Next stop, divorce court!

launchday.jpg

That shiny coat of new bottom paint can only mean one thing: Today’s the day we put Lush Life in the water. Also, much yelling, pinched fingers, discomfort and “you call that a bowline?” accusations.

At least the weather is nice.

So play nice in the comments, and I’ll be back later, maybe with a few more snaps.

Posted at 8:32 am in Same ol' same ol' |
 

21 responses to “Next stop, divorce court!”

  1. mary said on May 8, 2006 at 10:52 am

    Off topic: Slate today has a short piece about the failure of virginity pledges. I’m shocked. This means teenagers have sex even when they say they won’t or don’t.

    Great looking transom, by the way.

  2. brian stouder said on May 8, 2006 at 11:39 am

    Those pledges are certainly among the stupidest things a parent could ask their kiddo for – and the political topspin seems to be “this is an example of right-wing thinking” – making it a fun hobby-horse for some folks.

    But it is no more emblematic of “the right” than the caricatures that some people endlessly entertain of so-called “left-wing thinking” on the subject, which is to shower all the kiddos with condoms and how-to guides, and then hope for the best.

    But there is no easy or fast solution; parenting is inescapably sequential – whether or not what is ‘taught’ is intentional.

    Aside from that, we’re days away from (gasp!) ending our 12 year relationship with AT&T Worldnet, and our slow slow (SLOW)dial-up internet access, and moving to Verizon FiOS fastfastfast internet.

    I await the event with baited breath….

  3. brian stouder said on May 8, 2006 at 11:41 am

    or ‘bated’, even!

  4. John said on May 8, 2006 at 11:50 am

    “baited breath”….i always get the image of the ice fisherman keeping his worms warm.

  5. mary said on May 8, 2006 at 2:16 pm

    “baited breath” makes me think of someone sucking on raw squid. It sounds revolting, whether it’s worms or bait squid. Bleah. (that was a Cathy Guisewite sound; I’m sorry.)

  6. Dorothy said on May 8, 2006 at 2:22 pm

    I visited Cincinnati and Chicago this weekend and both families I stayed with had dial up. I can’t believe people still have this when high speed is available!! I could have crocheted an entire baby afghan, I swear, while waiting for pages to load. Or taken a semi-satisfying nap.

  7. brian stouder said on May 8, 2006 at 2:50 pm

    Say – here’s something that will be heavily in the media –

    Barry Bonds is one homer away from equalling Babe Ruth’s home-run total….and when he does it (and when he surpasses it) – watch the commentary fly: ‘it is not legitimate’; ‘unfair chemical advantage’; ‘he should have an asterisk’; ‘what are we teaching our children?’, etc etc etc. Some will also ascribe Bonds’ accomplishment to the modern, more lively baseball itself.

    To which I say – Babe Ruth was heavily saturated/adulterated/doped up himself – with alcohol, amongst other things. What were we teaching our children THEN?

    If Bonds was indeed doing the steroid thing, more is the pity, since he will die prematurely…and that in itself would be a lesson for the children worth pondering.

    But when he gets 714, and 715 – he deserves all the plaudits that guys like Ruth got, certainly.

  8. Nick said on May 8, 2006 at 3:12 pm

    Great looking transom, by the way.

    I bet Nance gets a lot of those comments, even when Lush Life is in dry dock.

  9. brian stouder said on May 8, 2006 at 3:14 pm

    In fact she should take a bow for her stern

  10. Danny said on May 8, 2006 at 3:20 pm

    Brian, not that I really care about grass growing baseball, but here are my thoughts. Steroids gave Barry an unfair advantage because the increased strength led to increased bat speed which led to him getting a longer look at a pitch and hitting it way farther. To my knowledge, nothing that Ruth or Aaron ingested gave them an unfair advantage.

    Bonds was an amazing baseball player and should have been in the Hall of Fame. But not now. There are too many questions as to where Bonds ends and where the steroids begin. He is not real and neither are any records that he may break.

    As far as children pondering things, I think this sets an extremely bad example and will encourage some prep atheletes to cheat in a fashion that will be dangerous to their lives.

  11. Danny said on May 8, 2006 at 3:21 pm

    Crap, the strike through did not come throgh on the grass growing.

    Let try this: grass growing

  12. Dorothy said on May 8, 2006 at 3:41 pm

    Danny is exactly right about Barry Bonds. I lived in Pittsburgh until 2002, and Bonds played for the Pirates in the 90’s. He was known as a royal pain in the ass as a human being and a teammate to everyone he played with, and to the media. But brother, could he play ball. (Except when it came to the playoffs in September.)

    However, all you have to do is look at photogaphs of him and figure out the steroid issue is true. Men don’t get bigger and more muscular like that as they age – unless it’s chemically induced. The last time I checked drinking alcohol past the age of 21 is not illegal (Babe Ruth). Bonds knowingly broke laws and that alone should ban him from the record books re the homerun issue. I think if he breaks Ruth’s homerun record, everyone in the stands should sit on their hands.

  13. brian stouder said on May 8, 2006 at 3:47 pm

    You know – it may well HAVE been illegal to drink booze, in Ruth’s day.

    He was part of the 1927 Yankees – arguably the greatest baseball team of all time – and booze was illegal then….

  14. Danny said on May 8, 2006 at 4:35 pm

    However, all you have to do is look at photogaphs of him and figure out the steroid issue is true. Men don’t get bigger and more muscular like that as they age – unless it’s chemically induced.

    Yep, and his hat size grew too. And I think he is getting the type of injuries now that are indicative of steroid use.

  15. Dorothy said on May 8, 2006 at 4:56 pm

    Yeah Brian, but he didn’t stop hitting homeruns until he retired in 1935, right? And Prohibition was repealed in 1933. So technically, when he hit number 714, whether he was sloshed or not, it was legal to drink.

    Not that I support that or anything….

  16. ashley said on May 8, 2006 at 6:42 pm

    …a bow for her stern. Oh man…

  17. MarkH said on May 8, 2006 at 7:50 pm

    Does anyone here really think prohibition kept Babe Ruth from drinking?

    Dorothy, I hope you had time for Skyline and Graeter’s and took a stash home with you!

    As always, Nance, I am envious of your boat, especially every time I see new photos. Back in my day, all the frustrations of preparation disappeared soon after we got underway. All you need now is for someone to motor alongside while you’re under sail and get the definitive photographs of the family Derringer enjoying their prize. Excellent!

  18. mary said on May 8, 2006 at 8:08 pm

    Mark
    I don’t think prohibition kept anyone from drinking. When my dad died, we found my mother’s diary (they dated during prohibition) and on nearly every page it said, “Went to Lafayette club, Garry got drunk.” She married him anyway. These entries answered one question, though, aside from the obvious, “when did dad become an alcoholic?” I had a lapel pin I found in his dresser drawer. It was a profile of a man and it said, “Lafayette.” Must have been the badge one needed to get in the speakeasy.

  19. Dorothy said on May 8, 2006 at 8:15 pm

    Nah Mark, I am NOT a fan of chilli of any kind, so I was always looked upon with some measure of disdain by my Cincinnati friends! And yes Graeter’s is the bestest of all ice creams, (even Oprah says so!) but I was only there for about 16 hours, 6 of which were spent sleeping and the others were spent seeing the smiling faces of my former neighbors. Right now I’m craving King’s cinnamon ice cream because I’m making an apple pie for my husband’s birthday day after tomorrow. But there are no King’s in South Carolina!

  20. jeff said on May 9, 2006 at 11:27 am

    Dorothy, I have to tell you that parts of the Chicago area have limited high speed connections.
    Wilmette, one of the wealthiest suburbs in the whole country can’t get DSL in parts of the village. Illinois Bell/Ameritech/SBC/AT&T or what ever the hell the name is today, refuses to give the westernmost part DSL until sometime in 2007. Even though, across the street in Glenview you can get DSL. This means you have to go to the weasels at Comcast & pay a fortune for both cable & internet.
    But a lot of us have satellite TV.

  21. brian stouder said on May 9, 2006 at 11:47 am

    Here in Fort Wayne, the most upper-class neighborhoods (Sycamore Hills, et al) cannot have FiOS because they are not in Verizon’s area…whereas my mom’s southeastern FW neighborhood (read: NOT upper-class!) is fully strung!…as is my west FW neighborhood.

    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!