Game On

OBAMALABORDAYTimSloan:Getty

Yesterday's speech by the president, if you missed it, was a barn-stormer. Yes, it's the same old, same old pattern: he allows the opposition not just to vent and criticize (as they should) but to control the discourse for months, to drown out every other sound, to vent and crow and vilify and intimidate the cable news weenies into quivering puppies in need of crate-training. And then he comes back with a speech like that one.

I can't for the life of me see how the Democrats retain the House under these economic conditions, but that cannot and does not mean that what Obama has done in his first year and a half is a failure. On the contrary. On almost all the substantive stuff, he has in my view done the right and responsible and sane thing within the almost impossible constraints he was presented with. And given the legacy he inherited, what he has done is simply not enough to perform an economic or political or cultural miracle. That's the brutal truth and we have to face it. And if Americans thought they were voting for a savior, rather than a pragmatic president, they were deluding themselves.

When the economy imploded in the fall of 2008, there was simply precious little room for fiscal maneuver after the largely Republican-led spending and borrowing spree of the previous decade. The stimulus prevented the world falling into an economic abyss – just – but it was never going to get us out of the ditch we're in. Don Peck's brilliant cover-story is worth re-reading again on that score. And it was good to hear the president state this yesterday:

Eight million Americans lost their jobs in this recession. And even though we’ve had eight straight months of private sector job growth, the new jobs haven’t been coming fast enough. Now, here’s the honest truth, the plain truth. There’s no silver bullet. There’s no quick fix to these problems. I knew when I was running for office, and I certainly knew by the time I was sworn in, I knew it would take time to reverse the damage of a decade worth of policies that saw too few people being able to climb into the middle class, too many people falling behind.  We all knew this. We all knew that it would take more time than any of us want to dig ourselves out of this hole created by this economic crisis.

The other brutal truth is that the opposition has nothing substantive to offer to remedy this. If all they've got is keeping the Bush tax cuts for those earning over $250,000 a year, they really have got nothing. What they do have is cultural symbolism and the exhausted right-left tropes that were trotted out at the mercifully vacuous parade of God and Country on the Mall with Beck and Palin. (A cynical atheist's parody of such vacuousness can be read here.) Maybe in power, by some miracle, the Tea Party Republicans will actually propose the long-term massive cuts in entitlements they claim to believe in. But I don't believe it for a second. I don't believe they are in any way serious about spending restraint and are only serious about their bewilderment at the real America where racial, religious and cultural diversity is a fact, where illegal immigration has been plummeting, where gay marriage is winning, where legal abortion will never go away, and where the new empire the last administration embarked upon has bankrupted us for a generation at least.

And this, in the end, must be what our politics is about: substantive policy responses to profound crises inherited from the past. Obama's call for transportation infrastructure investment is one tiny but real response and no panacea but it's paid for and it's something. His persistent attempt to get a real two-state solution in Israel-Palestine is unlikely to succeed given the forces arrayed against it in Washington and Tehran but it is necessary if we are to win this long war against Jihadism. His endurance in Afghanistan is, in my view, a tragic mistake, but anyone who claims that withdrawal would not have appalling moral consequences and great strategic risks is lying to you. His diplomatic and economic isolation of Iran's coup regime may also fail to prevent the Revolutionary Guards getting a nuclear capacity, but the alternative – a military strike – would initiate a new round of global religious warfare of terrifying gravity, where the Islamists would have the moral high-ground of being attacked first. His success in bringing a modicum of healthcare security to the working poor is also a work in progress but again, the practical alternative on the table is … what exactly?

In the end, these difficult practical decisions will count because they have to count. And Obama's persistent refusal to take the red-blue bait still pushed by Fox News like a cheap bump of ideological meth is to his credit. It is emphatically not about his failure to "take them on". He is taking them on – but on his terms, not theirs'. Take it away, Mr president:

When it comes to just about everything we’ve done to strengthen our middle class, to rebuild our economy, almost every Republican in Congress says no.  Even on things we usually agree on, they say no. If I said the sky was blue, they say no. If I said fish live in the sea, they’d say no. They just think it’s better to score political points before an election than to solve problems.  So they said no to help for small businesses, even when the small businesses said we desperately need this.  This used to be their key constituency, they said.  They said no.  No to middle-class tax cuts.  They say they’re for tax cuts; I say, okay, let’s give tax cuts to the middle class.  No. No to clean energy jobs.  No to making college more affordable.  No to reforming Wall Street.  They’re saying right now, no to cutting more taxes for small business owners and helping them get financing. 

You know, I heard — somebody out here was yelling “Yes we can.” Remember that was our slogan?  Their slogan is “No we can’t.”

In all this, the president deserves constructive criticism, but also moral and political support in engaging actual problems with actual solutions. Those on the left and in the middle who once saw his potential have no reason to abandon him now. If you were one of them, he needs you and this country needs you now more than ever before.

The full speech after the jump:

It is good to be back in Milwaukee. Of course, this isn't my first time at Laborfest. I stood right here with you two years ago, when I was still a candidate for this office. During that campaign, we talked about how, for years, the values of hard work and responsibility that built this country had been given short shrift, and how that was slowly hollowing out our middle class. About how some on Wall Street took reckless risks and cut corners to turn huge profits, while working Americans were fighting harder and harder just to stay afloat. And about how the decks were too often stacked in favor of the special interests and against working Americans. What we knew, even then, was that these years would be some of the most difficult in our history. And then, two weeks later, the bottom fell out of the economy. Middle-class families suddenly found themselves swept up in the worst recession in our lifetimes. So the problems facing working families are nothing new. But they are more serious than ever. And that makes our cause more urgent than ever.

For generations, it was the great American middle class that made our economy the envy of the world. It's got to be that way again. It was folks like you, after all, who forged that middle class. It was working men and women who made the twentieth century the American century. It was the labor movement that helped secure so much of what we take for granted today – the 40-hour work week, the minimum wage, family leave, health insurance, Social Security, Medicare, retirement plans, those cornerstones of middle class security that all bear the union label. And it was that greatest of generations that built America into the greatest force for prosperity, opportunity and freedom the world has ever known. Americans like my grandfather, who went off to war just boys, returned home men, and traded one uniform and set of responsibilities for another. Americans like my grandmother, who rolled up their sleeves and worked in factories on the home front. When the war was over, they studied under the GI Bill; bought homes under the FHA; raised families buttressed by good jobs that paid good wages with good benefits. It was through my grandparents' experience that I was brought up to believe that anything is possible in America.

But they also knew the feeling when that opportunity is pulled out from under you. They would tell me about seeing their fathers or uncles losing jobs during the depression; how it wasn't just the loss of a paycheck that stung. It was the blow to their dignity; their sense of self-worth. I'll bet a lot of us have seen people changed after a long bout of unemployment; how it can wear down even the strongest spirits. So my grandparents taught me early on that a job is about more than a paycheck, as important as that is. A job is about waking up every day with a sense of purpose, and going to bed each night fulfilled. A job is about meeting your responsibilities to yourself, to your family, to your community. I carried that lesson with me all those years ago when I got my start fighting for men and women on the South Side of Chicago after their local steel plant shut down. I carried that lesson with me through my time as a state senator and a U.S. Senator. I carry that lesson with me today. And I know that there are folks right here in Milwaukee and all across America who are going through these kinds of struggles.

Eight million Americans lost their jobs in this recession. And while we've had eight straight months of private sector job growth, the new jobs haven't been coming fast enough. Now, the plain truth is, there's no silver bullet or quick fix to the problem. Even when I was running for this office, we knew it would take time to reverse the damage of a decade's worth of policies that saw a few folks prosper while the middle class kept falling behind – and it will take more time than any of us wants to dig out of the hole created by this economic crisis. But on this Labor Day, there are two things I want you to know, Milwaukee. Number one: I'm going to keep fighting, every single day, to turn this economy around; to put our people back to work; to renew the American Dream for your families and for future generations.

Number two – and this I believe with every fiber of my being: America cannot have a strong, growing economy without a strong, growing middle class, and the chance for everybody, no matter how humble their beginnings, to join that middle class. A middle class built on the idea that if you work hard and live up to your responsibilities, you can get ahead – and enjoy some basic guarantees in life. A good job that pays a good wage. Health care that'll be there when you get sick. A secure retirement even if you're not rich. An education that'll give our kids a better life than we had. These are simple ideas. American ideas.

I was thinking about this last week. On the day I announced the end to our combat mission in Iraq, I spent some time, as I often do, with our soldiers and veterans. This new generation of troops coming home from Iraq has earned its place alongside that greatest generation. Like them, they have the skills and training and drive to move America's economy forward once more. And from the time I took office, we've been investing in new care, new opportunity, and a new commitment to their service that's worthy of their sacrifice. But they're coming home to an economy hit by recession deeper than any we've seen. And the question is, how do we create the same kind of middle class opportunity my grandparents' generation came home to? How do we build our economy on the same kind of strong, stable foundation for growth? Well, anyone who thinks we can move this economy forward with a few doing well at the top, hoping it'll trickle down to working folks running faster and faster just to keep up – they just haven't studied our history. We didn't become the most prosperous country in the world by rewarding greed and recklessness. We didn't come this far by letting special interests run wild. We didn't do it by just gambling and chasing paper profits on Wall Street. We did it by producing goods we could sell; we did it with sweat and effort and innovation. We did it by investing in the people who built this country from the ground up – workers, and middle-class families, and small business owners. We did it by out-working, out-educating, and out-competing everyone else. Milwaukee, that's what we're going to do again.

That's what's been at the heart of all our efforts: building our economy on a new foundation so that our middle class doesn't just survive this crisis – but thrives once we emerge. And over the last two years, that's meant taking on some powerful interests who had been dominating the agenda in Washington for too long. That's why we passed financial reform that provides new accountability and tough oversight of Wall Street; reform that will stop credit card companies from gouging you with hidden fees and unfair rate hikes; reform that ends the era of taxpayer bailouts for Wall Street once and for all. That's why we eliminated tens of billions of dollars in wasteful taxpayer subsidies to big banks that provide student loans. We're using those savings to put a college education within reach for working families. That's why we passed health insurance reform that will make coverage affordable; reform that ends the indignity of insurance companies jacking up your premiums at will or denying you coverage just because you get sick; reform that shifts control from them to you. That's why we're making it easier for workers to save for retirement, with new ways of saving your tax refunds, a simpler system for enrolling in plans like 401(k)s, and fighting to strengthen Social Security for the future. And to those who may still run for office planning to privatize Social Security, let me be clear: as long as I'm President, I'll fight every effort to take the retirement savings of a generation of Americans and hand it over to Wall Street. Not on my watch.

That's why we've given tax cuts to small business owners. Tax cuts to clean energy companies. A tax cut to 95 percent of working Americans, just like I promised you on the campaign. And instead of giving tax breaks to corporations to create jobs overseas, we're cutting taxes for companies that put our people to work here at home. That's why we're investing in growth industries like clean energy and manufacturing. And you've got leaders here like Tom Barrett and Jim Doyle who have been fighting to bring those jobs to Milwaukee and to Wisconsin. Because we want to see the solar panels and wind turbines and electric cars of tomorrow manufactured here. We don't just want to buy stuff made elsewhere; we want to grow our exports so the world buys products that say "Made in America." Because there are no better workers than American workers, and I'll place my bet on you any day of the week.

When the naysayers said we should just let the American auto industry vanish and take hundreds of thousands of jobs down with it, we said we'd stand by them if they made the tough choices necessary to compete once again – and today, that industry is on the way back. Now, another thing we've done is make sound and long-overdue investments in upgrading our outdated and inefficient national infrastructure. We're not just talking new roads, bridges, dams and levees; but also a smart electric grid and the broadband internet and high-speed rail lines required to compete in the 21st century economy. We're talking investments in tomorrow that are creating hundreds of thousands of private sector jobs today. It was because of these investments, and the tens of thousands of projects they spurred all over the country, that the battered construction sector actually grew last month for the first time in a long time. Still, nearly one in five construction workers are unemployed. And it doesn't do anybody any good when so many American workers have been idled for months, even years, at a time when there is so much of America to rebuild. That's why, today, I am announcing a new plan for rebuilding and modernizing America's roads, rails and runways for the long-term. Over the next six years, we are going to rebuild 150,000 miles of our roads – enough to circle the world six times. We're going to lay and maintain 4,000 miles of our railways – enough to stretch coast-to-coast. We're going to restore 150 miles of runways and advance a next generation air-traffic control system to reduce travel time and delays for American travelers – something I think folks across the political spectrum could agree on. This is a plan that will be fully paid for and will not add to the deficit over time – we're going to work with Congress to see to that. It sets up an Infrastructure Bank to leverage federal dollars and focus on the smartest investments. It will continue our strategy to build a national high-speed rail network that reduces congestion, travel times, and harmful emissions. It will cut waste and bureaucracy by consolidating and collapsing more than 100 different, often duplicative programs.

And it will change the way Washington spends your tax dollars; reforming the haphazard and patchwork way we fund and maintain our infrastructure to focus less on wasteful earmarks and outdated formulas, and more on competition and innovation that gives us the best bang for the buck. All of this will not only create jobs now, but will make our economy run better over the long haul. It's a plan that history tells us can and should attract bipartisan support. It's a plan that says even in the still-smoldering aftermath of the worst recession in our lifetimes, America can act to shape our own destiny, to move this country forward, to leave our children something better – something lasting.

So these are the things we've been working for. These are some of the victories that you helped us achieve. And we're not done. We've got a lot more progress to make. And I believe we will.

But there are some folks in Washington who see things differently. When it comes to just about everything we've done to strengthen the middle class and rebuild our economy, almost every Republican in Congress said no. Even where we usually agree, they say no. They think it's better to score political points before an election than actually solve problems. So they said no to help for small businesses. No to middle-class tax cuts. No to unemployment insurance. No to clean energy jobs. No to making college affordable. No to reforming Wall Street. Even as we speak, these guys are saying no to cutting more taxes for small business owners. I mean, come on! Remember when our campaign slogan was "Yes We Can?" These guys are running on "No, We Can't," and proud of it.

Really inspiring, huh? To steal a line from our old friend, Ted Kennedy: what is it about working men and women that they find so offensive? When we passed a bill earlier this summer to help states save the jobs of hundreds of thousands of teachers, nurses, police officers and firefighters that were about to be laid off, they said "no" to that, too. In fact, the Republican who's already planning to take over as Speaker of the House dismissed them as "government jobs" that weren't worth saving. Not worth saving? These are the people who teach our kids. Who keep our streets safe. Who put their lives on the line for our own. I don't know about you, but I think those jobs are worth saving. We made sure that bill wouldn't add to the deficit, either. We paid for it by finally closing a ridiculous tax loophole that actually rewarded corporations for shipping jobs and profits overseas. It let them write off the taxes they pay foreign governments – even when they don't pay taxes here. How do you like that – middle class families footing tax breaks for corporations that create jobs somewhere else! Even a lot of America's biggest corporations agreed the loophole should be closed, that it wasn't fair – but the man with the plan to be Speaker is already aiming to open it up again.

Bottom line is, these guys refuse to give up on the economic philosophy they peddled for most of the last decade. You know that philosophy: you cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires; you cut rules for special interests; you cut working folks like you loose to fend for yourselves. They called it the ownership society. What it really boiled down to was: if you couldn't find a job, or afford college, or got dropped by your insurance company – you're on your own. Well, that philosophy didn't work out so well for working folks. It didn't work out so well for our country. All it did was rack up record deficits and result in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

I'm not bringing this up to re-litigate the past; I'm bringing it up because I don't want to re-live the past. It would be one thing if Republicans in Washington had new ideas or policies to offer; if they said, you know, we've learned from our mistakes. We'll do things differently this time. But that's not what they're doing. When the leader of their campaign committee was asked on national television what Republicans would do if they took over Congress, he actually said they'd follow "the exact same agenda" as they did before I took office. The exact same agenda. So basically, they're betting that between now and November, you'll come down with a case of amnesia. They think you'll forget what their agenda did to this country. They think you'll just believe that they've changed. These are the folks whose policies helped devastate our middle class and drive our economy into a ditch. And now they're asking you for the keys back. Do you want to give them the keys back? Me neither. And do you know why? Because they don't know how to drive! At a time when we're just getting out of the ditch, they'd pop it in reverse, let the special interests ride shotgun, and hit the gas, careening right back into that ditch.

Well, I refuse to go backwards, Milwaukee. And that's the choice America faces this fall. Do we go back to the policies of the past? Or do we move forward? I say we move forward. America always moves forward. And we are going to keep moving forward today. Let me just close by saying this. I know these are difficult times. I know folks are worried, and there's still a lot of hurt out here. I hear about it when I spend time in towns like this; I read about it in your letters at night. And when times are tough, it can be easy to give in to cynicism and fear; doubt and division – to set our sights lower and settle for something less. But that is not who we are. That is not the country I know.

We do not give up. We do not quit. We are a people that faced down war and depression; great challenges and great threats; and lit the way for the rest of the world. Whenever times have seemed at their worst, Americans have been at their best. Because it is in those times when we roll up our sleeves and remember that we will rise or fall together – as one nation, and one people. That's the spirit that started the labor movement. The idea that alone, we are weak. Divided, we fall. But united, we are strong. That's why we call them unions. That's why we call this the United States of America. Milwaukee, that's the case I am going to make across the country this fall – yours. And I am asking for your help. If you are willing to join me, and Tom Barrett, and Gwen Moore, and Russ Feingold, we can strengthen our middle class and make our economy work for working Americans again. We can restore the American Dream and deliver it safely to our children. That's how we built the last American century. That's how we'll build the next. We don't believe in the words "No, we can't." We are Americans, and in times of great challenge, we push forward with an unyielding faith that we can. Yes, we can. Thank you, God Bless You and the work you do, and God Bless the United States of America.

(Photo: Tim Sloan/AFP/Getty.)

In His Gut

This from my old friend and former boss Marty Peretz:

I wouldn't close my eyes or our eyes to the increasing number of both naturalized and native-born citizens who enlist in the Islamic terror networks of our time, here and abroad… [A]mong those Muslims led by the Imam Rauf there is hardly one who has raised a fuss about the routine and random bloodshed that defines their brotherhood. So, yes, I wonder whether I need honor these people and pretend that they are worthy of the privileges of the First Amendment which I have in my gut the sense that they will abuse.

The First Amendment is not, so far as I know, a "privilege" earned by some Americans and not earned by others. It is a right. And it applies as powerfully to Muslims as to Catholics and Mormons and Jews and evangelicals alike.

There have been fewer more distressing experiences these past couple of months than witnessing the casual conflation of al Qaeda with American Muslims. It is obviously counter-productive in winning the war; but it is also a statement that even the most moderate of American Muslims are guilty until proven innocent. I'm sorry but I find that deeply unfair to a community that has, unlike some in Europe, integrated and succeeded in this country and deserves respect and inclusion, not suspicion and fear.

An Afghanistan Showdown

Joe Klein looks ahead:

The Administration wants to keep Afghanistan on the back burner for the next two months, until after the election. The military is playing a different hand. It will try, via a surreptitious media strategy, to get the President to delay any policy review, to give a new vote of confidence to a failing and deeply flawed, in my view, war strategy. Bob Woodward's new book, an account of the Administration's Afghanistan decision-making process, could well strengthen the military's hand; some administration officials fear that the book will characterize the process as messy and chaotic. (Woodward wrote a similar book about Bill Clinton's messy, chaotic budget-making process in 1993, a process that emerged, over time, as a major economic and political triumph). In short, there will be an effort to portray the President as an indecisive, non-military wimp. There will be an effort to get him to back off his July 2011 date for the beginning of the transition to Afghan "control." There may even be a request for more troops. All this will happen in the midst of a political campaign that may well prove devastating for Democrats. This is a test of strength that Obama can't afford to lose.

As Summer Ends

Summersend

Maybe it was the cumulative effect of blogging for a decade but I found words difficult these past three weeks of vacation. Not just writing them, but even reading them. I didn't look at a single news or opinion site online; I barely responded to personal emails; the books I intended to read lay unread. I inhaled the dunes and the air and the sea in so far as my lungs were able to operate at all; smoked a few cigars; admired a few beards; and hacked up more dark-colored phlegm than I can remember since the crippling asthmatic summers of my youth in the wheat fields of East Anglia. 

I glanced at the papers from time to time and finally managed to read last Sunday's New York Times, which was an almost comic expression of liberal despair (made bearable by Michael Gross's VF portrait of the creepiness of Palinism). Prayer, for the most part, eluded me; dog hair clogged the doorways of our first summer in the tiny cottage we bought last September; bears packed the streets, alongside countless sightings of dead ringers for Elena Kagan; dead-heading coreopses filled the mornings; and the cultural high-points for me were a new and stunning exhibit by the Cape artist Chet Jones and the performance art of Dina Martina, whose one-"woman" show I managed to see eleven times.

And so it was a strangely exquisite summer up here on the Cape, as beautiful as it has been oppressively hot and humid elsewhere. Even the dog days of July's heat wave had a joyous vibe about them in this little ashtray of a town, as Dina has it.

Perhaps some people just decided that simply enjoying a summer's day – imagine that! – was the best way to beat the blues. I've seen this town stricken by plague, then gripped by real estate madness, then giddy with marriage rights and now struggling through foreclosure after foreclosure. And I'm sure some of the vacationers were here because it's less expensive than traveling abroad, and because there was almost no rain for months. But there was also a simple kind of pleasure in the air that I haven't felt for a while, an appreciation of what is right here still in front of us, for all our problems and rancor and division: a free country, a balmy summer's night, a warm bay, and new friends now mingled with the old ones. 

For me, conservatism is partly about loving more deeply what we already know. And each of the now sixteen consecutive summers I have spent here – resolutely refusing to leave for any reason at all – are like photographic exposures upon exposures in my mind and memory – until everything is different and the same; and nothing is quite in focus; and the last thing that hangs in the air as the town exhales into September is a trace of someone's expression of joy, captured once, now overlaid on all the others.

Yes, I am a lucky man and this remains the place where my ashes one day will dissipate. And I'm glad to be back.

Thanks for Everything

by Conor Friedersdorf

Before Andrew Sullivan returns and I descend back into the realm of the underblogger, I wanted to thank everyone for an enjoyable few weeks, especially those of you who took the time to email feedback. I read every last message I'm sent, and I wish time permitted me to compose lengthy replies to everyone.

Going forward, you're all welcome to contact me any time, whether via my Twitter feed @conor64 or by e-mail at conor.friedersdorf@gmail.com — and to those who inquired about following my work off The Daily Dish, I'll happily add anyone interested to the weekly e-mail I send out if you e-mail me with "add" in the subject line.

Finally, if you're looking to support the work done here and elsewhere at The Atlantic, it's always a good time to subscribe. I'll leave all of you, and especially those of you who've followed the conversation about higher education and elites, with an old David Brooks essay on what he called "The Organization Kid."

See you next time.

About My Job: The Opinion Journalist

by Conor Friedersdorf

This profession encompasses a significant part of my writerly output. The insight I want to offer is that among the people who do this on a daily basis, there is a lot of implicit disagreement about what our purpose is or should be. I'll just list some of the different approaches I perceive.

The purpose of opinion journalism is…

1) …to make money.

2) …to attract an audience.

3) …to influence people.

4) … to generate ideas.

5) …to advance conversations.

6) …to help air different sides of a debate.

7) …to help the political prospects of your ideological coalition.

8) …to disparage ideological adversaries.

9) …to raise the political price of trying you or your former colleagues for war crimes.

10) …to earn a living as a writer.

11) …to get on television.

12) …to produce an intellectually honest argument.

13) …to accrue social prestige.

Insofar as you see animosity among opinion journalists, the root of it is often different value judgments about which of these things, or combination of these things, is or should be our object.

The Clever Method Of Control, Ctd

by Chris Bodenner

For a fascinating story of someone who refused to be controlled, check out This American Life's profile of Michael Larson, the man who cracked the code of Press Your Luck by memorizing its patterns for weeks on end.

(The video is ten minutes long, but I couldn't keep my eyes off. If you're not familiar with the game, all he had to do was slip up once, hit a "whammy" tile, and lose all of his earnings – ultimately more than $100K. And Larson was unemployed with little money to his name.)

Shaken or Stirred?

by Conor Friedersdorf

Forget about what James Bond would do — here's what you need to know:

Cocktail shaking is a violent activity.  If you shake for around 12-15 seconds (though shaking longer won’t hurt), and if  you aren’t too lethargic, neither the type of ice you use nor your shaking style will appreciably affect the temperature or dilution of your drink. Shaking completely chills, dilutes and aerates a drink in around 15 seconds, after which the drink stops changing radically and reaches relative equilibrium. Shaking is basically insensitive to bartender-induced variables.  See my post on the Science of Shaking.

Stirring is different. Think of stirring as inefficient shaking. It can take over 2 minutes of constant stirring to do what shaking can accomplish in 15 seconds. No one stirs a drink for 2 minutes, so the drink never reaches an equilibrium point. All the bartender-induced variables –  size of ice,  speed of stirring, duration of stirring, etc. — make a difference in stirred cocktails, so bartender skill is very important in a stirred cocktail.

Because stirring doesn’t reach equilibrium, stirred drinks are warmer and less diluted than shaken cocktails. Stirred drinks, unlike shaken ones, are not aerated. Stirring does not alter the texture of a drink –it merely chills and dilutes. A properly diluted cocktail stored at -5 degrees Celsius in a freezer is indistinguishable from a properly stirred one.

Don’t believe me?  The proof’s in the long story.

It's here.

The Sexism Of Ladies Night, Ctd

by Chris Bodenner

A reader writes:

In this post, you end by asking a question that seems like it obviously would never happen: "What if a club owner wanted to attract more white patrons by offering them a special discount."

However, something like this happens all the time at night clubs and bars, though it is typically less overt.  Many establishments enforce policies against certain racial groups through use of a selective dress code. I once tended bar at an upscale nightclub in the South that had a dress code that stated: "No sports jerseys, Timberland boots, baggy jeans, do rags, baseball hats, gym shoes, or sleeveless shirts."  Now, this was clearly a racial dress code.  Every weekend I would see plenty of white and Asian men in the bar wearing fashionable Nikes and occasionally sleeveless shirts or undershirts on really hot nights.  Any black man who came to the club had to be on his best behavior and wear his most conservative and expensive outfit.  This double standard basically told black people that as long as they could "act white" they were welcome in the club.  White men who "dressed black" were also welcome as long as they could afford the cover charge.

Also, I used my own form of variable pricing, usually offering discounts to friends, regular customers, VIPs, and hot chicks who flirted with me.  (Hey, I was in my early 20s then.)  This was not only tolerated by my managers, but typically encouraged in the case of VIPs and regulars. Also, in many rougher neighborhoods, some of the local bars will raise the age to enter to 25 or even 30.  I understand the rationale behind this is to keep young trouble makers out of the bar, but it still is a form of age discrimination.  Where I live now in DC, many clubs have variations of "Grown and Sexy" nights where they don't let in anybody under 30 or 35 or 40, depending on the bar.  I guess the point I am trying to make is that Ladies Night is not a uniquely discriminatory practice in the night club/bar industry.