You're welcome and have a good evening.

"Brad DeLong, who had been in touch with Levitt during this period"

This is kind of off topic, but I just reread my comments, and boy are there a lot of little mistakes in them (e.g. "Let me say one other thing I'll say about"). I really should proofread a lot more carefully; it's a good thing I don't write for a living.

You stated it better than I could, UnderstatementJones.

"I was referring to the fact that atmospheric CO2 levels are currently being influenced by both historically natural cycles, and I wanted to know whether there was a study that disaggregated these two sources."

Fictional Character — fair enough, but if you're still in the information gathering stage, you should avoid categorical statements such as "Unlike CFC and SO2 reduction, CO2 reduction would NECESSARILY cripple economic growth in developing countries" and "the fact that the data suggest that current strategies for…

FictionalCharacter, not to jump into your argument with UnderstatementJones, but why should he (or she) have to provide sources when you haven't done so? I'll give you an example: you say that "Americans (generally) laud these cars and buy into them as a step in the right direction despite the fact that they are…

"that's kind of a drag. you'd think professional contrarians like these guys would enjoy a robust debate. "

Yeah, it's a pretty clear sign that what they've written is absurd. I should also highlight this quote from the interview: "A lot of the books we sell in India are sold on the street corners—they're bootlegged copies that have been printed on a Xerox machine—so we'll see whether they leave those pages out."

Right, it's the *other* guys who don't want debate
"That's the way we're trying to change the debate, but there are incredibly powerful forces that are trying to keep the debate from being heard. "

I'll be right there with you, unless there's an angry backlash, in which case I'm going to pretend it was all your idea and you hijacked my account.

It could be that the DVD I saw had a lot more of the social/political commentary than his usual standup, Switters. And I have to say that I wasn't impressed by his scene in The Aristocrats. But then again, that movie may well be the single most overrated movie I have ever seen.

Angry social commentary — ugh. I've seen Stanhope's DVD (I forget what its called), and my problem with him (I even felt this way about a lot of Bill Hicks' material as well) is that standup political humor isn't all that funny and generally not very insightful either. And hey — I agree with a lot of Doug Stanhope's…

I totally forgot about 9 Sweaters. Yes, that is a great album. The best track has got to be "Life of the Party, Inc."

No Sklar Brothers?
It's pretty conventional stuff (although there's a little bit of novelty to having a twin stand-up act), but Poppin' the Hood and Sklar Maps are pretty damn funny.

Pushing Daisies, "Oh Oh Oh, It's Magic"
Plus, it had Paul F. Tompkins in it, which always helps.

"That show didn't really have anywhere to go, it seemed."

Even I wouldn't put it on a "best" list, but…
I liked The Nine. It was kind of a Lost ripoff (in its general structure — strangers thrown together, slow reveals, etc.), but it struck me as a reasonable show, and I would have liked to have seen a second season.

I was commenting on the "loveable" part of that; I should have made that clear. Even when I like a movie with Pacino, I never find him lovable.

That was sarcasm, right?
" … some felt not even the loveable Pacino could save this floundering project."