Y’all get lemongrass?

I loved the men’s outfits in my storybooks when I was growing up. We need to make it socially acceptable to dress like this again:

From a Russian storybook? I like the detail on the beetle at the bottom. A weevil of some kind?

(This photo is of a strawberry root weevil.)

What I don’t get are the dogs that like people but are are aggressive towards other dogs. They’re not always angry, but they do just hate all other members of their own species?

You think I’m just persnickety? I’m downright cantankerous!

I don’t get it. Is the new icon funny somehow?

Hollow Night

All credibility lost.

I wish I knew. The other thing that stuck out to me was that no one wore shorts. I did at first just because it was hot but I stopped after I noticed that I was the only man not wearing long pants

The incident mentioned in the article ended with the passport returned, but if there are other incidents of passports being taken and not returned then I would agree with you.

Not unusual doesn’t mean desirable or inevitable. It might just mean a lot of other countries made the same mistake.

Actually, according to the article the main difficulty is just the lack of a passport. The article does mention that some legal residents of the USA might be worried that they would nonetheless be prevented from returning if they left the country to act as chaperones for these children, but that’s a purely hypothetical problem so far.

But cultural differences do exist too. When I visited Mumbai, I fairly frequently saw pairs of adult men walking around holding hands. It looked really gay to my American eyes, gayer than anything that my gay friends do in public. However, apparently in India it is normal for heterosexual men to hold each other’s hands.

Are you aware that there is a significant population of white people in South Africa and a long history of racial conflict there between them and the black majority? The white minority ruled over and oppressed the black majority until the end of apartheid in the early nineties and the idea that the majority could now be persecuting the minority is not ridiculous per se the way that you imply it is, although the general consensus outside of the circles Trump listens to is that such persecution isn’t happening.

Ah yes, an “unauthorized modification”. It must have been the janitor pressing buttons accidentally while mopping the mainframe room.

That works out to an annual salary of about $62,500 for a full-time employee and my intuition is that the marginal value of the lowest-paid hotel employees to their employers is a lot less than that, but the nice thing about this being a local law is that LA can experiment on itself and the rest of the country can watch and learn. If this works well, other cities can do the same thing and if this doesn’t then the harm is relatively limited.

(I noticed that the law only applies to hotels with over sixty rooms. I already stay exclusively in Airbnbs when I travel because that’s cheaper. Is LA also one of those cities making it difficult to run an Airbnb or is this going to make large hotels even less competitive in that regard?)

Your interpretation of “subject to to the jurisdiction of the United States” is the one that would make this clause meaningless in the context of the amendment. A sovereign government has that sort of authority over everyone in the country, so presumably the amendment is talking about something different or otherwise there would have been no point in explicitly including the clause at all.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

I admit that I’m not sure how to interpret this in a way that includes freed slaves, people born in the Confederacy during the Civil War, but not everyone else born on US territory, but the implication of having two separate clauses is still that a person may be born in the United States but not subject to the jurisdiction thereof. I think that the Trump administration’s arguments seem like a stretch, but so is asserting that the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause means nothing.

Is there any large city where people would have responded? I don’t think anyone would clap in NYC, because people who ask you to do things in public are usually mentally ill, want your money, or both, and so the normal thing to do is to pretend they don’t exist.

So is referring to a woman as “Barbie” not sexist if she works for Trump, or is it still sexist but it’s ok to be sexist towards women who work for Trump?

(I’d ban Daily Beast links if I were in charge.)

Employees shouldn’t make public announcements (in their capacity as employees) unless authorized to do so by management. The official policy at my last job was that we weren’t to say anything unless explicitly instructed otherwise by marketing. The places I’ve worked at that didn’t have an official policy would have expected the same thing from me, just because it’s common sense.

As an employee, you can speak about your own specific working conditions with your manager. You can, through private channels, contact upper management about the company’s general strategy but that seems like a silly thing to do unless you know something that management doesn’t. (And Tesla’s upper management is well aware of what people think of Musk.) You definitely can’t try to organize public pressure against upper management’s decisions while you’re being paid to obey those decisions.