Re: I know you are, but what am I?

1

Democrats are tripling the debt, which means that generations of Americans not yet born will be taxed to pay for spending today. That is a kind of taxation without representation.

This makes me want to punch someone. Jonah Goldberg would probably be best, but just about anyone might do. I can't believe how hypocritical, and stupid, this is.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 1:36 PM
horizontal rule
2

I can't believe how hypocritical, and stupid, this is.

You've read Goldberg before, right?


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 1:42 PM
horizontal rule
3

Jonah Goldberg is a very silly person.


Posted by: Not Prince Hamlet | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 1:51 PM
horizontal rule
4

2: no. I've heard of him of course, but never figured reading him was worth my time.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 1:54 PM
horizontal rule
5

Really, apo, you should have linked to Powell's, or one of those sites parsi provided in the other thread.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 2:00 PM
horizontal rule
6

secessionism

I can't keep from smiling when I see Republicans flirt with secession while the Democratic President extols Lincoln at every opportunity.


Posted by: Populuxe | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 2:10 PM
horizontal rule
7

Those sites are totally gay, M/tch.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 2:11 PM
horizontal rule
8

Wait... Jonah's down with anarchism? He and minne are soul brothers?


Posted by: Josh | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 2:12 PM
horizontal rule
9

Ahem.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 2:13 PM
horizontal rule
10

i so hate hate hate mean people, the mean IST person at the poster printer who refused to let me adjust the margins of the damn poster, now it looks weird with the left margin narrower than the right margin
though good thing the lower margin didn't cut off some words at least
what would drop off of him to check once more and try to adjust what is needed to be adjusted, it takes just some clicks, but no, he wouldn't, not willing, he needs to eat lunch and he's absent for an hour, then he cancels my uploaded poster because i wasn't present there all the time, i needed things to do!
he even dared to call behind me you have to log-off something when i already did that
one learns if one had to repeat the whole damn process three times!!!
i hope he has some apoplexy later in life


Posted by: read | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 2:14 PM
horizontal rule
11


Stupid doesn't even begin to describe this:

Americans work an average of 103 days a year just to pay their taxes. If you had to work 365 days a year to pay your taxes, that would be a kind of slavery or indentured servitude, because all of your productive labor would be going to the government. .... And, I think if we had to work 364 days a year it would still be a kind of serfdom (after all, serfs were allowed a little plot of their own). Ditto 363 days, 362 days, 361 days etc. Now, at some point the difference of degree becomes a difference in kind; working one day a year to pay for the government doesn't sound oppressive to me. But it seems to me that it's hardly absurd to think that 103 days a year is too much, or to believe that if that number goes even higher, we're losing something important.

The only way you can arrive at a number like "Americans work an average of 103 days a year just to pay their taxes" is to take all taxes at all levels of government as a % of GDP, then take that % of 365 days (28% X 365 days ~ 102 days).

It's obviously fallacious to make the denominator 365 (all days), and claim the numerator is "working days".

But the mendacity goes further.

The "average" American (i.e. one earning the median income) pays less than 6% of income in federal income tax. Add in the employee contributions for Soc Sec and Medicare, and you're up to 15% in federal taxes. At 222 working days per year, that person is working 33.3 days to cover federal taxes.

Not so bad when you consider that for that you get a guaranteed retirement income, health care after age 65, a National Parks system, and a few other perks paid for out of the federal treasury.


Posted by: pain perdu | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 2:14 PM
horizontal rule
12

5,7: Also, Amazon has a clear competitive advantage over Powell's.


Posted by: Not Prince Hamlet | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 2:15 PM
horizontal rule
13

It's obviously fallacious to make the denominator 365 (all days), and claim the numerator is "working days".

WHAT ABOUT LEAP YEARS?!


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 2:17 PM
horizontal rule
14

Julian Sanchez, to his enormous credit, has called out his libertarian brethren on the "average American's tax burden" flim-flammery I take issue with in 11.


Posted by: pain perdu | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 2:22 PM
horizontal rule
15

what would drop off of him

I am so stealing this phrase for future use.


Posted by: togolosh | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 2:33 PM
horizontal rule
16

At 222 working days per year

Is this considered the standard for back-of-the-napkin calculations? That seems to work out to something like 7+ weeks of vacation per year.

That is, I tend to assume 52 weeks/year minus, say, 3 weeks of vacation. 49 weeks. At 5 days/week, that's 245 days/year. I haven't checked how much this changes the calculations in 11, but 222 working days/year just struck me as odd. I must be missing something.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 2:34 PM
horizontal rule
17

11: Deceptive conflation of mean and median is a core tactic of the anti-tax right. If you use mean when median is the appropriate measure you can get people all riled up over a tax cut for themselves and everyone they know.


Posted by: togolosh | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 2:41 PM
horizontal rule
18

10: Does not sound like our read.

Where were the teabaggers 2001-2008? Something has recently thrown them into a rage. It's amazing that people can be so sincerely, furiously angry without any clue as to how they look to people.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 2:42 PM
horizontal rule
19

222 days is after you deduct time reading Unfogged.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 2:43 PM
horizontal rule
20

8:See, I am compelled to take, not Jonah Goldberg, but something un his argument seriously, even though it isn't anything Goldberg might be able unwilling to articulate,

Hannah Arendt was passionate about differntiating Nazi Germany from Mussolini's Italy (or Franco Spain, or Romania) but Arendt also thought essential to understand that Hitler's Germany & Stalin's USSR had some things absolutely critical in common.

Most of what Goldberg is doing is of course projection, and everyone should understand the existential world-destroying threat the Republican Party is today.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 2:46 PM
horizontal rule
21

The "average" American (i.e. one earning the median income) pays less than 6% of income in federal income tax

You need to include the time that you spend working to earn more money for your boss so that they can pay their tax bill.


Posted by: NickS | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 2:46 PM
horizontal rule
22

Ya know, it isn't as if I comment so much I couldn't take a little time to preview and edit, more than I usually do.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 2:50 PM
horizontal rule
23

Something has recently thrown them into a rage.

They noticed something unsettling about the new president, see.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 2:52 PM
horizontal rule
24

20: There is nothing in his argument worth taking seriously. He defines Fascism as totalitarianism and then proceeds to point out all the commonalities between right wing totalitarians and left wing ones, along with a smattering of incidental similarities between certain policies supported by some Fascists and certain policies supported by some Liberals.

Stalin and Hitler may have had a lot in common, but that doesn't make Hillary Clinton a member of the Schutzstaffel.


Posted by: togolosh | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 2:52 PM
horizontal rule
25

Is this considered the standard for back-of-the-napkin calculations?

No, don't take that as authoritative. I used an approximation based on average hours worked (1777) p.a. divided by an eight-hour work day. In fact, it's likely an underestimate relative to the median worker (oops, hoisted on my own petard here) because the annual average hours worked includes part time employees (I think).

That said, your 245 days doesn't account for public holidays, sick days, etc.


Posted by: pain perdu | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 2:57 PM
horizontal rule
26

i hope he has some apoplexy later in life

Why not right now? So much more satisfying.


Posted by: mcmc | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 2:58 PM
horizontal rule
27

As far as I can tell, the word "fascism" can be added to the list of words with no generic meaning. You start off by distinguishing Nazis and fascists, and then you separate out the Romanian and Hungarian and Spanish and Portuguese authoritarians (because they were all to traditionalistic), and then you laugh off the various chickenshit wannabes like Mosely, and you end up with Mussolini and maybe the Lebanese Phalange.

Austrian economists think that all state intervention in the market is Fascist.

Minnesota's Farmer Labor Party included actual Communists and suspected Fascists, and one guy (Senator Lundeen) was accused of being a Communist in 1932 and of being a Nazi in 1941. But it wasn't a Hillary Clinton party at all. Eventually Hubert Humphrey cannibalized it and produced the nice liberal DFL party.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 2:59 PM
horizontal rule
28

That is a kind of taxation without representation.

Only in the sense in which it's absolutely false, yes.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 3:01 PM
horizontal rule
29

You've gotten me started.

Yggles had a very nice post today on urban management, with tight coherent arguments. And..and...whatever.

Okay, how about:process liberalism understood as problem-solving rather than interest group negotiation will always tend toward totalitarianism?


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 3:02 PM
horizontal rule
30

I usually try to be calm and not confronting whatever happens but when one treats me lowly I'm not willing to tolerate it
If one is friendly disposed one would try to listen what another person is trying to say and perhaps try to comply to the request what it takes, not dismiss it and start to act weird
Especially if they charge for their service
Even worms crawl if touched


Posted by: Read | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 3:05 PM
horizontal rule
31

"Even worms crawl if touched" = true and poetic
"The smallest worm will turn being trodden on" = false and clumsy

read 1, shakespeare 0


Posted by: tierce de lollardie | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 3:07 PM
horizontal rule
32

As a trivial example of 29.3, and I think the kind of thing that Goldberg feels his revulsion for:

Yggles:We need tax revenue, and soda pop is bad for your health. Let's tax soda pop. If soda pop drinkers object and get in our way, they are just another problem to be solved.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 3:12 PM
horizontal rule
33

Okay, how about:process liberalism understood as problem-solving rather than interest group negotiation will always tend toward totalitarianism?

+

Yggles:We need tax revenue, and soda pop is bad for your health. Let's tax soda pop. If soda pop drinkers object and get in our way, they are just another problem to be solved.

"First they came for the soda pop drinkers, and I did not object, for I was not a soda pop drinker..."


Posted by: pain perdu | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 3:17 PM
horizontal rule
34

THEY'LL TAKE MY SODA POP, OR SODA, OR POP, OR COKE, OR WHATEVER YOU CHOOSE TO CALL IT (WE ARE A BIG TENT) WHEN THEY PRY IT FROM MY COLD, PUDGY HANDS!!!!!11!!!!


Posted by: OPINIONATED SODA POP DRINKER | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 3:20 PM
horizontal rule
35

New bumper sticker: "I drink soda and I VOTE!"


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 3:20 PM
horizontal rule
36

Tending toward totalitarianism would be "soda drinkers will have a finger removed any time they are seen with soda," not "soda drinkers will pay three cents more per can."


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 3:23 PM
horizontal rule
37

I suspect that the term "totalitarianism" will disappear next. How many instances are there? Do you need a general term to cover two things, when they're as different as Communism and Naziism?


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 3:24 PM
horizontal rule
38

My semi-Trotskyite roommate told me last night he objected to taxing soda because that's regressive, but he's fine with regulating it by other means. I started to ask: You would require a soda-drinking license? A training and safety certification (avoiding bubbles out the nose, etc.)? But then 30 Rock started.


Posted by: Bave Dee | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 3:26 PM
horizontal rule
39

Tending toward totalitarianism would be "soda drinkers will have a finger removed any time they are seen with soda," not "soda drinkers will pay three cents more per can."

It's a slippery slope, see? First it's three cents a can. Then it's five cents. Pretty soon it applies to Twinkies and potato chips, too. Before long it's show trials, forced labor camps and crematoria.


Posted by: pain perdu | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 3:27 PM
horizontal rule
40

I hate those half-assed measures.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 3:45 PM
horizontal rule
41

8: When I read the quote, I scanned over the attribution, and thought that it was somebody like Yggles criticizing Goldberg, in a fairly apt way.

I'm really unclear about how "secessionism" could be a particularly libertarian doctrine. Seems like it's just multiplying state power. I don't remember Jeff Davis saying anything about mutual aid or free love either.

Goldberg should read A Plea for Captain John Brown before he shoots his mouth off about how great secessionism is.

This whole country is fascists.


Posted by: minneapolitan | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 3:47 PM
horizontal rule
42

I just read the Goldberg post linked. So, he's purporting still to be a serious person. Yeah, I knew that.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 4:01 PM
horizontal rule
43

How much power does Goldberg have, anyway?


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 4:04 PM
horizontal rule
44

Economics:Output and distribution are not to be determined by interest group negotiations, but are technical problems to be solved, as free of politics as possible.

Transsexuals & public bathrooms? How shall we approach this dispute?

There are many ways you can approach the Goldbergs and Prescotts. You can laugh at them, and I promise, someday they will burn you. They are killing us now with plutocracy.

You can negotiate with them, and concede basic human necessities.

Or you can accept that liberalism is a totalitarianism, and go for it. But wait, liberalism forbids illiberal methods. But it uses them, in the form of "universal and inalienable rights" and a majoritarianism that is almost designed to create its equal and successive opposite.

Is this incoherent? Fuck, it's hard not to breathe when the only air is Enlightenment.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 4:13 PM
horizontal rule
45

It's a slippery slope, see? First it's three cents a can. Then it's five cents. Pretty soon it applies to Twinkies and potato chips, too. Before long it's show trials, forced labor camps and crematoria.

Brilliant.

Unfortunately too long to fit on a bumper sticker, but perfect.


Posted by: NickS | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 4:18 PM
horizontal rule
46

"My Wife Yes, My Dog Maybe, My Big Red Never"


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 4:27 PM
horizontal rule
47

Why not right now? So much more satisfying.
it's not satisfying coz the person wouldn't realize his meanness if something happens to him now, he'd just blame the others, the world, whatever
and just one quarrel with me is not enough, but he'll perhaps accumulate some more meantime
"The smallest worm will turn being trodden on"
i thought it has the same meaning to the proverb i mentioned "ot hurtel hurehed arvalzana'


Posted by: read | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 4:27 PM
horizontal rule
48

Pretty soon it applies to Twinkies and potato chips, too.

No, actually it becomes no one but neo-liberal plutocrats being allowed to make economic policy.

Economics is a science, you know.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 4:47 PM
horizontal rule
49

The Unfoggetariat is too regular in its habits. Always dinner at 6:00 pm.

Think outside the box, motherfuckers!


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 5:08 PM
horizontal rule
50

I'm at an 8 hour differential, so I'm always around after everyone's said lots of stuff and before they come back.
Hi!


Posted by: Unpronounceable Awl | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 5:14 PM
horizontal rule
51

The advantage is being able to read the 600+ threads at leisure, knowing there's no immediate conversation to catch up with.


Posted by: Unpronounceable Awl | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 5:15 PM
horizontal rule
52

ECHO ECHo ECho Echo echo


Posted by: Unpronounceable Awl | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 5:17 PM
horizontal rule
53

Economics is a science, you know.

It says it right in the name! -> Economic science! <- Whoa!

max
['I like it when they put what it's in it right there on the label!']


Posted by: max | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 5:23 PM
horizontal rule
54

I still haven't started dinner; I took a break so I could catch up on the work I was procrastinating on all day.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 5:37 PM
horizontal rule
55

We just ate dinner. I have plenty of work I could be doing, but fuck that.


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 5:42 PM
horizontal rule
56

Never mind. Since my last comment I have discovered Pierre Louys. I need to learn French.
Too busy to attack liberalism anymore tonight.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 6:17 PM
horizontal rule
57

Dinner's done. Entertain me.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 7:15 PM
horizontal rule
58

Anything with "omics" in the title is a science. Agronomics. Ergonomics. Comics. Everything.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 7:24 PM
horizontal rule
59

There's no "omics" in Burt Bacharach.


Posted by: Not Prince Hamlet | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 7:27 PM
horizontal rule
60

Speaking of giving people a bully pulpit, here's the New York Times editorial page editor's rationale for hiring Ross Douthat:

Q. Could you explain the process and considerations behind Ross Douthat's selection as an Op-Ed columnist? -- O.R. Siddiqui, Toronto
A. We were looking for an interesting, fresh conservative voice for our page. After looking at many columnists, some of whom were terrific, we felt in the end that Ross had the right combination of interests -- politics, policy, culture, society. He is also well-versed in the world of Web opinion journalism.

Alternate A:
No, I won't explain the process, but I will tell you that more than one person was considered. We picked Ross because he was young and verbose and happy to opine on a wide range of topics, unlike those tedious activist types who drone on and on about their pet topic. And did I mention young? He's young. He published on the Internet.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 8:51 PM
horizontal rule
61

Dinner's done. Entertain me.

I recommend Problem Sleuth.


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 8:54 PM
horizontal rule
62

61: That link says HTTP 404 Not Found.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 8:57 PM
horizontal rule
63

A good enough reason to retire for the night.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 8:58 PM
horizontal rule
64

Er, I recommend Problem Sleuth.


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 9:00 PM
horizontal rule
65

54: You were dodging work? No public assistance for you!


Posted by: Josh | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 9:02 PM
horizontal rule
66

It's just as well the link didn't work. I've got to figure out how I'm going to make a rabbit and an English roast this weekend, because the goddamn fridge went on the fritz and everything in the freezer thawed.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 9:04 PM
horizontal rule
67

Oh. Uh-oh.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 9:05 PM
horizontal rule
68

60: It is kind of interesting that there's almost an absence of style among political/news bloggers, or I suppose a style-less style, if that makes sense. Sure there's clarity, snark, cleverness and the occasional personal post, and at least the best of them write really well in a formal sense - they might misspell a lot, but the overall writing structure is fine - but little of that is the kind of writing I usually think of in terms of style. I would say I like such and such a blog more often than I'd say that I like such and such a blog's writing. I can't say I've read much of Douthat's writing in any form - I've probably read more of it in non-blog contexts - but it does seem clearly to be going for style in the sense that I'm thinking of it here. I wonder if much of the praise he gets for his writing style is really praise just for making the attempt (as it's hard to believe the praise is for the actual writing produced).

Anyway, here's a perceptive analysis of literary style in online writing.


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 9:13 PM
horizontal rule
69

So, eb is eb white.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 9:18 PM
horizontal rule
70

68 is interesting. I guess I often say I like a blogger's voice, and rarely say I like his/her style. And voice only partially overlaps with style.

Huh. Going to have to think more about this when I am more awake.

I do find that blog commenting has made me a more ruthless editor. Or maybe I was heading that way anyway.



Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 9:24 PM
horizontal rule
71

Well I didn't find 68 interesting. More bloviating about the net from an overstuffed New Yorker, say I!

I also say that Problem Sleuth is quite strange.


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 9:41 PM
horizontal rule
72

69: Racist.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 9:42 PM
horizontal rule
73

Crain is one of the people who writes for the New Yorker who I like to read. Also, 68 and the link in 68 are not the same thing. I'm not a New Yorker!


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 9:44 PM
horizontal rule
74

71: More bloviating about the net from an overstuffed New Yorker, say I!

Your wish is our command.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 9:47 PM
horizontal rule
75

Also, 68 and the link in 68 are not the same thing.

God's wounds!


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 9:50 PM
horizontal rule
76

From the link in 74:

And steer clear of italics because they are hard to read on a computer screen.

I absolutely hate blogs and blog templates that format long quotations into italics. Hate.


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 9:52 PM
horizontal rule
77

Hmm, I still haven't eaten dinner. And tonight's dinner prominently features arugula (drenched in bacon, so good wholesome American food - but! also in a quiche, so back to being suspect). Maybe I'll eat it while reading the New Yorker.


Posted by: Parenthetical | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 10:11 PM
horizontal rule
78

Use fresh New Yorker leaves as an unusual and tasty substitute for arugula!


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 10:14 PM
horizontal rule
79

Inexplicably, I bought a print copy of Harper's today when all I went into the newsstore for was a soda because the line was too long at the CVS around the corner.


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 10:16 PM
horizontal rule
80

Inexplicably, I have a print subscription for Harper's, despite it being available to me for free through the university. D'oh.

And neb, I've never much cared for the taste of ink.


Posted by: Parenthetical | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 10:21 PM
horizontal rule
81

77: arugula (drenched in bacon
Rocket to the abattoir!


Posted by: minneapolitan | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 10:24 PM
horizontal rule
82

Your university gives you free magazines? All I get is a bus pass and all the bad coffee I can drink before they shut-off the pot at noon.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 10:25 PM
horizontal rule
83

82: Yes, the electronic version is accessible through the library's VPN. Handy. The only reason why I signed up for a subscription in the first place was because I desperately wanted to read an article from a back issue on the website ... now I'm saddled with a two year subscription to a magazine I hardly ever read.


Posted by: Parenthetical | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 10:28 PM
horizontal rule
84

Re-reading the link in 68, I still don't agree with Crain that there are no backstage areas on the internet. I've heard talk of places where people use different names than the names they use elsewhere, where names are written in such formats as to evade the search engines, and where what would elsewhere be links are left unhyperlinked to prevent showing up in referrers and trackbacks. That would seem to qualify as backstage in a way, although not for the names used there.


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 10:33 PM
horizontal rule
85

I miss having free access to the entire archives of the NYRB. I originally subscribed to the New Yorker because I was losing access to it via Lexis Nexis.


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 10:34 PM
horizontal rule
86

Crain is one of the people who writes for the New Yorker who I like to read.

Proof that eb is not E.B. White. (And if you can't spot why, you're not E.B. White either.)


Posted by: Sir Kraab | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 10:52 PM
horizontal rule
87

Oooh! I know!

White would have said "persons".


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 11:01 PM
horizontal rule
88

Duh. That I like to read.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 11:03 PM
horizontal rule
89

He would have italicized New Yorker too.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 11:03 PM
horizontal rule
90

Something interesting just occurred to me about eb's non-Whiteness, but I'm not going to say what it was.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 04-17-09 11:05 PM
horizontal rule
91

I was thinking of E. B. White when I picked out a name. Specifically, I was thinking that I wasn't picking out E. B. White's name. And I wasn't.


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 04-18-09 1:12 AM
horizontal rule
92

've got to figure out how I'm going to make a rabbit

You need two other rabbits, for a start - a girl rabbit and a boy rabbit. What's an English roast?


Posted by: OneFatEnglishman | Link to this comment | 04-18-09 4:56 AM
horizontal rule
93

What's an English roast?

English roast is people! Run, OFE!


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-18-09 5:04 AM
horizontal rule
94

Fee fie foe fum. I smell an English roast!


Posted by: Turgid Jacobian | Link to this comment | 04-18-09 5:12 AM
horizontal rule
95

93: Wait, the definition of people has expanded to include the English now? This is getting out of hand.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-18-09 6:44 AM
horizontal rule
96

No, English roast is people. From Texas.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 04-18-09 6:47 AM
horizontal rule
97

And the tailings get turned into Texas Toast?


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-18-09 6:49 AM
horizontal rule
98

Texans have tails?


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 04-18-09 7:04 AM
horizontal rule
99

Only the Protestants, just like everywhere else.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-18-09 7:05 AM
horizontal rule
100

How can I tell if I'm about to have a Protestant? Is that something that shows up on the ultrasound?


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 04-18-09 7:07 AM
horizontal rule
101

It should by now, yeah. If you see little horn buds, you're having a Jew.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-18-09 7:10 AM
horizontal rule
102

I hope she has my father's forked tongue!


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 04-18-09 7:13 AM
horizontal rule
103

If you want to ensure that your baby is a Muslim like her daddy, make sure to point your cervix towards Mecca during delivery.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-18-09 7:56 AM
horizontal rule
104

Are you going to defend yourself, eb?


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 04-18-09 8:15 AM
horizontal rule
105

What's an English roast?

Same as a cross-rib roast. I don't know what you people call it, probably a French roast. Wait, that's something else altogether.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 04-18-09 8:22 AM
horizontal rule
106

I thought that was another word for a split roast.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 04-18-09 8:51 AM
horizontal rule
107

Huh. I'd always heard that as a 'spit roast', though in a different configuration.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 04-18-09 9:00 AM
horizontal rule
108

What 107 says.

The comic strip in 106 gets it wrong.


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 04-18-09 9:07 AM
horizontal rule
109

Yep, 107 is what footballers do in their spare time.


Posted by: foolishmortal | Link to this comment | 04-18-09 9:32 AM
horizontal rule
110

109: And "footballer" is what Brits call baseball players, right?


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-18-09 10:38 AM
horizontal rule
111

Yes, but they call baseball biscuits.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-18-09 10:41 AM
horizontal rule
112

111: If you listen carefully.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 04-18-09 10:49 AM
horizontal rule
113

45 et al It's a slippery slope, see? First it's three cents a can. Then it's five cents.

Rod Stewart used to spray soda on the stage so as to avoid the slippery slope effect and not fall off stage or down.

My Google-fu for Rod Stewart and Coke does not provide a germane footnote. (Not intended in a My people call it blow sense.)


Posted by: Econolicious | Link to this comment | 04-18-09 1:14 PM
horizontal rule
114

113: Yeah, it wasn't slipping that caused Rod Stewart to collapse on stage.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-18-09 2:10 PM
horizontal rule
115

Reading that site has made me realize that nothing anyone has ever told me is actually true.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 04-18-09 2:19 PM
horizontal rule
116

115: Aw, c'mon, that's not true, Walt.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 04-18-09 2:33 PM
horizontal rule
117

111: He gives you dimes for nickels,
He calls watermelons "pickles",
Have you ever met that funny reefer man?


Posted by: minneapolitan | Link to this comment | 04-18-09 2:35 PM
horizontal rule
118

I actually know someone who has a cousin who used to work for the spouse of a woman who worked at Snopes. Apparently they don't actually do any research on the urban legends, just make shit up.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-18-09 2:35 PM
horizontal rule
119

Snopes doesn't have a page about 116, so I don't know whether to believe you, Stanley.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 04-18-09 2:42 PM
horizontal rule
120

What about me?


Posted by: Craig Shergold | Link to this comment | 04-18-09 3:51 PM
horizontal rule
121

118 definitely jibes with what I've heard.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-18-09 4:21 PM
horizontal rule
122

I heard that if you load the Snopes webpage and put your computer in the microwave, it will explode.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 04-18-09 4:40 PM
horizontal rule
123

122: yeah, that's part of Sharia law. Thanks, Obama!


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-18-09 5:08 PM
horizontal rule
124

I heard that once they impose sharia law, our Coke will have sugar in it rather than high-fructose corn syrup.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 04-18-09 5:10 PM
horizontal rule
125

I heard that under Sharia law, women have to comment with their eyes closed.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 04-18-09 5:14 PM
horizontal rule
126

124: If a modest and temporary abandonment of the rights of women will lead to free flowing Mexican coke, then Anglo-American jurisprudence, I divorce thee!


Posted by: foolishmortal | Link to this comment | 04-18-09 5:25 PM
horizontal rule
127

I got some friends who can hook you up with free-flowing Mexican coke right now, fm. Okay, technically Peruvian, but refined in Mexico.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-18-09 5:27 PM
horizontal rule
128

I refer, sir, only to the beverage brewed(?) with sugar. My life's dream, however, is to restore to our national beverage its original flavor and potency. If you know of any reputable source of fresh leaves I am all ears.


Posted by: foolishmortal | Link to this comment | 04-18-09 5:44 PM
horizontal rule
129

OT: Can anyone recommend a poem for me to read at the dedication of my grandmother's headstone tomorrow? "I come not to praise Caesar but to bury him" has already been rejected. We're aiming for more folk than classical. She was a wonderful gramma. Sweet and straightforward is ideal. Even an essay selection. No one really wants to do the Kaddish.


Posted by: Wrongshore | Link to this comment | 04-18-09 5:51 PM
horizontal rule
130

I wonder if the flavor really is that different than the original. Do "spent" leaves taste particularly different from fresh ones?


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-18-09 5:51 PM
horizontal rule
131

Apparently what we're drinking now is different in a number of respects from the 1904 version.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-18-09 5:53 PM
horizontal rule
132

Well, what you're drinking now. I'm having a beer.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-18-09 5:54 PM
horizontal rule
133

Huh. Reading the post, I thought Labs was back for a minute there.


Posted by: paranoid android | Link to this comment | 04-18-09 6:13 PM
horizontal rule
134

i recalled reading this study


Posted by: read | Link to this comment | 04-18-09 7:11 PM
horizontal rule
135

I'm sorry to hear about your gramma, Wrongshore.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 04-18-09 7:37 PM
horizontal rule
136

I wish that I'd bought some kosher coke that was around pre Passover.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 04-18-09 7:39 PM
horizontal rule
137

Belatedly, I did mean that 68 itself was interesting, not the link. I gave up on that halfway through; I was kind of irritated with the author's argument and assumptions.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 04-18-09 8:07 PM
horizontal rule
138

||
Chavez gave our dear Leader some classic Galeano. Is there, or will there be, any way one may tell if he has read it or not?
|>


Posted by: foolishmortal | Link to this comment | 04-18-09 8:13 PM
horizontal rule
139

Aw, parsimon, it was a year ago. We're unveiling the headstone. But thank you very much.


Posted by: Wrongshore | Link to this comment | 04-18-09 8:54 PM
horizontal rule
140

139: Ah. I'm sensitive on these death things lately.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 04-18-09 8:58 PM
horizontal rule
141

Are you going to defend yourself, eb?

I'm kind of surprised that book seems to have been taught so much even in recent years. I'm not sure I've every opened it, much less read the entire front and back covers.


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 04-18-09 9:26 PM
horizontal rule
142

Also, I went back and re-read the link in 68 and have to say I was disappointed a bit in retrospect, though I still think he's on to something. I don't think the absence of style I'm talking about in 68 (non-link portion) had really registered with me before I read the link.


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 04-18-09 9:32 PM
horizontal rule
143

The link in 104 reminds me of Menand's review of Eats, Shoots and Leaves:

The first punctuation mistake in "Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation" (Gotham; $17.50), by Lynne Truss, a British writer, appears in the dedication, where a nonrestrictive clause is not preceded by a comma. It is a wild ride downhill from there. "Eats, Shoots & Leaves" presents itself as a call to arms, in a world spinning rapidly into subliteracy, by a hip yet unapologetic curmudgeon, a stickler for the rules of writing. But it's hard to fend off the suspicion that the whole thing might be a hoax.

The foreword, by Frank McCourt, contains another comma-free nonrestrictive clause ("I feel no such sympathy for the manager of my local supermarket who must have a cellarful of apostrophes he doesn't know what to do with") and a superfluous ellipsis. The preface, by Truss, includes a misplaced apostrophe ("printers' marks") and two misused semicolons: one that separates unpunctuated items in a list and one that sets off a dependent clause. About half the semicolons in the rest of the book are either unnecessary or ungrammatical, and the comma is deployed as the mood strikes. Sometimes, phrases such as "of course" are set off by commas; sometimes, they are not. Doubtful, distracting, and unwarranted commas turn up in front of restrictive phrases ("Naturally we become timid about making our insights known, in such inhospitable conditions"), before correlative conjunctions ("Either this will ring bells for you, or it won't"), and in prepositional phrases ("including biblical names, and any foreign name with an unpronounced final 's' "). Where you most expect punctuation, it may not show up at all: "You have to give initial capitals to the words Biro and Hoover otherwise you automatically get tedious letters from solicitors."

Parentheses are used, wrongly, to add independent clauses to the ends of sentences: "I bought a copy of Eric Partridge's Usage and Abusage and covered it in sticky-backed plastic so that it would last a lifetime (it has)." Citation form varies: one passage from the Bible is identified as "Luke, xxiii, 43" and another, a page later, as "Isaiah xl, 3." The word "abuzz" is printed with a hyphen, which it does not have. We are informed that when a sentence ends with a quotation American usage always places the terminal punctuation inside the quotation marks, which is not so. (An American would not write "Who said 'I cannot tell a lie?' ") A line from "My Fair Lady" is misquoted ("The Arabs learn Arabian with the speed of summer lightning"). And it is stated that The New Yorker, "that famously punctilious periodical," renders "the nineteen-eighties" as the "1980's," which it does not. The New Yorker renders "the nineteen-eighties" as "the nineteen-eighties."


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 04-18-09 10:01 PM
horizontal rule
144

143: Ah, but the Indians knew how to properly use grammar scolding as a way to bring the community into closer communion with the spirit of the Earth.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-18-09 10:12 PM
horizontal rule
145

People should post on a different thread than T+4 a little.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-19-09 12:46 PM
horizontal rule
146

A little.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 04-19-09 12:47 PM
horizontal rule
147

A lot.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-19-09 2:08 PM
horizontal rule
148

This actually should be on T-4, but I'm hoping h-g doesn't see it. Anyone who wants to participate in an unfogged baby present for her, email me at ElizardB@hotmail.com if you would? And don't post in this thread so it drops off the front page? And tell anyone you think would like to participate but might not have seen this comment?


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-19-09 2:12 PM
horizontal rule
149

143: What's wrong with "printers' marks"? That's where the apostrophe's supposed to go. They're marks for printers, not for a printer. See, for instance, the book Printers' Marks - A Chapter in the History of Typography


Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Link to this comment | 04-20-09 4:19 AM
horizontal rule
150

assert English roast == lamb:
....except AssertionError:
........print 'oh, those funny Americans'


Posted by: Alex | Link to this comment | 04-20-09 4:52 AM
horizontal rule