Most of the "notes" you are hearing in Holcomb's banjo playing here are rhythmic additions to a basic melody line, though to be clear my point is not that jazz -- or any genre -- has "too many notes," but that I don't equate the density of notes or the ability of a musician to play lots of notes really fast with artistry, any more than I equate the ability to write or type quickly with literary merit.
This article last month https://www.livestrong.com/article/13763749-marathon-statistics/ reports that "about 30% of global marathon participants are women," echoing stats I've seen elsewhere, and marathon running is a better measure of "jogging" activity than shoe store sales. People of all gender identities buy running shoes for more than "jogging." I buy them even though my running days have been ended by injury because they are comfortable for walking and everyday wear.
"After this thread runs out I will be leaving PS. "
A couple of thoughts, starting with good riddance. Our host's site will be much better without the bloviating of a tedious blowhard like you, who hijacks every single post to discuss whatever stupid topic YOU want to talk about, without regard to the rest of us, who want to discuss the topics out host actually writes about.
Also, this isn't an airport and there is no reason to announce your departure. Just go.
I figured it was too good to be true. Jerry B has lied before and was banned from the old CoS since he was such a tedious blowhard (the host's description, and accurate).
And now he's lying again, about leaving. All because he's deathly afraid, or some other BS.
He's always bragging about how he knows our host personally. What kind of loser has to do that to justify hijacking threads? What a sad existence he leads.
Sorry about the typo, I fixed it online very early this morning. I edit and distill most letters/comments for the Zmail section and my excerpting of your rather long comment struck me as a fair, crisp summary of your main point. Readers can compare your full comment, which you reproduced above, with the edited version and can let me know here or by email if they think I did you wrong.
Meanwhile, you have not received threats or been the subject of any other sort of attack as a result of our interactions on these threads, have you? Didn't think so.
Regarding Kevin in TIU, he is the least interested, least developed, and most shallow character on the show. I could easily pass on any resolution on his character. As to who he would “end up with,” really? I have no confidence in his having a lasting, meaningful relationship with anyone.
I totally agree with you. Took the words right out of my mouth. I really don't care what happens with him and I'm cracking up at the people who are so upset about who he might end up with in TIU finale.
Great deal for the shareholders. Musk paid a 38% premium for a company with no clear path to growth and increased profitability. There were obviously no other bidders willing to jump in. It will be interesting to see what he does to make it a more attractive, functional, and useful product. Opening up the algorithms, eliminating bots, and authenticating humans sound like good things (if difficult). I would also require tweets to note if they are produced by staff or by the purported user. I don't see any reason to assume that Musk has nefarious or antisocial intentions. We will have to see how Twitter continues to evolve as a 'news source'.
I love these 2 speeches by Democratic lawmakers and they need to be retweeted and repeated across the land. Republican performative outrage is exhausting and a waste of our valuable time. But what Republican can run on infrastucture, funding the health care of mothers before their children are born, or funding the health care and education of children after they are born. So they start a war on Christmas and tan their testicles.
Back in the day. I saw a great Second City sketch, where CTA bus passengers break out a chorus of "Kumbaya." Hilarious.
Eric - how much due diligence did you do on that 2007 gas price tweet? I’m guessing very little. Of course the tweet is misleading and the facts don’t support its point. The facts, which I’d forgotten, are pretty amazing.
No kidding. I am very concerned about the effect of celebrities and pundits to influence people with clever but entirely superficial factoids. While I agree that Presidents have little influence over short term price fluctuations the implication in the tweet is that the unfair inference is a GOP issue. But in 2008, during the presidential campaign, the Democrats were happy to blame Bush and the GOP for the gas price spike. And back then we had exactly the same jokes about people that drove giant vehicles. It also ignores everything that was going on in the industry, but most importantly ignores the fact that inflation in the 2008 to 2019 period was under 2% annually. He cleverly masks the inflation effect by using current dollars. 2019 dollars equivalent price would be $4.89. The 12% difference between $4.89 and $5.86 is the inflation effect during the Biden administration.
From Politifact, again -- "Today’s gas prices are around $3.32 a gallon, up from $2.37 when the Biden administration took office, according to the EIA." $4.11 in 2008 is $5.39 in 2022 dollars per https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ So, yeah, no. BUT the overall point is that so many outside factors influence gas prices it's not smart to blame the on the president, yet both parties do it when out of the White House.
Statistics from the U.S. Energy Information Administration back up the claim about prices. During the past 20 years, the highest gas prices occurred in July 2008, during the Bush administration. But ...some of the lowest prices of the past 20 years also occurred during the Bush administration, which included both the post-9/11 economic slowdown and the 2008 Wall Street crash and financial crisis."
Indeed, gas prices have fluctuated within and across administrations, with little correlation to which president or party is in power. As with most things, the price of gasoline is determined not by the president, but rather by the state of the economy and the balance of supply and demand.
But do you see how misleading the meme is? Or am I taking the wrong message from it? I see it as something like “Actually, gas prices were just as bad, really worse, under Bush, so, it’s not so bad?”
Mainly the rejoinder. Now that I’ve seen Zinke’s tweet, it’s the same fantasy that the government controls gas prices. In the Bush era, that was a given in the media. Now, the sides have reversed. Both, as usual, are just spinning the same facts in the opposite directions over time. Let’s call this spin-spin.
“I’d suggest a blanket prohibition on columns written by management or ownership — that skews the power balance between writer and editor in a way that can lead to trouble.”
What don’t you understand about the word “ownership”? If it’s mine, I can write what I want. The implications for a publication’s journalistic integrity and desirability as a source for news can be debated, but in the end, it comes down to if it’s mine, I can write what I want, just like you do here.
On the subject of folk music – it’s not at the top of my list, but I do like it in limited doses. The thing I find a little off-putting is that people who are really into folk music seem to be constantly selling it. It feels like, “look at me – I’m a folksy, down-to-earth, no pretensions kind of person (and by the way, left-wing, the way god, or whatever, intended people to be). My songs protest injustice everywhere and promote peace and brotherhood, or else." Wait, you don’t have to tell me…I’m just imagining all that.
Regarding the comments of Jerry, who “knows you personally”, I have mixed feelings about your comment board. On one hand, the rabbit hole of reading others’ opinions is easy to fall into because it’s interesting and stirs emotions. The prospect of that probably attracts some paid subscriptions for you. On the other hand, those of us who do take the time to comment are at least vaguely aware that we provide you with free material, and time after time, we find our comments used to sell your product, and when so used always give you the final word. Hey! Ownership’s privilege, right? Or wait a minute, what was that about a skewed power balance?
One last thing…Thursday’s issue was pretty heavy on self-promotion. The constant plugging of the Mincing Rascals podcast is tiresome. The title itself is too cutesy and a little cringe inducing. Beyond that, podcasts in general hold no interest for me. Listening to a lot of blather is so dull and inefficient compared to reading some well thought out written words and easily skipping any uninteresting parts. So…fine, keep doing your podcast, but maybe confine the plugs to the end of the issue, like classified ads.
There's a standing feature saying what topics we covered on the podcast and I've added occasional profiles/interviews with members of the panel that have been generally well received. I listen to a lot of chat podcasts while washing dishes, doing laundry, exercising and so on, and to me it's a interesting and informative way to multi-task.
To rephrase my mandate, I think any publication that values its reputation for integrity and reliability should ban as a matter of policy op eds and columns written by owners, CEOs and board member. Of COURSE owners and manager CAN do what they want. But what SHOULD they do?
All right then, hypothetically, if you were to call it a news “paper” and hire an employee to be a reporter, would you then require yourself to become mute from then on? Idealism is good, I guess, but I think we could use a lot more pragmatism these days. We could also deal with journalists who give their readers enough credit to believe they’re not so stupid that they can’t tell what they’re reading, who wrote it and probably why as well.
The homeless people on the L remind me of my all-purpose Foster-Walker solution to everything. During one of my years at Northwestern, I lived in the Foster-Walker dorm, a complex (they called it "The Plex") of modest little single rooms that actually had a nice warm feel. Just enough room for a built-in bed, desk, and chair, but there was wood and red brick and a window looking out on a tree. It was actually kind of nice! My feeling is that Foster-Walker-ish housing, with the addition of modest individual bathrooms for privacy, should be the minimally decent humane housing for everyone, even prisoners. What's missing, I think, from current options is privacy and security. I don't think such housing, even jails and prisons, should be dangerous, nightmare-ish places.
Your last sentence highlights the problem. Homeless housing solutions have to include a wide range of services to maintain security, treat/manage drug issues, treat/manage mental issues, provide for couples, and provide for children. They also need to provide/support a transition (when possible) out of the homeless situation and back into traditional public housing or unsupported living. And accept the fact that a significant percentage will never be able to function independently. And there is also the issue that no matter how beneficial the services are, there will still be those that choose not to use them and to remain on the street. https://today.ttu.edu/posts/2010/01/on-the-streets-why-homeless-people-refuse-shelter
Yes, indeed, agreed on all that. As for those refusing shelter, the link mentions reasons that are all easily fixable. It doesn't mention lack of safety and privacy, which I had always assumed was a significant deterrent. I would feel much better about requiring people to go to shelters if I were confident that they were humane.
From that link: "The main reason why many homeless people shied away from shelter services was because submitting to a drug-treatment program was a prerequisite for admission. .. The other reason many refused shelter assistance is because they felt like shelter workers treated them more like children than adults." I recommend Katie Mingle's five-chapter podcast series "According to Need" to those who want more insight into this area https://99percentinvisible.org/need/
Thank you for posting those speeches. I wish more people, the ones who do not think like you or I, would read then and take them to heart. Alas, it is unlikely that I will get my wish.
I see a trend in the PS, toward more biting partisan commentary, and away from more reasoned exchange and debate about issues and ideas. Not sure of the reason for this transition -perhaps frustration over the difficulty of defending Biden's policies on the economy, southern border, etc. and the coming midterm election reset, or perhaps just more gratuitous red meat for the overwhelmingly liberal readership? But I've noticed this trend consistently over the past few months, and simply wanted to make note of it.
Most of the "notes" you are hearing in Holcomb's banjo playing here are rhythmic additions to a basic melody line, though to be clear my point is not that jazz -- or any genre -- has "too many notes," but that I don't equate the density of notes or the ability of a musician to play lots of notes really fast with artistry, any more than I equate the ability to write or type quickly with literary merit.
This article last month https://www.livestrong.com/article/13763749-marathon-statistics/ reports that "about 30% of global marathon participants are women," echoing stats I've seen elsewhere, and marathon running is a better measure of "jogging" activity than shoe store sales. People of all gender identities buy running shoes for more than "jogging." I buy them even though my running days have been ended by injury because they are comfortable for walking and everyday wear.
"After this thread runs out I will be leaving PS. "
A couple of thoughts, starting with good riddance. Our host's site will be much better without the bloviating of a tedious blowhard like you, who hijacks every single post to discuss whatever stupid topic YOU want to talk about, without regard to the rest of us, who want to discuss the topics out host actually writes about.
Also, this isn't an airport and there is no reason to announce your departure. Just go.
Ditto 👍
I figured it was too good to be true. Jerry B has lied before and was banned from the old CoS since he was such a tedious blowhard (the host's description, and accurate).
And now he's lying again, about leaving. All because he's deathly afraid, or some other BS.
He's always bragging about how he knows our host personally. What kind of loser has to do that to justify hijacking threads? What a sad existence he leads.
What's the fuss about coal train?
Sorry about the typo, I fixed it online very early this morning. I edit and distill most letters/comments for the Zmail section and my excerpting of your rather long comment struck me as a fair, crisp summary of your main point. Readers can compare your full comment, which you reproduced above, with the edited version and can let me know here or by email if they think I did you wrong.
Meanwhile, you have not received threats or been the subject of any other sort of attack as a result of our interactions on these threads, have you? Didn't think so.
I'm glad the error wasn't yours, Jerry. Eric, should we require you to insert a [sic] into your own writing? :)
Regarding Kevin in TIU, he is the least interested, least developed, and most shallow character on the show. I could easily pass on any resolution on his character. As to who he would “end up with,” really? I have no confidence in his having a lasting, meaningful relationship with anyone.
I totally agree with you. Took the words right out of my mouth. I really don't care what happens with him and I'm cracking up at the people who are so upset about who he might end up with in TIU finale.
Any thoughts about Twitter?
I'm anti.
Great deal for the shareholders. Musk paid a 38% premium for a company with no clear path to growth and increased profitability. There were obviously no other bidders willing to jump in. It will be interesting to see what he does to make it a more attractive, functional, and useful product. Opening up the algorithms, eliminating bots, and authenticating humans sound like good things (if difficult). I would also require tweets to note if they are produced by staff or by the purported user. I don't see any reason to assume that Musk has nefarious or antisocial intentions. We will have to see how Twitter continues to evolve as a 'news source'.
I love these 2 speeches by Democratic lawmakers and they need to be retweeted and repeated across the land. Republican performative outrage is exhausting and a waste of our valuable time. But what Republican can run on infrastucture, funding the health care of mothers before their children are born, or funding the health care and education of children after they are born. So they start a war on Christmas and tan their testicles.
Back in the day. I saw a great Second City sketch, where CTA bus passengers break out a chorus of "Kumbaya." Hilarious.
Len Goodman and 3 board members have stepped down from the Chicago Reader.
Reader Union members have prevailed!
I will have more to say about this on Thursday
Eric - how much due diligence did you do on that 2007 gas price tweet? I’m guessing very little. Of course the tweet is misleading and the facts don’t support its point. The facts, which I’d forgotten, are pretty amazing.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=emm_epm0_pte_nus_dpg&f=m
Edit 2008, not 2007.
No kidding. I am very concerned about the effect of celebrities and pundits to influence people with clever but entirely superficial factoids. While I agree that Presidents have little influence over short term price fluctuations the implication in the tweet is that the unfair inference is a GOP issue. But in 2008, during the presidential campaign, the Democrats were happy to blame Bush and the GOP for the gas price spike. And back then we had exactly the same jokes about people that drove giant vehicles. It also ignores everything that was going on in the industry, but most importantly ignores the fact that inflation in the 2008 to 2019 period was under 2% annually. He cleverly masks the inflation effect by using current dollars. 2019 dollars equivalent price would be $4.89. The 12% difference between $4.89 and $5.86 is the inflation effect during the Biden administration.
From Politifact, again -- "Today’s gas prices are around $3.32 a gallon, up from $2.37 when the Biden administration took office, according to the EIA." $4.11 in 2008 is $5.39 in 2022 dollars per https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ So, yeah, no. BUT the overall point is that so many outside factors influence gas prices it's not smart to blame the on the president, yet both parties do it when out of the White House.
Politifact -- https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/oct/25/facebook-posts/gas-prices-peaked-under-bush-they-dont-correlate-w/ -- "Weekly gas prices peaked at $4.11 during President George W. Bush’s time in office. Prices were also as low as $1.07 during his presidency. ... We’re not sure where or when the photos of gas signs (on social media) were taken, but they do accurately reflect the gasoline prices that were in effect at the time.
Statistics from the U.S. Energy Information Administration back up the claim about prices. During the past 20 years, the highest gas prices occurred in July 2008, during the Bush administration. But ...some of the lowest prices of the past 20 years also occurred during the Bush administration, which included both the post-9/11 economic slowdown and the 2008 Wall Street crash and financial crisis."
Indeed, gas prices have fluctuated within and across administrations, with little correlation to which president or party is in power. As with most things, the price of gasoline is determined not by the president, but rather by the state of the economy and the balance of supply and demand.
But do you see how misleading the meme is? Or am I taking the wrong message from it? I see it as something like “Actually, gas prices were just as bad, really worse, under Bush, so, it’s not so bad?”
I see it as more STFU GQP and Ryan Zinke trying to score points against Biden for high gas prices, you greasy amoral hypocrites. Something like that.
That’s pretty much how it comes off - some ill-informed what-aboutism on a topic that is itself a fantasy.
By "it" do you mean Zinke's tweet or the rejoinder?
Mainly the rejoinder. Now that I’ve seen Zinke’s tweet, it’s the same fantasy that the government controls gas prices. In the Bush era, that was a given in the media. Now, the sides have reversed. Both, as usual, are just spinning the same facts in the opposite directions over time. Let’s call this spin-spin.
“I’d suggest a blanket prohibition on columns written by management or ownership — that skews the power balance between writer and editor in a way that can lead to trouble.”
What don’t you understand about the word “ownership”? If it’s mine, I can write what I want. The implications for a publication’s journalistic integrity and desirability as a source for news can be debated, but in the end, it comes down to if it’s mine, I can write what I want, just like you do here.
On the subject of folk music – it’s not at the top of my list, but I do like it in limited doses. The thing I find a little off-putting is that people who are really into folk music seem to be constantly selling it. It feels like, “look at me – I’m a folksy, down-to-earth, no pretensions kind of person (and by the way, left-wing, the way god, or whatever, intended people to be). My songs protest injustice everywhere and promote peace and brotherhood, or else." Wait, you don’t have to tell me…I’m just imagining all that.
Regarding the comments of Jerry, who “knows you personally”, I have mixed feelings about your comment board. On one hand, the rabbit hole of reading others’ opinions is easy to fall into because it’s interesting and stirs emotions. The prospect of that probably attracts some paid subscriptions for you. On the other hand, those of us who do take the time to comment are at least vaguely aware that we provide you with free material, and time after time, we find our comments used to sell your product, and when so used always give you the final word. Hey! Ownership’s privilege, right? Or wait a minute, what was that about a skewed power balance?
One last thing…Thursday’s issue was pretty heavy on self-promotion. The constant plugging of the Mincing Rascals podcast is tiresome. The title itself is too cutesy and a little cringe inducing. Beyond that, podcasts in general hold no interest for me. Listening to a lot of blather is so dull and inefficient compared to reading some well thought out written words and easily skipping any uninteresting parts. So…fine, keep doing your podcast, but maybe confine the plugs to the end of the issue, like classified ads.
Kumbaya.
There's a standing feature saying what topics we covered on the podcast and I've added occasional profiles/interviews with members of the panel that have been generally well received. I listen to a lot of chat podcasts while washing dishes, doing laundry, exercising and so on, and to me it's a interesting and informative way to multi-task.
To rephrase my mandate, I think any publication that values its reputation for integrity and reliability should ban as a matter of policy op eds and columns written by owners, CEOs and board member. Of COURSE owners and manager CAN do what they want. But what SHOULD they do?
Do you value your publication's reputation for integrity and reliability? Who owns it?
My publication is a personal newsletter. I trust you and the readers understand the difference!
All right then, hypothetically, if you were to call it a news “paper” and hire an employee to be a reporter, would you then require yourself to become mute from then on? Idealism is good, I guess, but I think we could use a lot more pragmatism these days. We could also deal with journalists who give their readers enough credit to believe they’re not so stupid that they can’t tell what they’re reading, who wrote it and probably why as well.
Would Ben Franklin have adhered to that policy?
The homeless people on the L remind me of my all-purpose Foster-Walker solution to everything. During one of my years at Northwestern, I lived in the Foster-Walker dorm, a complex (they called it "The Plex") of modest little single rooms that actually had a nice warm feel. Just enough room for a built-in bed, desk, and chair, but there was wood and red brick and a window looking out on a tree. It was actually kind of nice! My feeling is that Foster-Walker-ish housing, with the addition of modest individual bathrooms for privacy, should be the minimally decent humane housing for everyone, even prisoners. What's missing, I think, from current options is privacy and security. I don't think such housing, even jails and prisons, should be dangerous, nightmare-ish places.
Your last sentence highlights the problem. Homeless housing solutions have to include a wide range of services to maintain security, treat/manage drug issues, treat/manage mental issues, provide for couples, and provide for children. They also need to provide/support a transition (when possible) out of the homeless situation and back into traditional public housing or unsupported living. And accept the fact that a significant percentage will never be able to function independently. And there is also the issue that no matter how beneficial the services are, there will still be those that choose not to use them and to remain on the street. https://today.ttu.edu/posts/2010/01/on-the-streets-why-homeless-people-refuse-shelter
Yes, indeed, agreed on all that. As for those refusing shelter, the link mentions reasons that are all easily fixable. It doesn't mention lack of safety and privacy, which I had always assumed was a significant deterrent. I would feel much better about requiring people to go to shelters if I were confident that they were humane.
From that link: "The main reason why many homeless people shied away from shelter services was because submitting to a drug-treatment program was a prerequisite for admission. .. The other reason many refused shelter assistance is because they felt like shelter workers treated them more like children than adults." I recommend Katie Mingle's five-chapter podcast series "According to Need" to those who want more insight into this area https://99percentinvisible.org/need/
Really great visual tweets this week. Really made me laugh.
I stopped watching This is us when the dad died but was still on the show because of the different time periods. I like my story telling linear.
It can be head spinning. You can't just jump in and start watching "TIU." I like the way it plays with time.
Thank you for posting those speeches. I wish more people, the ones who do not think like you or I, would read then and take them to heart. Alas, it is unlikely that I will get my wish.
Cut and paste! Spread them around.
I see a trend in the PS, toward more biting partisan commentary, and away from more reasoned exchange and debate about issues and ideas. Not sure of the reason for this transition -perhaps frustration over the difficulty of defending Biden's policies on the economy, southern border, etc. and the coming midterm election reset, or perhaps just more gratuitous red meat for the overwhelmingly liberal readership? But I've noticed this trend consistently over the past few months, and simply wanted to make note of it.