In other words, when they invented non-dairy Cremora, did they mean to evoke parasitic fish?

We've been conditioned for ages to see everything in terms of winners and losers, and as battles and sports matchups, at least here. Sometimes it fits (as in politics and other "winner really does take all" things, tv ratings, movie box office, etc) and sometimes not. We hear it every single day, for pretty much our whole lives.

*kills everyone*

I win! I win!

Actually, aside from actual competitive things like games and sports, I pretty much avoid competition. This may explain why I'm usually broke and going nowhere, but hey, it's less stressful.

Not a whole lot wrong with my side, your side, in some circumstances. It's the whole biased mindset that goes along with. Your team does well? We didn't play hard enough today. Mine does well? That's because we played well. It's all about us. Add to that calls for any possible penalty played on us (but not on them), and you have a fairly good model for politics and trade, as well.

It's my team against several billion teams. Do I have to win?

I'd just as soon non-dairy creamer.

It doesn't fit in politics, amberglow, and that's what's wrong with politics.

Hugh, is it winning that you're talking about about, or the idea that in order for there to be a winner, there has to be a loser or, at the very least, a hierarchy?

It doesn't fit in politics, amberglow, and that's what's wrong with politics.

The politicians win and everybody else loses.

No, the politicians just think they win.

*insert something pithy here about enjoying the finer, quieter and slower things in life*

I suspect that the pleasure that can be taken from the simpler things in life is being nullified and sucked away by the world at large. Increasingly, therefore, it seems that the only pure pleasures that can be experienced anymore are the pure mainline freebase highs of the pain and humiliation of others. I blame the twenty first century, we never should have allowed the twentieth century to end.


I ate a bucket of steamers this weekend, all cooked in garlic and white wine, they were probably the best thing I've eaten in six years.

Losing isn't as bad a thing as people would have you believe. It takes the pressure off. Read this book for further elucidation.

The idea that people who agree about something are "on the same side" is poison.

Fer reals Hugh, I am a certified dyed in the wool second generation lefty, I work for a left-progressive publishing company and most leftists make me queasy if not downright cockpunchy. I am not on the same side, I am not not not.

Winning is fine, but I agree with Jon that it's generally much more awesome to just lay around.


Those steamers where amazing, purely fucking amazing, they delivered exactly what they promised. It was the least dissapointing thing ever. I wish that bucket of clams was the president of me.

I read the pop thread and your clam (haha I typed "calm") comment and immediately thought "Lawrence Whelk."

Now I want to hop a bus to Charm City and Eat Bertha's Mussels along with some of her Best Bitter.

Like crazy I do.

Hugh, you need a date?

Like crazy I do.

I'd be honored.

This is all very touchy-feely new-agey, but given diametrically opposed viewpoints on any issue, there are sides. Sorry folks. Am I on the side of those wishing to teach creationism in school alongside science as "science theory"? No. No, I am not. On other issues, we may disagree. It isn't a dirty word.

dreamsign,
What I am objecting to is the notion that politcal agreement works like teams. See just because someone also thinks that the war is bad doesn't mean we are on the same team and therefore that I must remain loyal and in lockstep. If that person is on the same softball team as me, or my friend, or a family member I am bound by my personal code of ethics to take their part against all enemys foreign or domestic, no matter if we agree about anything or not. I totally think there are "sides", I just don't think that confers any extra affiliation. Creationism should only be taught in schools as a cruel piece of conceptual art that will ultimately ruin the human race.

Diametric opposition lacks nuance. My stance on every issue is nuanced and, since every issue is complex, complex. I may agree in principle with others, but usually there are shades of disagreement.

As soon as a "side" is declared, that side figures out its own stance, usually either an amalgam of its members' positions, sometimes a collection of extremes, sometimes a watered-down lowest common denominator.

The shades of disagreement that exist between me and any other individual are not erased by pooling our stances into a "side." I simply have different shades of disagreement. Individuality and nuance are forfeited in return for unity and strength.

But what becomes strong? Certainly not my belief. My nuances are lost in the "side," and my thoughts are misrepresented by opponents and friends alike.

The result of this is that expressions of nuance are out of step with the norm of folks on one's own "side," and one is labeled a hypocrite or a fool for expressing one's own stance.

Taking sides is the way people think; it's a comfortable way to think and is perhaps an odd by-product of the way we organize things socially and politically in the world, over the ages.

I just disagree.

Hugh,
You have used smart words here, in smart ways. However I still do have to say "livin' as large as possible, posse unstoppable."

Somebody line up the suckers who refuse to recognize the truth.

Man, Ice T must kick his own ass at least once a day.

Too many threads remind me of the McDLT today. Honest. And my profuse apologies for sharing that.

You mean, the hot stays hot and the cool stays cool?

Yes, sir. That's exactly the part of the McDLT marketing experience that's being triggered today.

It is my stance, based on vast personal experience, that the McDLT was a red-hot theory made lukewarm by everyday McDonalds reality.

In the testing kitchens of McHeadquarters, I'm sure the hot really did stay hot, and the cool, cool. But under the unattended warmers of real life, the grand vision suffered. Most of the McDLTs I ever ate were neither D, L, nor T.

I know many who share my assessment of this hapless sandwich. But I wouldn't say I've taken sides.

The seed, the fruit -- the seed, the fruit; [pop] Tutti Frutti!

No truer words have been spoken, Hugh.

The only error is in thinking that (or acting as if) agreement on an issue -- no matter how important -- constitutes some kind of membership. Siding on an issue is as inoffensive as you can get.

Right, dreamsign. But the error you write of is one made millions of times a day by most everybody, one compounded by most everybody's comfort in agreeing with one another. It's a false commonality that is easy prey for demagoguery, for one thing.

Siding on an issue is inoffensive. Grouping based on an assumed set of shared values or experiences can be.

But it's not my position to condemn this sort of thing; I engage in it myself. I find, however, that if I make a conscious effort not to do so, my perspectives broaden and my stance gains nuance for seeing through the sides.

Reminds me of basic negotiation skills -- a simple act such as sitting on the same side of the table can make a great difference to the tone and outcome of the discussion to follow.

Question: is this an artifact of the U.S. 2-party system? The fact that a person has to be anti-cap punishment, pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, anti-war, anti-1st amendment, etc, etc, etc, or the reverse. This naturally creates two camps -- not of perspectives, because they necessarily overlap, but of people.

Also, I don't remember my-side-your-side being such big deal until it became us vs. them. Whole other ball game.

yup, dreamsign--for politics at least. We only have 2 sides, and no parliamentary system or proportionate representation. Either you align yourself with one side or another, or you're shut out. You don't at all have to agree with everything about one side or the other, but most people have one or two issues that will always land them on one side as opposed to the other.

"Us and them" is not the same as picking sides tho. Things are even more polarized lately because the GOP (who now have all the power) doesn't even listen to the varying voices on their own side, let alone the rest of the population.

and then on the Democratic side, there's a cacophony of competing voices and interests, which tends to dilute whatever messages/ideas are disseminated/being fought for/against. The diversity often goes against message discipline.

(oh, cacophony is the secret word of the day) : >