The ACLU was fighting for the right to hold the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville. That would hardly have been a left-wing cause to rake in the cash. That's just an example.
A problem with ICE holds
- Thread starter Marvin the Martian
- Start date
The ACLU was fighting for the right to hold the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville. That would hardly have been a left-wing cause to rake in the cash. That's just an example.
They’re often intertwined. I think that’s a false dichotomy/equivalency.
Why can’t you have both?
If you truly care about fixing injustice, won’t it make you at least a little emotionally angry in your outrage? Don’t ever mistake outrage for an inability to act and fix injustice in a rational manner. In fact, I’d even argue that the folks that care the most are the most effective at what they do. And they turn that outrage into action- because they’re driven by fixing the injustice. If you’re not into what you’re doing, why do it?
The converse is being engaged in something that you really don’t care about. You’re bound to eventually fail. Because you just don’t care. I’ve had jobs like that, and I’m sure that many of the folks on this board have as well.
You’ve really bought into the tribal memes CO. It’s like you automatically assume certain things about someone when you’ve identified them as a “Leftie”.
Sad.
I miss the old, rational CO. The one not blinded by hate and contempt for “the other side”. He was great on this board. He appears occasionally, but not as much.
Do you realize EVERY post you write in response to my posts contains a version of the above? I'm tribal--but you are not. I used to be better and getting worse. I am blinded by hate and contempt for the other side. The only thing missing from this post is that I need to read a greater variety of news outlets. You are now very predictable and not very interesting.
I think there is an inverse relationship between emotionalism and effectiveness. Highly emotional people, or highly emotional reactions to situations, lessens one's effectiveness. That said, advocates should be passionate and strongly believe in their cause. But that is different from emotionalism.
It’s true brother. I want the old CO back.
And, what you said makes sense. I’ve seen it several times throughout the years- I’d use the term “reactive”/“triggered” instead of emotional. Emotion, if properly channeled, can be a great thing. Not everyone can do that, however.
McConnell is actually going to bring this up for a vote....a true Christmas Miracle
This is a total tangent, but why do you suppose McDonald's insisted on that temperature?
To be clear, I don't have an answer despite having looked (albeit not at great length).
I have read McDonalds felt their customers wanted it that hot. The thing is their own quality control person said it was too hot to drink.
This article says they previously had 700 reports of burns, and had paid out on some.
Not poking you, but do you believe that? That customers adamantly demanded that their coffee be served at that temperature and that McDonald's was fighting to hold on to demanding customers over coffee temperature?
I believe McDonalds believed it was a selling point. Everyone looks for something to set their product apart. Heat was their niche.
I do not get it, I am not one who sips. I drink liquids, which can be a problem with hot coffee and alcohol. So I largely stay away from alcohol and let my coffee cool.
I really don't know, but if we're only acting on the limited information available, I don't believe that.
That doesn't assume that instead there was some nefarious plot afoot. It just means that that doesn't seem like a powerful marketing and selling tool. Then again, no better explanation jumps to mind.
It can be surprisingly difficult, even after we think we know what the facts are, to determine which of the various bad rationales actually accounted for the bad outcome. I mean, what if we interviewed all of the decision-makers? How much more would we know? More probably, but probably less than we’d think.
I don’t know where I’m going with this, but this feels like the sort of observation that must have some kind of point.
Oddly enough, that's sorta where I was going.It can be surprisingly difficult, even after we think we know what the facts are, to determine which of the various bad rationales actually accounted for the bad outcome. I mean, what if we interviewed all of the decision-makers? How much more would we know? More probably, but probably less than we’d think.
I don’t know where I’m going with this, but this feels like the sort of observation that must have some kind of point.
And that makes the insistence on sticking with such a decision all the more curious.
I probably got my idea from your post, but didn’t know where to go because I hadn’t yet read the answer. I gotta look out for your musings.
This is correct. They had a thing at the time where they had the hottest coffee. They felt the marketing was worth paying off a few burns.
Where they really screwed up was letting it go to trial in the first place. I read they went against their own legal advice in trying to lowball people and fight against claims that they would have been better off just paying.
Not intending to challenge, but rather curious: do you have any support for that?
McD's didn't drop temperatures even after this case became notorious, did they?
I don't. I studied it in torts class. I can't remember all the details or even imagine where I would find them again.
I don't recall whether or not they lowered the temperature. Perhaps that was why they added the warning - so they didn't have to lower it.
And they're not marketing the hottest coffee on the market now. So why do they persist?
I don't think they're alone, by the way.
I don’t have to shoot at corporate “people” to observe that their decisions are at least as susceptible to failure as those made by us living breathing walking around people. Who’s making the decisions for the fictional people, after all?
They are not alone. Some Googling reveals that as one goes above 140, our tastebuds stop being able to taste. In other words, coffee hotter than that has less flavor. It could be coffee is served so hot specifically to reduce the coffee flavor in coffee.
And maybe ESPECIALLY if you're brewing with low-quality beans!
Just a guess.
Makes sense. While I have the ability to appreciate good coffee when the opportunity arises, in general, when I actually drink it, I'm only looking for two things: warmth and caffeine.
I shouldn't weigh in here, because I only drink coffee maybe two or three times a month, but I have this suspicion that the consumer coffee market has all the frauds that startle wealthy oeniphiles. (To underscore that I shouldn't have posted this, I know even less about wine than I know about coffee. Or maybe I know even less about coffee than I know about wine. Or both.) Which is the "good" coffee anyway, and who says so? Conceding that there is a difference, does anyone know if they're getting it? Don't tell me I'm getting the good stuff because the sign says Starbucks in front of the place where disinterested teenagers are making coffee.
I will have to look for the name of the book, but a food lab played with wine. First they entered the exact same wine into prestigious contests with different labels. The wine would score wildly different.
They then did taste tests with us normals. Sometimes the wine would be a California wine, other times a North Dakota wine. Again the wine was identical. People far preferred the CA wine.
Simply put, we do not have the refined taste we think.
Talk of books and coffee requires me to mention Memoir from Antproof Case by Mark Helprin.
An old American who lives in Brazil is writing his memoirs. An English teacher at the naval academy, he is married to a woman young enough to be his daughter and has a little son whom he loves. He sits in a mountain garden in Niterói, overlooking the ocean.
As he reminisces and writes, placing the pages carefully in his antproof case, we learn that he was a World War II ace who was shot down twice, an investment banker who met with popes and presidents, and a man who was never not in love. He was the thief of the century, a murderer, and a protector of the innocent. And all his life he waged a valiant, losing, one-man battle against the world’s most insidious enslaver: coffee.
Mark Helprin combines adventure, satire, flights of transcendence, and high comedy in this "memoir" of a man whose life reads like the song of the twentieth century.
Helprin is sometimes a conservative polemicist when he isn't writing transcendent fiction, but Memoir and A Soldier of the Great War are both marvelous.As he reminisces and writes, placing the pages carefully in his antproof case, we learn that he was a World War II ace who was shot down twice, an investment banker who met with popes and presidents, and a man who was never not in love. He was the thief of the century, a murderer, and a protector of the innocent. And all his life he waged a valiant, losing, one-man battle against the world’s most insidious enslaver: coffee.
Mark Helprin combines adventure, satire, flights of transcendence, and high comedy in this "memoir" of a man whose life reads like the song of the twentieth century.
Well, ignore all that. The book was Mindless Eating and I loved it when I read it. It turns out the author was punished by Cornell, he was involved in p-hacking.
I know a little about wine tasting. The label means far more than anything else. But if you ignore the label and taste blindly, you can spot differences between wines, and those differences will sometimes lead one wine to be considered superior to another. This blind testing is what allowed California wines to shock France by beating top tier Bordeaux bottlings in the famous Judgment of Paris. Stag's Leap Wine Cellars, which won the contest, still makes some of the best Cabernet you will ever taste.
I think our tastebuds are different, not yours and mine but all if humanity. Think of colors, what is your favorite color? Do a majority of people have the same favorite color? Do we like the same music? Or even the same smells?
So why is there supposedly a universal wine, or food?
I found a different scientist who tested wines. He found that 98% of gold medal winners were judged average or below in at least one competition.
I think for food and wine there is a standard people are supposed to like. I am just not sure people really do.
I think “Starbucks” on a cup means several things: High quality beans, roasted to a tighter tolerance, freshly ground before brewing, and brewing equipment which allows the water to drip throug the coffee at the exact rate to extract the most flavor. All of that makes a noticeable difference with say 7-11 coffee for me. Have you noticed that timer in the brewed coffee machine? Any coffee that is more than 2 hours old ( I think that’s the time) gets tossed.
The popularity of home pressurized coffee makers also improves the coffee. The finely ground beans and pressurized brewing means less caffeine, less acid, and more flavor.
Yeah, I’m a coffee snob.
I think the consensus I've always gotten visiting wineries out in CA (and elsewhere)....is try lots of options and decide what tastes good to you.
I am not a refined wine drinker.... but I can pick out a bad, bottom shelf wine - and while I would once drink it, I can't anymore.
But I have a hell of a time finding a significant improvement once I go past a ~ $15 bottle (retail.... Which means $45-60 in a restaurant). I'm sure it's there, but my palate isn't there to appreciate.
Several thoughts:
1. Serious connoisseurs will tell you that, above all else, nothing matters more than your own preferences. If you like Gallo in a big jug more than a vintage Chateau Latour, then no one has a right to tell you that you're wrong.
2. As a math and science guy, you should already know how silly it is to think it matters that a generally respected product is ranked poorly in "at least one competition."
3. Although we each have our own tastes, there are some things that are generally universally appreciated and reviled. For example, most people like wines that are complex and relatively mellow. If a wine is "too much" of one thing and not enough of other things, most people will dislike it. There are exceptions, of course, usually when a particular style has a reputation that people are looking for - like the buttery chardonnay or the grapefruity sauvignon blanc. But usually, people will enjoy wines that aren't one-note. So, even accounting for individual tastes, there are general patterns that emerge.
In my experience, once you pass about $25 restaurant price, the differences tend to very rarely be worth the increased cost. I wouldn't spend $50-60 on a bottle unless it was a wine I was already familiar with and knew was worth the purchase.
$25 restaurant price? Last few times I've been out there hasn't been ANYTHING that cheap on the menu....typically seems to start at $30 range even at a chain place like Maggianos. And it's wine that's maybe $8-10 in a store.
I haven't ordered wine in a restaurant in a few years. I might be behind the times price-wise. To me, $25 restaurant price is about $12-13 in a store.
I haven't seen that around here.... Typically seems to be 3-4x the retail price. Hard to get a glass of Cab somewhere for less than $8-9 at a mid-market restaurant. Kind of pisses me off as I prefer ordering a bottle at dinner, but when it's $40+ I end up just getting a cocktail than a glass with the actual food.
We used to price all of our wines at 2x wholesale plus 5 bucks. So that would add up to about 1.5-2x retail, depending on price level.
I looked at the Maggiano's wine list. Some of it seems reasonable. $38 for Estancia Pinot is normal. We charged $36. But $34 for 14 Hands? That's a ripoff. We charged $21 for that shit (and it is shit).
Exactly.....the trend seems to be to put a floor on the price....regardless how cheap it is.... usually for the cheap shit they sell by the glass. Some places are better than others, but I've noticed it's a lot more expensive just in the last few years. There are some good local places that do half price bottle nights on their whole list....only time I don't feel ripped off
I didn't realize it was so common. I knew some places were getting away with it. I saw Eddie Merlot's charging $200 for a bottle I used to sell for $120. I figured that was just because it was Eddie Merlot's. I haven't really paid close enough attention to the market the past few years to realize how widespread it was.
I do appreciate Indy residents noting that Maggiano's is a chain. There isn't anything particularly wrong with it, but there isn't anything particularly right about it either. Maggiano's is what I thought of when I read this assessment that some other NFL team will promptly hire fired Packers coach Mike McCarthy:
NFL decision-makers are the types of men who sit down in trendy Italian bistros with Michelin-rated chefs and order veal parmesan over linguine. They love big steaming heaps of comforting familiarity, and words like "proven" and "experience" make their eyes roll back into their heads with satisfaction. Naturally, they'll gravitate toward a known commodity like McCarthy.
I don't mean to describe Maggiano's as a "trendy Italian bistro". I mean to describe Maggiano's as the place where people like those NFL execs want to go when they think of a "trendy Italian bistro".
But what do I know? I'm the sort of guy who goes to Mama Carolla's for the carbonara pasta with some of the best martinis while listening to the same Sinatra CDs that've been playing for the last few decades in a place that's as Italian as Greenwood. But it's local.
