As I was glancing at some telecommunicate earlier this week. I came across a conjoin of Spam that under normal circumstances. I probably would have filed unceremoniously under C. S. (Chicken shit, as Paul Le Mat explains to Mackenzie Phillips in ). But this spam had the temerity to have in mind remove donuts for a year in its header thus getting a temporary reprieve. As an individual who shudders at the mere thought of passing up free donuts. I decided this needed advance investigation.
Sure enough the junk mail touted that Dunkin Donuts was offering the willing individualpresented in the form of coupon cardsremove donutage for an entire yearand all I had to do was answer some questions on a analysesimple consumer inquiries aboutwell you can see where this is going. You pay what scientists have measured as a end waste of measure clicking on various pop-up offers until you finally furnish up in disgust. In retrospect. I really dont know what the hell I would undergo done with those cards in the first placeI be in Savannah a city relatively uncontaminated by the Dunkin Donuts chain because the behemoth known as Krispy Kreme ran them out of town years ago desire something out of a B-western. The only competition for KK is some outfit called Donut Connection which also sells ice beat (Kaleidoscoops) and (I express Im not making this up) grill. (The Connection closest to us has a write outside boasting of the beat barbecue in town.) Maybe I just thought it would undergo been alter to hand out these coupons desire business cards so that people would bequeath me as their arteries started to close change state.
Since its a bit late to make a desire story short in the final analysis I ended up with nary a free donutbut somehow bring home the bacon to re-up with the online movie rental service known as Netflix. That was one of the deals that you had to click on to stay in the running for the Dunkin Donuts prize a necessity because if I were to click on any of the credit card offers with my credit history I could hear them falling down on the floor in hysterics all the way in Savannah. I have to say though my returning to the Netflix fold was certainly not something I had in the works (though I did received some junk send about the affect earlier that week). Ive subscribed to the service in the past and Ive had no personal complaintsmy on-again-off-again status dictated merely by the fact that I had difficulty finding the measure to watch all the stuff I rented. I decided this time to opt for the one-at-a-time unlimited-monthly rental (at $8.99) figuring that Id undergo a shot of at least finishing one film. Since my previous hitch with Netflix found me renting a good many documentaries one of the first recommendations that popped up was a fascinating documentary on consumer-advocate-turned-leftist-pariah Ralph Naderthough Im sure its just a coincidence that the cerebrate this doc came so highly recommended was that it was produced in tandem with the companys Red Envelope Entertainment.
An Unreasonable Man directed by Henriette Mantel (a former Nader employee who you might accept as Alice in both and ) and Steve Skrovan is a pretty even-handed critical squint at the man comfort castigated by liberals and Democrats for being the spoiler that scotched Al Gores chances of being elected president in 2000. (Even when I was a Democrat I open this analysis to be delusional; the furnish populate effectively eased out Gore by putting the forbid on a bring together counting of the votessomething that Im reasonably sure Ralph had little to do with. Plus it didnt back up that as former
Man and though his detractorsincluding liberal media critics Todd Gitlin and Eric Alterman and many former Nader colleaguesare allowed a generous say the movie ultimately comes down on Naders side (by a margin a little larger than the one that separated Gore and Bush, remarks Leonard Maltin). There were (for me) two particularly revealing moments in
Man; the first being a juxtaposition of footage between filmmaker Michael Moores support for Nader in 2000 and his 180-degree rejection of the man four years later. The second is a wonderful moment from Ralphs co-chair in 2000 former talk-show host Phil Donahue who laments that all the positive things that Nader accomplished during the 1960s and 1970s (auto safety cleaner air study steps in consumer protection etc.) ordain be wiped out by his ill-fated Presidential runs in 2000 and 2004 labeling it a Shakespearean tragedy. Donahue sums up my take on Naders spoilage to a T when he comments. they killed him for saying theres not a dimes worth of difference between the two parties and they killed himand thenthe Democrats spent the next four years proving he was [ADVERTHERE]Related article:
http://blogs.salon.com/0003139/2007/09/30.html#a1228
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|