Re: Not the Australian band.

1

"Men at work" was a pretty good movie. If it is no longer a good movie, that isn't my fault.


Posted by: Lemmy Caution | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 6:52 PM
horizontal rule
2

1 gets it right.


Posted by: Josh | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 6:55 PM
horizontal rule
3

I liked it when it came out. I was eight.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 6:56 PM
horizontal rule
4

I'm pretty sure Bush detonated Building 7 himself.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 7:05 PM
horizontal rule
5

Oh dear god. Now I'm having flashbacks to two Christmases ago when my (ex)-step-dad made me watch a 9/11 internet conspiracy movie that was over an hour long and started with the oppression of the sun cults by Christianity.


Posted by: Parenthetical | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 7:13 PM
horizontal rule
6

Don't forget, because the 9/11 conspiracy movements took place during the Bush administration they must have been a leftist phenomenon, thus cancelling out whatever happens now. Whew! Back to normal!


Posted by: OPINIONATED PUNDIT | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 7:17 PM
horizontal rule
7

the oppression of the sun cults by Christianity.

Nothing to belittle.


Posted by: Daughter of the Sun | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 7:22 PM
horizontal rule
8

5: OK, not to belittle your trauma, but that is kind of awesome too.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 7:27 PM
horizontal rule
9

Mocking 9/11 conspiracy theories?!?!?

That's it. I quit the blog.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 7:28 PM
horizontal rule
10

5: !!!


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 7:28 PM
horizontal rule
11

5: Opus Dei blew up building 7.


Posted by: mcmc | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 7:28 PM
horizontal rule
12

11: To send a message to the Masons.


Posted by: mcmc | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 7:29 PM
horizontal rule
13

Where does symbology fit into all of this?


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 7:29 PM
horizontal rule
14

9: To be fair, I was going for a more localized Sheen mocking. Come back, Tweety.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 7:29 PM
horizontal rule
15

Mock the Sheen? That's it. I quit the blog.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 7:30 PM
horizontal rule
16

14: Dude, if you mock Charlie, you're going to end up having to take on his whole family.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 7:31 PM
horizontal rule
17

8, 10, 11: You can all watch it, too. (I know you're just dying to.) It's all online.


Posted by: Parenthetical | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 7:32 PM
horizontal rule
18

16: I sent Pops a letter. "Martin, WE HAVE QUESTIONS!"


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 7:33 PM
horizontal rule
19

13: Staggering through the vaulted archway.


Posted by: mcmc | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 7:34 PM
horizontal rule
20

18: It's Emilio you've got to watch out for. With a name like that, I'm pretty sure he must be loco, ese.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 7:34 PM
horizontal rule
21

"Emilio, ¡TENEMOS PREGUNTAS!"


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 7:37 PM
horizontal rule
22

I'm loving mcmc on Dee Brown. Can I get a feed of her comments only? Like, beamed onto the back of my eyelids or something.


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 7:39 PM
horizontal rule
23

Making fun of Dan Brown? Eyes glinting, I toss my Logitech extended USB wireless keyboard to the floor, famously covered in beige industrial carpeting, and quit the blog.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 7:40 PM
horizontal rule
24

Wow, I wrote "Dee" rather than "Dan" Brown and also forgot some punctuation. That's actually very funny. To me, I mean.


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 7:42 PM
horizontal rule
25

Dunk contest! (Actually, I'm writing about the other Dee Brown.)


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 7:43 PM
horizontal rule
26

24: I thought you were just being familiar, like Dee is what you call him when you cuddle.

I can't believe I was so wrong.

I quit the blog.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 7:44 PM
horizontal rule
27

I was trying to think of a joke to use to point out ari's confusion of the Browns, but he realized it on his own before I thought of anything.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 7:44 PM
horizontal rule
28

Shouldn't 23 be written in the third person so you can refer to yourself as "Renowned blog-quitter Sifu Tweety"?


Posted by: emdash | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 7:48 PM
horizontal rule
29

I have to hand in my case tomorrow for why the university should make me a full professor. The virtues of charity, I'm reliably told, is not a persuasive enough argument in my favor. Beyond that, though, I'm quite stumped about what to say. So I quit the blog.


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 7:50 PM
horizontal rule
30

28: probably, but it was hard enough typing in the mirror.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 7:50 PM
horizontal rule
31

29: go for the old standby, and photocopy your butt.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 7:50 PM
horizontal rule
32

It is rumored that ari does have a particularly fine "old standy".


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 7:52 PM
horizontal rule
33

31: Hmm, I can't actually see any problem with your plan. Well, except for the fact that during the budget crisis we're really not supposed to use the copier except for emergencies. Is this an emergency, do you think?


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 7:53 PM
horizontal rule
34

33: no, that might send the wrong impression. Get one of your kids to draw a picture of your butt.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 7:54 PM
horizontal rule
35

Men at Work was fantastic. Still the best definition of "phrenology" that I've ever heard.


Posted by: Turgid Jacobian | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 7:59 PM
horizontal rule
36

Men at Work was fantastic. Still the best definition of "phrenology" that I've ever heard.


Posted by: Turgid Jacobian | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 7:59 PM
horizontal rule
37

So good, in fact, it makes me stutter.


Posted by: Turgid Jacobian | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 7:59 PM
horizontal rule
38

34: No, get one of your kids to draw a face on your butt.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 7:59 PM
horizontal rule
39

All that said, but of course the 9/11 investigation really was one of those things that would have stood out as a particularly shameful farce if it had happened under any administration other than Bush's. Really, really rotten stuff (and a huge contributing cause to the Sheen kind of nonsense). John Ashcroft's corrupt and disingenuous testimony even led me to get a rage-induced speeding ticket.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 8:03 PM
horizontal rule
40

that might send the wrong impression.

Do it right, with a plaster butt cast.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 8:05 PM
horizontal rule
41

Play him tenured, plaster butt cat!


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 8:06 PM
horizontal rule
42

The poor cat.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 8:09 PM
horizontal rule
43

Okay ari, this plan is foolproof.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 8:10 PM
horizontal rule
44

You know, for some reason I just suddenly found myself wondering whether Robust calls his mom "Robust McMommy-pants", at least when she does something goofy.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 8:24 PM
horizontal rule
45

I couldn't make sense of 41, but then I thought, 'Actually, it's not gibberish.' My eyes brightened again with the thrill of discovery. 'It's ... Latin.'

Also: in the voice-over in the first part of the video, Charlie sounds exactly like his dad. I kept thinking 'Saigon... Shit.'


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 8:26 PM
horizontal rule
46

A great book that makes sense of the truthers, among other conspiracists. Also, 41 is excellent. But I have tenure. This is the jump to Full Professor. With caps. Or chapeaus. I'm not sure which.


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 8:34 PM
horizontal rule
47

Is 41 supposed to be sung to the tune of "Tiny Dancer"?


Posted by: emdash | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 8:38 PM
horizontal rule
48

47: If not, it should be.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 8:41 PM
horizontal rule
49

I haven't listened to the video, but do you all take the position that all skepticism re 911 is nonsense?


Posted by: text | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 8:46 PM
horizontal rule
50

listened to the video

self-ban


Posted by: text | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 8:46 PM
horizontal rule
51

John Ashcroft's corrupt and disingenuous testimony even led me to get a rage-induced speeding ticket.

I've mentioned before that, at the moment that AB was seeing the lines appear on the pregnancy test, indicating Iris' impending arrival, I was ranting at the radio about what a worthless POS Juan Williams is. Heartwarming moment in family lore.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 8:48 PM
horizontal rule
52

51: You were cuckolded by Juan Williams? Dude, that is harsh.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 8:49 PM
horizontal rule
53

49 and 50 are awfully close together. In fact, I would argue that it was impossible for text to write 49, listen to the video, and then post 50 with the timestamps that we have been presented with.

WE HAVE QUESTIONS, FRONT PAGE POSTERS.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 8:50 PM
horizontal rule
54

There's a very clever retort to 52. COuld someone please provide it?

Sifu?

Oh, no, that's right.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 8:51 PM
horizontal rule
55

49: I have lots of questions about 9/11. But that doesn't mean that I'm not completely dismissive of both the LIHOP and MIHOP camps.


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 8:53 PM
horizontal rule
56

49: I have lots of questions about 9/11. But that doesn't mean that I'm not completely dismissive of both the LIHOP and MIHOP camps.

The buildings did pancake in a suspiciously symmetrical way.


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 8:58 PM
horizontal rule
57

55: I didn't even know what that meant. I would say that I'm more dismissive of MIHOP, simply because I can't see how the causality would run. The JFK assassination is murky, b/c it ultimately came down to 1 dubious guy - you can spin all sorts of tales out of Oswald. But we have a pretty good idea of how 9/11 went down, and there's not much room for USG causation, unless you start buying all sorts of absurd things of Area 51 likelihood.

I would also completely dismiss any kind of strong LIHOP claim (on the order of, "They discussed it at a Cabinet meeting and decided not to do anything"), but I would be open to hearing a plausible story involving a couple CIA guys + Cheney.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 9:05 PM
horizontal rule
58

I haven't listened to the video, but do you all take the position that all skepticism re 911 is nonsense?

Not all of it, but what appears to be legitimate skepticism is always presented as one little thing in a great big laundry list of lunacy. Which, come to think of it, is how I would present it if I wanted to discredit it. Whoa. This thing goes way deeper than I thought.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 9:09 PM
horizontal rule
59

55: Leftist International House of Pancake and Militarized International House of Pancakes?


Posted by: emdash | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 9:11 PM
horizontal rule
60
Posted by: | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 9:11 PM
horizontal rule
61

I watched 102 Minutes last week, a realtime compilation of video from 9/11 NYC. All the way through.

I have questions. I also have beliefs and opinions and intuitions which I am probably unwilling to share. I don't have enough facts, and don't even know what "LIHOP" and "MIHOP" stand for.

Bush is an exceedingly evil man.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 9:11 PM
horizontal rule
62

56: Yeah, it's sentiments like that make me get off the bus. Maybe you're serious. Maybe you're right. Maybe steel really doesn't melt until it reaches one gazillion degrees. Maybe bowling balls really do fall through feathers faster than through air. Maybe the transceiver in my molar really has just been activated. But the thing is, none of that interests me. I'm much more curious about prosaic things, like the run-up to Iraq, like why certain pieces of intelligence were ignored and then covered up, like why there was no legitimate inquiry into what led to the attacks. And I guess, most of all, I disdain LIHOP and MIHOP because I'm pretty sure I know the answers to most of my questions. Which answers, though ugly, don't tell me anything especially new about how much or how little I should trust my government.


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 9:14 PM
horizontal rule
63

62: I thought 56 was a pancake joke. You know, IHOP?


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 9:16 PM
horizontal rule
64

Anyway, I can understand much of what motivates the truthers, I think, but I just don't share their interests.


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 9:16 PM
horizontal rule
65

Not all of it, but what appears to be legitimate skepticism is always presented as one little thing in a great big laundry list of lunacy.

I was thinking that during the video intro (which is very well done, btw. Sheen only sucks it up once onscreen). At first it's, "Wow, that's a lot of suspicious stuff," then it's, "Wow, they're throwing a lot of shit up against the wall." Once you take into account that the vast majority of it can't withstand any scrutiny, you're left with thin reeds.

Presumably, if there were any truth to it, weight would accrue to the most legitimately dubious stuff, with the other stuff fading.

I understand that, in a situation like this, you get a million people all with their hobbyhorses, and no one wants to give up theirs, but still. I was reading up on the Paul is Dead thing today, and there's lots of "clues" I've never heard of - because they're stupid. The ones that are less stupid are the ones that have been transmitted. But with the Truthers, there seems to be no filter at all - even in this very slick, not-cheap video, it's scattershot. Pick your arguments, guys.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 9:18 PM
horizontal rule
66

63: I thought so, too. That's why I included the line about maybe being serious. That said, it's one among many claims that the truthers make. So much of the conspiracy stuff is predicated on deep-in-the-weeds technical arguments about blast patterns, the load capacities of certain kinds of building materials, and the odd timing of this and that.

Sorry, I'm fascinated by conspiracy theories.


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 9:18 PM
horizontal rule
67

56 - See Why The Towers Fell on NOVA for the best dissection of why they collapsed why they did. According to their experts, the buildings collapsed for different reasons.


Posted by: Becks | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 9:19 PM
horizontal rule
68

but I just don't share their interests.

Dude, if you don't like pancakes, I have nothing to say to you.

On a related note, they're building a new IHOP here in town. I had no idea they were still building new ones.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 9:19 PM
horizontal rule
69

Becks!


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 9:20 PM
horizontal rule
70

Let It Happen On Purpose

Made It Happen On Purpose

You people are out of touch and on my lawn. Off!


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 9:20 PM
horizontal rule
71

67: I sobbed through that. For several reasons, obvs, but the efficient cause was all those elderly engineers involved with the building of the WTC who were themselves sobbing. Oy.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 9:21 PM
horizontal rule
72

On a related note, they're building a new IHOP here in town. I had no idea they were still building new ones.

Really? They build new IHOPs all the time. I myself saw a sign not too long ago advertising an IHOP coming soon, though I forget where.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 9:22 PM
horizontal rule
73

My "suspicions" are generally in line with Al Franken's "Operation Ignore" from whatever book it was that he talked about it. About what you'd expect from an administration which was so little interested in anything other than their political agenda.

That said, two items have haunted me in the past One was Bldg 7. The second was that what might have paralyzed Bush in that classroom was him thinking. "Holy shit! That crazy motherfucker wasn't kidding? Must try to think ...". His eyes clearly have that furtive, darty, panicked look to them--like the dumb guy in the gang holding the loot as the cops show up and everyone else has skidaddled.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 9:24 PM
horizontal rule
74

JRoth!

Sorry, I've been traveling. Also, lots of family/personal issues (both good and bad) that have required my attention/presence. And lots and lots of work due to my absences. In fact, I need to be off to do some more of that. At 11:30 at night! Woooooo!


Posted by: Becks | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 9:25 PM
horizontal rule
75

To me, all IHOPS were built in the 1960s with those tall roofs and the same 5 creepy-ass flavors of syrup in the little caddies on the table. You will pry this impression away from my cold, dead brain.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 9:25 PM
horizontal rule
76

Lingonberries are not creepy-ass, motherfucker.


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 9:26 PM
horizontal rule
77

75: Huh. I tend the think of IHOP as a staple of '90s suburban strip-mall commercial development. They're, like, the separate building across the parking lot from the actual strip mall. That sort of thing.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 9:28 PM
horizontal rule
78

The ass-covering that immediately followed 9/11—particularly the repeated claim that no one imagined airplanes would be used in such a way in a terrorist attack, which was plainly horseshit—likely went a long way toward fueling conspiracy theories. But yeah, Building 7. Weird.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 9:35 PM
horizontal rule
79

But yeah, Building 7. Weird.

Something huge and fiery (part of WTC 2 or one of the planes?) fell on it. It caught fire and burned. It collapsed. Is there more to the story?


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 9:40 PM
horizontal rule
80

It's weird, but on truthers, I've found myself arguing both sides of the argument depending on who I'm arguing with. (A different person handling a different subject the same way would be called trolling, but that's not what I was doing. Don't you trust me?)

Here and a little further down that thread at Balloon Juice, I criticize truthers. Mere days later at Obsidian Wings, I defend them throughout this thread.

To summarize, all the weird, implausible details - pancaking, persistent heat at ground zero, Bush just happening to spend that day near where the hijackers had lived - don't indicate anything in particular. They're curious, but they don't point to MIHOP any more than they point to ET. The massive conspiracy needed to cause and cover up MIHOP would need such a huuuge bar to clear before it can compete with the official story that "but neither of the jets hit Building 7" is just crazy. Where is the trail of literally dozens of dead middlemen going back months that would be needed to cover up MIHOP?

And the LIHOP theory is believable but - barring an insider tell-all or the advent of mind-reading powers - it's almost unprovable, so I'll settle for hating the Bush administration for stuff we actually know they did.


Posted by: Cyrus | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 9:41 PM
horizontal rule
81

My experience too has been that the number of IHOPs in the world is stable, and never does one either appear or disappear. Like Perkins and Denny's. Those showing up all over the place in the 1990s would include Red Robin, Johnny Rockets, Applebee's. Applebee's in particular seems to be generally replacing Ruby Tuesday. Also, I have no idea which of these places' names ends in an s, or an apostrophe s, now that I think about it.

These may just be artifacts of the places starting on the east coast and expanding west, or vice versa.

Jack In The Box has had ads running on cable in Pennsylvania for maybe two years now, although there aren't any Jack In The Boxes within 1,500 miles. According to Wikipedia it is part of a long-term expansion plan, to prime the market for their presence, but it seems weird.

Not like the Sonic ads, which have been running in states that don't contain any Sonic locations for my whole lifetime. Those seem normal.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 9:45 PM
horizontal rule
82

78: The other part of the standard narrative that chaps my ass is the "20 madmen" (or whatever number). And of course it is consistent with horseshit like "Saddam/Gaddafi (before he played nice with access to his oil) is madman". You know what, there really was a big fucking conspiracy that planned and executed 9-11, it didn't involve the US Government directly, but it was a conspiracy.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 9:48 PM
horizontal rule
83

skepticism re 911

Yeah, I don't want my tax dollars paying for an emergency service. Oh wait, this isn't a California politics thread.


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 9:49 PM
horizontal rule
84

79: Something huge and fiery (part of WTC 2 or one of the planes?) fell on it. It caught fire and burned. It collapsed. Is there more to the story?

The lack of sense of awe you exhibit here rivals teo's....

I have no doubt there are needs-no-conspiracy logical engineering reasons for Bldg 7, but the hour it changed in my consciousness from "Oh, yeah, another building fell didn't it?" to "Look at this freaking video" was a testing one fro me. It falls very nicely. Anyone who sees it and claims it does not give them pause is probably either lying, self-deluded, ari or teo.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 9:55 PM
horizontal rule
85

Lingonberries are not creepy-ass, motherfucker.

Obviously not. But blueberry? Strawberry? Ugh.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 9:56 PM
horizontal rule
86

Huh, JP seems to have successfully intuited my total lack of interest in conspiracy theories. Well done.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 9:58 PM
horizontal rule
87

It falls very nicely.

Yeah. I'd heard "Building 7" as part of the conspiracy, but I actually had no idea why until I saw that vid. It does fall perfectly. As I'm pretty sure the professional demolition companies would tell you, you need to pay professionals a lot of money for that kind of result.

I'm not actually saying I think it was a demo job. I'm just saying that it was a pro-grade collapse, and that's an unexpected outcome from a minor debris impact and some fires.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 9:59 PM
horizontal rule
88

it didn't involve the US Government directly, but it was a conspiracy.

Look, I don't know.

I don't know what might have been said in private conversations among Bush/Cheney and the Saudis, or some Saudis
.
I guess ari thinks he knows for certain what was said, or has a set of default assumptions based on a hundred years of conspiracy theories.
I certainly don't see why ari's source in 46, or a discussion of the JFK assassination would answer that question.

Bush was different. Maybe not unique as a President in malevolence or indifference, maybe so. But he had a lifelong relationship wuth the Saudis that makes me wish that somebody ellse had been President that day.

Does "LIHOP & MIHOP is ridiculous" also apply to all levels of the Saudi Royal Family and government, ari?


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 9:59 PM
horizontal rule
89

They're, like, the separate building across the parking lot from the actual strip mall.

"Outparcel." Just so you know.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 9:59 PM
horizontal rule
90

89: Thanks!


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 10:00 PM
horizontal rule
91

84: I think, for me, I read the commentary from non-crazy people before I paid any attention to 7's fall. Which is to say, by the time I got around to watching the footage, I had already seen people I trust debunk the conspiracies about its detonation.


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 10:00 PM
horizontal rule
92

Huh, JP seems to have successfully intuited my total lack of interest in conspiracy theories.

Dude, the cliff dwellers totally brought down Chaco as part of a (very) long-term plan to develop an outsize reputation among tourists.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 10:00 PM
horizontal rule
93

Heh.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 10:02 PM
horizontal rule
94

Does "LIHOP & MIHOP is ridiculous" also apply to all levels of the Saudi Royal Family and government, ari?

No, it doesn't. That's one of the things that troubles me, bob. But again, referring back to what I was getting at with one of my comments above, that the American government has been willing to allow a Middle Eastern kleptocracy free reign to do who the fuck knows what isn't really new news to me, if you see what I mean.


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 10:03 PM
horizontal rule
95

89: Ah, expertise. JRoth something I thought I learned in some ancient class. Paint the parking spaces big when you open a new mall, so it looks crowded, but then repaint them smaller after you have the hook in so as to accommodate more cars. It makes perfect cynical sense, but may be *too* pat.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 10:03 PM
horizontal rule
96

BTW, 87.1 is supposed to read more funny. Picture the professional demo expert as a salesman, assuring his interlocutor that you can only get a neat demo through a six figure contract with a firm such as his....


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 10:05 PM
horizontal rule
97

94: "rein"


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 10:06 PM
horizontal rule
98

Also, bob, I really don't think LIHOP is ridiculous. Or at least I don't think it's ridiculous for people to believe that the Bush administration let it happen. It's just that I get off the bus, as I already said, because most of the other passengers spend their time talking about the tensile strength of steel. And I'm not interested in that conversation.


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 10:07 PM
horizontal rule
99

In that particular context I think "reign" works too, actually.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 10:07 PM
horizontal rule
100

The Day The Saudis Made It Rain Airplanes!


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 10:08 PM
horizontal rule
101

97: Like I said, this sort of thing has been a recurring problem for me lately. I think it's because I'm concentrating on the other thing I'm doing and not my comments. My priorities are out of wack, in other words.


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 10:08 PM
horizontal rule
102

95: I've never heard that. I don't think it could/would be done in a modern development, because of the relationship between the developer (trying to minimize costs) and the retailers (trying to maximize parking). The developer would balk at the large parking spaces, because WalMart, Target, et al each demand some specific count, and if it's skewed by too-big spaces, then it's wasted land/paving.

It seems like something that could work in a more integrated development, where the retailers have less say, but those days are kind of gone.

IOW, I have no idea if it was ever true; if it was true, it probably isn't anymore.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 10:09 PM
horizontal rule
103

99: I'm not willing to cut ari that much slack. As he readily concedes, he's too invested in his "career" to expend the effort on commenting that we all deserve.

Respect the community or depart, ari.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 10:11 PM
horizontal rule
104

102: Yeah, this would have been from the days of the "big box" malls.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 10:13 PM
horizontal rule
105

I'd like to pretend that I was being clever about the Saudi royal family. But I'm not due the credit in this case. Or really in any other than I can think of.


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 10:13 PM
horizontal rule
106

than s/b that

Okay, time to devote myself fully to making my pitiful case for promotion. Do you think they'd notice if I took credit for a couple of Richard Hofstadter's books? Probably not, right?


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 10:14 PM
horizontal rule
107

"Took credit" in what sense?


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 10:14 PM
horizontal rule
108

94:See, ari, that is what is important to me, not the pancaking or structural engineering or flight training.

allow a Middle Eastern kleptocracy free reign to do who the fuck knows what

because I can play with motives. Reserve currency, dwindling Saudi reserves, financing Bush's deficit, even attacking Iraq. I can come up with reasons for cooperation between Bush and the Saudis, reasons to "heighten some sontradictions"

Do you know how many trillions the Saudis made from increased oil prices once Iraq went offline?

Is this useful? Well, yeah understanding the world of high finance, current accounts, international capital flows is pretty important right now, I think. And understanding what the really big players are capable and willing to do is also important.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 10:16 PM
horizontal rule
109

107: Saying, "I am the paranoid style, bitchez!"


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 10:22 PM
horizontal rule
110

The conspiracy around the Building 7 collapse is this, ari: the public finally learned that if you want a perfect demolition, all you have to do is set fire to a structure. Big dynamite has been covering that up for years.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 10:23 PM
horizontal rule
111

Damn that Nobel!


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 10:25 PM
horizontal rule
112

How paranoid am I about that world of Int'l HiFI?

Well, when I read about this week's little trade kerfuffle between the US and China I wonder what ot might, might be a cover for. Something gonna happen, so that they want us to think that the US and China are mad at each other?

How paranoid? I hated that my favorite currency blogger, Brad Setser, was moved into a position of opacity & silence by Larry Summers. Tim Duy, ex Fed official, had to make some guestimates about stuff Setser jad always provided.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 10:29 PM
horizontal rule
113

Hey Bob, could recommend your top 5 or 10 or so econ blogs that would be comprehensible to somebody without a heavy econ background?


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 10:35 PM
horizontal rule
114

79

Something huge and fiery (part of WTC 2 or one of the planes?) fell on it. It caught fire and burned. It collapsed. Is there more to the story?

Building codes are supposed to ensure that such buildings don't collapse in fires.

But there had always been doubts the codes were adequate, there were unusual aspects to the design of building 7 and mistakes are sometimes made (as with the I35 bridge in Minnesota).


Posted by: James B. Shearer | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 10:35 PM
horizontal rule
115

113:Heck, I don't compehend most of them.

What, you think economists know what they are doing anymore?

Having joked, Mark Thoma has a world historical blog at Economist's View. Some of the commenters are institutionalists (think Galbraith) and much of the conversation is about the political economy and not technical.

The first column to the right of the comments is a blogroll, like an RSS feed, of Thoma's favorite economic blogs. DeLong and Krugman are at the top. The rest of the highlighted blog are mostly excellent. Sample and see what you like. The deeper thickets are below and to the right of that.

I pretty much live over at Thoma's blogroll. Best blog ever.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 10:50 PM
horizontal rule
116

Setser was really good. calculated risk is good, sometimes Ritholz. Krugman's book, especially the shadow banking chapter, is pretty good. shadow banking online

Dealbreaker and Equity Private's archives are interesting for tone, occasionally a pointer to a relevant fact, though would likely infuriate many here.
Odd fact: Dollar-denominated 2-year maturity bonds issued by Brazil yield only a tiny bit more than US bonds today. Bond markets are less inclined to collective stupidity than equity markets.


Posted by: lw | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 10:50 PM
horizontal rule
117

Thoma

Check out the first post, where Thoma has collated dozens(?) of articles. The dude just works too hard on that blog.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 09-14-09 10:55 PM
horizontal rule
118

I would say that the best econ/finance blogs are Economist's View (Thoma's blog) and Naked Capitalism.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 09-15-09 12:23 AM
horizontal rule
119

Thanks, y'all.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 09-15-09 1:17 AM
horizontal rule
120

99: NO IT DOESN'T, DAMMIT.


Posted by: Cyrus | Link to this comment | 09-15-09 5:02 AM
horizontal rule
121

108: Is this useful? Well, yeah understanding the world of high finance ... is pretty important

How so? If it's all an interlocked conspiracy set of people and organzations with vast resources, why do you think any information you get is the *real* information.

What makes one econ blog more reliable than any other blog? What makes any sense except the stockpiling of MREs and ammo for the endgame?


Posted by: Biohazard | Link to this comment | 09-15-09 5:23 AM
horizontal rule
122

121:Though by no means exactly as I would phrase them or completely accurate descriptions of my views, those are very good questions


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 09-15-09 7:54 AM
horizontal rule
123

What makes any sense except the stockpiling of MREs and ammo for the endgame?

I've eaten MREs. My plan is to stockpile condiments. Once everyone is forced to eat MREs, someone with a good stockpile of mustard or chilli sauce will be able to name their own price.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 09-15-09 10:45 AM
horizontal rule
124

I should have been more precise: what about the Flava Flav sort of skepticism re: 911?

It wears the late crown.


Posted by: text | Link to this comment | 09-15-09 10:49 AM
horizontal rule
125

FLAVOR Flav, not Flava Flav.

And it's SISTER Souljah.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 09-15-09 11:16 AM
horizontal rule
126

125: Preach it, my fogga.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 09-15-09 11:22 AM
horizontal rule
127

I never said anything about Sister Souljah. Jeez.


Posted by: text | Link to this comment | 09-15-09 11:31 AM
horizontal rule
128

127: Proof that you're sexist.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 09-15-09 11:33 AM
horizontal rule
129

That's it, I'm leaving.


Posted by: text | Link to this comment | 09-15-09 11:37 AM
horizontal rule
130

I know it's a bit late in the game to comment on the OP, but:

It seems like contrived sincerity, but I can't exactly pinpoint why.

Perhaps because Sheen is such a terrible actor that even his 100% sincere sincerity seems contrived.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 09-15-09 12:06 PM
horizontal rule
131

130: That seems right. Plus, with McQueen's comment that he sounds just like his dad, I think it falls on my ear almost like a parody of his dad speaking, so my brain's all, "Hey, no need to take this guy seriously; he's just pretending!"


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 09-15-09 12:20 PM
horizontal rule
132

Speaking of stockpiling MREs and such, any recommendations for portable, non-perishable meals that aren't designed for guys carrying 100 pounds of weapons and gear for 10 hours a day? Something more suitable for stockpiling by weekend warrior types in areas with small but non-zero risks of needing to evacuate and being cut off from supplies for a few days?


Posted by: Not Prince Hamlet | Link to this comment | 09-15-09 1:09 PM
horizontal rule
133

James @ 114: Building codes are supposed to ensure that such buildings don't collapse in fires.

Yeah, but it didn't collapse in a fire so much - it burned for some ten hours before collapsing. I don't think there are many buildings (or many tall buildings) that would survive a local earthquake followed by 10 hours of unchecked fire. I don't think any code specifies 'fire department absent for a long long time after an earthquake'.

At any rate, most demolitions that I have seen have an explosion 'puff' right before the thing falls down, I didn't see that. Further, most building aren't designed to move, so when one part of the building starts to move, the rest of building goes along, but no building is built to survive those types of (sideways) shear stresses. They're built to resist the movements of ten of thousands of tonnes moving at zero miles an hour (more or less!); when part of the building weighing tens of thousands of tons decides to accelerate to ten miles an hour, you have a big big problem. And force of gravity is the only vector applying. All that without getting into the need to hide shitloads of C4 and the detonator wiring.

If they had tried to do that, the simple thing to do would've been to cut half the supports on one story/side of the building, like AQ tried (and failed) to do in 1993. Had they succeed, I still don't see the building falling over like a bowling pin tipping over; the uncut support columns would've wanted to stay where they were, while the lack of support in the other sections meant entire levels heading off for god knows where, the other support columns resisting still and then the entire building basically blows apart. So I think it would crumble more like sand than anything.

Or to put it another way: 'How the hell is it supposed to fall down?'

max
['Monty Python notwithstanding.']


Posted by: max | Link to this comment | 09-15-09 1:45 PM
horizontal rule
134

132: Every week, chop up a few pounds of vegetables, add some nuts, and store. Next week, throw away the veg from last week. Repeat.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 09-15-09 1:46 PM
horizontal rule
135

Or to put it another way: 'How the hell is it supposed to fall down?'

My structural intuition would be that there would be non-uniform failure, localized to one specific portion of the building - say, the corner where the debris hit and the fire started. Such a failure would not result in "symmetrical pancaking."

But I could completely buy that, after 10 hours of fire, the supports in general were so weakened that there was insignificant lag between whatever part went first and the rest, which would give the appearance of "symmetry" even if it weren't present.

most demolitions that I have seen have an explosion 'puff' right before the thing falls down, I didn't see that.

Most demo companies aren't trying to disguise their efforts. If the fiendishly clever MIHOP operatives did it, they could apply relatively small explosives to the relatively small structural members on the penultimate floor, and let pancaking/gravity do the rest.

All of which is unlikely. I'm just sayin'.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 09-15-09 1:55 PM
horizontal rule
136

134: Needs to be way lazier than that. So far, the system has been "huh, it's almost hurricane season, need to have something ready", followed by procrastination, followed by "yay, skated again, but we really should do better next year."

How long are MREs good for, anyway?


Posted by: Not Prince Hamlet | Link to this comment | 09-15-09 2:13 PM
horizontal rule
137

136: good? Perhaps you mean "edible"?


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 09-15-09 2:20 PM
horizontal rule
138

How long are MREs good for, anyway?

Depends on storage conditions. See here.


Posted by: CJB | Link to this comment | 09-15-09 2:23 PM
horizontal rule
139

137: Well, yeah. Although I don't remember MREs being notably worse than Hormel products and such.


Posted by: Not Prince Hamlet | Link to this comment | 09-15-09 2:36 PM
horizontal rule
140

Cans of soup, I guess. They last for years. A microwave to heat it up is ideal, but any over or burner or anything will do.

Off the top of my head I can't think of any non-perishable food that doesn't need to be cooked and is at all nutritious, let alone would make a good meal by itself.


Posted by: Cyrus | Link to this comment | 09-15-09 2:44 PM
horizontal rule
141

What mostly stops me is that the kind of stuff that keeps forever isn't something I actually want to eat if I don't have to, and I hate wasting food, so I get stuck on how to handle stock rotation. Which is stupid.


Posted by: Not Prince Hamlet | Link to this comment | 09-15-09 2:47 PM
horizontal rule
142

It's funny--I run around with the sort of crowd I do and yet I don't know any 9/11 conspiracy folks. In fact, some of them wanted to screen a movie at the bookstore and the collective briefly united to stonewall them, since we figured that stuff like that only occludes other urgent political causes. We got increasingly plaintive emails from them for few weeks and then they let us alone.

There's some relationship between the refusal of many Americans to believe in perfectly real things like the US government's involvement in Guatemala in 1954 and the popularity of lurid and largely unimportant theories about JFK and so on. It's as though a cartoonish endgame-y kind of corruption is more bearable than the actual sordid kind.


Posted by: Frowner | Link to this comment | 09-15-09 3:04 PM
horizontal rule
143

I know I'm going to regret finding out the answer to this question, but are there are people who have a) heard claims of US involvement in Guatemala more recently than 5 minutes ago, but b) refuse to believe them?


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 09-15-09 3:08 PM
horizontal rule
144

Estimating here: something like half of my students, very bright people, believe in either LIHOP or MIHOP.


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 09-15-09 3:12 PM
horizontal rule
145

On the other hand, few of them have even heard of Guatemala.


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 09-15-09 3:13 PM
horizontal rule
146

You might look at freeze-dried camping food. You need to boil water, though soaking them for a long time apparently gets them to a barely edible point. I haven't tried the latter, but saw it advocated years ago as a lightweight backpacking (no stove) strategy. With boiled water, some of those meals really aren't bad. Or weren't 10-15 years ago when I last went camping. They can be a bit pricey, though.


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 09-15-09 3:17 PM
horizontal rule
147

133

Yeah, but it didn't collapse in a fire so much - it burned for some ten hours before collapsing. I don't think there are many buildings (or many tall buildings) that would survive a local earthquake followed by 10 hours of unchecked fire. I don't think any code specifies 'fire department absent for a long long time after an earthquake'.

It is perfectly feasible to design buildings to survive unchecked fires and in my opinion it should be required. There isn't too much fire departments can do anyway once the fire is well established. Automatic sprinkler systems have a better shot but don't always work.

Some fires that caused severe damage but no total collapse.

Meridian Plaza .
Windsor Tower .
Beijing TVCC .


Posted by: James B. Shearer | Link to this comment | 09-15-09 3:32 PM
horizontal rule
148

136: It was a joke. See Otto's lunchtime regimen, somewhere in TFA of the last 2 days.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 09-15-09 3:52 PM
horizontal rule
149

148: Yeah, I know, just being humorless.


Posted by: | Link to this comment | 09-15-09 3:57 PM
horizontal rule
150

On the other hand, few of them have even heard of Guatemala.

The existence of the country, or US meddling there?

I suppose the former. It was all a big deal in the 80s, but that's long past for your students.

are there are people who have a) heard claims of US involvement in Guatemala more recently than 5 minutes ago, but b) refuse to believe them?

I think that there's a vague aura of disreputable conspiracy thinking around stories like Guatemala. Not nec. that example, but the general field. I'd heard the story about GM and the trolley lines a decade before I found out that it was fucking proved before Congress. Before that, I just thought it was DFH* talk, probably based on something, but not nearly as sinister as the stories.

* To be clear, this was not at a time when I was a DFH-hater. It just seemed dubious, like a mythology of a particular culture.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 09-15-09 3:57 PM
horizontal rule
151

I believe in DOOWOP and SOCKHOP.


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 09-15-09 3:58 PM
horizontal rule
152

I believe in IHOP.

(Unlike that doubter JRoth.)


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-15-09 4:00 PM
horizontal rule
153

I'm not sure what you're up to, teo, but I suspect it may be related to humor.


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 09-15-09 4:01 PM
horizontal rule
154

Toads hop, frogs hop, and even some lizards hop.


Posted by: Not Prince Hamlet | Link to this comment | 09-15-09 4:03 PM
horizontal rule
155

It's certainly not related to conspiracies, I can tell you that much.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-15-09 4:05 PM
horizontal rule
156

I bought a neft in a lizard shop.


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 09-15-09 4:11 PM
horizontal rule
157

Lizard neft or bird neft?


Posted by: Not Prince Hamlet | Link to this comment | 09-15-09 4:22 PM
horizontal rule
158

With flu season around the corner, it's time for us to get our nefti pots ready.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 09-15-09 4:28 PM
horizontal rule
159

On Guatemala: back in the mid-nineties when I first found about about the whole Guatemala fifties through eighties thing (I know, late to the DFH party) I was telling absolutely everyone I could because I found it so shocking that this wasn't major news. Surely if everyone really knew about it, it would undercut the very legitimacy of all American foreign policy post-WWII! And people didn't believe me. They just didn't. It was very shocking. It was the same with East Timor--the truth was too big to see. It's the same with Kissinger and Pinochet; ordinary people simply can't accept that powerful people can be bad without being monsters of fairytale evil. (Even I have trouble about Kissinger, because he's just so cute.)

People can believe in rogue US evil but they can't believe in systematic US evil that persists over time and is to the advantage of large numbers of USians.

(On the topic of DFH-dom: those appalling Genocide Project pro-lifers were on campus with their billboards of fetuses, lynchings and piles of concentration camp dead (they were all white and while they could have been some of our local very blond Jewish community I suspect that they weren't) So I talked to one; he won some points, I won some points. He was better prepared but I've got those lines of reasoning sussed out so they'd better be careful next time. I was talking to him about genocide and Palestine and described this one absolutely appalling picture of a parent holding an impossibly mutilated body of a child from whose legs the flesh had been burned away by white phosphorus--and the guy shed a tear. He didn't make a big production about it and I still think he was disingenuous otherwise and that whole project is dreadful, but it was a tiny moment of humanity in a flurry of talking points.)


Posted by: Frowner | Link to this comment | 09-15-09 4:45 PM
horizontal rule
160

while they could have been some of our local very blond Jewish community I suspect that they weren't

Yeah, pretty unlikely. Jews don't generally go for that sort of thing.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-15-09 5:19 PM
horizontal rule
161

141: For a few days where you have other things to worry about besides the artisanal quality of the food?

Bran buds or the like for fiber, cause hyper-constipation isn't fun, high calorie protein bars such as Special K "meal bars", peanut butter, nuts in general, pasta sealed up well, and tuna in pouches.

The thing to do is look at any items you fancy to see if they have expiration dates reasonably far ahead.

If you don't actually like any of it for eating in other than a real emergancy you can rotate it out to a food bank or the next homeless person you run across if just tossing it bothers you. I can eat most anything so long as I have something to read as a distraction so that's not a problem here.

Canned soups are mostly water, fine if you're not going to be humping them anywhere, not fine for treks.

Some way of purifying water is really good to have if there's a possibilty the usual supplies might be contaminated, the converse of hyper-constipation is even less fun, and some things are much worse.


Posted by: Biohazard | Link to this comment | 09-15-09 5:26 PM
horizontal rule
162

Wait, I thought GM and trolley lines was, at least for LA, debunked. That is, GM had an interest in the trolley lines going away, but that that wasn't why they went away. There's a different between trying to monopolize transit, which companies tried to do within the horsecar, streetcar, and bus systems, and trying to force a change from one mode to another. Or is there another GM/trolley conspiracy?


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 09-15-09 10:52 PM
horizontal rule
163

I am interested in the answer to 162 as well.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 09-15-09 11:03 PM
horizontal rule
164

It wasn't just GM, man. It was, like, a conspiracy of GM and some oil company and Goodyear (or Goodrich, whatever). And they got taken to court and fined, like, $2000. Total slap on the wrist, and that was the end of the streetcar system. Anyway, that's what I heard, but haven't been able to substantiate, so yeah, I'd appreciate further information too. Maybe Ari the History Dude knows something about it.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 09-15-09 11:17 PM
horizontal rule
165

Or Robert Halford. Where's his forthcoming history of LA, anyway? I bet the song-recording project beats him to completion. And that makes him a super slacker.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 09-15-09 11:19 PM
horizontal rule
166

The last time this came up, a few years ago, I mentioned I meant to look it up. I still do.


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 09-15-09 11:21 PM
horizontal rule
167

Oh, fuck, the recording project. That kind of slipped my mind. Sorry! I kept trying to schedule the girls for a recording session, but it hasn't happened yet.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 09-15-09 11:22 PM
horizontal rule
168

The history of the decline of the L.A. Red Cars is well documented.


Posted by: k-sky | Link to this comment | 09-16-09 9:01 AM
horizontal rule
169

167: Don't worry, the rap break is taking much longer to compose than I expected.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 09-16-09 9:29 AM
horizontal rule
170

"I'm the hip-hop-opotamus / my lyrics are bottomless"


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 09-16-09 11:11 AM
horizontal rule
171

170: You're a disappointment. A big disappointment.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 09-16-09 12:21 PM
horizontal rule
172

164: Debunked in the particulars. But broadly speaking, still true. If you haven't read Ken Jackson's Crabgrass Frontier and Tom Lewis's Divided Highways, you should. Jackson's better history. Lewis is a better read (though Jackson's a good writer), but he tries a bit too hard to show how the Federal Highway Act CHANGED AMERICA. Which it did, by the way, so he doesn't need to try to so hard to make the case.


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 09-16-09 3:04 PM
horizontal rule
173

I should add: I'm not a historian of LA. In fact, the LA historiography makes me slightly crazy, as there's too much of it. And the historians, who used to work too hard to prove that their metropolis was exceptional, are now working too hard to prove that it's not. Which is to say, it's totally possible the debunking has been debunked. But last I heard, eb was right.


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 09-16-09 3:08 PM
horizontal rule
174

I haven't read either of those books, and in fact I'm not sure I had even heard of Lewis's, but I know that Crabgrass Frontier is very highly regarded in planning circles. It's on pretty much every list of recommended reading on American planning history.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-16-09 3:08 PM
horizontal rule
175

the LA historiography makes me slightly crazy

Content is boring. Let's talk about methods!


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 09-16-09 3:12 PM
horizontal rule
176

The Lewis book isn't scholarship. It's a popular history that, I think, Lewis wrote as a companion piece to a PBS documentary. But it's still quite good, the best survey I've seen on the impact of federal highway construction.


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 09-16-09 3:13 PM
horizontal rule
177

Let's talk about methods!

The LA historians lack rhythm. Happy now?


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 09-16-09 3:14 PM
horizontal rule
178

If memory serves, eb once took me to task about Crabgrass Frontier on this very blog. But I forget the specifics of the conversation.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 09-16-09 3:14 PM
horizontal rule
179

The Lewis book isn't scholarship. It's a popular history that, I think, Lewis wrote as a companion piece to a PBS documentary.

That would explain why I hadn't heard of it. Thanks.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-16-09 3:15 PM
horizontal rule
180

178: Here you go.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-16-09 3:17 PM
horizontal rule
181

180: Thanks. That was interesting to re-read.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 09-16-09 3:28 PM
horizontal rule
182

The penultimate paragraph in comment 215 of that thread is the key to the book, which is much better than pretty good. Flawed? Sure. But incredibly important, especially on federal culpability in poor planning.


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 09-16-09 3:31 PM
horizontal rule
183

Huh, that sounds really interesting. I've always heard about that stuff from housing policy people, but never known a go-to book on the subject.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 09-16-09 3:52 PM
horizontal rule
184

But incredibly important, especially on federal culpability in poor planning.

True, but key to the book? The book is too much an aggregation of previously published stuff to hold together enough to have a key. Those chapters are the best, but probably make up less than 30% of the book. But this is all unreliable memory for me. Even more than the last time around.


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 09-16-09 5:48 PM
horizontal rule
185

Apparently, I wrote a few more comments on Jackson in that thread. I wonder if I can write a bot that reproduces my old comments in relevant new threads. I just don't put in the effort anymore.


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 09-16-09 5:55 PM
horizontal rule
186

Hey teo, in that linked old thread, why did you write, "And people wonder why westerners don't vote for Democrats."? Comment 166, just when people are starting to discuss western development patterns. I can't figure out the referent, and it's driving me nuts.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 09-16-09 8:29 PM
horizontal rule
187

Also, I disagree with most of the particular's of eb's 211 in that thread, yet think he's got at least one sound point.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 09-16-09 8:34 PM
horizontal rule
188

One point's not so bad.


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 09-16-09 8:49 PM
horizontal rule
189

186: Huh, looking back at it now I'm not sure either. I think it was probably just a reaction to some of the eastern commenters' lack of familiarity with the history of the west.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-16-09 8:53 PM
horizontal rule
190

I happen to have Ken Jackson right here, eb. He says to tell you that you know nothing of his work.


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 09-16-09 8:54 PM
horizontal rule
191

No, Professor Jackson, I'm not going to tell eb that; that's just mean.


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 09-16-09 8:55 PM
horizontal rule
192

Um, ari, does this "Ken Jackson" you're talking to have Kung-Fu grip? Just asking.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 09-16-09 8:57 PM
horizontal rule
193

Actually, M/tch, I think naming your fleshlight "Ken Jackson" is kind of hot.


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 09-16-09 8:58 PM
horizontal rule
194

I take pride in my lack of knowledge about Chaco Canyon and the difference between UC-Santa Barbara and UC-Santa Cruz. There's only so much room in the old brain, you know.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 09-16-09 9:00 PM
horizontal rule
195

I named mine "Jackson Kin", actually, in honor of Michael and his family.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 09-16-09 9:00 PM
horizontal rule
196

194: Yeah, I have much less of a chip on my shoulder about that stuff than I did at the time of that thread. I encourage you in your ignorance.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-16-09 9:02 PM
horizontal rule
197

194: Soon enough, all three will be little more ruins, picked over by archeologists looking for emblems of a once-great civilization.


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 09-16-09 9:03 PM
horizontal rule
198

picked over by archeologists

And pothunters.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 09-16-09 9:05 PM
horizontal rule
199

188: Well, it was the point that I was thinking as I read the thread just now: "lots of what's now soulless is likely to individualize as history gets a hold of it." Levittown is famous for this.

However, there are a million (well dozens) reasons that auto suburbs will never be/act like/work like streetcar/earlier suburbs. You try to suggest that they could be, and it's just not true.

Sorry if that's a bit testy. I need to go, so I can't make it nicer.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 09-16-09 9:07 PM
horizontal rule
200

And pothunters.

UCSC will be a goldmine for them.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-16-09 9:07 PM
horizontal rule
201

200: I was wondering who would score off of my assist. Well done!


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 09-16-09 9:09 PM
horizontal rule
202

Thanks.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-16-09 9:10 PM
horizontal rule
203

I read Jackson's book seven years ago. That's got to count for something.


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 09-16-09 9:11 PM
horizontal rule
204

One interesting thing about re-reading that thread is that I can still remember walking away from my computer kind of miffed about the whole thing. (Miffed that I wasn't expressing myself well enough, to be clear.) And upon re-reading, I'm like, huh, that was a pretty interesting conversation, and I'm glad we had it.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 09-16-09 9:12 PM
horizontal rule
205

And upon re-reading, I'm like, huh, that was a pretty interesting conversation, and I'm glad we had it.

Yeah, me too.

I thought that at the time too, though I did wonder if maybe I went into too much detail about the book. (As for 211 in that thread, I'm not really that invested in it. Except for the sound point.) It's easy to criticize books you don't like and sound critical; it's harder to criticize books you really do like without sounding much more critical than you mean to be.


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 09-16-09 9:23 PM
horizontal rule
206

As for ari, well, let's just say I'm going to take on Hofstadter next. Historians, why do you love him so?


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 09-16-09 9:24 PM
horizontal rule
207

204, 205: I should be clear: I thought eb was making a lot of good points in the thread (even if I didn't agree with them all); 211 was the only one that struck me as being largely wrong, not just a difference of opinion. Otherwise a good thread, and I'm sorry I missed it (which is why I'm rehashing it now).


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 09-17-09 5:51 AM
horizontal rule