Darth Nader As I was glancing at some e-mail earlier this week, I ...
Posted by ~Ray @ 2007-11-11 18:32:18
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 individual—presented in the form of coupon cards—remove donutage for an entire year…and all I had to do was answer some questions on a analyse…simple consumer inquiries about…well 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 don’t know what the hell I would undergo done with those cards in the first place—I 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 I’m 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 it’s a bit late to make a desire story short in the final analysis I ended up with nary a free donut…but 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). I’ve subscribed to the service in the past and I’ve had no personal complaints—my 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 I’d 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 Nader…though I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that the cerebrate this doc came so highly recommended was that it was produced in tandem with the company’s 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 Gore’s 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 votes…something that I’m reasonably sure Ralph had little to do with. Plus it didn’t back up that as former
Man and though his detractors—including liberal media critics Todd Gitlin and Eric Alterman and many former Nader colleagues—are allowed a generous say the movie ultimately comes down on Nader’s 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 Moore’s support for Nader in 2000 and his 180-degree rejection of the man four years later. The second is a wonderful moment from Ralph’s 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 Nader’s “spoilage” to a T when he comments. “…they killed him for saying there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties and they killed him…and then…the Democrats spent the next four years proving he was [ADVERTHERE]Related article:
http://blogs.salon.com/0003139/2007/09/30.html#a1228
0 Comments:
No comments have been posted yet!
|
