assume my premises are self-evident, which is a mistake.

                      National sovereignty seems like a natural right of people to me. These are our borders and inside them the laws we make apply. Only the citizens of our nation decide what those laws are. Letting people come here is a discretionary act. We decide that we only let people in who positively contribute to our society. I guess I just can’t think like an anarchist.

                    31. “I do care what is true and I care about what kind of world my grandchildren will live in. If that makes me a bigot, then I am a bigot. What of it?”

                      Fundamentalist Christians can’t even get the time of day from our politicians. Your grandchildren having to worry about Muslims taking over is pretty far fetched. The threat progressives pose to the Second Amendment is a bigger threat to your grandchildren’s world than the threat Muslims pose–by a long shot.

                      I don’t think I said you were a bigot, exactly. I said Archie Bunker was a bigot, and I said that you shouldn’t be surprised if the people you want the government to discriminate against call you something like that.

                    32. The threat progressives pose to the Second Amendment is a bigger threat to your grandchildren’s world than the threat Muslims pose–”

                      That is strictly dependent upon the percentage of the population of Muslims that you allow in or how prolific their reproduction is a generation or three after you let them in.

                      In no country with a high percentage of Muslims allow true free speech and they fight against it even when their numbers a few.

                      Bad nouth Allah even in this country and see if CAIR doesn’t come after you in some way.

                    33. “In no country with a high percentage of Muslims allow true free speech and they fight against it even when their numbers a few.”

                      France’s and Germany’s laws against hate speech weren’t meant to protect Muslims. They were meant to target neo-Nazis. I think that’s pretty much the same everywhere they have hate speech laws.

                      I don’t think it’s fair to blame a Muslim influx for that.

                      Also, France’s influx of Muslims happened in the early 1960s, as I recall. Letting them come as they pleased was part of the truce in Algeria.

                    34. “In no country with a high percentage of Muslims allow true free speech and they fight against it even when their numbers a few.”

                      This is a load of shit. Albania is no less free than much of Europe and they are a majority Muslim nation.

                    35. The threat progressives pose to the Second Amendment is a bigger threat to your grandchildren’s world than the threat Muslims pose–”

                      That is strictly dependent upon the percentage of the population of Muslims that you allow in or how prolific their reproduction is a generation or three after you let them in.

                      In no country with a high percentage of Muslims allow true free speech and they fight against it even when their numbers a few.

                      Bad nouth Allah even in this country and see if CAIR doesn’t come after you in some way.

                    36. What’s the relevance of your contention that there’s a bigger threat to the second amendment from progressives than the threat from Muslims? It seems you’re implying that one should ignore a threat if there exists a larger, unrelated threat. I’m sure that can’t be the point. What exactly was it?

                    37. I agree with everything you just said. It’s frustrating that what seems so self-evident is excruciatingly difficult to get across to people. In my darker moments I suspect they aren’t listening to me as much as they are planning their next phase of argument.

                    38. My comment above did not land where I expected. I was agreeing with Ken Shultz that allowing vast number of specific refugees at this point is unwise, but that it isn’t because of their religion.

      2. “Where is cytotoxic to explain this for us?”

        It’s difficult to explain the concepts of statistics to trogs.

    3. Young women had to flee the welcome event in terror after being groped by gangs of migrant men, even though organisers repeatedly interrupted the music with messages in Arabic urging them to stop their harassment.

      Journalists have to be some of the most clueless people in the world. “What? The harassers didn’t stop when they were urged to give peace a chance by tolerant bilinguists?!? How is that possible??”

    4. Source says they were groped not raped. Still bad but you are a liar.

  16. It’s certainly informative and helpful to watch even the small-fish cronies (restaurant owners, medallion owners, etc) squirm with free-markets and competition. But it would be a whole bunch more helpful for Reason to stick pins in the big-fish cronies who are so powerful that they have effectively squashed competition before it can even start – even at the risk (certainty) that such a spotlight would be viewed/demonized as ‘class warfare’.

    1. Ummm…they do, all the time.

      1. Not only do they all the time, but sticking a pin in the small time ones has the greatest chance of getting that cronyism destroyed. Wear at the edges, chip away at the edifice.

      2. No they don’t. Guys like Sanders point out the big-fish cronies. Reason doesn’t. Hell Reason usually tries to spin those cronies as ‘victims’ of government instead of manipulators of it. Sanders solutions are obviously crap – as is much of his analysis. But it is plain as day that libertarian AVOIDANCE of that problem identification/discussion is why regular people (who can easily recognize the problem) end up going in either the Sanders socialist direction (with a statist solution) or Trump’s scapegoating direction (with a statist solution). Libertarians are instead busy scratching their balls in the corner (no Virginia Ex-Im Bank is fucking irrelevant) and wondering why they ain’t at the center of the dance during this ‘libertarian moment’.

        1. JFree|1.16.16 @ 5:27PM|#
          “…Hell Reason usually tries to spin those cronies as ‘victims’ of government instead of manipulators of it….”

          OK, Musk gets entirely too many passes here, but other than that, I don’t think you’ve got much. Cite?

          1. Musk gets a pass? The commentariat is brutal on him.

            1. *Reaches over thumps robe’s sarc meter. Stuck needle moves.*

              There. Thats better.

              1. Nope, no sarc. The commentariat is hell on Musk, the authors not so much.

                1. Oh. I thought you meant the commentariat.

                  I am a bit drunk.

          2. Well here’s a few big cronyist issues that I’ve never heard boo about here:

            1. The ‘carried interest’ loophole that hedge funds get.
            2. Corporate governance rules and court judgements that have harmed principals (actual property owners) in order to tilt the playing field for the direct benefit of agents (CEO’s, boards, Wall St, M&A lawyers, etc)
            3. The tax preferences towards debt and away from equity – and the tax preferences towards cash retention/’investment’ and away from distribution/dividends.

            Honestly the big stuff is damn near endless. Reason could be ‘all cronyism all the time’ if they wanted. Problem is that Randians don’t seem particularly interested in cronyism and anarchos aren’t interested in any storyline that doesn’t assume the conclusion that anarcho is best. Both undermine ‘classical liberal’ approaches and seems to me that the combo of Randians/anarchos really does dominate modern libertarians who think mostly about econ issues.

            1. “1. The ‘carried interest’ loophole that hedge funds get.
              2. Corporate governance rules and court judgements that have harmed principals (actual property owners) in order to tilt the playing field for the direct benefit of agents (CEO’s, boards, Wall St, M&A lawyers, etc)
              3. The tax preferences towards debt and away from equity – and the tax preferences towards cash retention/’investment’ and away from distribution/dividends.”

              Uh, you’re going to nit-pick tax policy and gripe that the magazine won’t write the articles for you?
              Writer your own and submit them; AFAIC, those are not ‘big crony issues’ such as ‘too big to fail’ and the GM bond-holders’ and taxpayer’s fleecing.

              1. Those three in combo are the main reason that CEO pay relative to avg employees has skyrocketed since the late 1980’s. That’s a HUGE issue – with a lot of political benefits to addressing it – and it is NOT the ‘free market’ at work. Ignore the issue and you will, justifiably, be ignored when the issue does get addressed by others with crappy/worse solutions. Worse, you will, semi-accurately, be tarred as nothing but a useful idiot for cronies – AND undermine actual free markets by pretending that free markets have created that situation.

                1. JFree|1.16.16 @ 10:01PM|#
                  “…That’s a HUGE issue -[…]and it is NOT the ‘free market’ at work….”

                  Bullshit.
                  That’s a ‘huge issue’ to idjits who think they know what something should cost.
                  You wanna claim that’s a crony issue? Help yourself, and I’m sure Huffpo will be more than happy to post that crap.

                  1. My job was designing and getting board approval for CEO pay packages. I know exactly when that stuff got off track and why it got polluted and I got out of it because I started feeling like a very well paid whore.

                    You are a fucking ideological ignoramus about actual free markets and competition. Hostile takeovers USED TO EXIST and that used to be the way CEO pay was constrained. THAT’S the way free markets work. Stupid assholes like you who can’t see cronyism if it sits on your face are what undermine actual free markets.

              2. Devo, you’re right on the carried interest. Can you cite examples of the second point? And why is it a tax preference to allow the deductibility of an expense (interest on debt)? The purpose of an income tax is to tax business owners (equity holders) on what’s left over after expenses. Interest on debt is no less of an expense than salaries, or anything else.

                1. Sorry, that was meant for JFree…..

                2. The corporate governance issue re agents/principals? The best example was allowing ‘poison pill’ provisions in publicly-traded companies. At core, it allows agents-under-threat to dilute the ownership of actual principals and in so doing eliminates their ability to control what they own. Institutional money managers (agents) went along with that because happy CEO’s (agents) will then give business to the M&A/debt side of Wall St (agents). And boards (agents) then became subservient to CEO’s rather than shareowners.

                  The debt/equity preference is really more about the tax treatment of dividends v retained earnings. Dividend streams have a huge impact on stock option prices (much lower volatility). CEO pay however depends on a)a bigger-for-biggers-sake company and b)volatile stock prices. Punish dividends (stability of return on equity) and you eliminate shareowners who value stability/income more than they value the CEO’s ego/paycheck. Much more long-term impact than even that but its an example.

                  1. The impact on share prices and related volatility of dividends versus retention of earnings is a very complex issue and a matter of opinion. I was in corporate finance for a number of large firms in charge of, among other things, dividend policy, so I speak from experience. Whatever the truth may be, I don’t think that tax policy on this matter has been driven by cronyism. It’s been driven by the fact that shareholders who receive dividends have the cash to pay income taxes on the dividends, whereas taxing retained earnings imposes taxes on shareholders who have not received any cash.

                    1. Well at least re stock options as a form of advantaged executive compensation, that was certainly cronyist. In 1993, FASB recommended a)telling shareowners that stock options had been granted by recording them on the balance sheet and b)expensing stock options. A pure ‘accounting standards’ argument – that ended when CEO’s went to pols and demanded that FASB be squashed – that an accounting-standards decision should be made political. And Joe Lieberman, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, et al made it so. Frontline (PBS) even did an (admittedly tendentious but basically accurate) documentary about what happened then. Lieberman’s commentary in this transcript – http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/…../congress/ – tells you how dirigiste (cronyist) it all was.

                      And while it can be argued how much effect dividends has on a Black-Scholes option pricing model, I can tell you that before all this, execs themselves were kind of neutral between options grants and say restricted stock (with dividend claim but with MUCH MUCH less shareowner dilution or bull upside) grants. And shareowners preferred the latter because why would they rationally prefer more dilution to deliver the same compensation?

        2. So, no reason articles on Goldman Sacks and etc? WTF?

          Sanders supported Rands audit the fed bill. There is the big crony central. And reason has been on that for years.

          1. Yes that is the belly of the beast and it should be fixated on – not mentioned occasionally. Problem is ‘audit the fed’ sounds like ‘set up a bipartisan committee of DC types to investigate wastefraudabuse’. The end result is the same – nothing. The libertarian solution is competition – because the core problem is monopoly not abuse. The Fed (and its bank owners) are not going to be allowed to crash/burn/wither while they have a monopoly over something called ‘US dollar’ (over which the US govt DOES own property rights). Bitcoin and other private/Hayekian money will never be considered viable until such time as it IS actual money in some place (eg Greece/Argy/Venez/etc) with a currency crisis. It’s insane to think that the biggest economy in the world will do some ideological experiment with a currency that can’t even help in an itty bitty place like Greece.

            Focus on the ‘perfect’ solution means we ignore the ‘good enough’ solution that can break the Fed monopoly now. A face value on AG/AU eagles that’s more than metal value – and a settlements/savings/GIRO (NOT loans) system thru the post office. We used to have both. Yes it means govt ‘competes’ with itself – but put in place now, it also eliminates the Fed ability to extort crony deals during the next crisis. With an alternative in place, then it becomes possible to actually fixate on the existing cronyism BEFORE the crisis without fear of creating the next crisis.

            1. JFree|1.16.16 @ 8:29PM|#
              “Yes that is the belly of the beast and it should be fixated on – not mentioned occasionally.”

              Sounds like you need to start a new magazine!

  17. Re the video: is it me, or is Matt Welch putting on weight?

  18. Interesting article about safety in Uber vs. taxis:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/tec…..er/386207/

    1. We have no idea is interesting?

      1. idea = data ?

        1. OK, Bubba Jones showed up after Playa identified the earlier tulpa socks last week and took over; I’m saying that’s one current sock. chemjeff definitely has the smell. Commie-kid? I remain unconvinced; I think s/he’s just a random lefty ignoramus who is probably lying often enough.

          1. I tend to agree.

            I don’t get it. I suppose he thinks he is playing devil’s advocate to stimulate discussion. Instead he just has the flavor of Mary hate. Oppositional-defiant disorder I guess.

            That is all I have got.

            1. Same as Bo, hence hus Blue Tulpa nickname.

      2. I only suggest that it is worth reading.

        1. I read it. It was content free.

  19. . . . knocking down the value of his medallion from half a million to somewhere in the five figures. “It was going to be my back up for my Social Security check,” the driver complained.

    1. It should be ‘the driver *whined*.

    2. Probably should have stuck with gold, huh?

    1. Did he sue Obo when his Solyndra stack tanked?

  20. Riddle me this, Batman!

    When is a racket not a racket?

    1. When its a silent game of Badminton?

  21. Uber must be opposed because its capitalism or something

    1. Death throes are ugly.

  22. Did we mention Uber is Homophobic? That too

  23. Lionel (Michal LeBron according to his LP membership) already complains too much about cabbies smelling like curry.

  24. Also they’ll probably kick your ass for no reason. If they aren’t stabbing you or while driving you into a swamp.

  25. Uber is probably responsible for what happened to these MotoGP racers

    1. Gilmore trolling the anti-uberites. Sa-weet!

  26. “Nigerian mom of triplets flees to Winnipeg to avoid female genital mutilation

    “Lawyer Bashir Khan helps mother secure refugee status in Canada”

    1. “”mom of triplets””

      Uh, i think she failed to avoid the thing she was claiming to avoid.

      1. I’m not sure I understand.

        1. Woosh.

          A baby coming out mutilates the genetalia. Three even more so.

          1. I am guessing Eddie isnt a Father.

            1. From the article:

              “Then, when she became pregnant with triplets ? all female ? the woman was told she could have the procedure [female genital mutilation] done on the babies when they were born or abort them, Khan said.”

              1. No one reads the article, silly man

      2. From the article:

        “A mom is now in Winnipeg after fleeing Nigeria to prevent her daughters from undergoing female genital mutilation.”

        1. What the hell was that?!

          *ducking as something whooshes over my head*

    2. Oh, come on. No one else is going to be offended by my referring to these people as savages?

    3. I’m glad and proud of Canada’s refugee policy but…now she’s in Winnipeg. That poor woman.

  27. “Muqtada al-Sadr, once labelled “the most dangerous man in Iraq,” has called for homes belonging to Christian families which have been illegally stolen to be returned.

    “The phenomenon of supposedly legal thefts is closely linked the mass exodus of Christians from Iraq following the US-led invasion. Scammers took possession of empty homes gaining official approval on the basis the original owners would not return….

    “The leader of the Sadrist Movement and founder of the Mahdi Army was a key fighter in the resistence to the allied invasion. However in recent years the Shi’ite militia leader has appeared to moderate his approach.”

    1. Saddam is looking downright spiffy these days.

      I have to admit there was a time when I moderately supported the invasion. He was a bad boy, there is no denying that. I only supported it because I did not know that the next best thing over there was exponentially worse. Also, it was not conducted in the way it should have been. I was wrong, wrong, wrong. Terribly wrong.

      By moderately supported I mean that I was more a fan of the way Reagan handled Gaddafi, and the way George The First handled Saddam. I never supported nation building. I hoped they would go in, take out Saddam then get the fuck out. A foolish hope. I did not know then the incentives for staying there and diddle-fucking around forever.

      I think I may be falling squarely into the non-interventionist camp, even though I know that is not a workable position.

      *Wife just came over and had me taste the chipotle sauce she whipped up for the pork ribs. Jesus Christ, I might have to take it away from her and just eat it with a spoon.

      1. Sadaam had to go. The situation in 2002 was untenable. Should’ve gone in and got rid of him and then left. Thank God America did get rid of him he’d be making the situation in Syria a lot worse if he were around the Iraqi Kurds would be less powerful otherwise.

        HW Bush was a fool for going in there in the first place and a worse fool for leaving the job half-done.

    2. Its easy to magnanimous when your opponents are mostly dead

    3. Sadr was the closest thing to an honorable foe that America ever had in Iraq.

  28. “Uber is not regulated! One of their drivers could kill me!”

    What are illegal aliens working on farms and taking care of native babies while their parents are at work? Chopped liver?

    1. No, but come to think of it, chopped celery would make an excellent garnish for roasted gringo baby.

  29. Have you seen the Dr. Who stories The Seeds of Doom and The Terror of the Zygons?

    The guy who wrote them has died

    1. Seeds of Doom yes, Terror of the Zygons no.

      RIP.

    2. Seeds of Doom is a great cheesy story. I see it as a fuck you to the Gaia worshippers. Zygons disappointed me.

      He also wrote Darling Buds of May, Catherine Zeta-Jones’ big break.

  30. OMWC Solution to Prog Panic about Uber: Only have Muslim drivers. They never rape.

    1. Finally, a sensible comment on this subject.

  31. Free association between individuals is the natural enemy of intrusive government.

  32. OT: US issuing no new coal mine permits; Reason staff furious…

    http://www.dw.com/en/us-stops-…..a-18983448

    1. Meh.
      The coal ‘boom’ was the result of regs anyhow, and it’s been collapsing since fracking started delivering gas anyhow. If the next prez kept the ban in place when the next energy crunch shows up, it might be interesting.

      1. “The coal ‘boom’ was the result of regs anyhow”

        ???

        1. I made the claim, I’ll answer.
          My understanding (and I’m not sure how to search for it) is that coal exhaust was easy to scrub to avoid ‘acid rain’ (the primary regulatory concern at the time), which made coal the cheapest ‘installed-costs’ source of energy. This would have been in the late part of the last century.

      2. Coal mining companies discover how to get the coal through technological advancement despite Government regulations. Regulators, and cronies seeking a sweet profit are pissed.

        News at 11

    2. Coal permits “on government land.”

      Government land? Huh, public land? Of the people, by the people and for the people?

      Government land my furry butt.

    3. More money for India. They are liberalizing their coal sector.

  33. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016…..tcmp=hpbt4

    Anybody see this? Good Lord..

    1. Get the fuck out asshole. You are walking !!!!

  34. How many people are either alive or free of major injuries today because of ride sharing? It is, per Bastiat, the unknown. What I am mainly talking about is that Uber and Lyft and the like make it much much easier for someone who is drinking to not get behind the wheel and instead take a ride. Back in my younger days of going out to bars most weekends it was always difficult to get a cab ride between 1 and 3 am. I remember long waits and multiple calls to try and get a cab. Many friends or acquaintances said fuck it and took the chance to drive home. In the few dozen times I have used a ride share in the past years it was almost always a wait of 5 minutes or less and has been cheaper than a regular cab. It has been a free market way to solve the problem of drunk drivers.

    1. Drunk drivers are a considerable source of revenue to the state, and private rehab institutions. Any solution that saves a citizen capital, costs the state revenue.

    2. And this is why restrictions on surge pricing, already being discussed, will cost lives. But hey, what’s a few lives lost when we’re helping humanity by keeping ride costs from being “too high?”

  35. Yes, and I think that would be one of the main reasons the ride shares have been fought by cities and municipalities. It sounds much nicer for cities to defend the noble cabbies, but losing fat DUI revenue is more important to them. That must be fought at all costs.

  36. It looks like You mammals were stuck battling some real mealy mouthed half-ass concern trolls in this thread…I was busy getting drunk

  37. my friend’s half-sister makes $77 /hour on the computer . She has been laid off for 7 months but last month her income was $12280 just working on the computer for a few hours. browse around this web-site

    Open This Link for more Information…

    ???? http://www.Wage90.Com

  38. my friend’s half-sister makes $77 /hour on the computer . She has been laid off for 7 months but last month her income was $12280 just working on the computer for a few hours. browse around this web-site

    Open This Link for more Information…

    ???? http://www.Wage90.Com

  39. I think I speak for many people when I say “Yo, Boris Kautsky: fuck you, you rent-seeking asshole.”

    -jcr

  40. Circa 1998 I called for a cab in downtown SF, for a ride to another part of SF. No cab ever showed up. I was later told that cabbies often ignored calls that weren’t long rides to the airport. So, screw ’em.

  41. Last time for me using a cab was four years ago. We needed to get from our house in the Sunset to downtown for a wedding. I called a cab several hours early to make sure they could have a taxi for us at 6 pm. At five minutes after I called again to ask if it was on its way. They didn’t even have an order for one. “We should be able to get one out to you in half an hour or so.” I called the Chinese gypsy cab I knew and ten minutes later we were headed out. Since then I use mostly Lyft and sometimes Uber.

  42. my friend’s half-sister makes $77 /hour on the computer . She has been laid off for 7 months but last month her income was $12280 just working on the computer for a few hours. browse around this web-site

    Open This Link for more Information…

    ???? http://www.Wage90.Com

  43. The Uber thing sounds great. I wonder how great it will be when all of the out of work Yellow Cab drivers start ‘Ubering’ for a living.

  44. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    http://www.Jobstribune.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.