Althouse: At the Kong Kafé...

November 30, 2012

At the Kong Kafé...

... what are you sucking at?

(Need a Kong? Here! Need anything else? Here's the outstanding and mild Althouse portal.)

69 comments:

test said...: Sucking at the Kong cafe? Are you serious?; 11/30/12, 4:30 PM
Patrick said...: Yay!! New nephew today. No name yet, so my oldest is going to call him "Frank" until further notice.; 11/30/12, 4:33 PM
mccullough said...: Well placed preposition. That e-cigarette looks like a decent stocking stuffer.; 11/30/12, 4:35 PM
Meade said...: Frank is fantastic name for a nephew... or, even better, a GRAND-nephew.; 11/30/12, 4:35 PM
Meade said...: Congratulations, Patrick!; 11/30/12, 4:37 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: In your face non-smoking nazis!

I'm not a smoker, but the non-smoking zealots have always rub me the wrong way.; 11/30/12, 4:41 PM
McTriumph said...: Professor Ann, love your Garbo smoking technique.; 11/30/12, 4:44 PM
AllenS said...: Good go to fucking, Hell. You two a like totally wierd.; 11/30/12, 4:45 PM
jungatheart said...: Althouse, you naughty, dirty girl.; 11/30/12, 4:46 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: I had that wrong... the Kong is a dog thingy.; 11/30/12, 4:48 PM
edutcher said...: You're either trying to seduce him or you've got something other than water in there.

Maybe both.

Looks like somebody's going to be having fun this Friday.

Ann Althouse said...

... what are you sucking at?

Now, there's an invitation.

PS Patrick, many congrats. Frank's a fine name, I've known several and they were all good guys.; 11/30/12, 4:49 PM
Wince said...: How long before they put THC in those?; 11/30/12, 4:49 PM
Wince said...: edutcher said...
You're either trying to seduce him...

"Aren't you?"; 11/30/12, 4:54 PM
Patrick said...: Thanks, Meade, and edutcher. I, of course take no credit. I'm going to have a tough time when they do actually name him. For 2 of my three, it took several hours (one until the next day) before I wore my wife down to get her to agree to the names. Uh, I mean compromise on the names.; 11/30/12, 4:55 PM
Ann Althouse said...: "How long before they put THC in those?"

We talked about exactly that. If marijuana is legalized, people are going to want a smoking-like experience and the product should be like this.

Why not just legalize some product like that, tax it heavily, and end the pressure to do more and be fair to the picky people like me who refrain from committing crimes?; 11/30/12, 4:57 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: You two keep pampering those dogs and one of these days they are not going to want to back home...

Occupy MeadeHouse.; 11/30/12, 5:07 PM
KCFleming said...: "Why not just legalize..."

The government needs the money it raises from asset forfeiture in drug busts.

In 2010, the value of assets seized was $1.79B, which was 52.8% higher than 2009, and equaled 6 times greater than 1989.

THC smokes won't likely bring in the same kind of revenue as taking your house and car.; 11/30/12, 5:10 PM
Meade said...: "Occupy MeadeHouse."

We ARE the K-ninety-nine percent!; 11/30/12, 5:12 PM
Ann Althouse said...: Pogo, forfeitures require legal efforts. I think a regular stream of tax revenue is preferred.; 11/30/12, 5:27 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: Speaking of smoke and mirrors...

In the Obama "budget cliff" negotiations... it is the congress that's on the chopping block.; 11/30/12, 5:28 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: In case its not clear...

The Obama administration's opening bid on Thursday in negotiations to avert a year-end fiscal crunch included a demand for new stimulus spending and authority to unilaterally raise the U.S. borrowing ceiling...; 11/30/12, 5:31 PM
Chip Ahoy said...: Remember when the first big snow hit Madison?; 11/30/12, 5:36 PM
KCFleming said...: "I think a regular stream of tax revenue is preferred.

It depends who gets the dough, don't it? $1.79B would be tough to give up.

And they enjoy seizing stuff. It's fun and a power trip.

In the end, you're correct. It makes sense. Which is precisely why it won't happen that way, not for a good long time.

Too many entrenched constituencies, too much time at the teat to pull back now.; 11/30/12, 5:36 PM
Chip Ahoy said...: Madson apparently.; 11/30/12, 5:36 PM
john said...: ... what are you sucking at?

Where does one start answering a question like that?

Well, making money,
getting my kids to see things my way,
piano,
choice of wall paint,
training the dog.

Now if you had asked "what are you sucking on?" ...; 11/30/12, 5:38 PM
edutcher said...: EDH said...

You're either trying to seduce him...

"Aren't you?"

I do believe the consensus is that, when she said, "Yes", Althouse, an alluring lady when she wants to be, broke a lot of hearts.; 11/30/12, 5:38 PM
john said...: Since this is an open thread:

Any suggestions on what to do with leftover turkey? Somewhere to send it perhaps, somewhere where it will do some good, make someone happy?

I should mention it's probably not safe to eat.; 11/30/12, 5:41 PM
Darcy said...: Gross.; 11/30/12, 5:48 PM
Chris Althouse Cohen said...: I hate those e-cigarettes with a passion. People smoke them in restaurants and public buildings because no one has gotten around to restricting them yet (it's a new product) even though they have nicotine in them. If you can't smoke cigarettes somewhere, you shouldn't be able to smoke those. I also don't approve of anything that promotes smoking, in part because someone close to me died as a result of smoking. And I don't care if they make some e-cigarettes that don't actually have nicotine in them, because there's no way for people around you to tell whether it has it or not.; 11/30/12, 6:02 PM
john said...: I hate people wearing baseball caps backwards with a passion. People who wear them in restaurants and public buildings because no one has gotten around to restricting them yet, even though you know the idiot wearing one is stupid hillbilly. If you can't walk into a restaurant completely naked and get served, you shouldn't be able to wear those awful caps. I also don't approve of anything that I personally don't like, in part because some kid beat the shit out of me in the 3rd grade. And I don't care about the logic or lack of, in this diatribe. I just gotta say it, there, thank you.; 11/30/12, 6:09 PM
Rabel said...: Speaking of THC, anyone know how the legal marijuana states plan to control driving under the influence?

They will control it, but I don't know of a test that's as accurate or fast as the alcohol tests.

And I used to toke so please don't bother with the "I drive better" argument.; 11/30/12, 6:18 PM
SomeoneHasToSayIt said...: By the way, I, and most people, go around with my natural hair color. Why do you choose not to?

I'm seriously curious. What is the thought process that leads to "therefore, I will continuously dye my hair blond."; 11/30/12, 6:20 PM
edutcher said...: Chris Althouse Cohen said...

I hate those e-cigarettes with a passion. People smoke them in restaurants and public buildings because no one has gotten around to restricting them yet (it's a new product) even though they have nicotine in them. If you can't smoke cigarettes somewhere, you shouldn't be able to smoke those. I also don't approve of anything that promotes smoking, in part because someone close to me died as a result of smoking. And I don't care if they make some e-cigarettes that don't actually have nicotine in them, because there's no way for people around you to tell whether it has it or not.

Don't speak like that to your mother!

Starting to sound like Hatman (oh, no...).

john said...

I hate people wearing baseball caps backwards with a passion.

The way the cap is worn is the way the brain was installed.; 11/30/12, 6:25 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: I think we should restrict and regulate any blog that uses the words "nicotine" or "cigs" as they are evil things that are being promoted either knowingly or not by those who bring them up.

As I am fair, for the first offense the fines would only amount to $10,000.

But if people use the evil terms again, they might find the consequences most unpleasant.; 11/30/12, 6:27 PM
Rabel said...: John,

Send your turkey to this guy

He takes his leftovers seriously.; 11/30/12, 6:32 PM
Toad Trend said...: I really miss second-hand smoking...this e-smoking of flavoured vapors is quite bizarre.

Is imitation of destructive behavior the next craze?; 11/30/12, 6:34 PM
Toad Trend said...: "I hate people wearing baseball caps backwards with a passion."

Well, that's a little strong, but I get it. Wearing the baseball cap backwards is for counterculture creatures and catchers.

Wearing it with the tag still affixed is even more avant-garde.

Maybe ball caps should be sold with wearing instructions. For the children.; 11/30/12, 6:41 PM
KCFleming said...: Nicotine doesn't kill anyone. It doesn't cause cancer.

It's nearly harmless by itself. Why oppose its use?; 11/30/12, 6:44 PM
Unknown said...: We take our leftovers so seriously that we roasted a second turkey on Friday after Thanksgiving because we sent so much of the leftovers home with guests. If there is no turkey hash there is no happiness.; 11/30/12, 6:45 PM
Toad Trend said...: "I hate those e-cigarettes with a passion. People smoke them in restaurants and public buildings because no one has gotten around to restricting them yet (it's a new product) even though they have nicotine in them. If you can't smoke cigarettes somewhere, you shouldn't be able to smoke those. I also don't approve of anything that promotes smoking, in part because someone close to me died as a result of smoking. And I don't care if they make some e-cigarettes that don't actually have nicotine in them, because there's no way for people around you to tell whether it has it or not."

I can't tell if the sarc switch is on or off on this one.

I will say that I knew people that died in auto accidents but I don't have an issue with people driving in general.

I can't imagine what it would be like to obsess over someone else's behavior.; 11/30/12, 6:48 PM
chickelit said...: Sot weed rhymes with Meade?; 11/30/12, 7:04 PM
BaltoHvar said...: Smoker here - and I have tried that product - although the fact it is "disposable" is good, the feel/experience is not quite there.

The disposable idea is great because before, using these required you carry around works like a smack addict.

I have used this in illegal places, surprising guests and co-workers surely averse to smoking (ers) and they begrudgingly agree that the fall-out is non-existent. Now if the Airlines would just cave, I'd be a happy boy!

I also like the idea of THC delivery. For some that medically require THC to be delivered but can't digest a pill, this could be a merciful way to deliver the drug.; 11/30/12, 7:05 PM
BaltoHvar said...: Smoker here - and I have tried that product - although the fact it is "disposable" is good, the feel/experience is not quite there.

The disposable idea is great because before, using these required you carry around works like a smack addict.

I have used this in illegal places, surprising guests and co-workers surely averse to smoking (ers) and they begrudgingly agree that the fall-out is non-existent. Now if the Airlines would just cave, I'd be a happy boy!

I also like the idea of THC delivery. For some that medically require THC to be delivered but can't digest a pill, this could be a merciful way to deliver the drug.; 11/30/12, 7:08 PM
Anonymous said...: If anyone needs a tutorial, look no further.; 11/30/12, 7:16 PM
n said...: What am I sucking at?
True confession: LIFE.; 11/30/12, 7:19 PM
chickelit said...: Work on blowing smoke rings, Althouse. They're more erotic than onion rings.; 11/30/12, 7:23 PM
LoafingOaf said...: Is that the Blu e-cig? I've wanted to try those out. Are they good? How long does a cartridge last?

----

Speaking of THC, anyone know how the legal marijuana states plan to control driving under the influence?

Tons of people already do drive under the influence of marijuana. Just ask a cop how many times they approach a car and smell the smoke. I suspect the problem will decease with legalization. The way things are with prohibition, lots of people drive to the dopeboy then drive to the gas station for a shell and then pass the blunt around in the car. People would have less reason to smoke inside their cars if it were legal. Just like how people under 21 often drink inside their cars because they're not allowed to legally drink anywhere.

They will control it, but I don't know of a test that's as accurate or fast as the alcohol tests.

I think it's good they don't have a test that's as accurate. With alcohol, they keep lowering the legal limit to arrest more and more people for DUI, though I don't think the folks who are borderline (.08 BAC) are the ones killing people on the roads. If they can't tell you're under the influence with a field test, are you really a dangerous driver?

Anyway, they also don't have a good test for people who drive while sleep deprived, yet it's one of the top causes of accidents.; 11/30/12, 7:29 PM
LoafingOaf said...: The new smoke-free casino in Cleveland also bans e-cigs. I don't understand why.; 11/30/12, 7:33 PM
reformed trucker said...: "and be fair to the picky people like me who refrain from committing crimes" - Ann

Conformists... meh.; 11/30/12, 7:38 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: How was the vapor cigarette?; 11/30/12, 8:14 PM
XRay said...: The way it's going, there will someday be an implanted device at birth which will monitor your entire and complete intake of 'anything'. Foods, fats, alcohol, THC, nicotine, etc... everything that your Obamacare Plan wishes to monitor so as to determine how much to spend on you. Deviate and you will be classed as a deviate. And then, sorry Charlie. You didn't follow the rules. You aren't FORWARD enough.; 11/30/12, 8:18 PM
Peter Hoh said...: No word from the Supreme Court today, eh?

SCOTUSblog on the same-sex marriage cases:

The striking feature of these cases – not present in any others I have ever seen – is that that they would have been decided by the Justices’ predecessors one way and would be decided by the Justices’ successors another way.; 11/30/12, 8:26 PM
Panachronic said...: @ Chris Althouse Cohen:

You should learn a little about something before you condemn it. You'll sound less ignorant that way.; 11/30/12, 8:35 PM
Ann Althouse said...: "The striking feature of these cases – not present in any others I have ever seen – is that that they would have been decided by the Justices’ predecessors one way and would be decided by the Justices’ successors another way."

Yeah, I saw that. Weirdly asserted, don't you think? I believe in writing pretty close to the way you speak, but that's carrying it to the extreme.

I assume the Court will grant cert.; 11/30/12, 8:37 PM
Meade said...: Freeman Hunt said...
"How was the vapor cigarette?"

I liked it. Something I might do again next time I'm driving a long distance.; 11/30/12, 8:44 PM
Ann Althouse said...: ""The striking feature of these cases – not present in any others I have ever seen – is that that they would have been decided by the Justices’ predecessors one way and would be decided by the Justices’ successors another way."

He should have said something like this:

There is something that is true of these cases that I have never been so sure of before, and that is that the Court at an earlier time would have said of course there is no such right, and the Court at some time in the future — I don't know how far in the future — will say of course there is. Both of those things are clear. What isn't clear at all is what the Court we have now will say.; 11/30/12, 8:49 PM
Ann Althouse said...: There's just something irritatingly off about the verb tense in "would be decided by the Justices’ successors another way."; 11/30/12, 8:51 PM
Peter Hoh said...: I suspect that the Court would prefer not to take these cases on, but I don't think they can. They are in an interesting spot. I'd love to know what Robert's is thinking.; 11/30/12, 8:53 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: I'd love to know what Robert's is thinking.

Check the Gallup brief.; 11/30/12, 8:55 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Yes, but I am too tired to suggest an alternative verb. My guess is that the writer was aiming for a parallel construction to emphasize the "caught in the middle" nature of the timing of these cases.; 11/30/12, 8:56 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Lem wrote: "Check the Gallup brief."

And yet, Roberts' ruling in the Obamacare case went against public polling.; 11/30/12, 8:57 PM
madAsHell said...: I dunno.

We used to smoke big fat reefers. Now, we smoke pot from a hash pipe.

One toke, and you are DONE.; 11/30/12, 9:28 PM
Lydia said...: McTriumph said...

Professor Ann, love your Garbo smoking technique.

I think it's way more Jeanne Moreau .; 11/30/12, 9:39 PM
As my whimsy leads me.. said...: I would love to order a Kong, but my dog won't use it. In fact, she doesn't play with any toys at all. She will chew on my buttons (the big ones on sweaters), or on a marker or pen if she finds one on the floor, but she has no interest in squeaky toys, balls, chewy things, or anything else. I even have walked her up and down the aisles of the pet store hoping she'd take an interest in something, but no luck.

Another dog I had several years ago, who was part pit bull, would absolutely destroy a Kong. We'd give her a cheap basketball sometimes, snd she'd tear it to pieces. She was a great dog.

Toy; 11/30/12, 10:01 PM
AlanKH said...: Kong Kafe should be a restaurant on the top floor of the Empire State Building.; 11/30/12, 10:58 PM
Zachary Sire said...: is this a porn blog now?; 11/30/12, 11:41 PM
Dante said...: "The striking feature of these cases – not present in any others I have ever seen – is that that they would have been decided by the Justices’ predecessors one way and would be decided by the Justices’ successors another way."

Well, let's see, he is saying judges 100 years ago would have laughed it out of town, and judges 100 years from now, will decide the opposite. The would comes into the uncertainty of the pivot point, today, and what will be decided.

Are you objecting to the way the idea is presented? It seems clear to me.

Or perhaps you do not like the idea that the court is headed in a direction of an increasingly flexible interpretation of law for things you support?

As an example, you asked regarding the guy who had the kid through artificial insemination, and asked "Should the man have custodial rights," even though the law was quite clear. Should he? Are you making a point the law might not be correct? Who knows, and who cares. The law is the final line in deciding disputes, and should does not factor into it. That's what elected officials are for.

How about being clear in your thoughts, instead of vague, for once?; 12/1/12, 1:37 AM
Rusty said...: Ann. You have 40ish looking hands.

And when a pretty girl,(ok even not so pretty girls) mention 'sucking', even innocently, all kinds of wicked images are brought to mind.

So. Thank you for that.; 12/1/12, 7:15 AM
Meade said...: "is this a porn blog now?"

the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy; 12/1/12, 8:40 AM