Althouse: "I think the businesses that bring these men in should also be accountable for not providing opportunities that keep them busy outside of work."

January 16, 2013

"I think the businesses that bring these men in should also be accountable for not providing opportunities that keep them busy outside of work."

"They should check their employees before hiring (if they don't already) and get rid of those who commit ANY kind of aggression toward women or men. Their social responsibility goes beyond the gate or the door. Maybe the answer is for the towns like Williston to heavily tax the companies so that they can afford to police the men the companies employ. If business doesn't see itself more broadly as a player in the overall health of our society, government needs to step in."

That's a reader comment at the NYT article about all the single men working out in the oil fields of North Dakota, which we've been talking about over in this earlier thread. Please go to that thread to talk about the article more generally. I'm opening up this new thread for discussion of the proposition that business should be responsible for the after-work activities of their employees, that the tendency of men to go out after work looking for female companionship calls for the heavy taxation of business, that individuals looking for sexual relationships in their own free time ought to be conceptualized as an issue of collective "health," that overall societal health requires big "players," and that if businesses don't want to see themselves as the players, they leave a gap that government must fill.

92 comments:

Seeing Red said...: The overall health of our society?

From a LIBERAL?

When did they care about the overall health of our society?

Highest STD nation, wanting a nation of Julia's and vilifying men.

That poster voted for this, it's progressive!

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA; 1/16/13, 11:01 AM
Brew Master said...: Something! Must! Be! Done!

Damn the consequences, it will make me feel better to know that the government is taking money from evil corporations to surpress free men that are no threat to myself.; 1/16/13, 11:02 AM
TosaGuy said...: Because keeping "aggressive" people unemployed is such a good thing for society.; 1/16/13, 11:02 AM
stutefish said...: I agree that businesses have a social responsibility that goes beyond the gate.

I agree that they should adopt policies that reflect and uphold those responsibilities, within the law.

What I reject wholeheartedly is the very thing I suspect that commenter is actually asking for: Government imposition on businesses to force them to discharge the responsibilities the poster thinks they have.

If we can't, as local communities, find other ways to live our values and encourage other community members to share and live those same values, except through Government, then we're already losing.; 1/16/13, 11:03 AM
Shouting Thomas said...: The provocation for the NYT article is, obviously, the newspaper's hostility toward fracking as a method of producing oil and gas.

The Times has now, successfully to the mind of the leftist, married that issue to violence against women and the great oppression of women.

So, of course, the way to defeat both fracking and its related evil, which is the oppression of women, the strategy is to drive up the cost of doing business for the industry as a whole.

In reading the article, I did not get the impression Williston was suffering through a crime wave. The article most addressed what NY liberals think of as an unpleasant environment. Guys who do heavy work in the field are high testosterone men by definition. The NYT doesn't particularly like such people and would like to see them re-educated by feminism.

So, it's a round up of the usual suspects. The ultimate goal is to increase the price of producing fossil fuels to the point of driving them out of the market.; 1/16/13, 11:04 AM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: ""I think the businesses that bring these men in should also be accountable for not providing opportunities that keep them busy outside of work.""

Is he/she seriously suggesting that the oil companies provide for the opportunity to have sexual partners available after work? Like the Japanese soldiers in WWII with their convenience women?

Perhaps a knitting circle or a canasta club? That'll keep'em busy. /facepalm

Unless your employees are serial killers, convicted of actual crimes or there are 'legitimate' complaints from local law enforcement personnel (not just that Joebob was a rude asshole or Jimmy made a pass at a girl), the business has no responsibility as to how the men and women in their employ spend their off work hours.

The government doesn't need to fill a gap either.

We aren't slaves or indentured servants. Our leisure time is our own to play, sleep and eat what we want. This is why we own guns.; 1/16/13, 11:05 AM
rhhardin said...: Business makes people productive.

Taxing finds a way to make people unproductive.; 1/16/13, 11:06 AM
TosaGuy said...: I thought the NYT crowd thought it was bad for corporations to control people's lives outside of work?; 1/16/13, 11:07 AM
Eric the Fruit Bat said...: The problem is being naïve enough to believe there's a problem in the first place.; 1/16/13, 11:07 AM
Seeing Red said...: An enterprising person would open up a business in Elko, Nevada.

An enterprising person would have direct flights to Elko, Nevada.; 1/16/13, 11:08 AM
Wince said...: So, should the government be held responsible for the anti-social actions of those on the public dole?; 1/16/13, 11:08 AM
Shouting Thomas said...: I thought the NYT crowd thought it was bad for corporations to control people's lives outside of work?

Uh... we're talking about redneck macho guys here.

That's an entirely different story from sophisticated metrosexuals living in NY.; 1/16/13, 11:09 AM
Seeing Red said...: A company-sponsored whorehouse.

Next door to an Obamacare clinic.

With metal detectors to make sure they're not carrying knives or brass knuckles since guns will be outlawed.

Reservations have laxer laws than the rest of us, could they put up a whorehouse/casino/medical clinic?; 1/16/13, 11:10 AM
Paddy O said...: The businesses didn't built those aggressive men.; 1/16/13, 11:10 AM
TosaGuy said...: NYTers don't understand the relationship between boundaries and open space in the west. Legislating within a city boundary will simply move the activity or company outside of the boundary -- lots of unicorporated space out there in western North Dakota.

I went to undergrad in a western state. The city was dry on sundays. The gas station 100 feet from the city limit that sold beer on sunday did a boom business.; 1/16/13, 11:12 AM
SteveR said...: Williston in 2013 is probably no different that Williston in 1981 (previous oil boom) or similar places in similar circumstances (mining booms, cattle ranching, frontier military posts, etc.) throughout history. What's different is an expectation that people should be controlled by governments. Correct me if I'm wrong but is anybody breaking the law?; 1/16/13, 11:15 AM
traditionalguy said...: What do you expect. These lusty 20 somethings are put out Fracking Mother earth all day long, and then they are released from their barracks without a chain gang guard and blood hounds to follow them. The GPS implants and drones must be used in this crisis or the slaves will meet women and procreate.

Slavery apparently is to be the basis for Obama's New Roman Empire North American Colonia.

After all DC insider John Roberts decided that the Federal Government has all power over everything using a twisted taxing power theory.; 1/16/13, 11:16 AM
Rocketeer said...: One thing's for sure: The NYT is successfully fracking the minds of their target readers. If only their indignation and the tired talking points they learned to parrot (in place of actually thinking) in useless (Fill-in-the-Blank)-Studies courses could be used to generate electricity, we'd already be energy independent!; 1/16/13, 11:16 AM
PatHMV said...: Those local communities should be seeing a lot of increased cash flow, both in the private sector and in government tax coffers. The community ought to use some of those funds to provide other opportunities for these new workers.

For example, I would imagine that if there's guys out there willing to pay $7,000 to have one woman dance naked for them, there's plenty of room in the market to open up a strip club to accomodate their desire to spend money for that. Do those communities instead have zoning and other regulations that prohibit strip clubs from opening?

In every age, any time large numbers of single men swarm to an area to engage in physical labor, there are problems. Sometimes those problems are addressed by the companies (or governments) shipping in the workers also shipping in female companionship. Other times, the local communities step up and profit by providing solutions to the problems. And some times, free-lance female workers travel to the same location in search of profit.

This is truly nothing new. The problem is as old as humanity.; 1/16/13, 11:17 AM
MayBee said...: Employers should also be responsible for keeping busy all the women left in New York too, no?; 1/16/13, 11:17 AM
Michael said...: The comments in the NYT article are priceless and demonstrate again the great divide between our ever so smart ruling class and the rest of the world where things get done. No, businesses have no obligation to provide for the after hours activities of their workers. As a matter of fact, however, the Bakken employers are very keen on having sober and drug free workers and test regularly. They pay so well up there that they do not have to take one iota of crap from their workers. None. There are people in line to do the work.; 1/16/13, 11:17 AM
Jonathan Card said...: I know this is just my wacky, Conservative outlook, but doesn't already "step in" to patrol violations of the law? Isn't that what policemen ARE? What does the employer have to do? My employer isn't responsible for me if I shoplift. I can't really figure this kind of thing out.; 1/16/13, 11:18 AM
jacksonjay said...: They call themselves "oil field trash" for good reason! We've made several overnight trips to San Angelo, Texas in recent months. A friend (a woman alone) had her motel room burglarized twice in one day! Motel management blamed the oil field workers and told her the police probably wouldn't respond! They said it was very common, it was a Marriott!; 1/16/13, 11:18 AM
Widmerpool said...: Paging Heidi Fleiss....; 1/16/13, 11:19 AM
Bob Boyd said...: Liberals have come full circle, from free love and let's go do it in the road to puritanical control freaks who cannot even conceive of something as none of their business.; 1/16/13, 11:20 AM
Fprawl said...: Before the Internet, we could fool ourselves into thinking that this country was one big melting pot, coming together.
Now with comments on line, it's obvious that we are all screwed, doomed to peck at each other until the carcass of America finally lands on the beach to be cleaned down to the bones.; 1/16/13, 11:20 AM
AustinRoth said...: I think this is another Onion article disguised as NYT piece.

Or maybe vice versa.; 1/16/13, 11:21 AM
David-2 said...: Liberal idea of 21st century truth:

I sold my soul to the company stowwwww"

And if that company stow was in N.D., just what would they be selling anyway?; 1/16/13, 11:22 AM
robinintn said...: The person making that comment is almost certainly the exact same type who has made it impossible for past employers to say anything regarding the employee other than verifying that he was once employed. Might step on some slacker or thief's "rights".; 1/16/13, 11:22 AM
MadisonMan said...: Do the people who write that kind of thing believe a person should be fired if, for example, they are a teacher with a porn past?

What you do after work should have no bearing on how your company views your work, so why should the company be involved in any way with your extra-curricular activities?; 1/16/13, 11:24 AM
Anonymous said...: Isn't that in the same range as a business wanting to be able to fire female employees who are on the pill? What happened to the idea of what employees do when they're not at work being private?

(This is an old issue. There's a scene in Elizabeth Gaskell's North and South where the hero is asked something about his employees' private lives, and he says that when they're not at work he doesn't think it's his business to tell them what to do. At the time when Gaskell wrote this, it was a somewhat radical idea; the old British squirearchy certainly assumed the right to supervise the personal lives of the rural working class!); 1/16/13, 11:25 AM
dreams said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/16/13, 11:30 AM
Bob Boyd said...: Maybe the Obama Administration should make that commenter the new Cock Czar more formally entitled the President's Advisor on the Employment of Penis.; 1/16/13, 11:31 AM
Anonymous said...: Party on, dudes!; 1/16/13, 11:32 AM
X said...: while their at it, they can inspect women for tramp stamps and other clues to their histories.; 1/16/13, 11:33 AM
mccullough said...: Maybe we can bring back Clinton's Midnight Basketball initiative.; 1/16/13, 11:34 AM
Shawn Levasseur said...: Workers from across the border being a threat to the locals? I forgot to bring my political correctness manual, but… Isn't that racism?; 1/16/13, 11:35 AM
Menahem Globus said...: Reminds me of a passage from 'The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress':

With me breaking heart trying to round up heavy drills and men who could treat them as guns these idlers had spent an entire afternoon discussing immigration. Some wanted to stop it entirely. Some wanted to tax it, high enough to finance government (when ninety-nine out of a hundred Loonies had to be dragged to The Rock!); some wanted to make it selective by "ethnic rations," (Wondered how they would count me?) Some wanted to limit it to females until we were 50-50. That had produced a Scandinavian shout: "Ja, cobber! Tell 'em send us hoors! Tousands and tousands of hoors! I marry 'em, I betcha!"

Was most sensible remark all afternoon.; 1/16/13, 11:36 AM
Bob Boyd said...: I recommend all males must pass an instant background check before they can unzip their pants.; 1/16/13, 11:36 AM
bagoh20 said...: It's just such a stupid premise, that you have to sound obvious just pointing out what's wrong with it.

This is the same kind of person who will tell you that the problem in inner cities - where there are plenty of cops - is that there are no jobs, and no businesses want to hire people there. Then when a business offers to come in, they suddenly do everything possible to scare them off. This crap happens in L.A. all the time. The 1992 riots brought all kinds of money and opportunity to rebuild neighborhoods, and a lot of high talk, but for the most part the businesses didn't come, and neither did the improvements, because every time one suggested interest, every crazy liberal in and out of government immediately wanted stupid concessions beyond getting their people working and contributing.

All the excuses are always in pursuit of the same thing: total control, and siphoning off money.

Then they turn their head to the microphone and complain that businesses don't care about the locals and just want to outsource labor.

These people sit and wait like predators, never building anything, just looking for the next pocket to pick.; 1/16/13, 11:37 AM
Anonymous said...: Beneath the surface of such concern trolling about what business do is a broader philosophical platform:

Businesses are bad and not the ideal form of organization. Men are questionable and have to be mothered/girlfriended/rule-bound into behaving properly. SInce marriage, and religion, and other civilizing forces which do just that are also not the ideal form of organization and repressive in themselves, let's have government fill the void.

So back above again they're practical: companies should provide something for these guys. But it's the tip of the iceberg.

It goes deep into what much of modern liberalism really is: not very liberal and full of troubling ideas about individual liberty, the State, and their own incomplete project of what a liberal political philosophy needs to do if it is to remain liberal.

They alternate between being merrily libertine and hip (everyone is free all the time, sex should be fun and women can be like men), and then they suddenly turn back into the worst kind of secular prudes and saints sacrificing for their abstract ideals. It's like they remembered they were morally serious again.

This manifests into the kind of soft fascism, cradle to grave thinking, puritan scolding and nanny-Statism we see all too well in the progressive movement right now.; 1/16/13, 11:37 AM
Unknown said...: How about a remake of "Paint Your Wagon", set in an unincorporated area over the Bakken Formation?; 1/16/13, 11:38 AM
Anonymous said...: It's also one of the reasons that feminists are humorless, and that secular crusaders can be just as damaging as religious crusaders.

There are always true believers out there to control your lives because they don't like their own.

That's human nature.; 1/16/13, 11:40 AM
Amartel said...: Man hate (and contempt for women)
+
Business enterprise hate
+
"Oil fields" hate
+
Perceived threat to protected group
+
Something Must Be Done
+
Opportunity to tax
=
This.

The "logic" required to arrive at this level of stupidity relies on many different of hateful and ignorant and lazy assumptions about individual men and women, and business, and the scope and role of government in our lives. O'Blamer and O'Bumble, reading from the same emotional playbook in their politically opportunistic gun grabbing efforts are the heroes of the stupid.; 1/16/13, 11:41 AM
Balfegor said...: They should check their employees before hiring (if they don't already) and get rid of those who commit ANY kind of aggression toward women or men.

Yes, aggressive people should all just die. No one should ever be allowed to hire them.

Sarcasm aside, my first thought was exactly what DBQ seems to have thought -- do they really want the companies bringing in camp followers? I mean, that's effective, sure, and if the men are willing to drop $7,000 a pop for it, it sounds like it would be awfully lucrative.

But obviously that's not what the commenter wants. The commenter doesn't want aggressive or crude men to be employable at all -- that's what he/she means by "social responsibility".; 1/16/13, 11:41 AM
Anonymous said...: Jackie Chan hasn't gone far enough to say America was the most corrupt country in the world. He should say on top of that America was the stupidest, most moronic country in the world.; 1/16/13, 11:42 AM
bagoh20 said...: I'm sure this was written by an admirer of Ted Kennedy.; 1/16/13, 11:42 AM
TMink said...: Another fascist who fears freedom. I suggest he move to North Korea where his ideas are already being implemented. I will miss him.

Oh who am I kidding, good riddance! America is for grown ups.

Trey; 1/16/13, 11:43 AM
Sydney said...: It is hard enough to control employee behavior in the workplace. It would be impossible to control outside the workplace. And crazy to try, too. This is the slippery slope that begins with trying to control whether your employees smoke and ends with slavery.; 1/16/13, 11:47 AM
Bob Boyd said...: "You don't need a ten inch cock to thrill a dear!"; 1/16/13, 11:47 AM
sinz52 said...: SteveR: "Williston in 2013 is probably no different than ... similar places in similar circumstances...throughout history."

That's certainly true.

But a lot of Americans are genuinely ignorant of those things, because schools teach such a sanitized version of history in which sex is mostly ignored.

In most school history classes, you won't learn what gold prospectors during the California Gold Rush bought with their gold. (HINT: the madams in virtually every brothel knew how to perform a gold assay right on the premises.)

Nor will you learn why many Wild West saloons had a second upper floor. (What went on up there?)

Some of the New York Times posters are genuinely ignorant of these things.

But others are feminists who just want to change human nature. They believe that if they protest and prance around enough, then vast numbers of very lonely and very horny single men in the prime of life can be gelded.; 1/16/13, 11:49 AM
Big Mike said...: So let's see if I have this right. Colleges are to be prohibited from acting in loco parentis for minors enrolled in a university and housed on campus, but businesses are to act in loco parentis for adults merely employed by them during normal working hours?; 1/16/13, 11:50 AM
Shouting Thomas said...: Nor will you learn why many Wild West saloons had a second upper floor. (What went on up there?)

Time for reruns of Gunsmoke!

Why did they call her Miss Kitty?; 1/16/13, 11:56 AM
Franklin said...: We are well and truly fluked. More than 50% of the voters agree with statements like these.; 1/16/13, 11:58 AM
Shouting Thomas said...: We are blessed to live in entertaining times.; 1/16/13, 12:00 PM
Seeing Red said...: I see the out, Big Mike, they need to turn it into a college and working is their internship.; 1/16/13, 12:12 PM
X said...: most of the libs weighing in on this could't pass the weigh-in.; 1/16/13, 12:14 PM
X said...: if canning all the overweight government employees saves even one taxpayer dollar, it's worth it.; 1/16/13, 12:18 PM
edutcher said...: Why not just skip to the part where they can prove Communist affiliation (or Democrat Party registration) for 250 years?

sinz52 said...

Nor will you learn why many Wild West saloons had a second upper floor. (What went on up there?)

To store the booze?

Houses of ill repute were another business - they also had bars. Saloons sold liquor and, in many cases, that was it.; 1/16/13, 12:20 PM
Mitch H. said...: Are... they arguing that companies owe their employees a company-store brothel? Because that sounds a hell of a lot like what they're arguing.

And if you want companies taking care of their employees social and economic needs, let me point you to the history of "company stores" in Appalachia. They still tell stories around here about those abominations. At a gathering at a conservative family's house last summer, the host told a story about a nearby company town, wherein a schmuck walked to the next town to buy a pair of shoes from a place that wasn't the company store. The foreman spotted the shoes the next shift, and fired him on the spot.; 1/16/13, 12:24 PM
dbp said...: I'm sure the comment writer wouldn't mind her employer keeping intrusive tabs on her free-time "activities".; 1/16/13, 12:27 PM
Bob Boyd said...: edutcher said:
"Saloons sold liquor and, in many cases, that was it."

Saloons eliminated upstairs brothels because there was too much fucking overhead.; 1/16/13, 12:29 PM
Michael K said...: I suggest that New York Times readers stay away from western states. I'm sure the feeling is mutual.; 1/16/13, 12:36 PM
Holmes said...: Businesses should ensure that all of their employees go to church on Sunday. Not a lot of rowdy people in the Church ranks. Problem solved.; 1/16/13, 1:36 PM
n.n said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/16/13, 1:38 PM
n.n said...: Some "children" feel inadequate to leave the nest. This is certainly an "unintended" consequence of the self-esteem without merit movement. The authoritarians in human society are simply ecstatic with the progress of evolution that contributes to their good fortune.; 1/16/13, 1:39 PM
LordSomber said...: Does this same commenter think a day job employer should have no say regarding an employee's other employment/activities?
Say, a schoolteacher who is also a stripper?; 1/16/13, 1:59 PM
RonF said...: Businesses are responsible for what their employees do on or with company property or while they are on company business. Other than that - no, they're not.

I do think it's legitimate for the local municipality to tax the local businesses to the point necessary to hire a sufficient number of cops to keep the peace. The peace being homicides, robberies, etc., not saying "Shit!" to the ladies.; 1/16/13, 2:03 PM
n.n said...: RonF:

A progressive tax scheme? The security would be a service for everyone. Unless the business was by its nature manufacturing a disruption in civilized society.; 1/16/13, 2:23 PM
Mr. Enns said...: If the businesses were smart, they would find some excuse to hire young women in their remote locations. The lack of women means the workforce needs to be paid more, will have drug and motivation problems, will be more transient, will expect to be flown out weekly and have magnificent food cooked for them. Such is camp life.

Instead, ESSO should place its worldwide HR department right beside the most scenic lake in the middle of Nowhere, ND. Then set up job fair booth at their favorite universities and hire the young women to staff them.

Pete EE; 1/16/13, 3:02 PM
Jason said...: New York Times readers are scared, because these oil workers are men, and they know how to do things.; 1/16/13, 3:36 PM
Jason said...: New York Times readers are scared, because these oil workers are men, and they know how to do things.; 1/16/13, 3:37 PM
Steve Koch said...: "I think the businesses that bring these men in should also be accountable for not providing opportunities that keep them busy outside of work."

In the USA, almost all the workers at the rig work for services companies, not the oil and/or gas company that has the rights to the oil and gas. The oil and gas companies typically out source nearly everything. On any particular rig you might have 15 or 20 different service companies doing various jobs.

"Maybe the answer is for the towns like Williston to heavily tax the companies so that they can afford to police the men the companies employ."

The oil and gas drilling rigs are typically located in the boonies, not within city limits, so no city can tax them.

"If business doesn't see itself more broadly as a player in the overall health of our society, government needs to step in."

If we want to maximize job creation, we should simplify things as much as possible for businesses to encourage them to create as many jobs as possible.; 1/16/13, 4:58 PM
Known Unknown said...: I suggest that New York Times readers stay away from western states. I'm sure the feeling is mutual.

It would behoove the NYT to hire George Plimpton, Jr.

You know, a writer/reporter who would actually get involved in things before he told you about them.; 1/16/13, 5:15 PM
Known Unknown said...: The premise of practically every NYT story on flyover country is basically the first 20 minutes of Doc Hollywood.; 1/16/13, 5:17 PM
Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...: To avoid recurrence of an undesired outcome:
..ask not what the Party of the First Part might have done differently;
..nor ask what the Party of the Second Part might have done differently.
Make some third party the action agency.

So ... does the NYT now rank Big Oil as more socially responsible than Government?

Jeeze!; 1/16/13, 5:23 PM
Anonymous said...: Obviously the NYT has no concept of life in the town adjacent to a major troop base. Like Ft Drum NY for example... 20k of 20 something young men who get lots of exercise hiking in the hills and then go to Watertown, NY...

who knew flyover country was so close to NYC...; 1/16/13, 5:34 PM
Baron Zemo said...: Hey this was the premise of one of my favorite shows "Here Comes the Brides."

There were no women in Seattle so the Bolt brothers make a deal with Mr. Spocks father to bring a bunch of spinsters from Boston. The deal was they had to marry them all off in a year or Mr. Spocks father got the mountain that they got all the wood from. (Not the wood that the loggers were sporting...that was for the spinsters to take of).

So why not get together a wagon train full of spinsters and bring them out there.

There are tons of them out here on the east coast. Just go to any womens studies department or cat rescue shelter and there is a shitpot full of them.; 1/16/13, 5:37 PM
Baron Zemo said...: You know "Here Comes the Brides" was one of the professors favortie shows.; 1/16/13, 5:42 PM
Baron Zemo said...: Not because she was a spinster.; 1/16/13, 5:42 PM
Baron Zemo said...: It was all about Bobby Sherman.; 1/16/13, 5:42 PM
Baron Zemo said...: He was the orignial Meade.; 1/16/13, 5:43 PM
Baron Zemo said...: I loved the show because I have always had a thing for Joan Blondell.; 1/16/13, 5:45 PM
Baron Zemo said...: Bridget Hanley was kinda cute too!; 1/16/13, 5:45 PM
Baron Zemo said...: And they had either Starsky or Hutch I forget which one for Titus.; 1/16/13, 5:46 PM
Unknown said...: Am I the only one who noticed that all this fuss is being raised in the name of health?; 1/16/13, 6:35 PM
Joe Schmoe said...: God, private enterprise is under fire these days. Democrats are sensing a mood that the public at large is okay with progressive schemes, and they sure are trying to press their advantage. Tax hikes? Shrug. Sure. Gun control? Whatevs. Waste govt. money on failed green energy investments? We meant well. Make non-governmental and non-media people liable for everything within their field of vision, and then some? Well, it certainly isn't my fault, so why not.

We've got to wake the fuck up here.; 1/16/13, 7:08 PM
cubanbob said...: Does anyone in North Dakota actually give a crap what the NYT and its readers think? I rather doubt it.; 1/16/13, 7:24 PM
Jason said...: Jon Favreau, you magnificent bastard!!!; 1/17/13, 9:18 AM
Sam L. said...: The NYT is predjudiced against the great mid-section of this country. And the southeast. Amongst others.; 1/17/13, 12:47 PM
Sam L. said...: Does seem like a great opportunity for prostitutes (or sex workers).; 1/17/13, 12:48 PM
living1nbf3 said...: I worked in Williston, ND from 1981 to 1985. From the middle of the first boom to basically the end where it went into maintenance mode.

What makes you think that the guys creating the problems are the guys working there?

As with every boomtown in history, the sharks follow the food.

There were a lot of people in Williston that did not work in the patch. Their entire reason for being in there was to prey on the workers.

Yes, there are always bad workers, but don't lay the blame only on them.; 1/17/13, 5:01 PM