Does the following scenario make you feel anxious&;#63; You are in line at Target‚ and someone behind you recognizes you from an old job you had and asks‚ &;quot;How are you&;#63;” and you reply‚ “Fine.” Then‚ both of you stare at each other for 10 seconds‚ waiting for someone to say something next.Sherry Amatenstein‚ LCSW‚ suggests that before we answer the question‚ we should attempt to ascertain if the person we’re talking to really wants to know. Are they being pleasant or just trying to make small talk&;#63; If you think they want to see how you’re doing‚ feel free to disclose what’s happening in your life. But if it’s just a stop-and-chat or you don’t know the person you’re talking to‚ then it’s fine to respond with a clever response that may elicit a chuckle or spread some goodwill without telling them your life story. You can easily replay with a &;quot;Fine‚ how are you&;#63;&;quot; and put the conversational ball back in their court. However‚ if you are looking for a more clever response‚ a Redditor who goes by Myloceratops crowd-sourced the best answers to the big question and received over 900 responses. Most of them were witty comebacks to the question that we can all tuck into our pack pockets to use when we want to see more interesting than someone who just gives a pat “fine” response.Here are 17 of the best responses to someone asking‚ “How are you&;#63;” for you to use the next time you're making small talk.1.&;quot;I have two stock answers: Not too bad. Distinctly average.&;quot; — Floydie1962.2.&;quot;Saw a shirt I loved: 'The horrors persist‚ as do I.'&;quot; — Evilbunnyfoofoo3.&;quot;I kinda like the Norwegian‚ 'Up and not crying.&;quot;' — 5tr4nGe4.&;quot;Dying a little more every day.&;quot; — Much-Signifigance2125.&;quot;Do you really want to know&;#63;&;quot; — Hatjepoet6.&;quot;In my country‚ people sometimes say 'Kann nie genug klagen.' It’s roughly translated to 'I can’t complain enough.'&;quot; — OldProblemsNeverDie7.&;quot;'I'm on the right side of the dirt' is one of my go-to responses.&;quot; — JiveTurkeyJunction8.&;quot;Feeling good and looking better I’ll make a burlap sack feel like the cashmere sweater.&;quot; — Late_Review_87619.&;quot;It's a dog-eat-dog world and I'm wearing Milk-Bone underwear.&;quot; — 27_crooked_craibu10.&;quot;If I was any better‚ there would be two of me.&;quot; — not_that_rick11.&;quot;At work‚ it's 'Better by the hour.'&;quot;— Otherwise-Tune541312.&;quot;'Oh you know‚ living the dream' is the only one I’ve got ready to go lately.&;quot; — KittyBooBoo201613.&;quot;Busier than a one-legged cat trying to bury a sh** in a frozen pond.&;quot; — SpoonNZ14.&;quot;''I think I’m going to make it' usually gets a chuckle.&;quot; — Bebandy15.&;quot;“Im good‚ and you&;#63;' I’m Gen X. I don’t burden other people with my problems.&;quot; — Mrbootz16.&;quot;My next complaint will be my first complaint.&;quot; — NoGood17.&;quot;'I feel like a silly goose today&;#33;'Guarantee they’ll never try to make small talk with you ever again.&;quot; — Front-Craft-804

A gorgeous all-time great. The post ‘Hejira’: The Joni Mitchell album Thomas Dolby considers to be the greatest of all time first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

A good list. The post Brian Downey names his 10 favourite Thin Lizzy songs first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

States matter again because Democrats’ radicalism has invigorated federalism. States have long been incubators of government innovation‚ and COVID was a watershed when state responses — especially lockdowns and school closures — accentuated differing governing approaches: Democrats responded to their predilection; Republicans responded to the pandemic. More recently‚ Democrats’ radicalism‚ combined with the Biden administration’s unprecedented open-border policy‚ has staged a stark comparison between blue and red states. Blue Policies are Failing Blue States Beginning with the federal government’s growth in the 1960s‚ states seemed a governmental backwater. Government then emanated from the top down. Yes‚ states had their moments: Proposition 13 in California signaled the coming Reagan revolution. But power — money‚ regulations‚ and judicial decisions — came from Washington. In 1964‚ federal government spending amounted to 17.9 percent of GDP; all state and local spending amounted to 9.3 percent. In 2023‚ the federal government spent 22.7 percent of GDP; state and local spending was 10.7 percent. The Democrat Party shifted leftward simultaneously. According to Gallup‚ in 1994‚ only 25 percent of Democrats identified as liberal. By 2010‚ it was 40 percent; by 2017‚ half of Democrats were. In 2023‚ it was 54 percent. With near monopoly control of some states and most big cities‚ Democrats’ increasing leftward lurch allowed them to turn their governments into leftist laboratories. Sanctuary cities‚ a movement now decades-old‚ is but one example of many. Then‚ COVID gave states unprecedented opportunities for unbridled government action. Lockdowns and school closures were the most focal. In sum‚ these began first‚ lasted longest‚ and were most stringent where governments were bluest. As an example‚ California locked down on March 19‚ 2020‚ and did not rescind its lockdown until over a year later‚ on June 15. Similarly‚ Oregon locked down on March 23‚ 2020‚ and did not fully reopen until June 30‚ 2021. The same divergence occurred with school closures. Of the 10 states most successful at staying open during the pandemic (Wisconsin‚ Arkansas‚ Florida‚ South Dakota‚ Utah‚ Nebraska‚ Montana‚ Texas‚ North Dakota‚ and Louisiana)‚ all are red states; of the 10 least successful states (California‚ Oregon‚ Maryland‚ Washington‚ Hawaii‚ New Mexico‚ Virginia‚ Illinois‚ Nevada‚ and New Jersey)‚ all were blue. While the pandemic accentuated the parties’ differing governing approaches‚ they did not end there. The “sanctuary” movement predated the pandemic and still continues. Of the states embracing it — California‚ Colorado‚ Connecticut‚ Illinois‚ Massachusetts‚ New Jersey‚ New York‚ Oregon‚ and Vermont — all are blue. The same blue predominance applies at the city and county levels. So too with the Defund the Police movement: defunding cities are overwhelmingly blue. Taxes have long been a distinguishing factor between Democrats and Republicans. Of the 12 states (Alaska‚ Florida‚ Nevada‚ South Dakota‚ Texas‚ Wyoming‚ Arizona‚ North Dakota‚ Pennsylvania‚ Indiana‚ and Ohio) with the lowest top marginal income tax rates‚ nine are red — and the three blue ones were barely so in the 2020 presidential election. Of the 12 states (California‚ New York‚ Hawaii‚ New Jersey‚ Oregon‚ Minnesota‚ Massachusetts‚ Vermont‚ Wisconsin‚ Maine‚ Washington‚ and Connecticut) with the highest top marginal income tax rates‚ all are blue. Another recent distinguisher has been environmental policy. A recent New York Times’ headline read: “Blue States Roll Out Aggressive Climate Strategies. Red States Keep to the Sidelines.” Such “aggressive climate strategies” have‚ at least in New York‚ included restrictions on natural gas. To the list could also be added an emphasis on DEI and CRT and more. Naturally‚ such governing divergences have consequences. Federalism Will Save Red States The cities with the highest crime cost per capita are overwhelmingly governed by Democrats. Of the top 30 cities for murder‚ 27 of them are blue-run — and according to the Heritage Foundation‚ 14 “have Soros bought-and-paid-for rogue prosecutors.” Of the top 12 states with the highest gain of tax filers moving in‚ 11 of them are red — only Nevada made the list (its 0 percent top marginal rate and proximity to California the likely reasons). Of the top 12 states (including D.C.) for tax filer exodus‚ 10 are blue. Firm migration shows the same: of the top 10 gainers‚ six are red. Three of the four blue states — Nevada‚ New Jersey‚ and Arizona — likely made the list because of their proximity to New York. and California‚ which topped the loss list: of the top 10 losers‚ nine were blue states. Unsatisfied with standing pat in their commonsense governing‚ red states are increasingly proactively embracing their advantage. School choice is the newest battleground. Of the 11 states with laws allowing parents a choice to take state money and educate their children wherever they deem best‚ 10 are red states. America is receiving a dual-edge lesson in federalism. This is a good thing. Our founders intended it‚ as the Constitution’s 10th Amendment proves. We can pity the residents of the benighted blue states; however‚ these states’ misgoverning serves a purpose. To paraphrase Thomas Edison‚ they have not failed but have found a 1000 ways to not make a light bulb. Blue states are proving what President Coolidge said: “It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.” Better still is acting as red states increasingly are and using federalism positively. They are laboratories showing what limited government and pro-growth policies can accomplish. By so doing‚ Republicans exploit another state advantage: despite winning only 47 percent of 2020’s popular vote‚ Trump carried 25 states; a shift of a few tens of thousands of votes‚ would have increased it to 31. The federal government continues its unsustainable expansion‚ while blue states run themselves into the ground. Red state examples are needed now more than ever. Reform is coming‚ regardless of Washington and blue state resistance. Red states show how. And America can thank federalism for it. J.T. Young was a professional staffer in the House and Senate from 1987-2000‚ served in the Department of Treasury and Office of Management and Budget from 2001-2004‚ and was director of government relations for a Fortune 20 company from 2004-2023. The post Federalism Is Conservatives’ Secret Weapon appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The Federal Communications Commission has revived regulations for “net neutrality.” According to FCC chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel‚ “the action we take here is good for consumers‚ public safety‚ national security and network investment.” The people have room for doubt and the “neutrality” concept requires some explanation. The internet developed in fine style long before any such regulation appeared‚ but in 2015‚ the FCC reclassified Internet Service Providers (ISPs) from “information services‚” to “common carrier services.” The government treated an innovative new technology like a public utility monopoly‚ in effect turning back the clock to the Communications Act of 1934. The Fight for Capitalist Internet Net neutrality regulations required ISPs to provide content on the internet at equal speeds and for equal costs. Consumers opting to pay for faster speeds and other special services constitutes a violation of net neutrality. In 2017‚ under chairman Ajit Pai‚ the FCC repealed the rule. (READ MORE: Salman Rushdie: Free Speech for Me But Not for Thee) “Following today’s vote‚ Americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They will still be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy‚” Pai told reporters. “There will still be cops on the beat guarding a free and open internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015‚ and this is the way they will be once again.” Meanwhile‚ Sen. Bernie Sanders and CNN told Americans‚ “this is the end of the internet as we know it.”As Pai predicted‚ it didn’t turn out that way. “I think time has shown that our decision was the right one‚” noted Pai when he left the commission in 2021. As for the apocalyptic predictions‚ “almost three years later‚ none of them have proven true.” Why that was the case was a mystery to CNBC: It’s fair to say that net neutrality advocates’ worst fears have not yet materialized. Many parts of the internet are still free and sites aren’t slowed at the behest of deep-pocketed competitors. The reason none of this has yet happened‚ however‚ is not clear-cut. Actually‚ it is. Regulations Threaten Free Speech On the internet “as we knew it” ISPs are free to develop innovative services and consumers are free to purchase the services they want. The FCC decision will scale back that free arrangement‚ imposing stifling regulations disguised as “neutrality.” As Americans know‚ when it comes to free speech and the internet‚ the government is not exactly neutral. (READ MORE: Tulsi Gabbard’s Book Is a Gutsy Attempt to Keep You Free) In testimony to Congress in 2018‚ Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg admitted that Facebook was cooperating with the investigation headed by former FBI director Robert Mueller‚ and that the work was “confidential.” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) asked Zuckerberg if Facebook was a “neutral forum‚” open to diverse points of view‚ and the CEO seemed puzzled by the concept. Government had demanded that Facebook take down a page‚ Zuckerberg conceded‚ but the CEO did not indicate the content of the page‚ which government official had demanded its removal‚ or when the removal had taken place. During the COVID pandemic‚ National Institutes of Health director Francis Collins teamed with National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) director Dr. Anthony Fauci to suppress the internet posts of medical scientists who had signed the Great Barrington Declaration. Harvard professor‚ Dr. Martin Kulldorff  and Stanford professor Dr. Jay Bhattacharya‚ were put on Twitter’s trends blacklist‚ their scientifically-based policies smeared as “misinformation.” (READ MORE: It’s Bigger Than NPR’s Katherine Maher) That wasn’t a neutral action‚ and neither is the recent FCC decision‚ which will do nothing to promote public safety‚ national security‚ and network investment. This was a reactionary‚ partisan ruling that will scale back innovation and reduce the choices of the people. Lloyd Billingsley is a policy fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland‚ Calif. The post Biden FCC Threatens Free Speech by Restoring Internet Regulations appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

SACRAMENTO — President Joe Biden is nothing if not persistent with his ongoing plan to largely put independent contractors and freelancers out of business — part of his efforts to placate progressive union activists at the expense of ordinary Americans. Despite having populated his administration with Californians‚ the Biden government seems oddly oblivious to the disastrous effects of our state’s first-in-the-nation contracting ban (Assembly Bill 5). READ MORE from Steven Greenhut: A Modest Proposal for Police Reform It brings to mind Upton Sinclair’s 1935 quotation‚ “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” In this case‚ it’s difficult to get a president to understand something — even something as basic as the insanity of eliminating good jobs because the government doesn’t think they’re good enough — when his key financial political backing (from unions) depends on him remaining oblivious. Fortunately‚ Senate Republicans are trying to remind him. U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana has introduced the Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution‚ which would overturn the administration’s attempt to bureaucratically impose a new worker-classification rule via the Department of Labor. That measure echoes AB 5’s use of an ABC Test that employers must use to determine whether it can use contractors rather than permanent employees. Essentially‚ employers could only use contractors if it satisfies the entire alphabet soup: A) the worker must be free from the control of the employer; B) the worker must not be providing a core function of the business; and C) the worker must be “customarily” engaged in contracting work by‚ say‚ having set up an LLC. The California Supreme Court created this test out of thin air in its Dynamex decision that involved a delivery service that switched its hourly employees to contractors. AB 5 codified the decision. “Independent contractors‚ or freelancers‚ make their own hours to fit their schedule and decide where and how they want to work‚” Cassidy noted in a January column for Fox News. “Incidentally‚ they are shielded from forced or coerced unionization that would strip that flexibility away. This has made eliminating freelancing a top priority for large labor unions who want more workers paying forced union dues.” That likely explains why Biden is ignoring the California experience‚ even though it threatens the livelihoods of 27 million gig workers. The Biden rule is a little different from AB 5’s test‚ explained my R Street Institute colleague C. Jarrett Dieterle‚ a senior fellow in competition policy: “For instance‚ the new rule includes analyzing whether ‘the work performed’ by a worker ‘is an integral part of the potential employer’s business.’ … (I)f the work is deemed an integral part of the business‚ that ‘weighs in favor of the worker being an employee.’” But the end goal is basically the same. I’ve written extensively about that AB 5 disaster for The American Spectator. As I explained last August: You’re probably not shocked to learn that‚ instead of making contractors permanent employees and providing them with fringe benefits‚ employers simply stopped using independent workers. Even one media company (Vox Media) that had published articles supporting the bill cut hundreds of California-based freelancers. AB 5 exacerbated the state’s supply chain and port woes‚ as it restricted the owner-operator trucker model. The whole thing was a mess. For a time‚ the ban shut down musical gigs and community theaters and forced freelance columnists — including former Speaker Willie Brown‚ who had written a column for the San Francisco Chronicle — to stop working after they reached an arbitrary limit. State leaders forced us to stay at home yet doubled down on implementing a law that eliminated work-from-home jobs and limited food and other deliveries to people stuck at home. The California Legislature ultimately exempted more than 100 industries from the requirements. Voters overturned via Proposition 22 the limits on ride-share drivers. Even many Democrats wish the whole fracas would go away‚ but the law continues to impede truck drivers because it forbids the use of owner-operators. A lawsuit on that matter continues‚ but AB 5’s implementation sparked contentious protests at the Port of Oakland. Nonetheless‚ the feds implemented the Department of Labor rule beginning in January. As I noted in my testimony to the department: [The] current rulemaking is more limited than AB 5‚ but the supporters of the rule hope that its approval will spread throughout the federal government — and ultimately will accomplish through regulatory fiat what most state legislatures are rightly unwilling to do on their own. The Senate has yet to confirm Julie Su as labor secretary‚ in part because of her efforts as California’s top labor official during the AB 5 process (and during an Employment Development Department scandal that misdirected billions of unemployment dollars). She continues as acting secretary. “I’m going to do this job for as long as the president wants me to do it and as long as the American people need somebody who’s going to fight for working people‚” she told CBS News. So‚ obviously‚ the administration knows exactly what it’s doing. And what it’s doing is the union movement’s agenda‚ even if it means implementing such major intrusions in the economy without congressional approval. The Senate CRA has 31 co-sponsors and‚ as Cassidy recently noted‚ is backed by 78 business and market-oriented organizations including my employer‚ the R Street Institute. This labor-related DOL edict should get additional attention now that the U.S. Supreme Court is considering the legal doctrine known as Chevron deference. That refers to a 1984 high-court decision in Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council that defers to administrative agencies in the interpretation of agency action. It’s one of the worst decisions in the court’s history of bad decisions‚ in that it incentivizes executive overreach. Biden’s efforts to impose a de facto contracting ban via a regulatory agency is incredible overreach — and in service to a job-killing‚ freedom-quashing agenda that benefits no one except for unions that want federal help in recruiting members and halting competition. Here’s hoping Congress and the Supreme Court exert their authority to protect other American gig workers from going through what workers experienced in California. Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org. The post GOP Fights Biden for Independent Contractors appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.