DISQUS

Trasparency sure is ... blurry! 8-)

Hmph. Clever idea, though I object to including movie series that exceeded trilogies. Doesn't make sense. Also, "The Godfather, Part III" wasn't *that* bad.

Don't forget the guest-worker program proposal. That was a nice moment -- not sure if it shined, though.

Suggestion No. 1 is just imposing an arbitrary rule on a medium based on how it's been used so far. Clearly, faceless corporate accounts can succeed just as well as a more personal approach if the content is valuable. If people want to get news or whatever via Twitter in addition to or instead of through RSS, e-mail or old fashioned paper then why not? Why does it have to "personal"?

Yes, it's a stunt. But the point is to put the Senate "stimulus" bill in holy-shit-that's-$5,000-for-every-fucking-American-taxpayer! context. And in that regard, it's helpful.

I don't doubt people's fondness for restricted trade, but that is a terribly worded question. This could just as easily be interpreted by a reasonable respondent as being a question about food safety or lead in toys from China.

That video on the Politico site should be mashed up with the "You Got the Touch" song from "Boogie Nights": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYAAbbuEpnw

I'm still mad at Culture11 for exposing me to the writing of Joe Carter. Alas, it will be missed.

I have to admit that I've never conceived of the camera as a device for capturing fleeting moments, but rather a tool used to carefully compose the world. Holding a cruddy cell phone camera above your head to get a blurry, badly lit shot doesn't fit the bill.

Enh. I liked your commentary. "Facebook us, Kenya!" Classic.

"Uniformed cynicism"? Where's my uniform, damn it!

Yep. Dismissing movie genres is pretty dumb. I'll add "Annie Hall" to your list.

Yep. Dismissing entire genres is pretty dumb. I'll add "Annie Hall" to your list.

Hmm ... looks like the housing plan for America's unemployed journalists.

*If only* there were *some* libertarian *somehwere* -- perhaps even in Chicago, perhaps even a member of the Tribune's editorial board that Blagojevich allegedly targeted for mass firings -- could make an argument for "good government." Alas! Oh, wait ...
http://tinyurl.com/6k4476

As a lifelong Chicagoan who has worked in the past investigating political corruption in the city, I can tell you that what prevails here is a complicated mix of badly designed rules and baleful cultural norms of politics that have evolved over time. Disentangling the two is nearly impossible. There are many "good government" liberals here whose reform ideas I support. Where we part ways is that while we both agree that, for example, Blagojevich's having sole discretion over millions of dollars in hospital reimbursement funds was a structural mistake, they don't extend that analysis to the question of whether, say, the Treasury Dept. or a "car czar" should have a say over vast swaths of American economic activity. I don't see the error here as the libertarians' opposing "good government" reforms (which obviously we don't) but of the left and right's failure to recognize that good government is in fact necessarily contingent on limited government.

Great post. We all should expect the Tribune's reporters to aggressively follow up on what discussions Zell and his lackey had with Harris, whether and what they in turn told Trib editors and why Trib editors did not tell the public. It is possible that Trib reporters were tipped off and they held back due to the feds' requests. If so, they should say so and say why they decided to do that.

I agree with everything you said in your previous post, and with your point on the logic of this ad. That said, it's not only pithy but pretty powerful. "I only sleep with Democrats" is just blind partisanship and lends an air of exclusivity. "Girls say yes to boys who say no" was not only pithy, but valiantly attempted to battle the stigma of draft-dodging with a promise of access to endless hippie pussy. Pretty inspiring, I'd say.

J/K, obvy.

Hmm. This post doesn't seem very reflective. Shouldn't you have tweeted this instead?

Of course you mean Louis Vuitton.