Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to delete it.
The Famous Ray's Pizza on 11th and 6th is the "real" one (though not the first one), responsible for all the hype. Anytime in the 70s or early 80s it had a line out the door. Known for its custom toppings under extra cheese. Still open, but the quality hasn't survived two rounds of ownership changes.
Democrats: don't "get" the message. Fight the message!!
The problem with Iowa's caucuses is that they empower political hobbyists with too much time on their hands and political cranks. Most people don't have the time or inclination to meet all the candidates, nor do they want to take three hours on a winter night to go to a meeting and declare their preference in front of their neighbors. The percentage of Iowans who take part is quite low - caucuses are intrinsically undemocratic because of the high barrier of participation.
Iowa has given us George W. Bush and Barack Obama as nominees (if it hadn't been for caucus states, Hillary would have won more delegates - she won the Texas primary but lost the caucuses, which the Obama campaign considered a bragging point) as well as ruinous corn subsidy policies, and they can't be dealt out of their prime position soon enough for my tastes. I worked the Iowa caucuses in '88 and they are hell.
I do like small state primaries for the reasons you give, but New Hampshire has held this spot long enough (since 1952), it distorts our politics to make a few small states permanently powerful.
Iowa has given us George W. Bush and Barack Obama as nominees (if it hadn't been for caucus states, Hillary would have won more delegates - she won the Texas primary but lost the caucuses, which the Obama campaign considered a bragging point) as well as ruinous corn subsidy policies, and they can't be dealt out of their prime position soon enough for my tastes. I worked the Iowa caucuses in '88 and they are hell.
I do like small state primaries for the reasons you give, but New Hampshire has held this spot long enough (since 1952), it distorts our politics to make a few small states permanently powerful.
The issue with Michigan and Florida in 2008 was that Obama and the Democratic National Committee wanted to disenfranchise Democratic voters in two key battleground states because of decisions at the legislative level they couldn't possibly have been aware of, or had any control over. In Florida's case, the Republican legislature and governor advanced the primary over objections from Democrats who were powerless to stop them; still the DNC voted to punish Florida Democrats by banning their delegations from the convention.
It was beyond unseemly for the party who insisted "count every vote" in Florida during the 2000 recount to refuse to count the votes of any Florida Democrat in the 2008 primary -- but of course, it suited the needs of the Obama juggernaut, so that was that.
It was beyond unseemly for the party who insisted "count every vote" in Florida during the 2000 recount to refuse to count the votes of any Florida Democrat in the 2008 primary -- but of course, it suited the needs of the Obama juggernaut, so that was that.
Nah, coming from Facebook this is just a ploy for more data, disguised as a privacy upgrade. They don't need me to categorize my friends in order to weight my news feed toward the ones I'm interested in, their algorithm knew that three years ago based on my activity, until they decided they wanted to be all Twitter and realtime. People don't have the patience for all this categorizing (as Google+ shows), and to follow the fix you identified is even more complicated.
If Facebook cared about privacy they would not make these lists public by default - what user (if they were aware) would want that?
If Facebook cared about privacy they would not make these lists public by default - what user (if they were aware) would want that?
The writer from The Local should get points for use of "love-sick," expanding the range of obligatory puns based on Dylan lyrics in news stories related to him beyond the '60s and '70s into his later period.
Well there's also this, as Michael Gerson said on the PBS News Hour on Friday: Paul has a ceiling of support that is not much higher than his floor. His "extreme" and/or "reasonable" views are outside the Republican primary voters' mainstream. All the excited young activists are not going to turn him into a Republican Barack Obama. He has no chance to be nominated so the press discounts him, perhaps appropriately. As for Huntsman, you can certainly make the same case. He has zero chance, and as Jason Linkins said, the Huntsman campaign is possibly nothing more than the most elaborate scrapbooking project ever. (I mean, an Annie Leibovitz photo shoot?) His views are also outside the Republican mainstream. But the press has this fantasy that Huntsman could get nominated if things broke a little differently, and that he'd be a very strong candidate against Obama (which no one thinks of Paul). So they indulge him, and themselves, with lots of media attention even though Paul has many deep ideas people should listen to.
It doesn't have to annoy everyone to be worth banning. It does, however, endanger your health whether you find it annoying or not, and that's the reason for the ban.
The blindness in your answer starts in the first sentence. Your "right" is the right to blow smoke in my face. But your right to do that stops at the immediate point where my right to breathe clean air starts -- and that requires more than a few yards distance. If you avoid smoking near kids, you might note that adult non-smokers are just as endangered and have just as much right to not breathe your smoke as babies.
Fran Lebowitz is hardly credible on this subject. Being around gay people isn't a health risk, being around tobacco smoke is.
Fran Lebowitz is hardly credible on this subject. Being around gay people isn't a health risk, being around tobacco smoke is.
Did your part to what? Break the law, annoy people, make yourself stink more or make yourself sick?
or maybe instead, the people who don't want clean air should leave.
You sound like you're nothing if not considerate.
Cigar smoke is noxiously unpleasant to anyone who has to unwillingly breathe it, indoors or out, and laws designed to forbid that in public spaces are angelic.
The people you hang out with might not be a random sample.
You seriously misunderstand fascism.
Clean air in public spaces may be unenforced but it's not silly. And it's supported overwhelmingly by New Yorkers, if not the creative underclass that writes these sites.
The Gingrich and Pawlenty jokes were funny. The rest is train-wreck funny. I give it four stars.
Porto Rico - quite a bit cheaper and good quality.
