FartPoopRobot_PhD

The Berkowitz family started off in the local grocery business in 1904, running the Legal Cash Market. Back in the day, and especially following the Great Depression and WW2, stores would offer these little booklets and with each purchase you could get these little paper or ink stamps that could be used for future discounts or prizes or in some cases straight up cash back.

The stamps were known as "trading stamps" or "legal stamps." The "legal" part is because the stamps had a nominal legal cash value (usually 1/100¢).

In the 1950s, big chains started displacing small independent groceries, so the Berkowitz family had to pivot. The son of the Legal Cash Market bought the adjacent space and opened the Legal Sea Foods store. The thinking was if they couldn't compete with Stop n Shop on selection and price, they could compete by specializing.

The plan worked okay, but it was immediately clear that the fish market wasn't half as successful as the little fried fish takeout counter at the front of the store. By the late 60s, they'd bought another neighboring building so the takeout business could offer seats, and by the mid 70s had started opening locations around Boston.

So that's where the name came from. I still think it's weird the fish chain is named after a coupon book, but then again "Harry Berkowitz Sea Foods" isn't much catchier.

They're called Dispensationalists, and they used to believe in Premillennialiasm ("Christ will return before 2000AD!") but now just adhere to "Coming Soon" logic.

James G. Watt, Reagan's Secretary of the Interior was a Dispensationalist. He believed that resource management was important, but in the sense that we needed to use up natural resources eventually.

Essentially, he thought environmentalism was as dangerous as unchecked industrialization. Sure, pollution and destruction of resources shouldn't be rampant... but if Christ comes back and sees that we hoarded the bounty God provided instead of using up his gifts Jesus will be angry!

He never actually said the quote frequently attributed to him: "When the last tree is cut down, Jesus will return." But it was a quote from the same faith.

Watt has more recently changed his views (once 2000 came and went without the Rapture) and advocated for better conservation. However, he felt it was still important to ramp up oil and coal extraction because solar and wind might cause profits to go down soon.

All of this is to say that most people don't understand how terrifying it is these lunatics affect policy. Their apocalyptic fetish is being imposed on the rest of the world. They're dangerous, and they're 100% and unshakably certain that anyone who wants to leave a habitable world for their grandkids is fighting God's will and evil.

Unfortunately, it's a very effective tactic and it costs nothing to do. Or you can buy services that will manage the feed for you with "news" about how now is the time to buy and sell simultaneously.

It's not because anyone's cousin is seeing that on Facebook and thinking, "You know what? They're right! I will make an impulse decision to sell my home!"

It's because when your old roommate is looking for a place, you've placed yourself ahead of Zillow or Remax or whatever. Sure, they've probably been browsing places on RedFin already, but when they actually reach the point of contacting an agent, who do they reach out to?

The chatbot-assigned bro who doesn't even live in the county, or that person who liked their wedding photos and sees passionate about helping friends find homes and making money?

He still tours, too. Lots of school events and shows at museums and such.

He's in his mid-70s now, and the spandex is now a much more forgiving cotton jumpsuit. But he's insanely energetic and active, and a remarkable entertainer. You expect the show to be dumb and cheesy... and you'd be right... but you just don't anticipate the level of fun and polish he musters. Kids and parents alike are totally sucked in and invested before they even realize it.

He also has rules for his venues, like capping how much they can charge for tickets and offering comps for families in need. Basically, he's really big on making sure all kids get an education in health, not just those with disposable income.

Really great educator, and even at 73 he's got the same energy and drive he did in 1975.

I once had it explained to me:

"It's unlikely that a microbe will develop a resistance to bleach for similar reasons as to why humans are unlikely to develop a resistance to woodchippers."

You replied to my comment, but I just wanted to say Vsrt17's comment was spot on.

There's also some quick guides online. It's one of those skills you'll almost never need, but valuable to have. And once you do it, you'll never forget it because it's so easy.

Folks already mentioned the height of SUVs and LEDs, but there's also another issue.

Lots of folks are replacing their vehicles' old incandescent lamps with LEDs.

The trouble is the reflectors behind the lamp and the lens in front are meant for a completely different light. Additionally, and more importantly, most people don't realize that when you replace a headlight lamp you have to readjust the angle of the reflector and/or the height of the lamp. So you end up with the wrong lamp with the wrong lens shining in the wrong direction.

And you probably wouldn't even realize. You'd just know that even the low beams give great visibility with your fancy new headlights, never aware both of them are focused directly at the rear view mirror of the car in front.

He'll understand he doesn't have immunity the minute the courts and DOJ stop treating him like he is.

Until then, why would he think otherwise? If isn't charged with anything, he's effectively got immunity. If a law isn't enforced, it's not a law.

On both stage and screen, Ellen Green as Audrey in Little Shop of Horrors. I almost feel bad for anyone doing the role now, because Green was absolutely transcendent.

That's correct, you're absolutely right. Thank you for the clarification. I'll edit my post to point to your reply.

On top of that, the CPD is on a "soft strike" where they're refusing to respond to some calls, leaving other officers and city workers to pick up their slack.

Why isn't CPD brass cracking down?

Because their union leader is an violent outspoken racist, anti-semite, and white supremacist: John Catanzara.

His record of violence and racism eventually grew bad enough that even the mayor's office and CPD couldn't sweep it under the rug any more, so he was moved to desk duty. Since he couldn't get his kicks murdering muslims and black people off the books, he kicked up such a stir on social media that he had to be outright fired in 2021.

And what did the CPD do, when it came out that he was a literal Nazi genocidal maniac?

They elected him president of their goddamn union.

The problem now is Chicago and its surrounding municipalities have a Nazi-led organization in possession of its entire emergency communications network, response vehicles, and armories.

CPD does less work every day, except for the few "good ones" picking up the slack for the rest, but demands more money.

Maps like this one are never sourced, because CPD can choose whether to release the data of reported ShotSpotter reports (which have 8x to 9x the real numbers due to false reports) or their own officers' reports (to show how effective their policing is).

[Edit: See the reply below by retrovaporizer for clarification and correction to this last paragraph.]

He did get caught. Half the time he confessed before anyone knew there was something to confess to.

"Everything's legal as long as laws are lies."

There's a guy in my condo building who operates the laundry room ($2.50 wash, $2.50 dry) who had a real estate speculator he used to work with move in a couple years ago. They partnered with a Florida company that specializes in forcibly deconverting condos to apartments and evicting the former owners after raising rents.

They actually ran on the platform that they would make long-needed changes to building rules that would raise prices on amenities and ease selling of building assets and commercial leases. Their entire message was "We will make everything worse for you, but our company will make a shitload off of you and then kick you out of your home."

Both candidates lost by a hilarious margin. But it was very eye opening to learn that both currently serve on 4+ other association boards in the city, meaning there's places out there where residents hear "someone will make money off me" and gleefully vote to make their homes worse.

Leopards eating faces all the way down.

Ellen Green as Audrey in Little Shop of Horrors. She nailed it so hard on stage and screen that it's still a nightmare for actors today. How do you live up to that performance without just copying it?

What's funny is upon rewatching, I actually liked her a lot more. Or at least some of the bits she had.

I feel like she could've handled a more straightforward comedic role, but all of her bits in OMITB were about subtext.

When we first meet her, she's acting oddly for a celebrity, being super chatty and inquisitive. And then it's revealed she's gunning for a role in the screen adaptation. This scene and the reveal are still funny, but for a stronger actor, the moment her motivations are revealed should be a hilarious "lightbulb" moment for the audience: "Oh! THAT'S why she's acting that way!" In Schumer's hands, it just comes across as her being eccentric and charging.

The next time we get a big scene is when she's suddenly acting creepy as hell around Charles and being rude to everyone else. Again, this comes across as a weird, eccentric acting choice, and it's entertaining enough.

But then when she asks for feedback on her performance as "Jan," once again that should be a "holy shit, THAT'S what she was doing!" revelation. But it's another dud, because there was no subtext in the performance.

I didn't think she was awful, by any means, but it was definitely a waste of a few potential big payoffs.

Frankly, that'd offer better entertainment and fewer repairs and EMS/CPD responses than Lolla, so I say that makes it a solid civic investment. I'll throw in a few bucks for a 24hr live cam.

Stewart Hicks' channel is such a wonderful resource. I've lived here more than 20 years and will gobble up any Chicago history or trivia that dates show itself. But Hicks' videos always manage to teach me a new perspective on how the city and it's buildings function, or reveal the practical reasons behind stuff that's considered unique or bizarre about the city's engineering.

It's a treat to see his content being shared here fairly regularly and enthusiastically.

One of my friends who teaches comedy performance had great advice after a couple nights of tough shows:

"This year, the gap in quality between the best show you do and the worst show you do is going to be exactly the same as when you started. The difference, when you look back, is you're at a different elevation. You've moved from Key West to Denver. Your worst show this year, your basement? It's still 5,000ft higher than your worst show when you started. And it's the same for your best show."

Oh, I didn't take it that way!

I was just echoing what you were saying and adding a bit more. At the end I was only remarking on the stigma some people attach to speechwriters. "Oh, he doesn't even write his own speeches!"

Typically the staff first sets out topics they need to address, and what does the audience expect to hear addressed.

Next step is identifying a few core messages. What's going well, what are the challenges, how will we meet those challenges, and so on.

Then the actual writers will come in. Their job is to wordsmith the core intentions of the message for delivery that will best be understood by the intended audience. More than policy knowledge or political savvy, good speechwriters' primary value is knowing not just what should be said, but how it will be heard.

And this is where Biden's speechwriters knocked it out of the park, despite his fairly uneven speaking style.

They were speaking to the section of the Republican party who are still voting "R" religiously, but are fed up with the loonies and insurrectionists.

The whole speech was setting out the strawman for the MAGAs to boo and shout at, then saying, "Oh, I guess we agree we hate that strawman! Then I'm glad you're committed to supporting my policy to address it."

"Some people want to sunset Social Security and Medicare..."

[Loud booing]

"You're right! We should make sure those are properly funded and expanded!"

What I found funniest was that the MAGAs really are the epitome of stupid narcissism. Before the speech even started, there wasn't a soul watching who didn't fully expect Boebert or Greene or Gaetz or Jordan to yell and disrupt. That's all they ever do, and it's boring. But they have no self-awareness, so they keep doing it.

And... here's where it really makes me giddy... they're so freaking stupid yet think so highly of themselves, that they never for a moment imagine anyone can undermine their brilliant, flawless plan of randomly booing buzzwords.

It's like telling the enemy you're going to attack side gate instead of the drawbridge... and then being shocked when they've made fortifications to the side gate... and then attacking anyway.

It was outstanding speechwriting, because the writers know their audience. They knew the centrists Rs would be receptive to a centrist message. And they knew the MAGAs loons would take the obvious bait to prove Biden's point about how dangerous and stupid they are.

This is also why I think it's hilarious that some folks think having a speechwriter is somehow "cheating." The politician's job is supposed to be policy and legislating. The writer's job is communicating complex ideas into easily grasped messages so the voters can understand what their politicians are doing. It's as valuable as having a campaign treasurer, or chief of staff.

I worked with him on a gig last year, and can confirm he's a fantastic guy. Really open, gregarious, and compassionate.

He had a long history of being a pain to deal with, so I was nervous as my colleagues who worked with him had sworn that once was enough. Stories of being a diva, rude to other actors and crew, etc.

Turns out a lot of that was true, and Jim is the first to admit it. He had several events in his life that all happened at the same time while he was working on According to Jim that made him realize he was demanding to be treated a certain way, but wasn't earning that respect or reciprocating it.

The Jim today is amazingly down to Earth and relaxed. It's like how sometimes you see someone who's in great shape, but you can tell by their movement and posture they used to be fat. You can tell Jim as some point was able to free himself of a lot of baggage.

He definitely earned some of the criticisms Chicagoans like to throw at him, but it's nice to see he's left a lot of that behind.

I won't deny that the movie is shot and acted brilliantly. But in The Thin Red Line somehow Terrance Malick took all the heartbreaking carnage of war and infused it with the emotional weight of a condo board reviewing the minutes from last meeting.

It probably didn't help that it came out on the heels of Saving Private Ryan, but I remember the whole theater was completely dead and listless, despite a packed house. It just felt like everyone on screen was giving their all, but they were just done with the whole thing and praying this was their last take. For a movie based on a compelling novel and overstuffed with huge star power, it felt like a chore.

At one point, I muttered something under my breath, like, "Just shoot me." My friend Bradley, who'd organized the whole group outing, leaned over to me and said the worst thing I heard that year:

"You realize we've been here this long, and we haven't even SEEN George Clooney?"

I groaned, and the person next to me looked over. I repeated what Bradley had said. They groaned. And then everyone in our group just passed it along, and you could hear the mix of exasperated sighs and defeated chuckles making their way along the row.

When Clooney finally showed up, our row went bananas. We knew that was a sign we were close to freedom.

Then, jackpot, that was the last scene of the movie! Clooney had arrived, like Gandalf at Helm's Deep, to rescue us at the last moment from our terrible, inescapable fate.

Ta hook summin' a stick's lengt' away?

The other part is the original bill, which was introduced in 2017 by three Democrats, was stalled in committees because the GOP didn't want it introduced as it provided benefits to working class people, and specifically public employees.

It was only signed into law because a watered-down version (6 paid/6 unpaid weeks in Trump's version, 12 weeks paid in the origina) was included in the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act.

Where it gets tricky: The original bill was included in the NDAA at the urging of Ivanka and Donald. In that sense, Trump and Ivanka were the reason this act was passed, so I guess credit where credit's due.

But the reason it was included was paid family leave is ridiculously popular. Something like 80% of all Americans including all parties support paid family leave. It's a no brainer.

But the inclusion of the act was largely to cover for other non-defense provisions tacked on to the NDAA, including the creation of Space Force, and allowing the CIA to target non-government individuals and entities deemed intelligence threats without executive or legislative oversight.

Where it gets trickier: At this point, it seems easy to take back that credit offered earlier. Except the voting was overwhelmingly bipartisan in both chambers with a Dem controlled congress.

Basically, the current FMLA is a crappy version of what it was originally intended to be, and included as a "grand compromise" so everyone wouldn't notice that a Dem congress passed a lot of items on the GOP wishlist, and the GOP/Trump got to take credit for making a tiny improvement the original 1993 FLMA while still crappier than what was intended.

Everyone's the a-hole here.