Wikipedia says this is an urban myth, and that the inflammation would inhibit absorption.
||
Who pictured Jon Huntsman as a Captain Beefheart fan?
|>
A little known side effect of this tactic by the tobacco companies is that seabirds were inexplicably drawn to the discarded chew, which they would consume in great doses, causing their abdomens to inflate, often fatally. To counter this phenomenon, Congress passed the famous Glass-Seagull Act.
2: that's been known for a while, no? A bunch of my in-weirdo-band-being friends around here were simultaneously thrilled and troubled by it.
(Looking at the link, indeed it has.)
We assumed that all smokeless tobacco had ground up glass in it and none of us were concerned about it. It does leave your gums and mouth innards a bit raw.
2: Everybody? That's literally the third thing I heard about Huntsman, after the fact that he was the former governor of Utah, and that he was Obama's ambassador to China. I assumed it was an important part of his signaling that he was a "different kind of Republican".
I had always heard that clove cigarettes make your lungs bleed, but evidence that this is factual is pretty thin on the internet ground, it turns out.
Back in my day, there was only one type of Copenhagen. Whoever made of "long cut" Copenhagen has no respect for Scandinavian addictive-plant traditions.
8: Cloven lungs make your lungs bleed.
2. This is surprising? Zappa was a Republican too, and actually produced Beefheart.
Shoot, I've never even heard of Captain Beefheart (or, alternatively, I'd blocked the memory).
Zappa was a Republican too
"The Democrats stand for nothing except 'I wish I was a Republican' and the Republicans stand for raw, unbridled evil and greed and ignorance smothered in balloons and ribbons. So that's really not much of a choice and it's nauseating to watch Democrats make speeches because they all wish they were Republicans."
14. Must have changed his mind then. I've seen him claim to be an unenthusiastic Republican elsewhere. He certainly self identified as a conservative on various occasions. Glad he saw the light.
Sort of a mishmash of views, it looks like.
I've gotta say, for thread with the title "In Your Mouth", this thread is disappointing so far. Certainly not up to the standards of the Unfogged of old. Something must be done.
Have any of you seen the Showtime series Dave's Old Porn? I discovered it when I woke up in the middle of the night last night* to find it on. The concept is basically Mystery Science Theater 3000 meets vintage porn.
* Yeah, we sleep with the TV on.
Like many of my demographic, I would guess, I know of Captain Beefheart only from the LCD Soundsystem song, "Losing my Edge":
I was there when Captain Beefheart started up his first band. / I told him, "Don't do it that way. You'll never make a dime." / I was there.
||
So a question about employment law--I "know" (on the level of "stylized fact," as the kids say) that non-compete clauses aren't enforced in California, but what if you're working for a NY company, and you move to CA to work from home, but they make you sign something to the effect that your assignment to CA is temporary and hence you're still a NY employee (even if this is known to not be the case in fact)? Can this make the non-compete clause operative? Obviously this isn't for marginally-employed me, but my roommate's wondering. Thanks, Mineshaft!
|>
I'd look first at the contract and see if it says what law governs--if it's a NY employment agreement, I wouldn't be surprised if it has a NY choice of law clause, and if it does, that will probably be enforced.
Failing that, and without checking, I think California has some variant of the normal "most significant contacts/relationship with the case" analysis for choice of law, and employment with a NY company probably means NY law anyway. You could argue against it, saying that if the purportedly-barred competition is taking place in CA then CA has much stronger interest in enforcing its public policy than NY does, but I'm not sure that's a winner.
they make you sign something to the effect that your assignment to CA is temporary and hence you're still a NY employee (even if this is known to not be the case in fact)?
How clearly is this "known" not to be the case? If there's good objective evidence that this thing they made him sign was just a sham to try and circumvent CA employment law, he might have a very good case. But if it's just "known" in the sense that your friend subjectively didn't really mean it when he signed, that's not as good.
15: Zappa was mostly just a talented misanthrope with a massive disdain for organized anything except what he personally got to organize. So, for example, he looked right-wing if the topic under discussion was unions, but left-wing if it was corporations.
misanthrope with a massive disdain for organized anything except what he personally got to organize
In other words, a libertarian?
I've never thought about Frank Zappa much but I guess I always assumed he was a libertarian. The lyrics pervaded by hedonism, sexism, and scorn at lesser mortals, coupled with megalomania and instinctive conflicts with anything that interfered with his authority (e.g. record labels, other band members with other creative ideas). And when he became a political figure it was solely on the issue of free speech and censorship.
Small-l libertarian, I guess you could say. He declined to be associated with the Libertarian Party when he sorta ran for president saying that their platform "made no sense." Which is why I say his politics are hard to pin down, aside from turbo-contrarianism.
turbo-contrarianism
Awesome turn of phrase.
Huntsman kind of baffles me. I thought he was taking that ambassador job to set himself up for a 2016 run as a Democrat. I bet he would have had a good shot too. He's nowhere near crazy enough to get a Repub nomination.
His run makes sense if the conservative wing of the Republican party completely collapses over the next four years - then he would be a plausible Wendell Willkie in 2016.
Not that I can see that happening, granted.
If there's good objective evidence that this thing they made him sign was just a sham to try and circumvent CA employment law, he might have a very good case. But if it's just "known" in the sense that your friend subjectively didn't really mean it when he signed, that's not as good.
I think it was closer to the former situation; I think it was clear that my friend would not be returning to NY and was not expected to.
I'd look first at the contract and see if it says what law governs--if it's a NY employment agreement, I wouldn't be surprised if it has a NY choice of law clause, and if it does, that will probably be enforced.
Yes, I think it is a NY employment agreement--so that would mean my friend couldn't now work for a competing California-based company, because the prior company's contract would be based on NY law? Eww.
because the prior company's contract would be based on enforced according to NY law?
Maybe he could document this by casually inquiring by email about the possibility of transferring to New York at some later point, and preserve their reply "sorry, no positions in that office now"?
a plausible Wendell Willkie
Another wonderful turn of phrase. Not quite a bad name, I don't think. Hmm, maybe I should just change my pseud again.
This is probably obvious and goes without saying, but if your friend is serious, he needs to sit down with an employment lawyer in CA. Advice from internet pseudonyms won't cut it.
I think it is a NY employment agreement--so that would mean my friend couldn't now work for a competing California-based company, because the prior company's contract would be based on NY law? Eww.
My guess -- and this is just a guess, because you actually really do need real legal advice here -- is that the answer to this question is "no," or at least that a California court wouldn't enforce the contract. But don't discount the possibility that the company would try to get jurisdiction over your friend in New York.
I wouldn't be surprised if it has a NY choice of law clause, and if it does, that will probably be enforced.
This is often not the case in California; the choice of law provision may not be enforced w/r/t a a noncompete clause.
But this is really not a situation that lends itself to internet advice. You actually need a lawyer.
But this is really not a situation that lends itself to internet advice. You actually need a lawyer.
Sigh. Yeah, figured. Thanks for the help, everybody, though!
How clearly is this "known" not to be the case?
"Known" in the sense that senior management verbally told me "we need you to sign this document and give us a fake permanent address in New York because it's too much trouble for us to figure out the tax situation and we don't like California employment law." Obviously, this was not written down.
There's a choice of law clause in the noncompete, but not in the second document I signed discussing my "temporary" transfer to California, FWIW. And the noncompete was signed some months before the transfer was even discussed.
This is a real 'ask a genuine lawyer who's actually representing you' problem, but my vague and unprofessional sense is that noncompetes aren't all that wildly enforceable in NY. It might be worth looking into whether what he'd be able to do what he wants if the contract were interpreted by an NY court applying NY law -- if the answer is yes, the CA/NY thing doesn't matter.
"we need you to sign this document and give us a fake permanent address in New York because it's too much trouble for us to figure out the tax situation and we don't like California employment law."
Isn't that the old "Let's make everybody a liar all at once so we all go down if one goes down" legal strategy?
37 --
You need a lawyer (at least if this is in any sense a real issue and there's any remotely significant amount of money involved and real possibility that they would try to enforce the noncompete). I can probably find a referral if Trapnel contacts me offline.
"Known" in the sense that senior management verbally told me "we need you to sign this document and give us a fake permanent address in New York because it's too much trouble for us to figure out the tax situation and we don't like California employment law."
If the permanent address in NY is fake, and this really is the situation, they may have some bigger worries than just enforcing the noncompete.
senior management verbally told me "we need you to sign this document and give us a fake permanent address in New York because it's too much trouble for us to figure out the tax situation and we don't like California employment law."
Really, get a real lawyer (I don't even play a lawyer on tv), but if this is true then unless this senior manager is willing to purjure himself, you're probably off the hook.
And if I were a betting man (and I am!) there's a very good bet that this noncompete clause is not enforceable, which doesn't mean that it can't make your life unpleasant anyway. But again, you need a real lawyer.
unless this senior manager is willing to purjure himself
IANAL either but yes, yes he is.
33: I think I'd like to assert cod-copyright over It for the time being, if you don't mind, because my pseud has been rather compromised by following RL friends on Twitter.
unless this senior manager is willing to perjure himself
This senior manager has a very open and flexible relationship with the truth...she's one of those incredibly effective bullshit artists who actually believe their own bullshit. But, the company is not in a good place financially right now (one of the reasons I'm looking at this option) and the prospect of expensive legal bills would probably make her very willing to negotiate.
I'll definitely talk to a real lawyer before I do anything official, but it sounds like there's enough of a murky situation to at least start a discreet conversation about potentially jumping ship.
I'll definitely talk to a real lawyer before I do anything official, but it sounds like there's enough of a murky situation to at least start a discreet conversation about potentially jumping ship.
Be very, very careful here. Not so much for your sake but for the sake of the future employer. It's probably best to talk to the lawyer before starting on the discreet conversations.
This senior manager has a very open and flexible relationship with the truth...she's
Way to make urple feel like a gaping sexist for assuming the manager was a man.
...start a discreet conversation about potentially jumping ship.
You should offer to compete, but only half-assedly for two years.
Way to make urple feel like a gaping sexist for assuming the manager was a man.
Somehow "gaping" usually doesn't precede "sexist".
Totally! Gag me with a spoon!
HA HA HA HA HA! It's the best!
Hmm. Even in places where non-competes are enforceable they have to be reasonably limited in time and geography, right? A small NY company probably won't get far saying you can't get a job in the field after you move to CA, as far as my memory of these things goes. But, of course, IANYL.
I am going to tentatively disagree with the general "lawyer up!" advice, though, because from a practical perspective all of this only matters if you think there's a decent chance you'll actually get sued if you go get another job. If you, who know the situation and the people, are confident that that won't happen, then you don't need to spend time and money and energy on getting counsel.
27: Running for the GOP nomination probably only bolsters Huntsman's chances of winning over Blue Dogs in a potential 2016 Democratic Primary. He's like the non-Droopy Lieberman.
I hate to take money from my brothers' hands, but this:
from a practical perspective all of this only matters if you think there's a decent chance you'll actually get sued if you go get another job. If you, who know the situation and the people, are confident that that won't happen, then you don't need to spend time and money and energy on getting counsel.
is actually correct. If you're a low level employee, there's not a lot of money at stake, and there's little chance of a lawsuit, you shouldn't be worried about these things at all. Questions to ask include: (a) is there more than about $50,000 at stake? (b) is your current employer crazy?
Way to make urple feel like a gaping sexist for assuming the manager was a man.
Urple also assumed my roommate was a man, not that I'm saying one way or the other. But then, so did Minivet and LB. On the third hand, they only did so after urple had started it, and were possibly just taking cues from there. So, yeah: urple--history's greatest sexist monster.
Is it wrong that I initially read that is history's greatest, sexiest, monster.?
Yes, it is.
It's like you people don't even know that the masculine form of third-person singular pronouns has traditionally been understood to be the markless form--the form to be used unless the gender of the referent is known. Jesus.
from the link in 16 comes another good phrase: "Eugene Chadbourne (the Woody Guthrie of freely improvised protest punk metal)"
Is it wrong that I initially read 56 as asking "is it wrong that I read this as read is history's greatest, sexiest, monster.?"?
Is it wrong that once I finally parsed 59, I laughed out loud?
I believe the indended punctuation was "So, yeah: urple--history's greatest sex--ist monster."
I read it as urple has great sex with monsters in history.
"urple--history's greatest sex tits monster"?
Zappa was a Frankfurt School Marxist with a deep vein of Kafka. Don't take my word for it, read the book.
(Rather strongly recommended -- kind of a companion piece to Lipstick Traces, but more of a wild fan's obsessiveness than Greil Marcus's studious though lateral thinking.)
"urple--history's grayest sext monster"?
"urple--his story's great test: sex six monsters"?
But history's greatest, sexiest monster has to be the Sasquatch, right? You know what they say--"big feet..."
Somehow "gaping" usually doesn't precede "sexist".
I'm setting new trends here, try to keep up.
IANYL either. Going to trial on a non-compete case this month; as usual (I'm sure) no one is even trying to argue the choice of law clause. The public policy behind our employment law (directly drawn from CA ca. 1895) is likely to trump any old contract, and I would actually be quite surprised if a CA court would even think about NY law. IANACL, though.
But really, I had one of these maybe 10 years ago, in DC, where the new employer took the brunt of it. They liked the new employee well enough, but it wasn't so pleasant for her in her new place.
So not just a lawyer. Careful disclosure to any new employer. Even a winner (and we won that DC case) costs a bundle, and is quite a distraction.
That is, I'd want the lawyer to talk me through what the disclosure ought to be.
The concept is basically Mystery Science Theater 3000 meets vintage porn.