I kinda think Rahm is a weasel. But he's *our* weasel. There's something to be said for that. And he has lots of Lyman traits...devoted and scary smart. But obviously Sorkin wrote the good stuff. You know? A Simon WW would have focused on the wheeler-dealer side.

How in any way could this not be intentional? The dollar magically went from his wallet to the clerk's hand?

Because paying the extra dollar isn't his intention. Getting the largest drink is his intention, and the price of that is an extra dollar. The dollar is a side-effect.

I come down on the side of unintentionality both times, but I'm fairly sure I don't have Asperger's.

( )Considers the collective intelligence of the Obama administration-to-be.(/)

Or, to use a different set of examples:

The harm case

The vice-president of a company went to the chairman of the board and said, ‘We are thinking of starting a new program. It will help us increase profits, but it will also harm the environment.’ The chairman of the board answered, ‘I don’ t care at all about harming the environment. I just want to make as much profit as I can. Let’s start the new program.’ They started the new program. Sure enough, the environment was harmed. Did the chairman intentionally harm the environment? YES / NO

The help case

The vice-president of a company went to the chairman of the board and said, ‘We are thinking of starting a new program. It will help us increase profits, and it will also help the environment.’ The chairman of the board answered, ‘I don’t care at all about helping the environment. I just want to make as much profit as I can. Let’s start the new program.’ They started the new program. Sure enough, the environment was helped. Did the chairman intentionally help the environment? YES / NO.

I think the chairman did not intentionally harm or hurt. He may have knowingly harmed or hurt, but there's a difference between intention and knowing. I think.

The other way of looking at is, the buyer doesn't care that it's an extra dollar.

Caring about it is irrelevent, though. He has to intentionally give the clerk the extra dollar (as the example is written). If it said he gave the clerk a $10 and didn't question the change returned that would be different.

Getting the largest drink is his intention, and the price of that is an extra dollar.

Yes, getting the largest drink is what he wants but he has to intentionally pay the extra dollar to get it.

The first example made even less sense. It was written like ppeople without Aspergers would think he was lying about wanting the largest drink in order to get the commemorative cup.

I get the little red blip in Arizona, but where the hell in Colorado is that red blip from?

I'm guessing Colorado Springs?

No, that red blip is Saguache County. A lot of mountains and the northern part of the San Luis Valley, not many people.

Colorado Springs is in El Paso County, only about 45 minutes drive south of Denver.

I think the chairman did not intentionally harm or hurt. He may have knowingly harmed or hurt, but there's a difference between intention and knowing. I think.

Your example makes better sense for sure but I don't think you can separate the two things--intention and knowledge--here. It may not have been his main goal to hurt/help the environment but when he has knowledge that it does it becomes part of his intention. He may think it's not but it is.

This is what was happening in my neighborhood this morning. My wife had left for work before dawn, so I was getting the kids ready for preschool when we started getting word that the neighborhood was shut down. I didn't even find out that we were out of the no-drive zone (we live one block to the south of the southernmost street on the little map) until around 10, when a garbage truck came by. No other cars since 7 am.

Yikes, that's scary Corwood!

Interesting profile on Emanuel in Fortune Magazine. I like that it starts with a burn of President Bush....tribathlete!