Book of the Month

Articleman's picture

I Hold These Truths To Be Self-Evident

by Articleman 6/5/2011 - 5:12 pm   |

When in the course of human events it becomes necessary to write a periodically recurring column, one finds that a list of declarative statements will do just dandy.  I hold these truths to be self-evident:

1.  That all people are created equal.

2.  That the iPad is the most important new technology for daily life since the BlackBerry, because everyone will be using iPads for video telephony in the near future.

3.  That Michael Jordan was the greatest basketball player of all time.

4.  That walking in a forest away from roads is the furthest thing from lost you can be.

5.  That everywhere you walk, the dead are just below the ground.

6.  That more people own guns than have good reason to.

7.  That love is more important than politics.

8.  That consideration for others is often more important than being right, whatever right is.

9.  That sex is very, very important.

10. That when hiring people in Flagstaff to do chores or yardwork, you're better off hiring a junior accountant or lawyer, and paying them their hourly rate.

11.  That people should eat more buffalo and elk, and less beef.

12.  That Chicago is the best planned city in America, though Salt Lake City is the most planned.

13.  That dagblog is not Facebook.

14.  That it is too hot in Phoenix.

15.  That you should not be a parent if you do not take care of your children.

16.  That Unforgiven is the best American film ever made.

17.  That North Carolina is closer to being the state that will put Barack Obama over 270 EV than is Colorado, New Mexico, or Nevada.

18.  That people who peristently comment about or in response to any particular other person should chill out.

19.  That the Internet is there for play and cameraderie, not combat. 

20.  That one cannot and must not try to fix the Internet.  It is like yelling at weather.

21.  That Barack Obama should be reelected.

22.  That killing Osama bin Laden was both a plan, and a good idea.

23.  That after killing or capturing the small number of people definably responsible for 9/11 or actual terrorist attacks such as the flight of the underpants bomber, our paradigm for response to this form of security threat should return to an espionage and criminal law based model, for the most part, and the permanent war should be declared at an end.

24.  That you mean well, if you read this far.

25.  That the level of performance-enhancing drug use in professional sports is way too high, and makes most sports boring.

26.  That Ralph Nader was the proximate cause of the Iraq War.

27.  That Rafael Nadal, barring injury, will win more majors than Roger Federer.

28.  That many people on the Internet do not understand the difference between an ad hominem and an argument.

29.  That you should read things you disagree with.

30.  That we don't need more rules of procedure in legal practice, we need judges to actually enforce the rules that exist.

31.  That lawyers and judges are both disciplined too little.

32.  That since she joined it, Elena Kagan is more reliably "liberal" on the Supreme Court, whatever that means, than John Paul Stevens or Glenn Greenwald would have been in her place.

33.  That America is at once more liberal and more conservative than people want to admit it is. 

34.  That if you don't live near the U.S.-Mexico border and travel to it, you don't understand border issues as well as you think you do.

35.  That living in mountains or near water is cool.

36.  That within five years, there will be a major star in a professional sport who is out as gay.

37.  That it is easier to find good Thai food than good Vietnamese food, which is in turn easier to find than good Filipino food.

38.  That there is a Hawaiian way of understanding and expressing things that is calmer, slower, and more elliptical, and that this a good thing.

39.  That those who seek authority have either a propensity to respect it properly or, less commonly, a propensity to abuse it.

40.  That every great President other than Washington has done at least one very badly wrong thing in his role as President (as opposed to his personal life), that is important and for which they are accountable.

41.  That Mark Cuban isn't saying anything during the 2011 Playoffs because he subscribes to a conspiratorial view of NBA officiating and is trying very hard not to piss off David Stern.

42.  That dark chocolate is better than milk chocolate.

43.  That you should try to give a kid a name that's hard to make fun of.

44.  That the President in power should get to pick judges, and that the Senate should decide what it thinks for itself, but should vote on them all, and within a few months of their nomination.

45.  That the U.S. Constitution is the greatest and most influential political document in human history.

46.  That all you can do is try your best.

47.  That it is stupid as a general matter to impute to lawyers as personal commitments the concerns or positions of the clients they represent.

48.  That people who have no sense of humor are to be avoided.

49.  That while I do not share Tim Tebow's set of commitments, I like him.

50.  That no social or economic class or group has a monopoly on intelligence, or stupidity, or virtue, or greed.

hahahhahahah

I hereby render unto Articleman the Dayly Blog of the Week for this here Dagblog Site, given to all of him from all of me. hahahaahah

Just as an aside, Babe Ruth was the greatest baseball player of all time. hahahahah

by Richard Day 6/5/2011 - 5:26 pm

I used to have a dog that could speak.  He could say, "Ruth," though it came out more "rough." 

by Articleman 6/6/2011 - 12:03 am (re: Richard Day)

Articleman, I agree with everything (especially #44) but as much as I adore my iPad, (#2) it disappoints because it does not like flash-player, and it also does not accommodate tabs.  Although my relationship with my iPad is at the moment, platonic; I make no promises about anything if my above mentioned fantasies are realized!

by CVille Dem 6/5/2011 - 6:46 pm

Wow, if anyone agrees with all fifty, I'm doing something wrong.  :)  Have you Skyped from the iPad yet?  As far as tabs, you can open a whole bunch of windows using the double-box icon on the Internet toolbar, no?

by Articleman 6/5/2011 - 7:17 pm (re: CVille Dem)

Double box icon?  Where is that?  

 

And who can object, really to any of the 50?  I kept thinking that I would disagree with you on some point, but I liked them all!  There are a few I could add, but none I would subtract.

 

My iPad is a First generation, so visual skyping is not an option, but I have phone-skyped.

by CVille Dem 6/5/2011 - 9:50 pm (re: Articleman)

I think I am sowing confusion by describing an iPad2.  A good friend of mine loves his original iPad, but he likes the 2 better.

by Articleman 6/5/2011 - 10:42 pm (re: CVille Dem)

I love my iPad so much that Apple should probably be paying me for all the positive pr I do for them.

People should, in my opinion, be eating more vegetables, fruit, and beans.

Living in a forest is cool too!

by emerson jr. (not verified) 6/5/2011 - 7:21 pm

iPad is getting the love in this thread.

by Articleman 6/5/2011 - 8:02 pm (re: emerson jr.)

I think this cartoon says it all in regards to #18  I think you all would enjoy it

[Press the Insert/edit image icon - it looks like a small green tree.

Put the URL in the appropriate box - the URL begins http: and ends .jpg or .gif or .png.

Set the alignment to middle unless you have good reason to do otherwise.

Change the default width to around 400, unless it's a tall image.

If you leave height blank, the proportion will take care of itself.]

by Resistance 6/5/2011 - 7:43 pm

Thank you Lord of the Internet

by Resistance 6/5/2011 - 8:02 pm (re: Resistance)

We agree about so many things, A-man.
But where is the love for Bill Russell?

by Doctor Cleveland 6/5/2011 - 7:31 pm

I tend to agree with Bill Simmons that Russell belongs as number two of all time among hoopers.  But I don't see how you get him past Jordan.  Jordan was so much more central to the Bulls' six titles than Russell even was to the C's eleven.  And oddly, Russell got some of his stats in the padded stat era of the early 60s, and while he personally was horribly victimized by racists at times (as Simmons well documents), he also dominated more in the first half of his career because teams in the Association were not yet putting more than two black players on rosters.

Russell was not the best individual player of his era; that would be Wilt, who generally had lesser teammates.

And taking a longer historical view, Russell in current hoops would be great but not the best center in the game; imagine dropping MJ into the sixties.  He'd have been good for over 50 ppg in 1962, and the C's would not have won every year.  There were far more good teams and good players in the 90s than the 60s.  Dominating the smaller Association to that degree was probably an equal feat to what the Bulls did from 1990-1998.  But Mike was more of his team's success in that stronger era.

MJ was also the top individual scorer of alltime, and the best closer.  While Russell was the great defensive player of his era, MJ was defensive player of the year.  Russell never comparably excelled on the other end.

by Articleman 6/5/2011 - 7:46 pm (re: Doctor Cleveland)

Quibbles, comments and craic.

#2. Should be #1.

#1. Equal to what?

#3. And maybe a strong 2nd to Gretzky as greatest athlete.

#5. In fact, most of the dead are the ground. (Just putting the "human" back into "humus.")

#10. If you ever find yourself hiring people in Flagstaff, make a note of the day. You have now, officially, reached bottom. 

#12. O'Hare, however, is a separate discussion. And, ha.

#13. Good. Now I can unfriend some people. 

#16. Just... no.

#18 & #19 were illegible on my screen. Huh. You should get that looked at.

#23. Amen.

#24. Not necessarily.

#26. Don't do that. You can't write what you did above and do that - it just eggs on an unnecessary online shit-flinging. Much though I may think it was a brain dead and egotistical thing Nader did, the "the proximate cause" thing is really bad political science. It is quite easy, for instance, to come up with a list of a dozen things (and people) which also (and equally) led to that narrowest of losses. e.g. The losses of Tennessee and Arkansas, the homes of Gore and Clinton, might fairly reasonably be laid at their own doors.  The failure of Gore and the Dem leaders to fight the Florida results was another. It's like arguing that Nixon lost in 1960 because... the mob gave JFK Illinois. Or was it the call to ML King? Or the debates? Or LBJ and voting fraud in Texas? Or bloc voting by the Catholics? 

#28. And too many use it incorrectly. Time for "ad hominem" to be banned. Along with "spot on."

#31. If you mean, "All lawyers and judges should be given thrashings," then thanks for joining the rest of humanity in holding that opinion.

#34. Sadly, this same "distance & ignorance" dynamic appears to afflict absolutely every other issue humanity has ever wrestled with. 

#35. Living in water is even cooler.

#40. Just asking, but what would Carter's have been? (Beyond accepting the Oath of Office.)

#43. There is no such thing as a name that is "hard" to make fun of. Therefore, better to teach your kid martial arts. Then they're hard to make fun of.

#45. Much as I love it, sorry - too American an opinion. The book of
Exodus (and those other, funnier, ones - like Leviticus) wins by a long yard. Furlong. Cubit. Whatever.

#49. While I do not share Timmy Teblow's commitments, or his biceps, he should still STFU.

#50. Though word is that the rich are buying out the remaining shares in "Obnoxious Rich Prick, Inc." and "Holy Shit, Look How Little I Care, Unltd."

by quinn esq 6/5/2011 - 7:40 pm

Only the lawyers and judges that like thrashings.

As to Chicago, you have to give Chicago props for glomming onto land to take O'Hare.  It's like a projectile gerrymander.  :)  And you can get downtown on the blue line quite easily from there.  But yes, O'Hare needs more runways, for sure.

On 26, I don't see why pointing it out leads to poo-tossing.  Without Nader, Gore wins NH and FL, and FL by a good piece.

Yeah, that bit about shellfish (45) really trumps separation of powers and an independent judiciary.

I like Carter, but he wasn't a great President, and so falls outside the generalization.  Harrison (who died in six weeks) didn't do anything horrible either.  But FDR locked up the Japanese, Lincoln suspended habeas unnecessarily, and Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts, among other things.  Some of the best ones do have some serious blemishes is all.

by Articleman 6/5/2011 - 7:52 pm (re: quinn esq)

O'Hare just needs to ban reading-cell-phones-while-walking. I figure that'd speed up transit time - and reduce accidents - by about 45%. Holy shit. Everybody walks (weaves) with their heads down, reading their cells. It's like zombies - worst I've ever seen.

On #26, scientists haven't yet been able to prove causation, but at this point, we're at 38,611 consecutive - but entirely coincidental - occurrences of "blogs blaming Nader" and "blogs degenerating into poo-tossing." 

#45. Exodus 18:13-15 - Moses sets up the 1st law school. (Note: It wasn't Harvard.) 

by quinn esq 6/5/2011 - 8:25 pm (re: Articleman)

It really has nothing to do with whether something is true that it provokes loud, defensive shitflinging.  It merely means someone doesn't like you saying it.  Al Gore, appropriately enough, has a phrase for that.  Inconvenient truth.  I'm not sure if there's a scientist somewhere who can prove that 100,000 (my recollection of Nader's Florida vote total) is greater than 537 (Bush's Florida margin), but it is empirically demonstrable that it unleashes absurdly defensive responses.  Though apparently not here.

by Articleman 6/5/2011 - 11:07 pm (re: quinn esq)

Gore refused to allow Nader to become a viable contender, for the Democrat voters.

Gore wanted no one to the left of him. So cocksure was he, that he thought the Democrats were his hostages.  Any voter to the left of Gore was pissed on. 

Gore vigorously brought us NAFTA ...That sealed Gores fate, with those who knew; the disastrous results it would bring to the working class. We in the labor movement warned about the dangers, Ross Perot warned about the giant sucking sound and the resulting loss of the tax base.

Those of us who had been loyal Democrats for years, saw the handwriting on the wall,   Gore proved he was a corporate hack. He betrayed the working class, thinking he knew what was best, for the peasant class….. Arrogance personified   

Everything else the man had to say was just another politician lying to get our votes,

NAFTA screwed the working class and it had a face….. AL GORE

Betrayers are not going to be rewarded.

by Resistance 6/6/2011 - 12:05 am (re: Articleman)

You say the same things about Obama, and Gore's support for Kyoto and Obama's for Copenhagen, and both their support for cap and trade (neither of which made it through the Senate) would have done much more good in the world than all the folks to the left of Kyoto, Copenhagen, and cap and trade whose greate achievement in this area is to deride them as too centrist.  In sad reality, as the world and the U.S. Senate have treated green issues, Gore, Obama, and Pelosi are too far to the left.

Of course, organized labor hasn't been uniformly positive about cap and trade either, it's driven lots of old school Dems, as in West Virginia, into the arms of the GOP.

Gore's work for NAFTA was an extension of Clinton third-way DLC stuff.  But at the end of the day, I agree with them, because I don't think you can hide from the enormous wage disparities in the world economy by erecting trade barriers.  It sometimes violates international law, but we live in a world economy.  Better to learn to compete than to pretend we can keep it 1965, with far fewer imports, far fewer competitors, and good wages and great retirement benefits off of factory jobs.  I'd love it if we could keep life as it was when I was a little kid, but that's not the world, and it wasn't in 1994 either.  And it's less so now.

by Articleman 6/6/2011 - 12:15 am (re: Resistance)

It's obvious

It is a race to the bottom.

The American middle class loses, The only thing they'll be good for is cannon fodder.

by Resistance 6/6/2011 - 12:28 am (re: Articleman)

Clinton-Gore also gave us FMLA, which is very middle class friendly.

by Articleman 6/6/2011 - 12:31 am (re: Resistance)

Short sighted. Throwing us a bone, keeping us distracted, while they ransack the house?

NAFTA = No jobs = NO Income = No tax base = No Safety Net 

Who can afford FMLA? 

The Corporations got the gold, we go the shaft. 

They got the Donut, we got the hole.

by Resistance 6/6/2011 - 12:46 am (re: Articleman)

Donuts are bad for you, Resistance.

by Articleman 6/7/2011 - 6:18 pm (re: Resistance)

So are sprouts?

by Resistance 6/7/2011 - 6:32 pm (re: Articleman)

Not really the place to chew this up too much, but your use of the term "left" here feels more like it's coming out of "personal encounter" than as a "political description." I mean, I'm one of those folks "to the left," and have loads of green friends who'd be on the same turf. But when we all chew on Kyoto and Copenhagen, there are a whole set of different reasonings and stances in play.

So to simply configure this story as do nothing "leftists" who have accomplished nothing and know nothing of the political realities of a RW American populace is, ummmm, "limited." Is that polite enough?

For instance, years before it became a plaything of the Right, a lot of us felt Kyoto was layering on too much command and control, too many committees, too much complexity. And frankly, its economics had fallen to bits. It had become a plaything of liberal technocrats and Kyoto-makework-consultants and committee-goers, and there was no obvious game-winning path of innovation and change that would reach the goal. 

Shorter: They were getting governments to sign on to making miniscule reductions in thousands of areas of life, when the significant tasks were actually very few and very simple - stop construction of long-lived dirty capital plant, drive innovation and market take-up of game-changing technologies, etc. 

Now, amongst my "left" friends - many European - this fit completely happily with their view of economic history and technological change.

That may NOT be the same as what you perhaps are labelling as a "left" view amongst those in major US NGO's or universities, and I've known a fair batch of these folks and my favourite term for them is "tossers," but I'm not sure they represent any "left."

And also perhaps worth noting that this stance, which I would see as a "left" one, would almost certainly be more popular than the world of full Kyoto complexity. That is, wind and solar and EV's and biofuels and efficiency and R&D is perhaps more palatable than the world of complex instruments. (And no, I'm not death on T&C - having been on this stuff since 1989 - just, not entranced.) 

by quinn esq 6/6/2011 - 1:28 am (re: Articleman)

T&C?

Are you saying Kyoto called for wind, solar, etc...or the opposite?

by Peter Schwartz 6/6/2011 - 12:29 pm (re: quinn esq)

Sorry, C&T. Brain cramp.

Kyoto called for wind, solar, etc. - which was great, and why I worked for it. Problem was, it felt as though it just kept adding more and more and more and more levels and clauses and measurements and offsets and sideways calculations and controls and agreements and such. And all of them, individually, seemed to make sense. But I'll tell you, the underlying data wasn't substantial enough to bear some of the weight being put on it... too many back and side-doors were being punched in it... and the more central thrusts required were getting lost as we considered smaller and smaller emissions sources. 

For example, there's been some press around the fact that we have a really really REALLY poor sense of the GHG impacts of something as basic as... natural gas. We don't really know how much has been leaking along the production chain, we don't know very well how it's impacting the atmosphere and will do so in the longer-term, etc. And if you don't know THAT, then the mad dash we are presently embarked upon, from coal to natural gas, could well end up being... disastrous. It's similar for agricultural production and related emissions, forests are confusing as hell, and so on. 

It needed to be simple simple simple. Liberal and left technocrats got lost when they confused the incredible complexity of the science of emissions and modelling it with what was needed for a strategic or policy response. The two could have had very different logics and levels of complexity, but instead, the policy side almost seemed to feel they had to match the scientists.

I wish to God our universities taught strategy. I swear, we don't have a clue on how to tackle stuff in any sort of strategic manner. Grumble grumble.

by quinn esq 6/6/2011 - 6:10 pm (re: Peter Schwartz)

What you say reminds of single payer.

Although, in America, single payer is seen as the more radical left position, I think it would have been much easier for Obama to sell than what he tried to sell.

Everyone knows what Medicare is. They know, or think they know, what it would mean to buy into Medicare. They LIKE Medicare.

To attack this plan, Republicans would have had to attack Medicare (basically)--much harder than attacking a plan that no one understands and about which much suspicion and fear could be sown.

Obama should have learned from Hitler the power of the blitzkrieg: Attack swiftly before the opposition has time to understand what's happening.

by Peter Schwartz 6/7/2011 - 8:48 am (re: quinn esq)

Gore did not support kyoto as vp and clinton refused to sign it.

by Anonymous (not verified) 6/6/2011 - 4:21 am (re: Articleman)

Does this make Perot the proximate cuase of the US Balkan Wars? 

by Saladin 6/8/2011 - 12:12 am (re: Articleman)

Oh Oh, can I blame Teddy Roosevelt for US participation in WW!   NO wait, wait Eugene Debs!  

by Saladin 6/8/2011 - 12:24 am (re: Articleman)

Gosh, I'd say strike one and two, but the last time someone used that metaphor, we had a riot around here we're still cleaning up after.

So ridicule is fun, but the analogies in your funny comments make no sense, and your contrary position of necessity can't take account of certain facts.  Next.

by Articleman 6/8/2011 - 3:51 pm (re: Saladin)

#26--We CAN say, though, that had Nader NOT run, Gore would have won. Of course, we can say the same thing about all the other possible "causes" you list.

But if we're going to call Nader's move "brain dead," then it's brain dead for a reason--and that reason can't be that there was anything wrong with him running in principle.

It's pretty well accepted, I think, that third party candidates can be spoilers and there's some merit to that argument, even though losses and wins have many contributing factors.

Arguably, HW lost because of...who was that geezer?

 

by Peter Schwartz 6/6/2011 - 2:02 pm (re: quinn esq)
A useful refresher on third-party candidates (summary: they aren't to blame for incumbent losses) http://mobile.salon.com/politics/war_room/2011/04/04/third_party_myth_ea...
by Nunuk Schtilpins (not verified) 6/6/2011 - 2:23 pm (re: Peter Schwartz)

Perot did not cost GHW Bush the election if you dope out the margin and where the votes came from.  John Anderson's votes, if fully allocated to Carter, would have made no difference.

Therefore...Nader's 100k in Florida didn't shift even 537 votes from Gore.  I guess that makes about as much sense as arguing that W's win isn't the but for cause of the Iraq War.  Number 26 in this piece induces some kind of mass argumentative hysteria where people run to strange and counterfactual places to validate what they need to feel is true.

So again, whatever makes you feel good.  If it's in Salon, it can't be wrong.  537 > 100k and all that.  Hip hip.

by Articleman 6/6/2011 - 6:59 pm (re: Nunuk Schtilpins)

Ok. I've agreed that Nader was an asshole, and that he was one of the reasons that Gore lost. 

But you seem to keep wanting to push beyond that, and highlight how emotional and absurdly defensive and hysterical people are about it. However, I'm not sure you get how you're bent over in the same position.

That is. You said that Nader was THE proximate cause. That's a term that sounds clever, and I'm sure it has its uses - but in large-scale social and political events ( e.g. involving hundreds of millions of people, across an entire continent, over a period of years) it's essentially... worthless. It adds nothing, tells us nothing. All it does is generate internet heat. Which, considering #19, means it's less than useful.

Like so. Endless numbers of people will suggest that X was responsible for defeating Hitler, or winning the war for the Allies. And I could probably create a list of 50 "causes" without which, Hitler might have won. e.g. The Eastern Front. Battle of Britain. US entering the War. Manufacturing capability. Genius code-breaker XYZ. Bravery and Intelligence of Canadian soldiers. Polish pilots. Whatever.

It's the same with elections. There are always dozens of reasons why politicians won or lost an extra 1% of the vote, right? And it wasn't just Florida, there were an enormous number of combinations of wins in other states which could have won it for Gore. Losing your home state, for instance, is a big deal. Your screwed-up relationship with the outgoing President is another. Clinton's penis is probably another. How Gore chose to deal with emotion, how he chose to motivate, how his campaign team picked their spots, who they went to mobilize.

This is not to let Nader off the hook. It's just to say, pinning down ONE "proximate cause" is not useful... and that, in fact, it shows an emotional choice being made by the person doing so. For example, for many committed Democrats, it works well, because it allows Nader to carry a whole lot of the blame and shame. But think about this, A-man. In my books, Gore ran a bad campaign, and was badly advised. In Florida, I felt the Democratic Party's core leadership failed not only their members and voters, but the nation (and later the world, if we want to go as far out as Iraq.) But blaming Nader allows all those issues, those dark times and bad decisions and weak spines and their failure to organize or motivate, to slide off behind the curtain, while Ralph Nader becomes THE proximate cause.

It's not intellectually defensible, it reveals a particular set of emotional commitments, and it allows a whole raft of other people, relationships, strategies and choices to walk off, scot free. 

If you want to reiterate that Nader is a warning against oddball 3rd party runs, great. But at this point, I suspect there's more to be gained by looking at the lesser-noticed lessons of Gore, such as how the Democratic Party's senior people can have bad strategies, be weak-willed at key moments, etc.

by quinn esq 6/6/2011 - 8:09 pm (re: Articleman)

This is correct.

I haven't seen Gore, or his closest people, blame Nader.

That butterfly ballot designer also had a role in it.

by Peter Schwartz 6/7/2011 - 8:54 am (re: quinn esq)

My 26 doesn't go far at all, it's just flakes of fish food on the water.  No one responds to many other points of reasonable interest.  Yes, in comments I noted the bizarre argument that Dems in the Senate in 2002 caused the Iraq War, exculpating Uncle Ralph.  So sure, I note the perversity and irrationality of that absurd position.  People have a hard time holding two somewhat opposed thoughts in their minds (good to protest antiliberal tendencies/bad to elect Bush by getting crazy with that particular Cheez Wiz), especially on the Internet.  Hardly surprising.

To me, what's facile about your historical determinism bit, and very much so, is that the day before the election, a single human being (Nader) could have chosen to withdraw or to support Gore, and Gore almost certainly wins Florida.  No one could undo other prior historical events that you point out affected the outcome. 

So Nader rode his spoiler pony across that threshold with conscious will and choice, enabling the election of Bush.  Lots of voters understood the importance and danger -- look at Destor, who engaged in the vote trading thingy to show support for Greens but not to screw Gore.  Nader got that, and did it anyway.  Gore was imperfect, as had been Clinton, but Gore was trying to win.  Nader's thing he was trying was ineluctably part of risking and (oops!) causing Bush to win and Gore to lose.  That's why your argument fails; that's why calling out Nader is meaningful.  He was the but-for cause that meant to be the but-for cause.  All that other crap you list wasn't specifically aimed at making Gore lose.

by Articleman 6/7/2011 - 1:19 pm (re: quinn esq)

Yup, Nader's got some responsibility for the election of Bush. But it seems a stretch to blame him for the way Senate Dems voted on the Iraq war.

More than a stretch, it seems a bit... hysterical. ;0)

yrs,

- former dag dog.

by Cho 6/7/2011 - 1:29 pm (re: Articleman)
No one blames Nader for the votes of Senate Dems in 2002, I sure don't. But the comment that points to that vote as exculpating Nader in the same stroke exculpates Bush. Silly.
by Articleman 6/7/2011 - 3:38 pm (re: Chubby Cho)

No. Silly is blaming Nader for a war Bush started, Democrats authorized, and the MSM advocated for.

by Cho 6/7/2011 - 4:24 pm (re: Articleman)

You can pretend all you want that Nader didn't tilt both Florida and New Hampshire to Bush.  It's pretending.  Nader could have pulled up at the last minute.  He didn't have a chance to win anything.  He only had a chance to tilt a really close election.  He had that moral agency.   

No MSM could have followed not-President Bush, no 50% of Democrats could have agreed with authorizing a war not-President Bush never had a chance to start.  Of course, you're not really making an argument about causation, just pointing out other people went along once we had a President Bush.  So you have those facts right, you're just wrong to give Uncle Ralph a pass on diverting more than 600 Florida votes from Gore on purpose.

The smart and intellectually honest play is holding up third party candidacies as pressuring devices, a la Destor, but not actually tanking the lefter of the two alternatives.  But that's complex, and doesn't have a good beat, and you can't dance to it.

But as firedoglake would have reassuringly said in 2000 -- Gore is a Republican!  Gore = Bush.  Except, of course, that would have been bullshit.  Electing Al Gore would have made the world a lot better than the alternative.  And getting 100k people in Florida to vote for the symbolic thing over Gore is and was bullshit.  And always will be. 

by Articleman 6/7/2011 - 5:31 pm (re: Chubby Cho)

You're completely missing my point.

You made a claim about Nader being the proximate cause of the Iraq War. I'm saying that is wrong. Among the facts about the world you need to understand to understand the causes of the Iraq War, Nader's moral agency comes pretty far down the list.Yes, he has moral agency. But..

1. Bush has moral agency.

2. His neo-con aids had moral agency.

2. Democrats who authorized the war had moral agency.

3. Journalists who were cheering Bush on had moral agency.

They are all more important steps or agents in the causal story of the Iraq War than Nader. If anyone is going to hell for the Iraq War, I'd be looking at that bunch.

If you want to talk about causes of Bush's election, I'd say the proximate cause was the Supreme Court. Secondary causes were Gore's crap campaigning and failure to invest funds and time in Florida. Maybe a question of perspective.

None of that is to deny that Nader played an important role in the election, that Nader is a jerk, that Nader should have dropped out on the eve of the election given how close Florida was going.

But, again, blaming primarily Nader for the Iraq War, not the election, but the Iraq War that happened years later with lots of other agents involved, strikes me as hysterical or obsessively concentrating your loathing on one individual of relative insignificance. You need to take a deep breath and refocus.

by Cho 6/7/2011 - 5:50 pm (re: Articleman)

By getting Bush elected, Nader was the proximate cause of Bush.  Nader owns his excesses.  And Bush can't be the intervening cause that interrupts Nader's moral responsibility for his role in electing him.

Bush of course is another but-for cause of everything Bush did, sure. 

Have responded to the rest otherwise in thread, in dealing with the suggestion that the election was kind of historically or otherwise determined; the day before Election Day, you couldn't replay the debates, or Whitewater, or make Al Gore more charming, or reallocate resources. 

But Nader had a choice and chose the fundamentally negative and destructive path.  It isn't Rube Goldbergesque causation that's really hard to understand -- it's Bush win > Iraq war.  Gore win > no Iraq War.  Most folks get that, and most liberals I know can't stand Nader as a result.  Not because we're hysterical, but because we were always against the Iraq War, among other good reasons.

by Articleman 6/7/2011 - 6:17 pm (re: Chubby Cho)

The only thing Nader is clearly resonsible for is all the deaths and injuries suffered in Ford Falcon accidents after people found out that Corvairs were unsafe at any speed.

by A Guy Called LULU 6/7/2011 - 6:40 pm (re: Articleman)

To get the numbers straight, in the pre-midterm election partisan jujitsu 'get Saddam' legislation pushed by Bush and the GOP,  one Republican voted against the 2002 Iraq Resolution, and 21 Democrats voted against it, along with one Independent. Since Cheney was the VP, just 2 Democratic Senators voting for it would have passed it as a tie, with Cheney voting for it.

This would mean 48 of 50 Democrats would have had to vote it down.

The 2002 Iraq Resolution did fail by a wide margin in the House on the Democratic side, 126-82.

by NCD 6/7/2011 - 4:48 pm (re: Articleman)

It's nice that you enjoy the pose that everyone else is emotional about this, A-man. But at this point, I do believe it's you re-raising an issue that has been endlessly fought, and enjoying the feeling of finding others who are emotional... after you have spread "the flakes of fish food on the water." Hmmmmm.... almost sounds like.....baiting. ;-)

As for using phrases like "the proximate cause of the Iraq war" then you have set a doubly high bar - it's THE cause and not just of the election loss, but of the WAR that followed. It's plain and simple an impossible bar for you to make in this case, and - in general in such large events - I would argue the language is too high blown for the entire field. It's not about "historical determinism" - it's just a big event, covering a lot of people, which has innumerable levers and forces at play, and the result is, in fact, an aggregate of all those myriad decisions. Worse, it was an incredibly SMALL margin - which means even more events and decisions are relevant.

Because if Ralph blows 1%, even in key places, that doesn't let Gore off the hook if, for instance, his ego was too big earlier and he blew 3% across the board. Gore may have been "trying" to win. But a man can still let his ego get in the way and thus, wreck his own chances. So, if Uncle Ralph owns some of the 2000 election responsibility (and he does), fine. But to not see that others could have moved an oar a week before, a month before, a year before, and shifted 1% of the vote - is just... bad political science, and bad history.

[And if you think this is because I have some emotional stake in Ralph, think again. I opposed his move, and argued bitterly with my many PIRG friends. However, I also argued bitterly with my equally asinine Gore and Clinton friends. As for the Dem "Leadership" in the Florida recount, talk about ways to lose an election.]

After that, to win THE proximate cause prize, you still have to get from Nov/2000 to the Iraq War. And there's just no way to both say that Ralph erases the responsibility of Gore and Clinton and company in 2000, and ALSO the responsibility of the Senate Dems in 2002/03, AND beyond that, erases the causal role of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Osama and company. 

For example, it may give you a sad that Senate Democrats were spineless gits in 2002, but they were, and many said it, at the time, on the day, to their faces - but they did it anyway.

As for Bush and Cheney.... how the hell do you manage to hand greater responsibility for that war to Nader than them? You handed Ralph the responsibility in 2000 because of.... conscious will and choice... closeness in time... and regionally tight races.... But how the heck does this then hand him responsibility again in 2002/03?

It doesn't. therefore, "the proximate cause of the Iraq War? Thesis failure.

Now, I'm happy to say he was an egotistical fool, and a lot else. But your phrase seems to me to basically be.... fish food. 

- Chum

by quinn esq 6/7/2011 - 5:36 pm (re: Articleman)

So I was in Quebec City on Canada Day in 1997, and this Francophone mime mocks me to a large crowd of Quebecois on the Terrasse Dufferin or some such (the big planky thing by the Chateau Frontenac) for having a Canadian flag pin (small, mind you) on my hiking pack on July 1.

Just can't please some people.

by Articleman 6/7/2011 - 6:00 pm (re: quinn esq)

That was acanuck.

Or Obey.

We agree they're pricks.

by quinn esq 6/7/2011 - 6:56 pm (re: Articleman)
July 1, 1997? Nope, not me. Anyway, how can you tell a francophone mime from any other kind? Blue-striped jersey instead of black?
by acanuck 6/7/2011 - 8:58 pm (re: Articleman)
Hey, disabling rich-text works.
by acanuck 6/7/2011 - 8:59 pm (re: acanuck)

Clearly a Parti Quebecois guy.  But sure, he was mute, so he might be an Anglophone PQ mime.

by Articleman 6/7/2011 - 10:56 pm (re: acanuck)

The Francophone mimes won't go into the corners?

Ba-doom-boom.

by quinn esq 6/7/2011 - 11:05 pm (re: acanuck)

And there's that thing that happened in September, you know that thing. 

by Saladin 6/8/2011 - 12:14 am (re: quinn esq)

You are arguing by implication that Gore would have taken us to Iraq over 9/11 as Bush did.  Most people would find that unthinkable, and I group myself among them. 

by Articleman 6/8/2011 - 3:53 pm (re: Saladin)

What makes number 50 tricky is that for certain groups, greed is a virtue and for others, intelligence is stupid. Does pointing out that sort of phenomena amount to a form of class consciousness?

by moat 6/5/2011 - 7:54 pm

I think those beliefs cut across groups.  Lots of relatively poor folk buy the line that we can't tax business or the rich because their self-interest will lift people up.  Just because we think something is anti-poor folks doesn't mean no poor folks affirm the value of it.

by Articleman 6/5/2011 - 8:04 pm (re: moat)

Yes, people can be wrong about what actually benefits them or provides for their future. It happens that groups identify themselves with others who actually have nothing to do with their "kind". Marx talked about that sort of thing when focusing upon the political power of the "Lumpenproletariat."

But if class consciousness is not just a category of economic status but a shared frame of self identification, what comprises a "group" may not be self-evident. For instance, in Veblen's Theory of the Leisure Class, a study that does a darn good job of describing the environment some elites are developed within makes some interesting comparisons between entrepreneurs and street hustlers.

by moat 6/5/2011 - 8:38 pm (re: Articleman)

Reading your comment, I was actually thinking of the similarities between certain forms of greed endemic to certain poor and rich types, just as upper class entrepreneurs and drug dealers are discussed in Freakonomics, which sounds a bit similar to what you're saying the second paragraph.

by Articleman 6/6/2011 - 12:08 am (re: moat)

#51 - Genghis is correct.

by Donal 6/5/2011 - 7:57 pm

This is right up there with "warm, woolen mittens," but I'll play along a bit.

#3 employs an intriguing tense.

 #23 has too many words, for the most part.

I like #49.  It's structured as most of your list ought to be.  Maybe.

#26.  C'mon.

#43 ?

#10. That when hiring people in Flagstaff to do chores or yard work, you're better off hiring a junioraccountant or lawyer, and paying them their hourly rate. 

Than what?  Than hiring toddlers?  Girl Scouts? John Kyl?

#16.  I don't believe you believe that.

#45.  How 'bout the D of I for starters?

Finally, #21.  Do you mean he "should" as in you're handicapping the race that way, or he "deserves" (or we do) to serve a second term? (And while I'm on the subject, I'm curious.  Is there an eligible American alive who you think would be a better president than B.O.?)

Fun stuff.

by kyle flynn 6/6/2011 - 2:15 am

On 3, he just isn't presently a player.  And someone may someday unseat him, for sure. 

On 10, the people who do basic work there charge breathtaking rates to do it. 

On 16, I totally believe that.  Unforgiven, Minority Report, Before Sunrise.

On 21, it is obvious to me that he is far better than and preferable to what he'll be running against.  I don't view it as deservingness for him, in the sense that we owe him a reward, it's not about him, it's about the choice for us.  And no, in an infinity of possible Presidents, I am not arguing that he is the best imaginable.  But I do think that he was handed an enormous number of shit sandwiches, the most since 1933, and that he's generally performed well to very well, the continued presence in Afghanistan being my primary issue with his Presidency.  I like FinReg, the consumer protection agency, the stimulus, the DADT/DOMA changes, his Supreme Court picks, and bringing more poor people into coverage through HCR.  If he's re-elected, maybe we can start talking about a President Hillary for 2016.

On 23, you're right, for the most part.  But you appear to like the rest of it.

On 26, I've explained my view of it above and other times.  Hey, it's my truisms.

On 43, kids can be mean.  It's just good to help them avoid stuff.

On 45, the Declaration of Independence was more specific to the cultural context of the U.S. when it was.  It's a ringing statement to be sure.  But when countries model their governance on American forms, they resort to the constitution.  There was a great rise in constitutionalism as a result of the Constitution.  Independence movements are great historically, but they owe more to the fact of their own contexts first, and sometimes but to a lesser degree to prior independence movements, and even less to the D of I itself.

by Articleman 6/6/2011 - 2:00 pm (re: kyle flynn)

democratic support for war and more war after winning back congress and the presidency proves nader bears no responsibility for the iraq war.

by Anonymous (not verified) 6/6/2011 - 4:17 am

Whatever makes you feel good.  If Gore were President, do you think before (when it started) or after 9/11, our government would have been obsessed with seeking reasons to attack Saddam Hussein?  Yes, half of the Senate Dems went along once that die was cast, but you're now making the argument that *George Bush's Presidency* is not the but-for cause of the Iraq War.  Makes no sense.

by Articleman 6/6/2011 - 12:19 pm (re: Anonymous)

I agree. We wouldn't have gone into Iraq.

by Peter Schwartz 6/6/2011 - 2:11 pm (re: Articleman)

About #16, I guess we're supposed to say: Citizen Kane. And it is a great movie.

But the one American movie I never seem to tire of is Godfather I.

Hard to pick one...

by Peter Schwartz 6/6/2011 - 2:11 pm

Godfather is my #28.  Network is also better, imo.

http://dagblog.com/arts-entertainment/top-100-films-all-time-numbers-1-50-506

by Articleman 6/6/2011 - 7:16 pm (re: Peter Schwartz)

I saw The Graduate at an age where it has always stuck with me. And I loved Katharine Ross. King of Hearts was great, too. And then I loved Genevieve Bujold.

by Donal 6/6/2011 - 7:22 pm (re: Articleman)

Yes.

by Peter Schwartz 6/7/2011 - 8:55 am (re: Donal)

 #51, For a great many people, the more subjective the question, the more absolute their conclusion.

by A Guy Called LULU 6/6/2011 - 2:44 pm

I like that a lot, LULU, but I would add that I don't think there's anything wrong or counterintuitive about that.  Some part of argument, some part of moral judgment is more like aesthetics than science.  Your point is consistent with that, maybe even goes to that.

by Articleman 6/6/2011 - 6:54 pm (re: A Guy Called LULU)

A shorter, pithier, sexier list:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBfdl6hNZ9k

A classic. And the movie's right up there with Unforgiven, Kane, Strangelove and Casablanca, too.

 

by acanuck 6/6/2011 - 3:49 pm

Welcome back Ack.  Missed you, dude.  Here's a repost of my movie list, now over 2 years old.

http://dagblog.com/arts-entertainment/top-100-films-all-time-numbers-1-50-506

by Articleman 6/6/2011 - 7:17 pm (re: acanuck)

You left off The Producers--a gaping hole. But a good list!

by Peter Schwartz 6/7/2011 - 8:57 am (re: Articleman)

16. Blazing Saddles is the best movie evah

32. :) Hah, yes.

35. Yes again...

51. Bicycles and scooters are so much better than cars

This made me chuckle.

by tmccarthy0 6/7/2011 - 10:44 am

This is the only time I will ever agree with you, TMc. ;-)

Blazing Saddles.

Unforgiven? Mongo KRRRUSH Unforgiven.

by quinn esq 6/7/2011 - 11:05 am (re: tmccarthy0)

No agreement shall go unpunished. You should have pointed out that almost all of the scooters that have become so popular are Chinese two-cycle engine powered and they produce many times the pollutants per passenger mile than the most inefficient American made SUV. Maybe not so much as a Cowboy bean dinner, though.

by A Guy Called LULU 6/7/2011 - 11:40 am (re: quinn esq)

This house has Vespa's, they are made in Italy and although some parts are manufactured in China, (just like airplanes and IPads) the majority of the work and assembly is all still done in Italy, my VIN number reflects that fact.

by tmccarthy0 6/7/2011 - 12:08 pm (re: A Guy Called LULU)

Good for you. Seriously. Modern Vespas are good scooters. They have four cycle engines and are quite efficient for around town transportation. . A 2011 150cc Vespa has an MSRP of about $4500. My 2003 Bajaj, a Vespa clone made in India, retailed for about $2500. new. Spankin' new Chinese two cycle smog pumps can be bought for about $800. That is why most of the scooters you see on the road are Chinese two cycle jobs. Even though Vespas are quality machines, if you choose to go motorized on two wheels, Vespas and almost all other scooters are a false economy for several reasons, IMO.

by A Guy Called LULU 6/7/2011 - 12:37 pm (re: tmccarthy0)

I recall that right after I bought my moped (in the 1970s), Consumer Reports slammed them because of the pollution from the two-cycle engines. They also said that I should duplicate my 120 mpg by putting 6 people in a station wagon (I'm still looking for five people that want to follow me around everywhere.) I've seen some cute e-scooters, and e-bikes, but man are they pricey. I always come back to the human-powered vehicles.

by Donal 6/7/2011 - 1:13 pm (re: A Guy Called LULU)

 This could be sliced and diced in a lot of different ways. I took a three thousand mile trip with my son on motorcycles. We rode together and gassed up together every time. One bike averaged 42mpg, the other 45mpg. Both quite good for relatively cheap one person transportation but my eleven year old Dodge Neon, which cost less than either bike, could have carried us both plus a lot more camping gear and got about 33mpg at the interstate speeds we mostly ran.
 I had an Allstate Moped in 1958, a bit before I could ride it legally. I loved it. It was the beginning of my being an air-conditioned gypsy and at the time I was just like Townsend, Daltry, Moon, and that other guy, I didn't care about pollution.

by A Guy Called LULU 6/7/2011 - 2:00 pm (re: Donal)

Didn't Pirsig write a book about you?

by Donal 6/7/2011 - 2:13 pm (re: A Guy Called LULU)

My first real motorcycle was a Honda 305 Super Hawk and that is what Pirsig rode on his famous trip.

by A Guy Called LULU 6/7/2011 - 2:53 pm (re: Donal)

Well I mostly ride a bicycle LULU, putting more than 10,000 miles a year on it, but I need my scooter for shopping and a few other things, plus it gives me a priority load on the ferry. And you might think it is a false economy for whatever reasons.  Yes Vespa's are expensive, but I love, love, love my Vespa, and it is so much fun to ride almost as much fun as my bicycle. I get 85 miles to the gallon on my Vespa. Which is pretty good.

But I bought my Vespa for a reason and it was for safety and because of an injury suffered while commuting exclusively on my bicycle for 20+ years.

In 2007 the city of Seattle put a new railroad track in across a bicycle path on Alaskan Way/EMarg, a train track that would never be used. At the time I was 45. For several months that part of the road was closed and it was going to open up Nov. 19th. It did, and that morning as I was crossing the track on my road bike, suddenly just before getting on top of the track I noticed that there were no bumpers in between the tracks for and it sucked my front wheel right into the track. I was traveling at the usual 20 mph. I knew I was going down, not only did I severely break my wrist, but ripped my clothes, broke my helmet, which caused me to get an infection in my lower jaw because of the force of the hit.  I had to be transported to Swedish Medical Center and the firemen kept my beat up bicycle at the station for me to pick up later. It took months to recover, lots of physical therapy, and a serious operation on my lower jaw because of the infection, which literally almost killed me. The city refused my claim and I of course had to get an attorney. We already had a great attorney because in 1998 my husband was hit by a lumber truck while he was on his bicycle coming home from work. Yes we are both serious bicycle commuters and have been since 1988.  It took a year more and it was settled out of court and the tracks were fixed with bumpers added so no other cyclist would be injured. I was very nervous at first to get back on my bike to commute again so I bought a Vespa with part of the settlement money. It took until 2009 for me to begin commuting daily on my bicycle again, you know the older we get the longer it takes to recuperate, and I was very gun shy to get in another accident with my bike. Over the years I've been hit by cars who don't pay attention to those of us who cycle religiously, one time I was on an actual bike path that has a small barrier to cars, yet I was hit anyway. People aim their cars at us, I've had things thrown at me on while on my bicycle, oranges, bags of garbage, one time someone threw a handful of batteries at me, I've been slapped by people in cars while in motion on my bicycle, they think they are so god damned funny, I've been screamed at, people have blocked me while riding in the bicycle path because they are stuck in traffic and it pisses them off, but none of this happens on my scooter.  My scooter kept me safe while I was getting back into riding my bicycle. I really had some tension and worries about being back on my bike with  the last accident.   So my contention here is, if people would leave cyclists alone, I would never have purchased a scooter at all, but because people are such knuckleheads I have my scooter and I admit I love it!

Jeebus, my response is entirely too long, but I put many more miles on my bicycle than the majority of people in this nation and have for years, so I don't feel bad in the slightest about owning a scooter, not at all. Plus it is cute, super cute and super fun.

by tmccarthy0 6/7/2011 - 2:08 pm (re: A Guy Called LULU)

I've had a few bad experiences - being cut off by cars, having beer cans thrown at me, and my folding bike suddenly unfolding last summer - but I can see that I've been relatively lucky.

by Donal 6/7/2011 - 2:17 pm (re: tmccarthy0)

Well at least your bicycle didn't fold up while you were on it, that would really be awful. :) Sometimes I feel like I should ride my bike with armor and a sword. I had a wooden sword on Halloween but I don't think it has the same impact as a real one would.

by tmccarthy0 6/7/2011 - 7:17 pm (re: Donal)

Hey, mine tried to kill me..

  Parenthetically, I picked it up last week from the cops who were holding it for me after I went over the handlebars, and I think I'll put it up on the magnetic trainer till my bikophobia remits or i invent a new kinda helmet.

by jollyroger 6/7/2011 - 7:32 pm (re: tmccarthy0)

Actually it did unfold out from under me. Frown The original frame had a design flaw. It relied on the seat post tube to hold the two sections together, but the tube was just long enough to pass through both pieces, and rather tight to insert into the lower tube. Since I have fairly long legs, I liked the seat up high. One day, I got off the light rail, unfolded the bike, got halfway across Howard Ave and landed hard on the pavement as the frame came apart. So much force was on that little bit of the seat post that it broke the lower frame tube and the two struts on either side.

I limped to the office, cleaned my road rash, put the ice pack from my lunch on my left wrist and worked. I had my wife and daughter pick me up at the station that evening. She made me go to the clinic, and xrays showed I had a small fracture in my wrist. It could have been a lot worse, because I usually do over 20 mph going downhill in the morning.

I dithered about whether to get a different type of folding bike, but most of them are only rated for riders up to 220 lbs. I called Xootr about buying a half a new frame, but they seemed to know what happened. I sent them a picture and they replaced the entire frame, and gave me a longer seat tube - all under warranty. The new style frame lets the post slide freely, and has two clips to fasten it. It also has heavier tubes around the seat post than the one shown above.

by Donal 6/7/2011 - 8:06 pm (re: tmccarthy0)

I think you can see that the point of my initial comment was that most scooters are extremely bad polluters and that I immediately acknowledged that Vespas did not belong in that category. I think that for those who are able and whose circumstances allow, that bicycling is the best way to go and averaging 30 miles per day is quite impressive.
 I may go into the issue of scooters being a false economy in a blog. My comparison would be to a small motorcycle. But, a point I would argue very strongly which goes against scooters is that of safety. A small motorcycle is much safer because they are much more maneuverable, stop much quicker, sit higher and so offer better visibility in traffic, and survive hitting road trash or potholes or such, much better because of their longer travel suspension and larger diameter wheels.  I cringe every time I see a local young college girl riding in a skirt or shorts on a scooter, or motorcycle, for that matter, and not even wearing a helmet. Just like I did for years. Well, not the skirt, but also not the helmet.

by A Guy Called LULU 6/7/2011 - 2:49 pm (re: tmccarthy0)

Ugh I cringe when I see people riding out of uniform... Skirts, yikes.. shorts... not good, bare legs, no jacket, not a good idea, and no helmets here will get your scooter or motorcycle confiscated on the spot.  When we were in Idaho this last weekend almost every motorcycle I saw had a rider without a helmet, which is crazy.

I ride 48 miles a day on my bicycle or more. depending on how I feel. But it is a minimum of 48 miles a day. But it did take a bit of time for me to get back to commuting after my last accident, it wasn't as bad as when my husband was hit by the lumber truck, but it was bad and I was skittish for a while.

When I was in Italy I saw a woman in her work clothes, nice skirt, suit jacket, high heels and damn Great Dane draped over the back of her scooter.  I was in a cab and the driver lifted up his hand in the Italian way and exclaimed "Estupida", that I understood quite well and laughed hard.

by tmccarthy0 6/7/2011 - 7:09 pm (re: A Guy Called LULU)

1. Wouldn't it be nice if that were true. Unfortunately, the reality is, some are more equal than others.

2. It may be, but I just got a Mac Air a few months ago, and in spite of the fact that I am SORELY tempted, the iPad will have to wait.

3-9  Agree.

10. If you say so.

11. Yuck! People should just quit eating animals.

12. I've been to both, but driving myself in neither, so I can't tell.

13-15. Agree.

16. NOT!

17. It makes my heart palpitate to even THINK about which idiots are the ones who will make the decision.

18. Agree.

19. In your dreams! (Mine, too, but there are a lot of people who disagree!)

20-50 Agree.

So, not quite perfect alignment, but pretty close! Good job!

 

by stillidealistic 6/7/2011 - 2:46 pm

12.  Chicago's mass transit is part of the pleasure.  It's great.

19.  It's amazing how much nastier people are when they get to be anonymous.  I believe in privacy, and therefore anonymity, but it shouldn't be both a shield and a sword.  That's where teh Intertubes go to shit, IMHO.

by Articleman 6/7/2011 - 5:45 pm (re: stillidealistic)

Re #16, I finally figured out my favorite recent movie: American Splendor. I already liked Hope Davis from Next Stop Wonderland, Paul Giammati was great, but the way the film was put together was the real star. The What's in a name monologue has become popular for auditions:

by Donal 6/7/2011 - 7:20 pm

Next Stop Wonderland is great, Hope Davis also did a good turn in The Daytrippers.  Crap, I have to fix my list now.  NSW reminds me of New Waterford Girl, a Canuck flick with Andrew McCarthy.  So small, so real, a lost gem.

by Articleman 6/7/2011 - 7:24 pm (re: Donal)

I just saw Fish Tank, with Michael Fassbender, who is playing Charles Xavier in the new X-Men Origins flick. Great movie. The same director did a film called Kes, that my flick buddy at work raves about. It's hard to find that sort of thing in your average rental shop.

by Donal 6/7/2011 - 8:12 pm (re: Articleman)
I had to read your entire list to see where New Waterford Girl placed. It squeaked in at 99th.
by acanuck 6/7/2011 - 9:06 pm (re: Articleman)

Latest Comments

more