The EU parliamentary elections came and went – not that you people noticed – and the results in Romania had some significance in that the ruling Party lost massively – they are the worst, as the kids say these days. This was compounded by their leader being sentenced to jail for three and a half years on corruption charges on the very next day after the elections, with possibly more to come. This of course led to a wave of the optimistic delusionals saying Romania “turned a corner” and is heading in “the right direction”, although the actions of the government show little cause for such optimism. This is my review of Oriel HopSaSam Ţuiple’up.
I was thinking of doing a more proper write-up on the EU elections, but I am not sure I can be bothered, so I will give a short summary of the Romanian situation. I voted myself in these ones, I am not even sure why, and chose based on potential amusement. I also voted yes to both questions of the referendum. One of them said no amnesty or pardons for corruption charges, and the second said the government would no longer be allowed to change criminal justice laws by executive order.
The results are fully in and one of the traditional “center right”-ish parties (what I call the conniving little bitch wing party), the “National Liberal Party,” PNL – European liberal, winning most votes, followed by a virtual tie for second between the traditional left ruling “Social Democratic Party,” PSD (a mob wing party in general) and the fresh new left-right-center anti-corruption upstarts, Save Romanian Union, USR – a hipster wing party with a slight whiff of something more sinister. You never know when the same old cabal is behind the latest young hip party. The urban youth voted quite strongly for the latter. Three more parties hit the required 5% threshold to get in. The Democratic Union of Magyars UDMR, PRO Romania party – an offshoot of PSD led by former Prime Minister Ponta and Popular Movement Party, PMP, led by former president Traian Basescu, one of the most able, for better and worse, politicians in post commie Romania. The results are mostly meaningless, as the PSD still hold the central government and most local governments, and the EU elections did not change shit, except give a bit of satisfaction the opposition. It may at least be a sign of things to come. A few more weasel parties did not make the cut. As in the last few elections, there was great scandal as polling stations for Romanians living abroad were insufficient and the voting procedure deliberately slow, as such many could not vote, as the polling stations closed despite people who had waited 8 hours in line still not getting in. The ruling party got about 3% of the vote abroad.
Now on to the beer, it is the first one made with a truly local twist – it is aged in former barrels of ţuică – the local fruit brandy for those not in the know. When I bought it, I doubted it would by my cup of, well… beer. It is a triple and I am not a fan of Belgian styles. It has 9.5 alcohol, which is more than I like. It is collaboration between Romanian microbrewery Oriel and a Belgian brewery HopSaSam. According to the owners “The name Oriel comes from the archangel of light, wisdom, illumination and sun.” They produce small batches of a wide variety of Belgian style beers. They are among the few which actually list their equipment on their site. For whoever may be curious, here they be.
The beer was aged in 3 types of barrels which held 3 types of ţuică – the traditional plum, apple and pear, made of wood used for such things in Romania – oak, cherry and mulberry. The beer costs about $3.5 American for a 333 ml bottle. For my taste in ţuică, I am all about the plum. It has the strongest and most distinctive taste (except quince that is, but quince is rare). This is the same reason many people do not like plum ţuică. So I was slightly disappointed that it was not 100% plum ţuică mulberry barrels. Honestly, you can feel the stuff in the beer, but not that much. It looks, smells and tastes mostly like a triple, which is expected and which I don’t like, too sweet and alcoholic. The plum brandy is there, but more as an afterthought, a gimmick.
While not my thing, they are among the first if not the first in Romania to try to barrel age beer, so it is overall a good thing. I also tried their quadruple aged in Belize rum casks. Same verdict, I just don’t like the beer style, so no barrel aging will change that. Smell is subdued, taste is bold, sweetish, alcohol, dark malts, some rum, some vanilla, some wood . Long finish with some bitterness, but overall sweet taste dominates.
I tried to clean my palate with an IPA from a new brewer called White Collar, but it was quite disappointing, albeit more palatable to me. For a beer called Zero Taxe I expected more, but thems be the breaks. Not the best beer day for Pie.
Drink to the dead
In Romania we just pour one out
I love some Clutch in the afternoon. Thanks Warty.
I like the “ZERO TAXE” part. How many point how much do you give it out of 5.0?
Second and addresses the content of the article.
You mean first loser, I haven’t had a chance to say…..
FUCK OFF!
You’re welcome
First is the worst.
Second is the best.
Third is the one with the lady’s chest.
Now that you have taken advantage of the opportunity to say it, why did you? The part of your comment that you put in all caps seems hostile.
Traditional greeting. Yusuf is our welcoming committee, because no one else wanted the position. The proper response is, “Hey Yusuf! Tall/ short cans (depending on the time of day) up!”.
Thank you for taking the time to explain.
Every community has their shibboleths.
STEVE SMITH SAY SOME COMMUNITIES COMPRISED ALMOST ENTIRELY OF SHIBBOLETHS.
Oh about a 2.5…
Thank you for your prompt and on-point response. I am not returning the courtesy by taking so long to get back to this because of non-Glib matters.
“The EU parliamentary elections came and went – not that you people noticed”
Raciss
Also, we just didn’t want to interfere.
It’s The Red-Headed Libertarian’s birthday.
https://twitter.com/TRHLofficial
Ţuiple’up
Why is Lili Von Shtupp trying to pronounce that in my head?
Whatever gets you off
Good writeup Pie, your English is gooder than mine,
Cheers!
Vampires are immortal so they have plenty of time learn things.
For example, that I should have put a comma in the previous sentence.
Well that bites…..
Are they really immortal? They can be destroyed. They have negligible senescence.
(… searches…)
Ah, “biological immortality”. Fine, I’ll allow it.
in the context of superpowers or Monstrous Manual entries, I thought “immortal” was just the lack of a life span, not any indication of invulnerability/indestructability.
vampire senescence has never been handled consistently. my preferred take is that sufficiently frequent feeding preserves/restores their youth, but they still can’t starve to death. Depriving them of the release of death is central to the curse.
Immortality is just a variable amount of time until you get stuck under something you can’t move forever.
A belgian romanian beer means it is for pedophile vampires
We shall export AOC to the EU, as she cannot survive here on $174k.
Is she implying she’s accepting money from unsavory sources in order to support her lifestyle?
Her moral compass hinges on COLA.
She has no family, no dependents and can’t get by in D.C. for $174k/yr. Plus, I imagine there are a number of fringe benefits that would ease your way through the day.
And yet she thinks she should be in charge.
Yep. Yes, DC is very expensive, but a single person should be able to live fairly comfortably on $174K.
“At a mere $174K/year, you can’t expect me to *not* accept bribes! I’m only human!” [breaks down sobbing]
Its not a bribe if she is getting paid for ‘services’ to her constituents and by extension all Americans
Yeah, she really crossed the streams on that one. Dark money is supposed to be for the campaign, not for the Congressmember’s lifestyle. I suspect that’s one of them Freudian slips.
No, she is implying if you don’t pay here more she will have to resort to accepting more money from unsavory sources.
Her lack of self awareness is breathtaking. On one hand, we need more progressive taxation where we take more from the rich. On the other hand, people making $174k a year (who almost every one of us would consider “rich”) need more money.
$174k is 91.63th percentile income, nationwide; more than twice the median for DC. That’s well-off, nobody how you slice it.
more than twice the median for DC
I can’t imagine living in this area making $84k. I guess that’s why most families are 2 income.
Yeah, $84k would be decent apartment living for a single person around here. You’d probably do alright in some of the crappier parts of the greater DC-Baltimore area, like Jessup, Ft. Meade, Brooklyn Park…IOW, high-crime, high-transient areas. Shit, I don’t think you could find a place on Kent Island for that anymore. Maybe Edgewater, but even that I doubt. If you’re working in DC and making that money you’re looking at an hour commute minimum unless you’re living in the ‘hood.
Out here in NoVa, even in the outer reaches, housing would consume a massive amount of your income. $2k/month is bare minimum, with $3k or $4k more common.
The “poors” are relegated to a handful of towns and areas that are relatively high in crime and slummy. Either that or they commute 2 hours each way.
The DC suburbs stretch practically to Hanover County now. Hell, I’ve heard of more than a few people who live in Richmond and take the train up to DC for work every day.
Hell, I’ve heard of more than a few people who live in Richmond and take the train up to DC for work every day.
*shudder*
I knew a few people who commuted to DC from West Virginia. Used to be that Frederick was the sweet spot for housing bang-for-the-buck and commuting distance, but it’s gotten pricey now, too, supposedly.
I imagine the income distribution in the DC area is bi-modal with the professional classes at the top and the poor at the bottom with the working classes in the middle getting squeezed out.
There’s a lot of federal contractors, too. The federal government absolutely dominates the job market in the area, especially for anything related to IT or defense. Gov. contractors make bank, and/or large firms bring upper management into the area to be close to the agencies they’re contracting with, so that skews things a bit, too.
I would put the contractors in the professional classes.
When I first moved to DC (in 2000), I lived alone and in a one bedroom apartment not that far from the Pentagon. It was not the best of neighborhoods, but I never felt like I was in danger. I was a GS-7 at the time, making right at $30k a year.
Things were tight money wise, but I was able to survive just fine. Granted, I got invited to dinner at my neighbors several times a week, but I have a feeling they were looking for a green card for their daughter more than because of my sterling conversation…
Go on…
No, that’s all there is to the story. The daughter had a more luxurious mustache than I did…
I live in what’s arguably the DC-metro and our combined income is around $130k…or it was until recently. It’s now about $100k, maybe. I aspire to make in the neighborhood of $174k in 2019 dollars but doubt I will. Fuck her and every single member of Congress who wants a raise.
Her money is being awarded by the state, which absolves the money of sin.
It is impolite to call religious zealots religious zealots if their faith is fashionable
I wonder what the over and under is on how many years in office it takes her to become a millionaire .
“incl min wage workers.” She says that likes it’s an afterthought, rather than minimum wage workers’ income being her priority. And, she includes herself in her current role as being among the “workers.” That’s funny right there.
Sorry Alex, Politicians do not want dark money for purposes of enriching themselves (with the possible exceptions of the Clintons) they want it to fund their political machine so they can maintain and expand their hold on political power, something paying them $1 million a year would not enable them to do on their own so higher pay for them is not going to change a thing for campaign finance.
Serious question, Pie, that doesn’t have to do with Dracula. How much longer do you think the EU can remain significant? Lega Nord in Italy continues to grow in electoral strength and now they are talking about quasi-abandoning the euro (so they can inflate their debt naturally). If Italy leaves that would essentially make the union a paper tiger, no?
Serious question, Pie, that doesn’t have to do with Dracula.
I stopped reading right there.
There are only so many times you can ask a man about the undead, before it become gauche
Some jokes are timeless. Like Winston’s mom.
And Paul Krugman
Winston’s mom is a vampire? I mean, I new she was good at sucking other people’s body fluids, but still…that’s a hell of an accusation.
I am proud that a legitimate question, on topic, has been buried under jokes.
*wipes away tear*
Well done. All of you. Well done
On-topic, then – why would Italy’s departure weaken the EU more than UK’s? Or would it be a final-straw type of thing?
It would be a final nail in the coffin. It’s the third largest economy in the currency bloc. The UK never adopted the euro, so their departure, while a serious blow, would still be less significant than Italy’s departure. Especially since if Italy leaves, the French might consider their own future in the bloc.
An EU being led like Germany and Spain seems like more of a waste of time than anything.
Aren’t France & Germany the key countries? My impression was Italy just above Greece in the EU benefits them more than not.
In before someone says, “Actually, Italy is the fourth largest economy in the EU”. And that’s why I said “the third largest economy in the currency bloc”. The UK was never in the currency bloc
Germany and France are the first and second largest economies in the currency bloc. Italy is the third. Greece’s economy is much smaller than Italy’s (significantly smaller). And so is Spain’s economy.
Italy leaving would be a body blow. Especially since it was one of the original signers to the agreement that eventually led to the EU.
Flip it another way, which countries are the biggest EU proponents at this point? I imagine Belgium would be unhappy with losing the inflow of money into Brussels for the Eurocrapcy.
It would be a final nail in the coffin.
Only if the European leadership is stupid. Some sort of disconnect between the rich and poor Europe needs to happen. And the key to the EU is Germany. Putting Germany in a broader European context was the whole point of the venture to start. If the European leadership allows an orderly transition for Italy, there’s no reason they couldn’t adjust to a two-tier Europe.
But, counting on not being stupid is a hell of an assumption.
Germany is a massive proponent, because the euro is essentially the deutchmark (I remember reading a study that tracked the value of the deutchmark before the introduction of the euro) and the Germans have finally gotten what they always wanted in Europe without ever having to fire a shot this time.
Also, Belgium loves it, because Belgium is not a country, but a region of Europe. And Spain loves it, because they love anything globalist after the end of Franco’s rule. And the Irish are all about it, because they want to be cool.
“why would Italy’s departure weaken the EU more than UK’s?”
Because the EU is essentially a bank. As long as Italy is around, their debt is an asset to the bank. If they leave, it’s not accounts receivable anymore, it’s a loss that has to be recorded. The UK is probably owed money from the PIIGS and they’re about to record that money as a loss. The EU is in greater denial of that eventuality.
This time around, at least the Holy Roman Empire, that is neither holy, Roman, or an empire, has the decency not to call itself the Holy Roman Empire.
The Holy Roman Empire was at least extremely decentralized and was primarily concerned with harassing the Pope every couple of years and then warring among itself.
They might have to fire some shots to keep it. That’s why they need the
Waffen SSEU Army.The EU army= the American military
I have a 20 min opening in my schedule….tonight…eat a hearty mean and call me. Bring money.
“Putting Germany in a broader European context was the whole point of the venture to start.”
What the Kaiser and Hitler tried, the EU succeeded at.
Reply fail, but deal with it.
Also, why do we have a limited reply depth at all?
Honestly impossible to say. I would not take the under on 10 years
Would you take the over?
No
You left out the most important part, Pie. Which animals represent which parties?
Rat, pigeon, dung beetle, that little Amazonian fish that swims up your pecker…
The dreaded candiru!
TIME OUT!!!
Candiru
So what you’re saying is that it’s possible? Yeah, I’m out.
Also, I would guess, the approximate odds of a Romanian politician doing something we would approve.
I feel like the lightning would hit the shark, depending on how much of me is still dangling in the water.
As a Floridian, that does not make me feel good about my odds.
Strutocamila is the classic beast. On my phone no diacritics
Here you go, struţocămilă. It’s a cross between a camel and an ostrich, for anyone that’s curious.
When I search for that, I get a bunch of pics of apparent NBA player Stromile Swift, whoever that is. Weird. Does DuckDuckGo know something the rest of the world doesn’t?
Pulls fine on Google. Maybe duck duck go is protecting their half ratite brethren.
long press on the key? or just a flipphone?
More dispatches from a strange and exotic land.
I wonder if we can get this stuff in the US.
Sinister cabals manipulating the political process for personal gain? Yep, you can get that here.
Man they got a lot of parties in Romania. How come they don’t do like us and just go with one?
Oh, beer!
On-topic, then – why would Italy’s departure weaken the EU more than UK’s? Or would it be a final-straw type of thing?
Weaken? Sure. Weaken enough to collapse? I’m having a hard time seeing it. I still think as long as the two biggest players — France and Germany — remain, you’ll have something that you could reasonably call the “EU.”
Take one of them out, and the entire edifice crumbles.
Oriel HopSaSam Ţuiple’up sounds good.
second said the government would no longer be allowed to change criminal justice laws by executive order.
What? What’s the point of having a Pen and a Phone then?
Great write up Pie. I’m always interested in how politics are different and the same in other lands. Plus beer,
Pie: So, this is what has been happening in Europe
Us: Is it true that you guys hunt the undead at night for fear that they will consume your oxen, your only form of transport?
Also Us: Angela Merkel looks like she’s full of chocolate
Also Us: Why do I care what happens to our junior junior junior partners in the EU? Fuck France
I must state, that all of these responses are legitimate commentary, though. Angela Merkel does seem like if you made her run she’d complain that she was full of chocolate and not equipped to perform physical activity. And France does, undoubtedly, suck hard
And the summary above misses the larger issue in the post, the beer.
Look, it’s cheap-shot vampire jokes first then substantive discussion on the potential future of the EU.
It’s like you’ve never even been here before.
I said all those comments are legitimate. These are the issues that no one ever wants to talk about
I’m sorry beer didn’t make ypu happy, Pie, but I still enjoyed your article.
I look forward to importing Romanian beer to celebrate Romania’s independence when the EU collapses.
It will officially be russian beer by then
A country cannot be all bad, if the leader of its ruling party is sentenced to jail from time to time. Somehow, I’ve never lived in such a country.
Not unlike chicago aldermen, jailing them does not seem to stop coruption. But several did time
While generally in agreement, I might want some clarity around just why they went to jail. Plenty of politicians would be happy to have their opponents jailed.
Opposition politicians going to jail is completely different from leaders of the ruling party facing justice. For example, the ruling party in the US is the deep state, not Republicans, not Trump people.
In which case, I am totally in agreement. Clapper in jail for perjury would be a nice start.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/bagged-lunch-sparks-inmate-fight-courthouse-holding-cell-n1016161
A dispute over a banana and a cookie apparently sparked a fight between two inmates in a holding cell at a Pennsylvania courthouse.
If there was any justice in this world, Hilary and Bernie would be fighting over a banana in a holding cell.
The only banana in that cell would be Hilary’s.
Hmm… Fayette County? Let me pull up the link.
Oh. Indiana County. I’m not far off.
I think you just spoiled the next H&H.
Pretty sure Hillary has no interest in Banannas, but she’ll cut a bitch for a Taco
USR – a hipster wing party with a slight whiff of something more sinister. You never know when the same old cabal is behind the latest young hip party.
You should be working for CNN.
I am of two minds… also they are kinda woke left in a less extreme way than in the west
https://www.foxbusiness.com/features/firearms-distributor-files-for-bankruptcy-after-gun-sales-decreased-following-trumps-victory
United Sports Cos (USC) said it planned to liquidate its holdings citing excessive debt and inventory. The company, which served 20,000 in the U.S., also cited “significant disruptions” in other retailers, such as Bass Pro Shop buying Cabela in 2017, Reuters Opens a New Window. reported.
The company banked on Hillary Clinton winning the election and boosted its inventory before the race, CEO Bradley Johnson said in a court filing with the U.S. bankruptcy court in Wilmington, Del. Sales of firearms slowed dramatically after the election of Trump as president in 2016 allayed fears of a Democratic crackdown on gun owners, The Associated Press reported in March 2018.
When you bet the farm, sometimes, you lose the farm.
The punchline is that Trump seems to be on pace to surpass Obama on the restrictions of the type of firearms and firearm accessories available to the public.
It’s been a little disheartening to get little more than a collective ‘meh’ from 2A advocates. At least that what looks like on the national level.
Take the gun first- due process later or something.
Arguing that “Trump is a right-wing extremist” and “Trump has instituted gun control that not even a Democrat would do” does not make sense. Dude’s a fascist like every preceding president. His only saving grace is that his enemies are even bigger assholes (yeah, the sudden worship of the intelligence agency makes me like Trump more, because that’s just stupid).
NRA stands for “National Republican Apologist.”
I think the GOA and SAF both put out information critical of Trump for the bump stock ban. I’m going from memory as I think I got mailers from both critical of the bump stock ban.
And yet people still deep throat Trump over guns- it literally makes no sense.
I can understand why religious people would vote for Trump, because literally the alternative is state persecution (I mean who else could they have voted for in 2016 and likely in 2020, too?). I can understand working class people voting for Trump, because literally the alternative is state persecution (coal miners, for example, and other who work in energy).
But, gun owners who vote for Trump in 2020 will have to make an argument why they are not just stupid idiots.
Because Trump responds randomly to Public Relations Opportunities (a.k.a. gun tragedies). He doesn’t have a clear, sustained agenda to wipe out gun ownership in America.
This makes Trump less bad than anyone running on the Democratic side (2016 or 2020).
It’s depressing that we have to make such significant compromises
Which is not to say that I think your perspective is wrong. Orange man just really pisses me off on guns
Yes it is.
I don’t think Trump has any real agenda on any matter of significance. He is just an opportunist. He is a Republican now because he had a goal to fuck over Obama.
I assume the real game plan is to expand beyond real estate and to fully integrate his kids into the big money game that is DC.
Depressing doesn’t begin to describe it. And I agree with you entirely that Trump sucks on guns. But at the risk of beating a dead horse, the choices were a candidate who was horrible on everything and hated gun owners versus a candidate who is kind of inconsistently populist and ambivalent at best towards gun owners.
Because Trump responds randomly to Public Relations Opportunities (a.k.a. gun tragedies). He doesn’t have a clear, sustained agenda to wipe out gun ownership in America.
And he says a lot of off the cuff things that do not materialize into policy or legislation. That’s why I give it a ‘meh’ nowadays when he says something stupid like “guns first, then due process”. Funny story, the time he said something about “assault” weapons that made Difi all giddy was when I made a certain impulse purchase just in case. It turned out to be nothing.
There is a justifiable reason to vote for him and that is that he is the only one with a snowball’s chance of winning that isn’t in favor of an absolute evisceration of the 2nd amendment. It’s unfortunate but that’s the long and short of it.
^^Pretty much this. Given the choice between a milquetoast, unprincipled gun advocate and a rabid gun-grabber that wants to throw gun owners in prison, I’ll go with the milquetoast.
Which is fine, but don’t piss on my leg and tell me that he’s the most libertarian president in history.
Just piss on my leg, please.
Show some respect, HM! He legalized weed at the federal level and ushered in international free trade. What’s a little gun banning in the face of that.
tell me that he’s the most libertarian president in history
Trump is a bullet in the foot before the battle of Iwo Jima. Anybody treating him more favorably than that is mistaken.
Your memory is correct about those two orgs, they were against the bump stock ban. The NRA, sorry sacks of shit that they are, folded like a lawnchair.
Not disagreeing, but citation(s) to support the first of the two sentences in your comment would be useful for use at other than Glibertarians.
A left-leaning piece lamenting Obama’s soft stance on guns restrictions:
https://www.thoughtco.com/obama-gun-laws-passed-by-congress-3367595
We already are aware of Trump’s bumb stock ban, he’s considering trying a silencer ban, and this isn’t encouraging either:
https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/32493-trump-plans-to-nominate-known-gun-grabber-to-head-atf
I’ll try to do more digging later today….I’m supposed to be working right now.
Thank you.
Yeah. Guns are going to get me to write in Ron Paul again or something.
He hasn’t run for anything since 2012, but he’s always my default protest vote. He even won an electoral vote last time around. We’re *this* close
269 to go. We got this.
[insert it’s happening gif here]
Go ahead, throw away your vote!
The punchline is that Trump seems to be on pace to surpass Obama on the restrictions of the type of firearms and firearm accessories available to the public.
He’s a
’90s ’80s’70s NYC limousine liberal Democrat.“What makes you think you need a gun? That’s what the police are for.”
“Wait, the police will give me a gun? That’s AWESOME. Can they show up this afternoon? I can be there any time they’re free.”
I am at some food and wine pairing event and there is not nearly enough food. Also it is very slow to come. And there are mosquitos
what wine did they pair with malaria?
A nice rose
subtle. i like it.
Titty Tuesday continues in honor of Pie.
https://thechive.com/2019/06/11/welcome-to-tug-paradise-2/
i like the sound of beer aged in fruit brandy casks.
https://pilotonline.com/news/local/virginia-beach-mass-shooting/article_3843db5c-8b9e-11e9-b87f-e3e87b2a3b42.html
Kate Nixon had considered taking a gun to work on May 31, the day a co-worker killed her and 11 others in the country’s deadliest mass shooting this year, a family attorney said on a radio show Monday.
The public utilities engineer was concerned about DeWayne Craddock “as well as one other person,” said Kevin Martingayle, an attorney working with Nixon’s family. So on the night of May 30, Nixon had discussed with her husband, Jason, “whether or not she should take a pistol and hide it in her handbag,” Martingayle said. She decided against it because of a city policy that prevents employees from bringing weapons to work.
let the (metaphorical) assault on (statutory) GFZs begin!
We should rename them “Murder Zones’
But, but, if gunz were illegal then the shooter wouldn’t have one and besides the magical incantation of the GFZ didn’t work because the proper legislative shaman wasn’t consulted!
/prog
Sue em for fraud. I mean, if I said my food was free of some chemical, but I never actually took any action to keep those chemicals out of it or verify whether or not there were any, I would be liable, right? If you want to make a claim like that, back it up.
sovereign immunity
I struggle with private businesses banning anyone from carrying a gun on their premises. I mean, sure, they can do it, its their joint, but the dilemma is
(a) By prohibiting people from defending themselves, does the business have a duty to defend them, so that if people are attacked on their premises, the business pays damages
or
(b) By going onto their premises unarmed, people assume the risk of being defenseless?
Not sure there’s any difference between customers or employees either way. I lean toward (a), but damned if I can come up with a very good reason why (b) isn’t the better option, people being responsible for the foreseeable consequences of their decisions and all. Perhaps there is something in self-defense being a basic human right, so that requiring people to forego the means to exercise that right, the business is responsible?
I think your last part is accurate.
Replace 2A rights with 1A rights. Is a movie theater within its rights to prevent people from speaking loudly or using cell phones during movies? In doing so does it obligate the theater to provide some other platform for expression.
If I see a ‘no guns’ sign on a door, which is increasingly uncommon, I make a u-turn and leave.
I choose (b).
No one is employed against his/her will. No one is forced to engage in consumer transactions against his/her will.
You can’t force me to defend other people (a) anymore than you can force me to feed and clothe other people.
(b2) they can ban all they want, but it has no force of law nor is it illegal merely for doing so. They can ask you to leave on that, or any grounds, and only if you refuse is it a trespass crime.
Ooooooo
“If gun[free zone]s are outlawed, then only outlaws will have gun[free zone]s!”
I have never gotten a good reply from a gun-grabber when I point out that the vast majority of mass-shooters choose soft-targets*. GFZ’s are openly advertised as soft-targets.
*Once someone pulled the “but muh military base shooting!!!”. That, of course, was over once I explained that a military base is akin to a small town where only the police are armed. IOW the average person on base is not armed and someone with murderous intent simply needs to acquire a weapon and is relatively free to enter any particular building and have his/her way, which is what happened (twice?) not too long ago.
Here, I’ll take the devil’s advocate position.
1. Guns make it easier for people to kill other people.
2. The easier it is for a person to buy a gun and carry a gun, the lower the barriers for that person to kill people should they decide to do so.
3. Establishing gun-free zones obviously doesn’t prevent anyone from carrying a gun, but it does mean that anyone who has or might have a gun can be immediately recognized as a threat.
4. The problem with gun-free zones is that there often isn’t enough security, not that guns aren’t allowed. The answer to shootings at gun-free zones is to set up metal-detectors and armed security.
1 is true, but I fail to see how it’s going to be changed.
2 is also probably true, but that also means it’s more likely that someone else will be armed to stop them.
3 I think that seems irrelevant at the time, and it’s plenty easy to concealed carry in a gun free area.
4 true. Hands down true. I think most of the people against gun free zones would at the very least agree that if those areas are to exist,they should be heavily defended.
I’ve been pretty against the metal detectors. If someone’s gonna shoot the place up, why would an alarm stop them.
The most interesting thing (to an outsider at least) about the EU elections was that the largest single party delegation is going to be the Brexit party. I know most EU countries have more than two major parties, so the vote fractures more than it does in the US, but it’s still funny to me that the largest party is one that would prefer not to be there.
Pie stole my schtick.
I love it!
“Imitation is the sincerest of flattery.” — Charles Caleb Colton
Indeed
For those of you who like soccer, does the women’s world cup do anything for you? The US is already up 3-0 on Thailand after 30 minutes, and all of the goals have been garbage.
I’ll watch to ogle some of the women, but the gameplay doesn’t do anything for me.
Caveat: I do like the fact that the women seem much less likely to do the diving and fake injury bullshit.
There is virtually no flopping, but there is also no defense.
Which are connected. There isnt the full speed tackles that lead to spectacular falls and then the flopping.
Yep. Alex Morgan’s (hot) goal, she just walks right into space in the box with no defender on her.
The passes are atrocious and usually purposeless.
Speaking of diving…
muff
Tobin Heath has nice legs. Beyond that, I don’t have a lot to add.
that forward head “tech neck” can’t be healthy.
It looks like good HS soccer, which, you know, it basically is, as good HS boys teams regularly beat them.
Women sports are not at the same caliber as men’s sports. I’m sorry, but there is a reason why the Women’s World Cup is always dominated by the US, Canada, and some Scandinavian countries, while none of these countries can produce a legitimate men’s team (for the US this has been a recent crisis, though).
Alex. Morgan. That is all.
I think Alex Morgan perfectly represents what women’s sports are all about. In order for a female athlete to make it big in popular culture she needs to be good at her sport and attractive. This is particularly true if the sport is more violent. No one wants to see Cat Zingano wail on some uggo. Americans would rather see Meisha Tate get pounded by Ronda Rousey, because most men would say “would” to both of them. Paige Vanzant, for instance, is a modestly good female fighter, but her fights sell out, because everyone wants to see the pretty girl wail on an uggo.
Admittedly, it’s harder to be a female athlete
Given that the performance is inferior to the men’s game, having factors other than just their performance be part of women’s success doesn’t seem that unfair.
I got a telemarketing call from one of those places that use a local number…
“Hi, I am calling from the ??? Institute. We received your request to further your education, is now a good time?”
“Not really. I have a masters degree, so unless you are selling a doctorate program–”
“We have a unique opportunity at EPI, a pipeline for HVAC techicians–”
“What does the V stand for?”
“I’m sorry?”
“The V in HVAC. What does it stand for”
*click*
Victrola.
Vacuum!
I’m surprised they gave up
They didn’t I got 3 additional calls after that
is they said vagina, would you have signed up?
HVAC dudes get all the ladies. It is known.
What does the V stand for?
I laughed.
Christina Hendricks’ tits belong in the Smithsonian.
Now, or Firefly-era?
Saffron was clearly the best character on Firefly.
Firefly/Mad Men.
Amen
*wistful sigh*