The only thing that kept me from joining the Unfogged Reading Group was that I couldn't find an audio copy of Being and Time.
1: But they do have the abridgement. It's called Being in Half the Time.
2 - Just in general or did I also pwn a post of yours?
3: I'm holding out for the 8-Minute Being video.
We must have a total hivemind - at the exact time I posted, catherine emailed me the article.
I love the names of the people in the article. Zella Ondrey! Dain Frisby-Dart!
We must have a total hivemind
I keep meaning to ask -- I know why the East Coasters are always posting articles from the NYT, but why do the West Coast bloggers do it? The LA Times (or the Chicago Tribune) are good papers too. Do you just not read them, or is it because other bloggers don't link?
I don't understand why you'd do book-on-tape for anything, only because it takes so much longer to get through it.
And comment #9 may be the first time I've ever heard the LA Times defended as "good".
The perennial disagreement in book groups has been over authors, with the single-malt drinkers arguing for F. Scott Fitzgerald and the chardonnay drinkers for Anita Shreve.
Whoa, now that's a dumb sentence. Why do people write like this?
And comment #9 may be the first time I've ever heard the LA Times defended as "good".
Bah. Face it east coasters, your papers really aren't any better, and your weather still blows.
Because journalists' sole desire is to write cleverly.
The NYT is the paper I most love to hate. It's faux-liberal shit for, by, and about the kinds of problems only very sheltered wealthy people have. Even their coverage of elections is 9/10 about blink rates graphic design on bumper stickers, not issues. They're shamelessly insular and bad, so they win on entertaining-discussion points every time.
It's faux-liberal shit for, by, and about the kinds of problems only very sheltered wealthy people have.
Arg!
The only paper Brad DeLong seems to respect is the Wall Street Journal, exclusive of the editorial page. The NY Times is a mixture of good and bad, and the Post is trending toward bad. The LA Times and Chicago Tribune seem to be ranked next, but US papers are mostly flawed at best.
Some say that given the constraints, a genuinely good newspaper is impossible.
9: The LA Times (or the Chicago Tribune) are good papers too.
This must be a meaning of "good" of which I was hitherto unaware.
I get the Sunday LA Times for the coupons. Best part.
The L.A. Times has done some good stories on California healthcare issues. They've covered the King Drew hospital fiasco, and they did a series on hospitals dumping poor patients on Skid Row.
They've also done a lot on the Blue Cross scandal. (In California Blue Shield is separate from Blue Cross and is nonprofit, while Blue Cross is for profit.) Blue Cross had been retroactively cancelling individual insurance policies on people who dared to get sick claiming that a failure to disclose that you once took an asthma med meant that your cancer treatment shouldn't be covered.
U.S. papers kind of suck in general though. The Post has Priest and Pincus, I suppose, but the UK's papers put ours to shame. Even the Guardian has a good football page.
I don't understand why you'd do book-on-tape for anything
Some of us register so high on the dork meter that The Smartest Guys in the Room is way more motivating to work out to than music.
Not to perpetuate Dowdian approaches to the news, but--is it just me or does Laura Bush really look like the Joker in a nice pants suit?
This must be a meaning of "good" of which I was hitherto unaware.
It depends. Good, in relation to the Platonic ideal of a newspaper -- not so much. Good, in relation to the other heavyweight wannabe national newspapers in the U.S. -- you betcha.
Of course, I'm with Jefferson.
For local news in Cedar Rapids, the Grauniad can't be beat.
I don't understand why you'd do book-on-tape for anything, only because it takes so much longer to get through it.
It's less conspicuous to the police when you're driving. Harder to take notes, though.