Yes, it is very bad that I enjoyed reading this, after reading this (I was doing the same nervous poll-driven hand wringing) and this (talk about sour grapes!), and this and especially this. You cannot know how much I enjoyed reading that last one.
I am a bad person.
I should point out that Eric Earling (author of the first two linked post) has broken out of the Sound Politics cocoon to endorse Prop. 1 — both in 2007 and 2008. On this particular issue I’d say he was a valuable ally.
So be nice.
I said I enjoyed reading it, especially after reading the Sharkansky pieces that scared the hell out of me.
You’re not a bad person. I snickered to, wondering if those people understand what it was like to stand on a bus weighed down by two bags of files and a laptop post business trip going back to the office this morning while the bus was stopped up in the jackknifed semi/diesel spill traffic from Northgate to Downtown.
If they did sit (lucky them for having a seat)in that massive backup that managed to cause it’s own accidents and with a re-route on downtown streets and don’t see a need for rail because buses can’t get through that mess any faster, then they’re just dumb.
I’ve started hanging out in various conservative forums and actually found myself feeling a bit sad for them and actually questioning my own beliefs a little (well, outside of my global warming and pro-transit stance). I’d like to see a real debate between conservativism and liberalism, complete with counterarguments and counter-counterarguments, and the workings of each system in theory and in practice… but maybe that just makes me an idealist. At the very least, I’d like to see the various contradictory studies, reports, and “facts” laid out on the table so we can figure out what each actually means and how it all fits together.
Does that make me a bad person?
Ted Van Dyk – I am continually amazed that he is given a soapbox by Crosscut. Not that Crosscut isn’t full of crap most of the time but most of the worst of it is usually Knute Berger and his buddies blabbering about the Old Seattle rather than Van Dyk’s malicious garbage.
I really like Berger’s writing, even though I rarely agree with him. He’s very entertaining, and he has a way of putting ideas to words you’ve never heard before, and he’s generally funny.
Ted Van Dyk is none of those things; His writing is boring and repetative and he has no sense of humor.
His crime isn’t being wrong, everyone is wrong about something. His crime is being brutish, borish and stubborn.
Maybe blabbering is too harsh but even though Berger is a good and entertaining writer – one would hope so after 30+ years of practice – there is an extreme lack of future orientation that irks me. We can’t go back to the old days, Knute. Also, Mr. Berger, just because someone was less than amicably let go from a local paper does not mean that they actually have legitimate gripes that need to be repetitively aired.
Right. He is stuck in 1990, or maybe 1970, I’m not sure.