Things I Do Not Understand

Went to dinner and my normal place was JAMPACKED. Why?

Working Women’s Wednesday.

What, other than the alliteration in the name, make this an attractive idea? Is the idea to make Thursday with a hangover so miserable that Friday seems even better?

Open thread.






51 replies
  1. 1
    cleek says:

    What, other than the alliteration in the name, make this an attractive idea?

    it’s a pretty good idea, if you’re a restaurateur.

  2. 2
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    What, other than the alliteration in the name, make this an attractive idea?

    John Cole in a pantsuit and red wig?

  3. 3

    Scott Bloch, of $400 hand towel fame, is back in the news.

    This time Tom Davis (R-VA) is calling for a congressional investigation of the Office of Special Counsel to investigate…… Comment Board Abuse.

    Yep posting anonymous and misleading comments on the series of tubes while on the gov’t payroll may be propaganda not to mention waste fraud and abuse.

    Commenters are now on notice.

  4. 4
    Bobzim says:

    Seems to me that having the food equivalent of Ladies’ Night would just bring out the BBWs. The guys with that fetish are all skinny and probably don’t eat that much. I’m not seeing the upside here.

  5. 5
    Andrew says:

    Apropos of nothing:

    Federal spending on paper shredding contracts 2000-20008:

    2000 $452,807
    2001 $456,235
    2002 $752,799
    2003 $1,018,191
    2004 $2,329,466
    2005 $2,980,375
    2006 $3,068,877
    2007 $3,463,610
    2008 2Q $1,148,718

    I expect to see the Q3 & Q 4 numbers skyrocket.

  6. 6
    jake says:

    What, other than the alliteration in the name, make[s] this an attractive idea?

    So the basement-dwelling wingnuts can easily find a pay-check um, steady supply of Cheetos, damn it! I mean find a woman with whom to enter the holy state of matrimony.

  7. 7
    Third Eye Open says:

    Avoid the ones who insist on drinking a martinis spiked with mocha and/or espresso, a smart man will keep a keen eye for the lovely lady who has a Guinness Draught and keeps bugging the bartender to turn on SportsCenter…amiright? ladies? Where are you going?…LADIES!?

  8. 8

    It was their way of reaching out to Clinton supporters?

  9. 9
    RSA says:

    God save us from fake holidays like Working Women’s Wednesday, Festivus, and Easter.

  10. 10
    AnneLaurie says:

    What, other than the alliteration in the name, make[s] this an attractive idea?

    Hump Day. Gives tired women who would otherwise settle for a dinner of breakfast cereal, or a nuked burrito, an excuse to Dine Out. (Womens’ joke: Food prepared by somebody else has fewer calories than food you prepare yourself!) And where there are presumably-single women, men will follow. Wednesday is a slow day at most restaurants so any traffic increase should offset profits lost to advertising or promotional specials.

  11. 11
    RSA says:

    Since this is an open thread, I’m going to copy a question from The Other Steve in a different thread, which got lost in the noise:

    I’m curious. What do the wankers have to say about the man who had his conviction for murder overturned because part of the evidence against him was a statement by his girlfriend 2 weeks before she died saying “He threatened to kill me”.

    That one was 6 to 3, and Scalia wrote for the majority stating the man had no opportunity to question the witness against him.

    I don’t get this. Probably there are nuances I’m missing, but this looks like an Alice in Wonderland decision.

  12. 12
    jeff says:

    misogynist.

  13. 13
    The Moar You Know says:

    RSA Says:

    God save us from fake holidays like Working Women’s Wednesday, Festivus, and Easter.

    I own a Festivus pole, you insensitive bastard.

  14. 14
    Camper Joe says:
  15. 15
    Gemina13 says:

    I’m curious. What do the wankers have to say about the man who had his conviction for murder overturned because part of the evidence against him was a statement by his girlfriend 2 weeks before she died saying “He threatened to kill me”.

    That one was 6 to 3, and Scalia wrote for the majority stating the man had no opportunity to question the witness against him.

    I’m speechless here. How the fuck can a dead woman be questioned? Scalia, you infinitesimal prick.

  16. 16
    Camper Joe says:

    Oh god dammit! My glorious Stephen Baldwin video! Noooo!

  17. 17
    KRK says:

    Since this is an open thread, I’ll toss out something that came up earlier in the week and I’ve been hoping to off-load from my brain. My apologies if it’s old news.

    Are folks aware of the niche spy job of stealing and inspecting the feces of foreign leaders?

    On a trip to Vienna [in 2006], the White House flew in a special presidential crapper so that President George W. Bush’s feces could be collected and disposed of in a secure manner. Secret Service agents capture Presidential Poo in order to prevent foreign intelligence agencies from collecting information about the commander in chief’s health. Governmental agencies, including the United States’ C.I.A. and the Israeli Mossad, have used this approach to gain valuable information on the health status of world leaders such as Mikhail Gorbachev and former Syrian President Hafez al-Assad.

    I’m thinking that’s where Agent Flowbee picked up his penchant for peddling sh-t.

  18. 18
    myiq2xu says:

    Hump Day.

    Now that’s a holiday!

  19. 19
    chiggins says:

    “The gods will not save you… from Festivus”
    –Burrell

  20. 20
    TenguPhule says:

    Remember that dip in Violence in Iraq? Well, Remember it.

    But Remember, Fuckstain McCain has a super secret plan to solve everything.

  21. 21
    TenguPhule says:

    On a trip to Vienna [in 2006], the White House flew in a special presidential crapper so that President George W. Bush’s feces could be collected and disposed of in a secure manner.

    After proper processing, these were distributed in the White House Press Room in bite size, easily digestible chunks…..

  22. 22
    Mark-NC says:

    Back on topic – I’m guessing that guys will show up hoping to meet a girl with an actual job that can help pay the bills.

  23. 23
    Adolphus says:

    What, other than the alliteration in the name, make this an attractive idea? Is the idea to make Thursday with a hangover so miserable that Friday seems even better?

    Promotions like this are usually done on traditionally slow periods or nights. It is hard to increase revenue in a popular bar on Friday or Saturday since they are already pretty full. Giving women cheap food and booze will draw in women AND men, where giving cheap food and booze to men will bring in men and repel women.

    Hence, a lot of pubs/bars/grills have some form of ladies’ night Monday through Thursday.

  24. 24
    Punchy says:

    I own a Festivus pole, you insensitive bastard.

    I didn’t know you could enslave the Polish.

  25. 25
    peach flavored shampoo says:

    Back on topic – I’m guessing that guys will show up hoping to meet a girl with an actual job that can help pay the bills.

    Fixed. Deadbeats.

  26. 26
    Tom says:

    Were there some hot ones at least?

  27. 27
    adolphus says:

    Back on topic – I’m guessing that guys will show up hoping to meet a girl with an actual job that can help pay the bills.
    Fixed. Deadbeats.

    You mean a girl with an actual job who can pay the bills that is drunk on half-priced drinks and you don’t have to buy dinner for because of the free jalapeno poppers that make them drink even more

    Ladies’ nights are for bars in which female clientele need the biggest, strongest beer goggles available to make the male clientele look attractive.

  28. 28
    myiq2xu says:

    John goes to a place “jampacked” with drunk women and he complains about it.

    I would have figured I won the lottery.

  29. 29
    Zifnab says:

    You mean a girl with an actual job who can pay the bills that is drunk on half-priced drinks and you don’t have to buy dinner for because of the free jalapeno poppers that make them drink even more

    Ladies’ nights are for bars in which female clientele need the biggest, strongest beer goggles available to make the male clientele look attractive.

    Someone should have told me about these years ago.

  30. 30
    PeterJ says:

    Bush is going to lift the sanctions against North Korea and he will probably remove it from the Axis of Evil(tm) list.

    My guess, he’s going to argue that he dealt with all the Axis of Evil(tm) members during his presidency. So I wouldn’t bet against an attack on Iran before Jan 20…

  31. 31
    Penny says:

    Um, so working women can feel some camaraderie, gain support from other woman, blow off some steam in a safe environment about the oft craptastic treatment we receive?

    Or sometimes just get drunk and eat too much too.

  32. 32
    John Cole says:

    I never said it was packed with women. I said it was jampacked with sloppy drunks and all I wanted to do was have a quick and quiet dinner.

  33. 33
    peach flavored shampoo says:

    it was jampacked with sloppy drunks and all I wanted to do was have a quick and quiet dinner.

    By yourself? Shucks, John; Match.com. Use it. It works.

  34. 34
    The Thinking Man's Mel Torme says:

    Good, an open thread, as I’ve finally reached the breaking point regarding an odd behavior and I need the contrarian view.

    I’ve noticed an alarming rise, while driving back and forth to work, of motorists in other cars yakking away on their cellular telephonic instruments while holding the phone near, but not against, their heads. This is distinct from the way the Nextel weiners used to hold them like a portable radio. These talk-tards hold the phones horizontally, in the general vicintity of the pie hole, but six inches to a foot distant. This has all the distractive properties of talking while driving, while looking stupider. Presumably, the mouth-breathers who sold these people their phones talked up the speakerphone capabilities, and this is a justification of same.

    Is this a regional idiocy, or is it widespread? I’m decidedly out of step with what the (to adopt a phrase from Jonathan Alter) “low-information” set is doing these days.

  35. 35
    4tehlulz says:

    DC v. Heller just dropped. SCOTUSBlog:

    Answering a 127-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in one’s home. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession.

    Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for the majority stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, or laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, or laws putting conditions on gun sales.

    Looks like Gun Control, SI, Gun Ban, No.

  36. 36
    Punchy says:

    Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for the majority

    Over/under on number of times he says “Scary Brown Terrorist Menance” in his write-up defending the majority?

  37. 37
    jibeaux says:

    What, other than the alliteration in the name, make this an attractive idea?

    From the point of view of the restaurant, I’m guessing the jampackedness.

  38. 38
    Zifnab says:

    I never said it was packed with women. I said it was jampacked with sloppy drunks and all I wanted to do was have a quick and quiet dinner.

    /me resists the mighty temptation to make cunnlingus joke reference

  39. 39
    The Moar You Know says:

    The Thinking Man’s Mel Torme Says:

    Good, an open thread, as I’ve finally reached the breaking point regarding an odd behavior and I need the contrarian view.

    I’ve noticed an alarming rise, while driving back and forth to work, of motorists in other cars yakking away on their cellular telephonic instruments while holding the phone near, but not against, their heads. This is distinct from the way the Nextel weiners used to hold them like a portable radio. These talk-tards hold the phones horizontally, in the general vicintity of the pie hole, but six inches to a foot distant. This has all the distractive properties of talking while driving, while looking stupider. Presumably, the mouth-breathers who sold these people their phones talked up the speakerphone capabilities, and this is a justification of same.

    Is this a regional idiocy, or is it widespread? I’m decidedly out of step with what the (to adopt a phrase from Jonathan Alter) “low-information” set is doing these days.

    Mel:

    I’ve noticed this too. I’m not sure what part of this shit-stain of a country you live in (you didn’t specify) but the tards here in Southern California do this a lot, presumably in a futile attempt to get a ticket from one of our MIA Highway Patrol. As the ticket is the monetary equivalent of half a tank of gas, it doesn’t serve as much of a deterrent for the oral respirators to go out and spend the thirty bucks on a bluetooth handset.

    My personal theory is that the headset messes up the perfectly coiffed hair, and the speaker on the blabberbox is not quite loud enough to cut through all the hearing damage these housewives sustained as teenagers, driving around/getting nailed by exactly the sort of low-budget wannabe thugs with thumping stereos that they routinely call the police on these days when said bad boys make the mistake of driving through their oh-so-perfectly manicured neighborhoods. So they’re holding it close enough to hear the idiocy pouring through.

  40. 40
    myiq2xu says:

    Looks like Gun Control, SI, Gun Ban, No.

    Gun control is hitting your target.

  41. 41
    anonocrat says:

    “I’m curious. What do the wankers have to say about the man who had his conviction for murder overturned because part of the evidence against him was a statement by his girlfriend 2 weeks before she died saying ‘He threatened to kill me.’

    “That one was 6 to 3, and Scalia wrote for the majority stating the man had no opportunity to question the witness against him.”

    I haven’t read the case, but let’s see what I remember from Evidence class…

    Out of court statements may not be offered for the truth of the matter asserted: they are hearsay. The reason for this is that there is no way for the finder of fact (the Jury in a jury trial, or the Judge in a bench trial) to assess the trustworthiness of the speaker unless he or she is able to testify and be cross-examined by the defendant. The trustworthiness of the speaker is something that the fact-finder alone is able to adjudicate.

    Let’s say that you are a witness in a trial, and as part of your testimony, you say “Jones came up the stairs and said, ‘there’s a bloody knife in the basement!’ You have not seen the knife. You don’t know that there is a knife in the basement at all. Unless Jones is able to testify about the existence of the knife, the statement “there’s a bloody knife in the basement” cannot be offered as proof that there is indeed such a knife. You may sincerely believe Jones, but that doesn’t mean that Jones isn’t lying.

    There are a great many exceptions to this rule. I would guess that in the case you describe, the court was considering the exception for dying declarations by the victim:

    Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 804(b)(2): “The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness … Statement under belief of impending death … a statement made by a declarant while believing the declarant’s death was imminent, concerning the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to impending death.”

    I’m pretty sure that two weeks’ time between the statement and the death of the declarant means that the statement was not made “under belief of impending death.”

    I don’t much like saying things like this but, based on the facts you’ve given, I think Scalia got this one right. The hearsay rule is an important rule — the right to face and cross-examine one’s accusers is an important safeguard of liberty.

    Regards,

    Anonocrat — who is currently (putting off) studying for the bar, and glad to have a chance to review.

  42. 42
    zzyzx says:

    I expect to hear the conservatives bitch about activist judges striking down a law.

  43. 43
    4tehlulz says:

    I see what you did there zzyzx

  44. 44
    zzyzx says:

    Seriously though, if they don’t, what argument do they have the next time a law they like is struck down?

  45. 45
    The Moar You Know says:

    zzyzx Says:

    Seriously though, if they don’t, what argument do they have the next time a law they like is struck down?

    This is a rhetorical question, right?

  46. 46
    Cris says:

    Wait a sec, “Working Women” or “Working Girls?” Because that would be a whole other story.

  47. 47
    Shinobi says:

    Turns out “John McCain is aware of the Internet.” (But probably not all internet traditions.)

  48. 48

    I’m still hung over from the twelve days of Fitzmas. What religion invented that holiday?

  49. 49
    flywheel says:

    One more piece of evidence of why the “establishment” welcomed the “Women’s Rights” movement. Wow! Women with their own money? Jesus, a gold mine! Hell, we can tell the fat ones’s they’re too fat and the skinny ones that they’re too thin, and that we have the PERFECT solution. Oh, and the ones that are neither will sort themselves into one of the above categories. This is a win/win situation we have here, Joe and Judy. We can change the styles every week, we can say what’s in and out, we can get them to compare themselves to the starving actresses, and we can show them on TeeVee as accomplished, powerful, responsible and happy in their loneliness. Speaking of naivete in women could get a guy stoned to death.

    Do you know that you could feed the entire world on what women spend on makeup in a week?

    And before you call me a misogynist, look up the word “misandrist”. (God, even the spell check on this site underlines the word as misspelled! Amazing.)

    Dictionary.com says that misogyny is the hatred, dislike, or MISTRUST of women.

    Dictionary.com says that misandry (underlined again) is the “hatred of men.” Interesting, that.

  50. 50
    RSA says:

    (God, even the spell check on this site underlines the word as misspelled! Amazing.)

    I suspect you mean “in my browser”. . .

  51. 51
    flywheel says:

    Oh.

    Do I have to plug it in, too?

Comments are closed.