If I thought you were serious, I'd point out that you would be the first to scorn a woman who responded to criticism of her piece that way. But you're not, so I won't.
Why would I want to go through that exercise? All it would do is reintroduce me to some things some people said, even though it might prove my point -- that the positive case for Biden is the same as the negative case against Trump, just rephrased.
So, famously, did Talleyrand. We'd probably all be better off, and certainly more adult, if we didn't expect our candidates to be awesome and get bent out of shape when they aren't.
I don't know anyone who thinks Joe Biden is "awesome," and would be troubled by someone who did. There are, however, plenty of positive arguments for Biden. Unfortunately, Trump is so comprehensively awful that they come across as anti-Trump: humane, serious, adult, empathetic, caring, experienced, knowledgeable....These are great, positive qualities. But given Trump's glaring lack of any of them, they sound more anti-Trump than pro-Biden.
Speaking as someone who has straddled both worlds, it is true that city folk don't understand country folk, but it is also true that country folk don't understand city folk. The difference is that only one of them resents the other.
True story. I jad a case once where someone was trying to prove something or other about sentiment on a college campus (I forget now why that mattered, but it did) and attached to his papers one of those polls The Onion used to run, using the same four or five respondents' photos every time.
Come on, guys, no fair letting facts interfere with the fun. And no fair pointing out the central contradiction of the piece: the Democrats are obsessed with "cool" and inauthentic and are going to nominate -- Joe Biden?
Chip, you're wasting your time engaging in the "small homogeneous countries" theory of why we can't get have nice things. It has always been just a polite way of saying "No n*****s in [fill in the blank]."
Chip, you're wasting your time engaging in the "small homogeneous countries" theory of why we can't get have nice things. It has always been just a polite way of saying "No n*****s in [fill in the blank]."
Considering how many federal programs involve federal funding and state or local administration, it seems likely that folks already know, or at least believe, this.
I don't actually "needs to take note of" anything. If he dies in prison in some way that isn't obvious, I'll be happy to await the results of what I have reason to believe will be a thorough investigation.
I don't think so, but that's just me. Sadly, it won't stop the "Weinstein didn't kill himself" stories if he dies anywhere outside of a prison hospital bed -- and maybe not even then.
There was no Bloomberg "pop tax" struck down by the courts. Bloomberg got the NYC Dept. of Health to ban large sugary drinks, like the big Arizona-brand soft drinks, not to tax them. The courts blocked it because the NYC Dept. of Health lacked the regulatory authority to do that. The court never addressed what the City Council could have done in its legislative capacity, either to ban big gulps or to tax sugary drinks. (I simply don't recall, and don't much care, if he had previously tried to get a tax through the City Council or not before having DOH issue its big gulp ban.) In other places, like Philadelphia, where the city's legislative body passed an actual tax, there has been no legal problem.
Last I looked, Joe also had a long platform full of positive goodies too. His is marginally more likely than Bernie's to pass, and only if someone assassinates Mitch McConnell. The differences aren't likely to make a difference as far as messaging goes. Either the Bernie supporters will swallow their disappointment and vote blue, no matter who, or they won't. Exercises in Don Draper-ism aren't likely to make a difference.
The world is a bigger place than this blog. If all you're saying is that on this blog there was less attention given to the topic of Hillary's mistakes than you wanted, well, fine. That's a statement about what they found interesting to talk about and how that didn't match what you wanted to hear. If anyone finds that interesting, they can have at it.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Joe Biden: Staying Alive”
If I thought you were serious, I'd point out that you would be the first to scorn a woman who responded to criticism of her piece that way. But you're not, so I won't.
"
Why would I want to go through that exercise? All it would do is reintroduce me to some things some people said, even though it might prove my point -- that the positive case for Biden is the same as the negative case against Trump, just rephrased.
"
So, famously, did Talleyrand. We'd probably all be better off, and certainly more adult, if we didn't expect our candidates to be awesome and get bent out of shape when they aren't.
"
I don't know anyone who thinks Joe Biden is "awesome," and would be troubled by someone who did. There are, however, plenty of positive arguments for Biden. Unfortunately, Trump is so comprehensively awful that they come across as anti-Trump: humane, serious, adult, empathetic, caring, experienced, knowledgeable....These are great, positive qualities. But given Trump's glaring lack of any of them, they sound more anti-Trump than pro-Biden.
"
Speaking as someone who has straddled both worlds, it is true that city folk don't understand country folk, but it is also true that country folk don't understand city folk. The difference is that only one of them resents the other.
"
"Free speech." You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you seem to think it means.
"
A wonderful translation.
"
The point is that he mistook something from The Onion for reality. Sometimes it's just that simple.
"
True story. I jad a case once where someone was trying to prove something or other about sentiment on a college campus (I forget now why that mattered, but it did) and attached to his papers one of those polls The Onion used to run, using the same four or five respondents' photos every time.
"
Come on, guys, no fair letting facts interfere with the fun. And no fair pointing out the central contradiction of the piece: the Democrats are obsessed with "cool" and inauthentic and are going to nominate -- Joe Biden?
On “The Free Market Case for Staying the Eff Home”
My point exactly.
"
Polite and fancy. A two-fer.
"
Chip, you're wasting your time engaging in the "small homogeneous countries" theory of why we can't get have nice things. It has always been just a polite way of saying "No n*****s in [fill in the blank]."
"
Chip, you're wasting your time engaging in the "small homogeneous countries" theory of why we can't get have nice things. It has always been just a polite way of saying "No n*****s in [fill in the blank]."
On “Linky Friday: Cancel Everything, Cease and Desist, Shut It Shut It Down Edition”
Considering how many federal programs involve federal funding and state or local administration, it seems likely that folks already know, or at least believe, this.
On “From the NYT: Harvey Weinstein Is Sentenced to 23 Years in Prison”
I don't actually "needs to take note of" anything. If he dies in prison in some way that isn't obvious, I'll be happy to await the results of what I have reason to believe will be a thorough investigation.
"
I don't think so, but that's just me. Sadly, it won't stop the "Weinstein didn't kill himself" stories if he dies anywhere outside of a prison hospital bed -- and maybe not even then.
On “Toeing the Line: Why Fear of the Unknown Fuels Panic, and Awareness Saves Lives”
I usually have close to 100 rolls of toilet paper in normal times.
On “From the NYT: Harvey Weinstein Is Sentenced to 23 Years in Prison”
Apparently, he has been depressed and even suicidal lately. We're probably looking at a "Weinstein Dead" thread one of these days.
On “Wednesday Writs: Easterseals Society v Playboy, and Other Assorted Smut”
Do the cookies exist to help fund the Girl Scouts, or do the Girls Scouts exist to sell the cookies?
On “Say No To Puritarian America”
There was no Bloomberg "pop tax" struck down by the courts. Bloomberg got the NYC Dept. of Health to ban large sugary drinks, like the big Arizona-brand soft drinks, not to tax them. The courts blocked it because the NYC Dept. of Health lacked the regulatory authority to do that. The court never addressed what the City Council could have done in its legislative capacity, either to ban big gulps or to tax sugary drinks. (I simply don't recall, and don't much care, if he had previously tried to get a tax through the City Council or not before having DOH issue its big gulp ban.) In other places, like Philadelphia, where the city's legislative body passed an actual tax, there has been no legal problem.
On “Harsh Your Mellow Monday: The Easy Way, The Hard Way, and That Other Way”
Last I looked, Joe also had a long platform full of positive goodies too. His is marginally more likely than Bernie's to pass, and only if someone assassinates Mitch McConnell. The differences aren't likely to make a difference as far as messaging goes. Either the Bernie supporters will swallow their disappointment and vote blue, no matter who, or they won't. Exercises in Don Draper-ism aren't likely to make a difference.
On “The Revolution That Didn’t Come”
how freaking stupid do Republicans think that their voters are?
Very.
On “Nobody Owes Elizabeth Warren a Thing”
As I said, anyone who finds that interesting can have at it. We'll see who has at it.
"
The world is a bigger place than this blog. If all you're saying is that on this blog there was less attention given to the topic of Hillary's mistakes than you wanted, well, fine. That's a statement about what they found interesting to talk about and how that didn't match what you wanted to hear. If anyone finds that interesting, they can have at it.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.