nancynall.com » The bankruptcy of Art.

The bankruptcy of Art.

Because I spread my news­pa­per read­ing through­out the day, I didn’t see this gem from yesterday’s WSJ until after I’d posted for the day. Besides, as it’s a WSJ story, I don’t even know if many of you can get to it. It’s about a pair of Bernard Madoff’s more unusual vic­tims; I’ll try to clip judi­ciously and sum­ma­rize efficiently.

Hed: Couple’s Dreams of Immor­tal­ity at Death’s Door, Thanks to Mad­off / Artists Who Design Homes to Pro­long Life Lost Their Life Sav­ings; Undu­lat­ing Floors

Of all the dreams that were crushed by Mr. Madoff’s crime, per­haps none was more unusual than (Arakawa and Made­line Gins’), of achiev­ing ever­last­ing life through archi­tec­ture. Mr. Arakawa (he uses only his last name) and Ms. Gins design struc­tures they say can enable inhab­i­tants to “coun­ter­act the usual human des­tiny of hav­ing to die.”

The pair’s work, based loosely on a move­ment known as “tran­shu­man­ism,” is premised on the idea that peo­ple degen­er­ate and die in part because they live in spaces that are too com­fort­able. The artists’ solu­tion: con­struct abodes that leave peo­ple dis­ori­ented, chal­lenged and feel­ing any­thing but comfortable.

They build build­ings with no doors inside. They place rooms far apart. They put win­dows near the ceil­ing or near the floor. Between rooms are slop­ing, bumpy moonscape-like floors designed to throw occu­pants off bal­ance. These fea­tures, they argue, stim­u­late the body and mind, thus pro­long­ing life. “You become like a baby,” says Mr. Arakawa.

Yes, what Japan­ese design­ers are to fash­ion, so too are Arakawa (who is him­self Japan­ese) and Gins to archi­tec­ture — insane. The slideshow of the couple’s work is sim­ply hilar­i­ous; the descrip­tion of “slop­ing, bumpy, moonscape-like floors” doesn’t really do jus­tice to the real arti­cle, which look as though even a crawl­ing baby would have prob­lems nego­ti­at­ing them. The story quotes a cura­tor at the Guggen­heim, who says “many of their sup­port­ers don’t lit­er­ally accept the couple’s mes­sage on immor­tal­ity but appre­ci­ate it in a ‘metaphor­i­cal’ way.”

Well, that’s com­fort­ing. And what about the clients?

At least one ten­ant says he feels a lit­tle younger already. Nobu­taka Yamaoka, who moved in with his wife and two chil­dren about two years ago, says he has lost more than 20 pounds and no longer suf­fers from hay fever, though he isn’t sure whether it was cured by the loft.

There is no closet, and Mr. Yamaoka can’t buy fur­ni­ture for the liv­ing room or kitchen because the floor is too uneven, but he rel­ishes the lifestyle. “I feel a com­pletely dif­fer­ent kind of com­fort here,” says the 43-year-old video direc­tor. His wife, how­ever, com­plains that the apart­ment is too cold. Also, the win­dow to the bal­cony is near the floor, and she keeps bump­ing her head against the frame when she crawls out to hang up laun­dry, he says. (“That’s one of the exer­cises,” says Ms. Gins.)

Alas, how­ever, this archi­tec­tural foun­tain of youth is at risk of dry­ing up, as the cou­ple invested their life sav­ings with Mad­off, and you know how that story ends. They’re try­ing to sell their “sem­i­nal work,” a series of 84 eight-foot-high pan­els, for $17 mil­lion, but fail­ing that, their dream of build­ing a “‘reversible des­tiny’ vil­lage with homes and parks that would com­bine their the­o­ries of life into one com­mu­nity,” alas, will, dare I say, die.

Which I can say I appre­ci­ate in a metaphor­i­cal way.

(Peter’s going to show up to lec­ture me for being a Philis­tine any minute now, I’m sure.)

Actu­ally, I’m sorry to see Arakawa and Gins’ work be com­pro­mised. When the only peo­ple Mad­off was steal­ing from were run-of-the-mill greed­heads, you could make an argu­ment for com­plic­ity. But when he came for the artists? To quote Bugs Bunny: This means…war!)

As I looked at the slideshow of Arakawa and Gins’ work, I thought about the pur­poses of the avant-garde, not just in archi­tec­ture, but else­where. Are they cul­tural stalk­ing horses or just…Bjork? Take Newt Gin­grich, embry­onic Catholic. I vote, in this case, for “just an asshole.”

The morn­ing is slip­ping away and I have a 39-page bolus of copy to plow through, part of a new project I’m work­ing on, which I’ll tell you about in due time. (It’s not a book.) There will also be some minor house­keep­ing announce­ments here and there, but noth­ing that will change your NN.C expe­ri­ence, except in the sense that I’ll be spread even thin­ner and more eas­ily dis­tracted. How­ever, I’ve learned over time that when that hap­pens, it’s rarely the blog that suf­fers, mainly because I have so many sup­port­ers who keep me at it. Take, for exam­ple, my web­mas­ter J.C., who sent an e-mail yes­ter­day announc­ing he’d been mess­ing around with “SQL queries, and had iden­ti­fied the times I’ve dupli­cated head­lines for a post, fol­lowed by a damn list:

(Groan.) (2 times.)
A day away. (2 times.)
Can’t talk now… (2 times.)
Can­cel my sub­scrip­tion. (2 times.)
Caught up. (2 times.)
Dis­cuss. (2 times.)
Dry. (2 times.)
Excuses, excuses. (2 times.)
Fol­low­ing up. (2 times.)
For your con­sid­er­a­tion. (3 times.)
Good news, bad news. (2 times.)
Grr. (2 times.)
Happy Hal­loween. (2 times.)
Happy new year. (2 times.)
Home­work. (2 times.)
I ask you. (2 times.)
It’s a tough town. (6 times.)
Link salad. (2 times.)
Memento mori. (2 times.)
Mon­day, Mon­day. (2 times.)
Mov­ing on. (2 times.)
My back pages. (2 times.)
No com­ment. (4 times.)
Ouch. (2 times.)
P.S. (2 times.)
Proud to be an Amer­i­can. (2 times.)
Rec­om­mended. (2 times.)
Ripped from the head­lines. (2 times.)
Sat­ur­day morn­ing mar­ket. (3 times.)
Sigh. (2 times.)
Snicker. (2 times.)
State fair. (2 times.)
Teevee. (2 times.)
The tyranny of choice. (3 times.)
Thin­ner. (2 times.)
Tids & bits (2 times.)
Tues­day night pie. (2 times.)
Update. (2 times.)
What’s it worth to you? (2 times.)
Wrong num­ber. (2 times.)
Yawn. (2 times.)

This is sort of com­fort­ing, because I thought it would have been more. “It’s a tough town” is actu­ally an old Knight Rid­der joke, so obscure I don’t dare detail it here. But now you know.

77 responses to
“The bankruptcy of Art.”

  1. moe99 said on March 25th, 2009 at 11:06 am

    As a for­mer Catholic, I can­not get past the fact that the Catholic Church is ignor­ing Gingrich’s two failed mar­riages to wel­come him into the fold. The admit­ted adul­tery, I real­ize, can be wiped away by con­fes­sion, but the mar­riages? They have to go back and change his­tory. Which of course they do when they annul mar­riages ex post facto divorce. I know of one where the unhappy cou­ple was both Catholic to begin with! I wanted to ask the wife, who had sought the annull­ment, if that made her two kids ille­git­i­mate, but I refrained.

  2. nancy said on March 25th, 2009 at 11:15 am

    I briefly — very briefly — took a rec­on­cil­i­a­tion class with the idea of return­ing to the One True Church after Kate was born, and we dis­cussed this. The teacher told us, basi­cally, to get over it. Frank Sina­tra was mar­ried four times and received three annul­ments. The pro­ce­dure doesn’t bas­tardize chil­dren, it only says the mar­riage they came from wasn’t “truly spir­i­tual.” It is, down to the very last detail, a Catholic divorce. This was one of many rea­sons I decided I was bet­ter off shut of the place.

  3. Peter said on March 25th, 2009 at 11:23 am

    I was going to go Philis­tine Bitch on you before my inner Dave Barry kicked in and I thought that would be a pretty good name for a rock band.

    Seri­ously, I have seen a review of their work and they have one thing in com­mon with Newt — just more proof that there’s still too many drugs and excess leisure money around.

  4. jeff borden said on March 25th, 2009 at 11:26 am

    Ah, yes, Newt Gin­grich lec­tur­ing oth­ers on issues of moral­ity. It’s not just that Newtie is an adul­terer –but that he’s a bas­tard of an adul­terer– serv­ing wife No. 1 with divorce papers after her can­cer surgery and cheat­ing on No. 2 with the soon-to-be No. 3, an aide in his office. The S.O.B. couldn’t even be both­ered with try­ing to hide it.

    The essen­tial hypocrisy from all those bleat­ing about stem cells is their absolute silence while the pre­vi­ous admin­is­tra­tion unlaw­fully took us into a war of choice that has killed tens, per­haps hun­dreds, of thou­sands. How very noble of Bush and Co. They refused to allow stem cells to be har­vested from embryos that most likely would be destroyed, but they averted their gaze from the suf­fer­ings of actual humans caused by their hands.

    We like to say in our house that these folks are not pro-life. They are pro-birth. Once that lit­tle bun­dle of joy arrives, you’re on your own, baby. Don’t come look­ing to us for any kind of help.

  5. Sue said on March 25th, 2009 at 11:29 am

    Has any­one told Newt there’s already a pope? If I were Benny, I’d watch my back.

  6. Joe Kobiela said on March 25th, 2009 at 11:43 am

    Uh, don’t for­get uncle Teddy my pants fell off Kennedy, I believe he had a Mar­riage annulled also. Just say­ing.
    Pilot Joe

  7. coozledad said on March 25th, 2009 at 11:44 am

    I always thought a large seg­ment of the human pop­u­la­tion would wind up liv­ing either out­doors entirely, or in com­mu­ni­ties built out of stacked con­crete cul­vert pipe. There would def­i­nitely be weight loss and a pro­foundly dif­fer­ent sense of one’s con­nec­tion to the environment.

  8. Rana said on March 25th, 2009 at 11:58 am

    I must be odd, because I liked those apart­ments — bumpy floors and all. Maybe it’s the bright col­ors and lit­tle nooks — I’ve never liked the big, bland, high-ceiling-ed things that seem to be so pop­u­lar among builders these days.

  9. beb said on March 25th, 2009 at 12:04 pm

    coo­zledad — I never thought much of con­nect­ing with nature through the inside of a wolf’s stom­ach, which of course is where I’d most likely end up.

    Pilot Joe: The Democ­rats have never made a com­man­dent out of divorse and re-marriage the way the Repub­li­cans have. So when a Demo­c­rat remar­ries — so what, but when a Repub­li­can re-marries they’ve vio­lated one of the car­di­nal planks of their party. So, yes, it’s a big thing.

  10. nancy said on March 25th, 2009 at 12:28 pm

    Mean­while, one of our reg­u­lars e-mails me privately:

    Could you please start a drink­ing game where we have to drink every­time some­one brings up Ted Kennedy when it’s com­pletely out of context?

    Nah. We’d all be face-first on our desks by mid-afternoon.

  11. Sue said on March 25th, 2009 at 12:34 pm

    Ted Kennedy! Ted Kennedy! Ted Kennedy!

  12. moe99 said on March 25th, 2009 at 12:42 pm

    Or Bill Clin­ton and Mon­ica Lewin­sky. At that rate, we’d not make it to work sober.

  13. paddyo' said on March 25th, 2009 at 12:48 pm

    Me, too, Rana. Bright, vibrant color, encas­ing what looks more like some­thing from a minia­ture golf course (obsta­cles, obsta­cles) or, hey, don’t the bumpy parts look like sand dunes, and the liv­ing spaces/pits like fox­holes. Zounds! It’s Iraq!

    I don’t know if liv­ing in that place in the slideshow will extend life. I’m think­ing more like the oppo­site — that a slip and a header into one of those jagged table edges or into the foxhole-pit will prob­a­bly shorten it. But I’ve seen far, far worse exam­ples of “art” silliness.

    As as for Newtie and the Blowhards, what Jeff B. said, times 10.

  14. alex said on March 25th, 2009 at 12:56 pm

    So when a Demo­c­rat remar­ries — so what, but when a Repub­li­can re-marries they’ve vio­lated one of the car­di­nal planks of their party. So, yes, it’s a big thing.

    Nah. As long as you talk the talk, you can fuck around all you want. You can even have a knocked-up teen-aged daugh­ter and the wingnuts will still love you.

    Doubt­less Gin­grich takes Catholi­cism about as seri­ously as he takes mar­riage. He had no com­pelling need to make his cur­rent rela­tion­ship legal until he decided to run for pres­i­dent in 2012.

  15. nancy said on March 25th, 2009 at 1:00 pm

    This is not a poke at Joe, but I notice that when­ever annul­ment is dis­cussed in the pop cul­ture, i.e., by non-Catholics who may not appre­ci­ate its pro­ce­dures and nuances, the Kennedys are always the first name that comes up. To be sure, they’ve had their share; I think one of the lesser Kennedys was at the cen­ter of a book where the ex-spouse wanted to stop the annul­ment from being granted. (It wasn’t. In my direct knowl­edge, that almost never happens.)

    Andrew Sul­li­van, him­self a faith­ful Catholic but one who seem­ingly knows less about his church than lit­tle old lapsed me, once wrote that annul­ments were rare, very hard to get, extremely expen­sive and mostly lim­ited to Kennedys. When the truth is, they’re as com­mon as squir­rels, cost about $300-$400, and are only hard to get if you and your wit­nesses object to the lengthy forms you’re required to fill out. (As a writer, it was a snap for me. I breezed through a cou­ple dozen essay ques­tions for my BFF’s annul­ment in about an hour.) A spouse’s objec­tions don’t seem to mean any­thing, as the find­ing is whether your mar­riage was truly spir­i­tual, and the fact you split up is the sin­gle biggest piece of evi­dence that it wasn’t. Ex won’t coop­er­ate? Ex hates your guts? Just more evi­dence on your side.

    Oh, and as I recall, sev­eral of the ques­tions asked if I knew whether the cou­ple in ques­tion had used arti­fi­cial birth con­trol. Answer yes, and that’s another big win for the applicant.

    The main point of the pro­ce­dure seems to be this: Give you a few pain-in-the-ass hoops to jump through, require you to open up your mar­i­tal secrets to a third party, so you’ll think twice the next time. As far as I know, Teddy’s been mar­ried twice, with one annul­ment. Sounds like it worked for him.

    The mul­ti­ple annul­ments sort of stretch my patience, as do the ones of very pub­lic, out-there, emulate-us-because-we’re-role-models sorts of peo­ple. I remem­ber there was a case in Cleve­land a few years, of a cou­ple that ran a trad-Catholic web­site and mag­a­zine, wrote about them­selves and their faith con­stantly — how strong Jesus made them, how they prayed the Rosary nightly with their tribe of home­schooled chil­dren, the whole bit. Then one day, whoops, dad announced he was leav­ing and oh by the way, I’m seek­ing an annul­ment. The wife went apeshit and started a counter-campaign to stop it, on the grounds that if there was ever a truly spir­i­tual mar­riage entered into by two clear-eyed adults, they had one. Didn’t work.

    EDIT: Looked up the case, and I have my facts wrong. He only sought divorce, not annul­ment. His wife still went apeshit, and is now demo­niz­ing no-fault divorce. Because appar­ently we have to go back to the suing-for-extreme-mental-cruelty days. Oh, joy.

  16. Joe Kobiela said on March 25th, 2009 at 1:12 pm

    I was refer­ring to Teddy as a Catholic not as Demo­c­rat.
    To me, most all politi­cians are noth­ing more than over­paid under worked Gas­bags that think the Amer­i­can peo­ple are gullible enough to fall for their bull­shit. Most of them,couldn’t make a liv­ing in the real world. I would not hire any of them to clean up after my dog.
    Pilot Joe

  17. Danny said on March 25th, 2009 at 1:22 pm

    I saw a head­line that indi­cated they were mak­ing a movie about the Lewin­sky affair. Some­thing about Julianne Moore play­ing Hillary, I think. Any­way, I won’t be see­ing that one.

    Which reminds me, did any­one here watch “W?” Or more likely, buy the collector’s edi­tion Blu-Ray with the See-n-Say-Bushisms Talk­ing Action Figure?

    Sue, it’s a joke. Don’t leave.

  18. Gasman said on March 25th, 2009 at 1:27 pm

    Oh come on. Joe is at his ora­tor­i­cal zenith when he trots out Ted Kennedy. TK is one of about two arrows in his rhetor­i­cal quiver. Deprive him of that and he’d be even less fun to read.

    We lib­er­als have it easy. The right has given us so many exam­ples of hypocrisy, incom­pe­tency, moral turpi­tude, ludimocros­ity, etc., etc., etc. and who does Joe have? Ted Kennedy.

    Seri­ously, what will the right do when Ted shakes this mor­tal coil? Whom will they demo­nize when he is gone?

  19. Jolene said on March 25th, 2009 at 1:33 pm

    You defame leg­is­la­tors when you’d say they’d be able to make a liv­ing out­side of pol­i­tics, Joe. After all, Tom DeLay, I hear, had a suc­cess­ful career as an exterminator.

    But, seri­ously, who cares? Isn’t the ques­tion whether they are good at pol­i­tics and governing?

  20. Sue said on March 25th, 2009 at 1:36 pm

    I actu­ally did see W. Rather car­toon­ish and a strangely sym­pa­thetic por­trayal by Josh Brolin. All you good Repub­li­can boys should see it just for a hot Laura Bush as por­trayed by Eliz­a­beth Banks. George Sr. doesn’t come off well, Thandie New­ton mim­ics Con­doleeza Rice more than por­trays her. Absolutely noth­ing that any­one hasn’t seen or heard before. And when a very good con­ser­v­a­tive friend of mine found out that I saw it, he was so angry at me that it caused a rift that hasn’t healed yet. I was totally blind­sided by his anger. To me it was a movie, to him it was noth­ing short of a betrayal of our friendship.

  21. LA Mary said on March 25th, 2009 at 1:43 pm

    I think Ted Kennedy and Clinton/Lewinsky are heroes of the Repub­li­can party. The moral fail­ings of those three have jus­ti­fied tor­ture, domes­tic spy­ing, going to war for false rea­sons, let­ting New Orleans drown and rot, and probaly the deaths of over a hun­dred thou­sand peo­ple. If only Bill hadn’t got that BJ, so many lives would have been saved.

  22. Scout said on March 25th, 2009 at 1:59 pm

    I know you were engag­ing in snark, LA Mary, but sadly, I think you might actu­ally have a valid point.

    Hey, any­one here enjoy­ing the lat­est Obama non­tro­versy regard­ing teleprompters as memed by the ubiq­ui­tous Ron Fournier? Sul­li­van com­ments as does Bob Cesca. And appar­ently even Let­ter­man weighed in.

  23. Jolene said on March 25th, 2009 at 2:14 pm

    Yes, the teleprompter meme has been get­ting a lot of play in the right-wing blo­gos­phere. Their idea, appar­ently, is that Obama is too stu­pid to think of any­thing to say if it hasn’t already been writ­ten down – likely by some­one else. How this squares w/ his appear­ances at numer­ous debates, press con­fer­ences, and town­hall meet­ings, where he’s had to speak off the cuff, is beyond me.

  24. brian stouder said on March 25th, 2009 at 2:21 pm

    Scout — the day that Sarah Palin emerged from her media meteor in Ohio (wasn’t it?), much the way Clark Kent did (from the planet Kryp­ton), the very FIRST damned talk­ing point out of our local rightwing radio par­rot was “and she didn’t use a teleprompter!” -

    which imme­di­ately perked up my ears, since of course Obama is such an inar­guably fine com­mu­ni­ca­tor (remem­ber when that was greeted as a huge strength of Ronal Reagan’s?) the other side had to devalue that strength some­how!

    I went onto the google and quickly found that the “no teleprompter Palin” trial bal­loon was all over the right side of the blogosphere.…except that if you watched the video of Sarah’s high-energy emer­gence onto the national polit­i­cal stage, you could eas­ily see teleprompters!

    So now the lazy haters have reverted to the teleprompter canard, say­ing Pres­i­dent Obama is lost with­out one. Whatever.

    Unre­lated item for Dorothy: So I saw this head­line on msnbc: Opin­ion: Don’t let Pitt’s close calls worry you

    And I hon­estly won­dered “what sort of risks is Brad Pitt taking?” — I was think­ing he was doing too many of his own stunts or something

    And then I clicked it, and had to chuckle while real­iz­ing that you prob­a­bly knew exactly what they meant!

    http://​nbc​sports​.msnbc​.com/​i​d​/​2​9​8​65101/

  25. coozledad said on March 25th, 2009 at 2:21 pm

    I don’t know why we’re still hear­ing from the Repub­li­cans. I thought they were sup­posed to be return­ing the Philip­pines to the hal­cyon days of Mar­cos, or enjoy­ing the Costa Rican diet of Velveeta and canned ham. And there’s always the Romanov restora­tion project already under­way in Rus­sia.
    Anas­ta­sia did not scream in vain!

  26. Danny said on March 25th, 2009 at 2:23 pm

    It’s quite arguable that Bill’s BJ dis­tracted him from his RJ (Real Job) and led to 9/11. And Mary, remem­ber, Arnold was only alleged to have a BJ and you thought him a pig. Funny stuff.

    And Gas, don’t you worry, your bench is quite deep. Prac­ti­cally a murderer’s row of char­la­tans, ne’er-do-wells and incom­pe­tents. Dodd Pelosi, Reid and Frank are gifts that will keep giving.

  27. coozledad said on March 25th, 2009 at 2:35 pm

    Yeah, I remem­ber when Clin­ton got that memo: “Bin Laden deter­mined to strike in US”, and went down to Craw­ford to juice and do a lit­tle fresh­wa­ter fish­ing. And when he was advised there was a cell in the US, he blew off the guys who deliv­ered the report: “You’ve cov­ered your ass”, he said smugly, before turn­ing to the com­pli­cated task of mas­ti­cat­ing a pret­zel. It’s easy to under­stand why the Repub­li­cans blame him for what hap­pened seven months into George Bush’s presidency.

  28. Danny said on March 25th, 2009 at 2:41 pm

    Believe me, Cooz, a year or two into Obama’s pres­i­dency and you’ll all still be whin­ing about how it’s all Bush’s fault. And it’ll undoubt­edly be one of Obama’s plat­form mes­sages in the 2012 election.

  29. Sue said on March 25th, 2009 at 2:42 pm

    OMG, George W. mas­ti­cated while Pres­i­dent? Why haven’t I heard this before?

  30. LA Mary said on March 25th, 2009 at 2:48 pm

    Danny, I think Bill Clin­ton is a pig about women. Does that make it all OK? And I assume you’re jok­ing about the 9/11 stuff being related to the BJ​.Do you think peo­ple can’t have sex and be the pres­i­dent? Hang on, you are a Repub­li­can. Think Nixon. That man hadn’t had sex in years. Cheney hav­ing sex is some­thing I don’t want to con­tem­plate.
    Arnold’s a pig in many ways, Danny, and now he seems to have aban­doned all the things he ran on. Remem­ber him revers­ing the car reg­is­tra­tion tax increase? Kiss that one good­bye. It’s dou­bling. Arnold is an oppor­tunist, noth­ing else. He was more inter­est­ing than Gray Davis, but then nearly every­one is.

  31. coozledad said on March 25th, 2009 at 2:54 pm

    Oh, it’s not all Bush’s fault. There was his gun run­ning, coke ped­dling daddy, that cast­ing couch slut Rea­gan, and foot­ball with­out a hel­met Ford, and our own lit­tle Juan Peron, Dick Nixon. And the lov­able side­kicks, Liddy, Rums­feld, Poindex­ter, Col­son, Cheney, Jesse Helms, etc. Bed­shit­ters every one of them.

    I just noticed that the Postal ser­vice is start­ing to burn through its retiree’s money. Seems I remem­ber hear­ing a lit­tle pep talk back dur­ing the first Bush say­ing they’d have to remake them­selves as a pri­vate com­pany. Then man­age­ment built a lit­tle party shack for them­selves in Atlanta, and started hand­ing out bonuses to douch­e­sacks who had about this level of man­age­r­ial com­pe­tence:
    http://​www​.youtube​.com/​w​a​t​c​h​?​v​=​c​G​u​T​9​7v4pv0

  32. Dorothy said on March 25th, 2009 at 3:01 pm

    Funny, Brian. I knew IMMEDIATELY they were refer­ring to Jamie Dixon’s team when I read your entry (#24 above). We’re so jazzed at my house. My hus­band went to Pitt and a few years ago I made the unfor­tu­nate pro­nounce­ment that “every year they find a way to break your heart again!” regard­ing Pitt bas­ket­ball. I’m going to miss the game tomor­row as I’ll be at rehearsal. But if they win I won’t budge from the t.v. on Sat­ur­day for the next game.

    Sue you crack me up on a reg­u­lar basis. Keep ‘em coming!

  33. jeff borden said on March 25th, 2009 at 3:04 pm

    I’ve never been able to buy the idea that 9/11 would not have hap­pened if Al Gore had won enough elec­toral votes. Fanat­ics will­ing to die for their cause are tough to stop.

    I do believe, how­ever, that our excel­lent adven­ture in Iraq would never have occurred if Gore were pres­i­dent, which is rea­son enough to mourn the elec­tion of W. And I doubt Gore and the Demo­c­ra­tic Party would have politi­cized the response to that attack for their advan­tage as the Repub­lic Party did at the urg­ing of Karl Rove.

    The oppor­tu­nity to cre­ate a global response to vio­lent Islamic rad­i­cal­ism was right there for the tak­ing –even the ultra-leftist Le Monde had a head­line read­ing “We Are All Amer­i­cans” after 9/11– but the petty lit­tle man from Texas and his enablers shred­ded that pos­si­bil­ity from the get-go. And we all know the road that was taken from that point. I believe it’s called the Uncon­sti­tu­tional Boule­vard and is home to unlaw­ful war­fare against a sov­er­eign state unin­volved with 9/11, unwar­ranted tele­phone and Inter­net sur­veil­lance, abro­ga­tion of habeas cor­pus and the Geneva Con­ven­tions, tor­ture, abuse of the mil­i­tary through “stop/loss” poli­cies, enrich­ing of con­trac­tors through no-bid con­tracts and the ulti­mate destruc­tion of Amer­i­can exceptionalism.

    My friends on the right can throw Ted Kennedy and Chap­paquidick or Bill Clin­ton and blow jobs at me and it really doesn’t mat­ter. The Repub­lic Party marched in lock­step with W. for eight frig­ging years that dev­as­tated our nation at home and abroad, never utter­ing a harsh word about him. (Con­trast that with the drub­bing Obama is tak­ing from lib­er­als after just two months in office.) We’re still tak­ing account of all the dam­age done and it will take years to cat­a­log all of it. Nei­ther Kennedy nor Clin­ton are saints. I don’t much care for either of them. But they never dreamed of doing to our coun­try what W. and his party have done.

  34. Scout said on March 25th, 2009 at 3:15 pm

    Jeff Bor­den, you are the smartest boy in class today.

  35. Gasman said on March 25th, 2009 at 3:32 pm

    Danny,
    You appear to be apply­ing a totally dif­fer­ent met­ric than I when I cite liars, lunatics, or the sex­u­ally amoral. You just trot­ted out the names of peo­ple you dis­agree with. How do Pelosi and Reid make the list? Cer­tainly not for sex­ual indis­cre­tions. Can you cite lies from either? Maybe you feel that any­one that dis­agrees with you is a lunatic, but that’s a pretty big club and that’s a pretty weak contention.

    As for Frank, unless you are con­tend­ing that being gay is an auto­matic qual­i­fier, I’m not sure how he makes the list either.

    When I cite my list, I pick those whose place of infamy is unques­tioned because of their copi­ous record of lying, lunacy, or sex­ual indis­cre­tion. To wit, in no par­tic­u­lar order:
    Sara Palin
    Joe the Plumber
    Bobby Jin­dal
    Rush Lim­baugh (he scores high on all three counts)
    George W. Bush
    Dick (and I do mean Dick) Cheney
    John Yoo
    Don­ald Rums­field
    Con­doleezza Rice
    Eric Can­tor
    Alberto Gon­za­les
    David Vit­ter
    Laura Ingra­ham
    Bill O’Reilly
    Jonathan Gol­berg
    Sean Han­nity
    Michelle Bach­man
    Newt Gin­grich
    Paul Wol­fowitz
    All of FoxNews
    etc., etc., etc., ad infini­tum.

    These are just the ones that I could think of in about 90 sec­onds. I bet that I could come up with 3 – 4 times that num­ber with a few min­utes of reflection.

  36. Danny said on March 25th, 2009 at 3:33 pm

    Do you think peo­ple can’t have sex and be the pres­i­dent? Hang on, you are a Republican.

    Haha, Mary!

    BTW, I agree with you that Arnold has turned out to be a big disappointment.

    These are just the ones that I could think of in about 90 sec­onds. I bet that I could come up with 3 – 4 times that num­ber with a few min­utes of reflection.

    Gas, it took you a whole 90 sec­onds to cut and paste from all of your for­mer posts? Whad­daya got carpal tunnel?!?

  37. Joe Kobiela said on March 25th, 2009 at 3:49 pm

    Good Grief,
    To hell with them all, I’m going fly­ing.
    Pilot Joe

  38. Jason T. said on March 25th, 2009 at 3:52 pm

    Dorothy @ # 32, around our place, we were more heart­bro­ken by this:

    http://​tinyurl​.com/​d​u​kesnit

    On the one hand, they went 21 – 12 this year after going 3 – 24 three sea­sons ago (and hav­ing sev­eral play­ers get shot in ’06).

    (And they were this­close to going to the big dance.)

    On the other hand, gee whiz, Aaron Jack­son scores 46 freakin’ points and they still lose in the first round?! Aw, man!

    Wait’ll next year …

  39. Danny said on March 25th, 2009 at 3:59 pm

    Aw, Joe. Don’t let it get you down.

    Hey, bring­ing this for­ward from yesterday’s thread. What do you newsies think of the plans being floated to save newspapers?

    Here’s an arti­cle about a bill with some novel ideas that would be aimed at sav­ing the news­pa­pers. Let­ting them restruc­ture as non-profits…hmm. Inter­est­ing. And the added ben­e­fit would be no polit­i­cal endorse­ments. I think there was some dis­cus­sion here a few months back about this being an odd prac­tice for an edi­to­r­ial board anyway.

  40. Jolene said on March 25th, 2009 at 4:05 pm

    You bas­ket­ball fans might be inter­ested in (or hor­ri­fied by) this NYT arti­cle by Michael Sokolove re the kids who want to be the stars of the future. I had no idea that train­ing and com­pe­ti­tion were so intense at such early ages.

    And yes, clap, clap, clap for Jeff Borden.

  41. brian stouder said on March 25th, 2009 at 4:08 pm

    So where’s Cal­iban been?

    I hope he hasn’t choked on a pret­zel or some­thing (that would be a cruel twist of fate)

  42. Kirk said on March 25th, 2009 at 4:10 pm

    OK, Nancy, gotta ask: Should I be able to see a num­ber for each and every posted com­ment here? Because the only ones that have num­bers on them on my screen are those posted by your own self.

  43. nancy said on March 25th, 2009 at 4:15 pm

    It’s prob­a­bly your mon­i­tor. The num­bers attached to you mug­gles’ com­ments are pretty pale gray, whereas mine are a nice inky black. Try adjust­ing the contrast.

  44. LA Mary said on March 25th, 2009 at 4:49 pm

    If immi­nent Catholic Newt is on Twit­ter, I am even less inclined to use that medium. It strikes me as the the really uncool online social net­work that old farts get. I’m not ready to be that uncool or old yet.

  45. Jolene said on March 25th, 2009 at 4:50 pm

    A cou­ple things of poten­tial interest:

    Kim O’Donnell, who writes a blog called A Mighty Appetite for the WaPo, has an item re food writ­ers for var­i­ous pub­li­ca­tions who’ve been laid off and the blogs they’ve started as part of their efforts to make new careers. Lots of links and, in some cases, some great pho­tos along w/ the recipes/chat.

    And Andrew Sullivan’s analy­sis of the pres­i­den­tial press con­fer­ence is headed by a strik­ing photo – a long shot of Obama walk­ing into the room on the red car­pet. Worth click­ing on the link just for the pic, even if you’re not a Sul­li­van fan.

  46. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on March 25th, 2009 at 5:04 pm

    I miss a cou­ple days, try to scan down, and i see, glanc­ingly, “a hot Laura Bush”?

    Who­ever was crank­ing on the sub­ject of us con­ser­v­a­tives not help­ing peo­ple after the kid is born, my most cheer­ful, con­ge­nial, well-intended “Bite Me!”

    And my son and i are off to, as it hap­pens (it’s our Wednes­day) to feed a room­ful of wor­ried, ner­vous peo­ple, and work through some credit coun­sel­ing and tax prep work for those under 150% of poverty, which will pretty much be a gimme for the room. Don’t even ask me my opin­ion of Ja#$son-Hew&^t, and i won’t think well of Magic John­son ever again. Leeches on the des­per­ate and needy, may they fall into an AIG sized hole and never escape (scratch-offs, SCRATCH-OFFS! while you wait for your “refund advance,” which ends up mean­ing you get 40 – 45% of your refund — loan sharks are more humane).

    Any­how, “Bite Me!” and i’ll try to find out by tomor­row what’s up with a hot Laura Bush … is she in this month’s Maxim?

  47. Scout said on March 25th, 2009 at 5:12 pm

    A man of the cloth say­ing, “Bite me?” That is a total LOL … and I never use LOL.

  48. Kirk said on March 25th, 2009 at 5:16 pm

    Yep, now that I’m look­ing for them, I see those num­bers, in pale gray.

  49. jeff borden said on March 25th, 2009 at 5:33 pm

    Jeff TMMO,

    Re: Pro-birth but not pro-life? That was me, brother, but I refuse to bite you. Instead, I’ll ask you why con­ser­v­a­tives are so strongly opposed to abor­tion but are gen­er­ally quite com­fort­able with the death penalty. Or why those who weep at the idea of using stem cells from embryos likely to be destroyed are silent when ser­vice­men and women are sent off to kill and be killed in an ille­gal war. Or why those rightwing politi­cians who are so quick to con­demn the idea of ter­mi­nat­ing a preg­nancy under any cir­cum­stances gen­er­ally oppose funds for the kinds of social pro­grams that can deliver pre– and post-natal care, proper nutri­tion, extended pedi­atric care, etc.?

    Feel free to bite back.

  50. mark said on March 25th, 2009 at 6:35 pm

    jeff bor­den–

    You might be for­get­ting the Catholic church, which is pretty pro-life all the way around. I’m con­ser­v­a­tive and anti-death penalty. Per­haps a nar­rower brush next time.

  51. nancy said on March 25th, 2009 at 6:39 pm

    Yeah, like that devout Catholic and anti-death penalty activist, Antonin Scalia.

    It always slays me how many Catholics claim utter fealty to the Pope on abor­tion issues, but will tie them­selves into rhetor­i­cal knots con­sci­en­tiously object­ing to the death-penalty stuff.

  52. moe99 said on March 25th, 2009 at 6:39 pm

    Funny that pro-life all the way around. Notre Dame, the pre-eminent Catholic insti­tu­tion of higher learn­ing which is now embroiled in the “how dare you invite that fiend Barack Obama to speak at grad­u­a­tion because he’s an abor­tion sup­porter!” has had other pres­i­dents deliver com­mence­ment speeches, who have sup­ported the death penalty, among them George Bush pere et fils. It seems that once you’re born, all bets are off as far as pro­tec­tion and the Church goes.

  53. coozledad said on March 25th, 2009 at 6:48 pm

    jeff bor­den: Occam’s razor says it’s all about keep­ing the woman in the house, or at least keep­ing her on a leash. If you can call the shots for women, you’re well on your way to revers­ing the gains made on a vari­ety of fronts against the entire neolithic mind­set that gov­erns fun­da­men­tal­ist Chris­tian­ity, Ortho­dox Judaism, and Islamic extrem­ism. They don’t want to hear it, but they’re all cut from the same shitty cake. It’s slowly get­ting harder for angry white males to con­vince the world they’re adept at any­thing except fuck­ing the whole world over.

  54. jeff borden said on March 25th, 2009 at 7:29 pm

    Mark,
    I tried to nar­row my brush by using the words “gen­er­ally.” I don’t doubt for a moment that you,
    Danny, Jeff TMMO, et​.al. are good peo­ple and I applaud your stance. I’m talk­ing more, I guess, about the gen­eral con­ser­v­a­tive move­ment. And, yes, I know that there are many move­ment, doc­tri­naire lib­er­als who will bend their beliefs, too. One of the most dam­ag­ing impacts of Clinton’s fel­la­tio episode was the silence from women’s rights groups about an older man in power tak­ing advan­tage of a female sub­or­di­nate. This most def­i­nitely is a two-sided blade.

    Moe and Cooz,
    One of the most intrigu­ing things about the basic tenets of reli­gions of which I am famil­iar is the second-class sta­tus (or no-class sta­tus among some faiths) of women. Why is it that the most fun­da­men­tal­ist strains of Chris­tian­ity, Judaism and Islam are so freak­ing ter­ri­fied of women? It’s not just that they can­not be lead­ers of the faith but that they must com­pletely sub­or­di­nate them­selves to males, even to the way they dress. And while the Islamic fun­da­men­tal­ists may be the biggest stick­lers, remem­ber those women from the Texas polygamy cult with their ankle-length dresses and sausage curls man­dated by their male lead­ers? Was it the story of Eve and the apple in the Gar­den of Eden that so tainted the well of reli­gion against women?

  55. MichaelG said on March 25th, 2009 at 7:47 pm

    I don’t know about New York, but in CA that nut­ball archi­tect would run into some seri­ous code issues with his ham­ster habitat.

    I’m a recov­er­ing Catholic. My first wife was a divorced Methodist. We went to the Arch­dio­cese of San Fran­cisco to see about an annul­ment of her first mar­riage so we could get mar­ried in the Church. This was 1970. They quoted us a year’s worth of paper­work, coun­sel­ing, yada, yada. We got mar­ried by a Uni­tar­ian min­is­ter. My sec­ond time, we were both divorced Catholics. The SF ArchD sneered at us again. This was ’78. This time I got mar­ried by an Epis­co­palian priest. That one lasted thirty years until recently. No more mar­riage. No more papists.

    Eat your hearts out, nn.c ers. I got my annual case of aspara­gus this aft. 18 pounds of gor­geous, prime Sacra­mento River Delta best grade aspara­gus. The best aspara­gus in the world. Picked this morning.

    I don’t like Bill Clin­ton either. I agree the Lewin­sky affair was shame­ful. I don’t see it as an impeach­able offense and I cer­tainly can’t under­stand how it was worse than the mul­ti­tudes of crimes and deaths attrib­ut­able to the Bush admin­is­tra­tion. And I still say that two of the defin­ing char­ac­ter­is­tics of the Repub­li­cans are hypocrisy and self delusion.

  56. LA Mary said on March 25th, 2009 at 7:48 pm

    Jeff B,
    The new guy in my office, who is a Mor­mon, felt the need to remind me that men fol­low Jesus and women fol­low men. He was seri­ous. I made note of the com­ment, noted who else was present in the room, and have saved this com­ment for pos­si­ble future use.

  57. jeff borden said on March 25th, 2009 at 8:01 pm

    LA Mary,
    How very gal­lant of him, huh? I don’t know much about LDS aside from what I have gleaned from sev­eral non-fiction books includ­ing “Under the Ban­ner of God,” but two things stand out from those read­ings: women are meant to be have lots of kids and the wealth and power you accrue in this life car­ries over into the next.
    I admire your self con­trol, Mary. More than a few women of my acquain­tance might have gelded that guy.

  58. MichaelG said on March 25th, 2009 at 8:08 pm

    That’s the thing, Mary. They not only have these beliefs, they feel com­pelled to tell every­body. That shit is really objec­tion­able. Talk about your hos­tile work environment.

  59. coozledad said on March 25th, 2009 at 8:09 pm

    LA Mary: Sounds like he’s got daddy issues. My wife knows bet­ter than to trust me when I’m hold­ing the damn AAA map.

  60. basset said on March 25th, 2009 at 8:47 pm

    MichaelG, sounds like you’re gonna be pee­ing green for awhile.

    Mrs. Bas­set and I were mar­ried in a Uni­tar­ian church… pre­mar­i­tal coun­sel­ing con­sisted of sit­ting down in the minister’s office and him say­ing to her, “I’ve known you since you were lit­tle and you wouldn’t do any­thing stu­pid. Any questions?”

    wouldn’t do any­thing stu­pid, what does he know… she did, just a few days later.

  61. MichaelG said on March 25th, 2009 at 9:19 pm

    It’s not the green, Bas­set, aspara­gus makes your pee smell strange.

  62. coozledad said on March 25th, 2009 at 9:35 pm

    Michael G: Some peo­ple are genet­i­cally gifted with olfac­tory bulbs that can detect the pres­ence of aspara­gus in piss, oth­ers like myself, only smell it as piss.
    As I get older, mine begins to smell like one of the rest stops on I-95; specif­i­cally the one clos­est to the Waf­fle House in St. Peters­burg, VA. I think I need to see a urologist.

  63. Jolene said on March 25th, 2009 at 9:36 pm

    What will you do w/ 18 lbs. of aspara­gus, Michael? That’s a lot to con­sume in a few days.

  64. Catherine said on March 25th, 2009 at 10:16 pm

    Mmmmm… steamed with a lit­tle lemonaise?

    Grilled with a lit­tle bal­samic vinegar?

  65. Joe Kobiela said on March 25th, 2009 at 11:00 pm

    Back from fly­ing and feel­ing bet­ter, nice night by the way, even Detroit looked nice from 7,000ft. I per­son­ally think abor­tion should be legal, I don’t agree with it but that needs to be up to the woman. The prob­lem I have is MY TAXES shouldn’t be pay­ing for it. Clin­ton get­ting a hum­mer in the white house was not illegal,it wasn’t smart, but when the sob looked in the cam­era and lied about it is what pissed me off, if he lied about that,what else was he hid­ing, and I don’t want to hear the it wasn’t tech­ni­cally sex argu­ment. and didn’t con­gress approve the war in Iraq? so how is it ille­gal? Just askin.
    Pilot Joe

  66. MichaelG said on March 25th, 2009 at 11:00 pm

    By the time you see the stuff in the stores it can be ancient. This is espe­cially so as the dis­tance between you and the source increases. What I have here will last a good four to five weeks. The secret is that you do not refrig­er­ate. I can’t eat all of it so I’ll be shar­ing with other folks. In past years I have con­sumed an amaz­ing amount of the stuff, though. I’m going to try pick­ling some this year. I’ve eaten Peru­vian and Mex­i­can aspara­gus and truly, none of it can com­pare with Delta aspara­gus. The best, like I have here (admit­tedly through dumb luck), is sweet, ten­der and fla­vor­ful, the thick­ness of a fin­ger with­out that unfor­tu­nate grassy taste or any of those strings or tough­ness that you see in some aspara­gus. It’s too bad the cheap Cen­tral and South Amer­i­can imports are killing the local farm­ers and devel­op­ers are buy­ing up the land. There are lots of ways to cook it. How­ever you pre­pare it, just don’t over­cook it. You want it still deep green and with a tooth. Mary and Danny and Cather­ine should see it in the store this week­end. It’s worth the $3.99/lb it will likely cost at first.

    The Delta is located between San Fran­cisco and Sacra­mento and the land has become immensely valu­able. If I wasn’t such a lucky mooch, I would pay the $3.99 myself. I’ve learned that the grow­ers lose money at lower prices and are sell­ing their valu­able land rather than lose money at $1.99. I can’t blame a guy for won­der­ing why he should knock him­self out for pen­nies when he can sell his acreage for mil­lions and retire to the South of France. This is one more dis­ap­pear­ing Amer­i­can treasure.

  67. Gasman said on March 25th, 2009 at 11:16 pm

    Joe,
    Last time I checked, there was but a sin­gle pro­vi­sion for war in the United States and it involves a con­gres­sional dec­la­ra­tion. No such act occurred. Find the words “autho­riza­tion of com­bat” any­where in the Con­sti­tu­tion. You can’t because they aren’t there. That was cre­ated out of whole cloth by a bunch of spine­less pussy Democ­rats who lacked the cajones to oppose W when attack­ing any­body seemed like a good idea.

    So, Clin­ton lies about a BJ and he should be impeached? What the hell about the thou­sands of lies that W told with fright­en­ing reg­u­lar­ity? Who died because of Clinton’s willie see­ing some intern action? What is the death count for W’s lies? At least in the 100,000+ range, prob­a­bly a damned sight higher.

    We know that W wiped his dumb Texan ass with the Con­sti­tu­tion way more often than he read it. Tor­ture, ille­gal spy­ing, ille­gal war, lying to every­body on the planet, and a cou­ple of rigged elec­tions, but a BJ trumps all that! And you won­der why we think you should use the oxy­gen while you’re flying?

    Clin­ton was tacky. W is respon­si­ble for untold death, destruc­tion, and suf­fer­ing. No ques­tion as to who was worse.

    Your pri­or­i­ties are might­ily skewed.

  68. MarkH said on March 25th, 2009 at 11:25 pm

    Pilot Joe -

    In your fly­ing career, have you becoem famil­iar with Sparky Imeson?

    http://​www​.moun​tain​fly​ing​.com/

    Moun­tain fly­ing leg­end, his luck finally ran out:

    http://​www​.aopa​.org/​a​i​r​c​r​a​f​t​/​a​r​t​i​c​l​e​s​/​2​0​0​9​/​0​9​0​3​1​8​s​p​a​r​k​y.html

    He was quite the char­ac­ter, grew up here in Jack­son Hole where his fam­ily and my wife’s fam­ily were close neighbors.

    AND, happy spring­time, y’all! 24 deg. and a bliz­zard to beat the band going on out­side; a foot of snow expected by morn­ing. A lit­tle odd, even for here in late March, but, it’s hap­pened before. It was 55 deg. last week.

    EDIT: Here’s a bet­ter ver­sion of the Ime­son crash

    http://​www​.aero​-news​.net/​i​n​d​e​x​.​c​f​m​?​C​o​n​t​e​n​t​B​l​o​c​k​I​D​=​e​d​4​3​4​3​3​1​-​7​8​4​c​-​4​f​5​d​-​b​7​4​5​-​4​b​e​1​e​9​a368a7:

  69. Gasman said on March 26th, 2009 at 12:44 am

    MarkH,
    I think your bliz­zard is headed our way. You can keep the damned thing, thank you very much. They’re say­ing 6 – 12″ in the higher ele­va­tions, maybe 2 – 4″ here. How­ever, add to that the pre­dicted gusts of up to 50 mph. Teens for a low as well. Travel might be inter­est­ing tomor­row. It was 71 deg. here ear­lier this week. Spring­time in the Rock­ies can be exciting.

  70. moe99 said on March 26th, 2009 at 12:59 am

    Well, I hate to say it, but back in the day, I actu­ally wished out loud that Clin­ton would resign after the impeach­ment, even though he was not removed from office. His behav­ior, although con­sen­sual on the part of Lewin­sky is con­sid­ered per se sex­ual harass­ment and grounds for dis­missal, had it been a Univ. of WA pro­fes­sor and a stu­dent, which is basi­cally what it was given the rel­a­tive place­ment of the par­tic­i­pants to the activ­ity in question.

    Clin­ton is a very smart man, as long as he thinks with his higher brain. He was a frakkin’ idiot and as a con­se­quence I have no respect for the man. Don’t care that he was the pres­i­dent. He befouled the office.

  71. coozledad said on March 26th, 2009 at 1:13 am

    Moe: True. We need to use this to rein­force a stan­dard that culls the DC male from the breed­ing pool.

  72. Dexter said on March 26th, 2009 at 2:35 am

    I really enjoyed Pres­i­dent Clinton’s appear­ance on “Elvis Costello With:”, the inter­view on Sun­dance. It is very enter­tain­ing, espe­cially the story of how his mom took him to Al Hirt’s club in New Orleans and Lit­tle Bill had to beg Mr. Hirt to let him in — Al Hirt did, and brought him a Coke.
    Pres­i­dent Clin­ton is such an inter­est­ing man, always has been.

  73. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on March 26th, 2009 at 7:39 am

    There is an inter­est­ing coun­ter­fac­tual to con­sider, if Clin­ton had resigned (not been impeached, a mis­take on many lev­els), as many of us thought would have been the proper course for Hound­dog Bill.

    Al Gore would have become Pres­i­dent, pick­ing up the advan­tage of incum­bency, a known asset even beyond being “obvi­ous suc­ces­sor,” per­haps even show­ing a bit of lead­er­ship and states­man­ship dur­ing his brief tenure.

    Arguably, that would have given Gore an insu­per­a­ble lead over the fel­low who would nar­rowly beat him (ok, in the elec­toral col­lege, but you know what i mean), mean­ing that on 9 – 12, Al Gore would have had to fig­ure out what to do next, and Joe Lieber­man would have been in the secure undis­closed location.

    Mean­while, now redeemed ex-President Clin­ton would have been a more use­able asset for inter­na­tional diplo­macy. Mrs. Clin­ton would … well, my wife thinks she had the NY sen­ate option fig­ured out by ’93 or so, and that was gonna hap­pen regard­less. Can’t see how she doesn’t beat Lazio under a Gore admin as well as under Bush, so that alter­nate real­ity looks the same, but the real wild cards are Iraq, and energy pol­icy. Of course, i don’t see any sce­nario that actual works any dif­fer­ently in out­comes with a Gore admin — it’s the pol­i­tics of it that play out dif­fer­ently, which is a much more volatile blend of reagents, and i can’t work out that kind of math in my head.

    But you can project some pretty amaz­ing out­lines of his­tory start­ing with Bill Clin­ton resign­ing, none of which mean “and you never hear from Clin­ton again.”

    Hey, JeffB, didn’t mean to leave a mark. My “bite me” is gen­er­ally meant, as well. Your dis­tinc­tion is appre­ci­ated, but i still think the gen­eral canard about con­ser­v­a­tives always try­ing to “cut” school lunch or child nutri­tion pro­grams is a goof, and a mean-spirited one at that. As for the abortion/death penalty thing, that’s a closer split than most real­ize, with the South­ern Bap­tists still work­ing out their the­ol­ogy and pol­i­tics on this one (hate to tell ‘em, but they’re wrong, they just don’t know it yet — if abortion’s bad, death penalty is bad, as well as stupid).

    If you want a shock, google “south­ern bap­tists,” “abor­tion”, and “1971.”

  74. John said on March 26th, 2009 at 8:03 am

    Waf­fle House…mmmmmmmmmm. The near­est one here is just over the Penn­syl­va­nia bor­der on I-78. Lack of Waf­fle Houses and Son­ics are just two more rea­sons why New Eng­land blows.

  75. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on March 26th, 2009 at 9:00 am

    Some­one should give Michael Steele a large box of very chewy yeast donuts with­out a glass of milk, and tell him to just start eat­ing … and don’t talk with your mouth full.

    Now — spring break + rain + young boys = insanely loud “sci­ence” museum. Pray for my ears, and my patience. Adios!

  76. coozledad said on March 26th, 2009 at 9:01 am

    John Hope Franklin is dead. I used to see him around the cam­pus at Duke when I’d go to the library. You could tell the kids just loved him.
    I’m glad he lived to see Obama elected.
    http://​www​.talk​ing​pointsmemo​.com/​p​h​o​t​o​f​e​a​t​u​r​e​s​/​2​0​0​9​/​0​3​/​j​o​h​n​-​h​o​p​e​-​f​r​a​n​k​l​i​n​.​p​h​p​?img=1

  77. Random notes from a Friday night dinner « Whipped Cream Difficulties said on August 28th, 2009 at 10:32 pm

    […] out Arakawa and Gins were two of Bernie Madoff’s clients. (That sec­ond link is by way of Nancy Nall, who has some pun­gent things to say on the […]