nancynall.com » A few words about words.

A few words about words.

I’m crim­i­nally tired today, to the point that a third cup of cof­fee is not the solu­tion. What is? Short Atten­tion Span Blog­gage The­ater, that’s what!

A lede that made me laugh:

British Oscar win­ner Kate Winslet has revealed exclu­sively to marie claire mag­a­zine that she was bul­lied as a child and lived with the nick­name ‘Blub­ber’.

When I started as a free­lancer, I thought maybe I’d pitch some stuff to women’s mag­a­zines, even though other free­lancers warned me off with wav­ing arms — “they’re run by insane peo­ple, they make ridicu­lous assign­ments, they change their minds when you’re 90 per­cent done and expect you to redo the whole thing for no more money, and they take for­ever to pay.” I never did much pitch­ing to them, as it turned out; they didn’t like my ideas, so I turned my efforts else­where. The only per­son I’ve even heard of who is suc­cess­ful with the lady books writes under a pseu­do­nym, so as not to sully her more upmar­ket rep­u­ta­tion as an respected essay­ist.

But mostly I’m dis­cour­aged by, you know, read­ing them. Some­one sat down at a key­board and had to actu­ally write that stuff about Kate Winslet. I hope they had as much fun writ­ing as I did read­ing. It’s the “has revealed exclu­sively” that slays me every time, that Hedda Hopper/Deadline USA/stop-the-presses usage that only serves to under­line the triv­i­al­ity of the rev­e­la­tion. It’s a sta­ple on the gos­sip blogs. Some­one is always reveal­ing some­thing exclu­sively to some ink-stained hack. In fact, I think they’ll keep call­ing them­selves ink-stained hacks well into this cen­tury, long after ink has gone the way of quill pens.

That was my favorite part of “Shake­speare in Love” — the scenes of Will at work, sharp­en­ing his pens, dip­ping and scratch­ing, the ink grad­u­ally spread­ing up his fin­gers. You had to be moti­vated to be a writer, once. Which reminds me of my favorite pas­sage from that Christo­pher Buck­ley piece we dis­cussed ear­lier in the week:

He fired up his com­put­ers. He hunched unsteadily over his key­board. I hov­ered behind, ready to catch him if he pitched for­ward.

“I’m going to have to dic­tate to you,” he said.

“I’m a lit­tle rusty at Word­Star,” I said. “It’s been a quarter-century or so.”

Pup still used the word-processing sys­tem he first learned in the early 1980s. Gen­er­a­tions of his com­puter gurus had had to install this anti­quated sys­tem in his increas­ingly sophis­ti­cated com­put­ers, which were like F-22 fighter jets with the con­trols of a Sop­with Camel.

Word­Star, jeez. I hadn’t thought of that in a thou­sand years. I can’t even remem­ber what word proces­sor I used back in the Ceno­zoic era, on my very first IBM PC — Word­Per­fect, maybe? The thing required so many floppy swaps that I went back to the type­writer after the nov­elty wore off, and stayed there for a few years, until we bought our first Mac and adopted MS Word, a pro­gram I have come to loathe. Lately I’ve been doing most of my in-and-out writ­ing on Google Docs. Wal­ter Feigen­son has an amus­ing rec­ol­lec­tion on his inter­sec­tion with the Buck­leys and Word­Star, prompted by the same pas­sage.

Right before my last Mac died I down­loaded Write­Room, which is sort of like Word­Star for those of us who suf­fer from fatigue-induced ADD — green let­ters, black screen, no dis­trac­tions.

Finally, Jim at Sweet Juniper is not only ten times the reporter I am, he puts me to shame with his curios­ity. He’s the full-time dad to two lit­tle kids, and he still finds time to pho­to­graph dozens of bot­tles of hobo pee. If you don’t click that link, you will be sorry.

I was work­ing my way through this story about today’s GOP dilemma — a broader party or a purer one? the head­line asks — when it occurred to me this is exactly what some were say­ing, with great plea­sure, when the cur­rent pope was elected. It would be a smaller church once Bene­dict XVI drove out all the lesser souls, but a purer one, and yes, that was exactly the word they used — purer. And while the Catholic church and the Repub­li­can party have very dif­fer­ent mis­sions in the world, it’s inter­est­ing that both are hav­ing the very same dis­cus­sion, isn’t it?

I’d make my own obser­va­tions about it, but as I may have told you: I’m tired. You feel free.

And now it’s 10 a.m. Work beck­ons.

41 responses to
“A few words about words.”

  1. Connie said on April 30th, 2009 at 10:19 am

    My first was PFS Write, accom­pa­nied by the won­der­ful and mag­i­cal PFS File. No GUI of course, remem­ber those type face codes that you actu­ally had to imbed into your doc. Then years of Word Per­fect along with Quat­tro Pro, both of which I still miss after 9 years in a Microsoft shop. And Group­wise as well.

    My first spread­sheet was Mul­ti­plan, on an IBM PC with two floppy dri­ves. The soft­ware was on two flop­pies, the help files were on another, and your data on yet another. We called it flip­ping flop­pies. Oh how I loved my first hard drive, all of 40 megs.

    You know if you stare at a color then look at a white wall you will see the com­ple­men­tary color of the one at which you were look­ing. I would spend many hours work­ing on spread­sheets on that green on black mon­i­tor, and as I drove home the white stripes on the street were all hot pink.

  2. MitchAlbumFan said on April 30th, 2009 at 10:53 am

    Write Room/Dark Room (PC ver­sion) are God­sends. No other sin­gle gim­mick has upped my writ­ing pro­duc­tiv­ity more than Dark Room.

    Okay, lemme get this straight…

    - The Left moves as far to the left as they can move.

    - They put all their cap­i­tal behind MoveOn​.org, the mil­i­tant con­science of the Left.

    - The Left runs the most Lib­eral can­di­date pos­si­ble with­out apply­ing jumper cables to the decom­pos­ing chest of Saul Alin­ski.

    - The Left moves to their ide­o­log­i­cal base.

    - The Left wins, and wins, and wins.

    AND THEN the Left – THE LEFT, FOR GOD’S SAKE! – Advises THE RIGHT to chill out, eschew their core val­ues, and move more toward the mil­que­toast cen­ter.

    Rii­i­i­i­i­i­ight. Yeah. That’s a great idea. Thanks for the advice. The last two Repub­li­can pro-spending, pro-immigration, quasi-Socialists that either cam­paigned for or occu­pied the White House worked out so well.

    The Repub­li­cans ran a douche can­di­date in ’08. Period. In ’04 it was a bat­tle between two douche can­di­dates. Dubya had the advan­tage of being “the douche we know.”

    If the Repub­li­cans want to win… if any­body wants to win, don’t run a douche can­di­date.

    Obama is an inex­pe­ri­enced, naive hyp­ocrite who will actively dam­age the long term fis­cal health of this coun­try in his four year term.

    He is not, how­ever, a douche.

  3. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on April 30th, 2009 at 10:55 am

    Ahhhh — Com­modore 64/128, and i thought i was in the future, with my air car wait­ing around the next cor­ner (by ’85, tops). Paper Clip for wp, Calc Result for spread­sheet (and gen­er­at­ing some of my first real income in col­lege), and i was slow to go to Word­Perf because i was already stuck in my ways.

    I had for­got­ten about the weird pat­terns on the white walls as you went out for more cof­fee! Pink stripes and more . . . and no drugs involved.

    There was some other C128 word pro­cess­ing pro­gram i had to use occa­sion­ally on another guy’s com­puter, but i can’t recall the name. We used it when we were gen­er­at­ing text as Dan Lawrence was writ­ing “Telen­gard.” Good times, good times.

  4. brian stouder said on April 30th, 2009 at 11:00 am

    This whole “smaller/purer” exper­i­ment is about to get a real-world test.

    We are told (con­tin­u­ally) that bank­ruptcy is a pos­i­tive good (while gov­ern­ment has NO legit­i­mate role to play in the oper­a­tion of ‘free mar­kets’*) ; con­tracts can be changed and dead­wood can be cleared, etc etc.

    And now Chrysler is report­edly going to declare bank­ruptcy.

    In the most crass terms, I think Pres­i­dent Obama and his admin­is­tra­tion have played this per­fectly; they made every effort – includ­ing a lit­eral last-minute effort to stave off bank­ruptcy, before some hedge-fund guys(!!??) who hold bonds NIXED the deal and sent the whole she­bang into bank­ruptcy.

    Maybe this will work out just as well as the acolytes of the Immac­u­late Mar­kets fer­vently believe that it must….in any case, the bet has been called

    *I think the term “free mar­ket” is a sloppy solop­sism (of sorts); what does it really mean? “Free” of gov­ern­ment, I sup­pose – but is THAT real free­dom? What if your busi­ness has copy­rights and patents? We want those respected and pro­tected, right? And if we COULD imag­ine a mar­ket totally free of gov­ern­ment, what are the odds that it would con­sist of one mas­sive monop­oly, with one giant player that makes all the rules? (my guess: 99.99% prob­a­ble)

  5. JPK said on April 30th, 2009 at 11:05 am

    Oh my god — Telen­gard. Now there’s a blast from the past. First com­puter game, via the Com­modore 64 of course, that I ever found myself obsess­ing over all night and well into next morn­ings. With a friend of mine. In the base­ment at his par­ents’ place. Good grief. Mem­o­ries.

  6. coozledad said on April 30th, 2009 at 11:21 am

    I’m whupped too. Yes­ter­day were blessed(??) with another calf, and it wasn’t inter­ested in stand­ing up for sev­eral hours, so we were already some­what dis­tressed about that. Calpur­nia, the heifer, went into heat, and Llewd, the bull, pro­ceeded to jump the fence. Tam­mie saw him from the back porch win­dow while he was still ensnared between the crum­pled woven wire and a cou­ple of strands of barbed wire.
    She man­aged to get to Calpur­nia and snap a chain on her hal­ter just as Llewd man­aged to free his tes­ti­cles from the fence. When I got there Llewd was just about to mount his daugh­ter and make us a lovely, line bred two-headed state fair attrac­tion, while Tam­mie tried to pull her away on the chain, get­ting her thumb caught in the links and pretty well mashed. I just ran up and got between Llewd and the object of his desire, fully con­scious that I might be about to have a look at my own intestines. I grew up hear­ing that you didn’t want to be between the bull and the heifer at this time, and an old James Ell­roy quote kept run­ning through my head, some­thing to the effect of “One thing you can say about the guy at the bot­tom of a Mon­go­lian clus­ter­fuck: Dude’s gonna get fucked.”
    But he didn’t notice me. I was able to hold him up at the gate to the lower pas­ture while Calpur­nia escaped with her chastity.
    In the mean­time one of the loop­ier sheep had busted into the apple orchard and we had to drag our already tired asses over and get the brain­less fucker out before it put paid to a cou­ple of months hard labor.
    I hope the neigh­bors can’t hear very well, or they’d have heard stuff like this over the way:
    “You can’t fuck her-She’s your God­damn daugh­ter!”
    “He’s your daddy, you stu­pid bitch! We don’t need another moron!”
    “Llewd, I’ll be damned if I don’t shoot your ass! Get the fuck back in that fence”
    “Oh fuck! Sheep’s in the orchard. Can I get the gun, now?”
    “Get the fuck out of here you lit­tle bas­tard, or I’ll fuck­ing cook your ass!”
    “Yeah, go ahead and eat some trees, you dead moth­er­fucker!”

  7. moe99 said on April 30th, 2009 at 11:31 am

    C’dad. There is no response after your diary entry. What a day!

  8. brian stouder said on April 30th, 2009 at 12:32 pm

    Obama is an inex­pe­ri­enced, naive hyp­ocrite who will actively dam­age the long term fis­cal health of this coun­try in his four year term. He is not, how­ever, a douche.

    I think that was about as close to a chilled-out “com­pli­ment” as the pres­i­dent will ever get from Dwight (et al)!

    I don’t under­stand the “inex­pe­ri­enced, naive hyp­ocrite” part…”inexperience” is fair enough, I sup­pose – given that any­one who’s not an incum­bent will make an inex­pe­ri­enced president…but what is a naive hyp­ocrite?

    I can envi­sion a naive pollyanna or a naive Cas­san­dra; but a ‘naive hyp­ocrite’ would have to be a side­ways mix, where we some­how know that the per­son naively believes one thing but then hyp­o­crit­i­cally acts in another way…???

  9. Rana said on April 30th, 2009 at 12:38 pm

    Nancy, have you heard about Scrivener? It’s one of those nicely effi­cient with just enough bells and whis­tles writ­ing pro­grams. It’s mostly aimed at screen­writ­ers, but it works well as a reg­u­lar word-processing pro­gram too.

  10. Catherine said on April 30th, 2009 at 12:39 pm

    Coo­zledad, I prac­ti­cally spit my break­fast yogurt onto the com­puter screen. So, I just got an email from a friend who teaches 6th grade. She’s on a week­long trip with her class right now, and her account of it sounded weirdly like your day…minus the incest.

  11. mark said on April 30th, 2009 at 12:48 pm

    brian-

    The gov­ern­ment has a very impor­tant role to play in the mar­ket. It has to pro­tect and enforce con­tracts (with blind-fold in place) and it has to pre­vent force and fraud.

    Some of the Chrysler bond hold­ers, who hap­pen to be hedge funds, are appar­ently being offered what they think is con­sid­er­ably less than they would get in a bank­ruptcy. Other bond hold­ers, banks, are OK with this deal. Of course banks are cur­rently get­ting 0% money and all sorts of good­ies from the gov­ern­ment. Hedge funds are not.

    The UAW (but not the retirees, includ­ing my father) is get­ting far more (under the Obama pro­posal) in equity than any­one else. They get a mul­ti­ple of their invest­ment, not a reduced per­cent­age.

    The prob­lem is with gov­ern­ment pick­ing the win­ners and losers. Repub­li­cans per­fected this black art over the last 8 years, with spe­cial tax breaks and pro­tec­tion­ist leg­is­la­tion for favorite indus­tries. For­get invest­ing in plant, train­ing and research, invest in lob­by­ists and con­gress­men.

    Those hedge funds that Obama just demo­nized on TV hold money for pen­sion funds and pri­vate investors, states and munic­i­pal­i­ties. They have a fidu­ciary respon­si­bil­ity to their cus­tomers. How do you tell them “We took 25 cents on the dol­lar because the Pres­i­dent asked us to, instead of the 40 cents we could get in a bank­ruptcy?”

    Gov­ern­ment wants to pick the winners- banks, unions, favorite indus­tries. But some­body has to take the loss for the last decade of fool­ish­ness. So far, the answer has been to let the next gen­er­a­tion of tax­payer take the hit.

    The GM sit­u­a­tion may be even more of a night­mare. Many of the GM bond hold­ers hedged their invest­ment by buy­ing credit default swaps on the GM debt they hold. They may actu­ally do very well if GM defaults/bankruptcy because they have a claim on their “insur­ance.”

    Of course, that claim most likely goes back to AIG, which has been need­ing con­stant infu­sions of tax dol­lars to pay claims. Just to com­pli­cate it fur­ther, some of those bonds, and CDS rights, belong to for­eign gov­ern­ments. Some of those gov­ern­ments could shake our house of cards by cut­ting back on their pur­chase of trea­sury bills.

    It seems to me we can either fol­low con­tract law or let the tax­payer absorb all of the losses. Obama can demo­nize “spec­u­la­tors” (also known as lenders, investors and savers)all he wants, but some of them are appar­ently will­ing to take their con­tract rights and go to court. Should be inter­est­ing.

  12. Jenflex said on April 30th, 2009 at 1:35 pm

    CDad, that was the biggest laugh I have had in a long time.

    Any­one else remem­ber Bank Street Writer…on an Apple ][?

  13. Jean S said on April 30th, 2009 at 1:55 pm

    Cdad, I have a seri­ous case of the gig­gles. Thankyas!

  14. Gasman said on April 30th, 2009 at 1:55 pm

    Dwight,
    I’m glad to see that you are, as always, delib­er­at­ing eschew­ing hyper­bole.

    “The Left moves as far to the left as they can move.”

    You have prob­a­bly never inter­acted with any­one more lib­eral than I am, and this admin­is­tra­tion, let alone the Demo­c­ra­tic Party is nowhere near being con­sid­ered truly lib­eral, let alone “as far to the left as they can move.” There is just no fac­tual basis for that state­ment.

    It would also be major news if the Dems ever resem­bled a truly orga­nized party. We tend to be all over the map. There has never been much party dis­ci­pline exhib­ited or rec­og­nized. The march­ing in uni­son stuff is more the style of the those on the right. We sim­ply can’t be both­ered with that level of con­for­mity.

    One of the rea­sons that the Repub­li­cans in gen­eral and the con­ser­v­a­tives in par­tic­u­lar (they are fast becom­ing syn­ony­mous) are a dying breed is because of this seem­ingly patho­log­i­cal need to employ inflated hyper­bole when describ­ing the other side. This need to exag­ger­ate is a self defeat­ing strat­egy. Like the cur­rency in Zim­babwe, infla­tion ren­ders your words mean­ing­less. The lies and the floridly embell­ished rhetoric no longer attract atten­tion. So the right’s strat­egy is to become even more infan­tile and unbe­liev­able. You guys have cried “wolf” far too many times. It is not work­ing.

    Scarcely over 20% of the elec­torate iden­ti­fies them­selves as Repub­li­can. That sta­tis­tic is self inflicted. If the Repub­li­can Party is ever to become a truly national party again it must broaden, not nar­row its base. Yet, what passes as the brain­power within the party seems hell-bent on per­pet­u­at­ing the cir­cu­lar fir­ing squad strat­egy that has proved to be so suc­cess­ful as of late.

    As Dr. Phil might say, “How’s that workin’ out for ya’?”

    I actu­ally hope that the Repub­li­cans, or what­ever is left of them after the blood let­ting is fin­ished, can emerge as a cohe­sive party that offers up some­thing other ‘No, no, no, no, no, NO!” It would be nice to have an alter­na­tive.

    As it stands, I can­not in good con­science even con­sider vot­ing for a party that is will­ing to trash our Con­sti­tu­tion, our val­ues, and even our national secu­rity for the sake of main­tain­ing near dic­ta­to­r­ial sin­gle party rule. That strikes me as the epit­ome of what it means to be unAmer­i­can.

  15. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on April 30th, 2009 at 1:59 pm

    JPK, my apolo­gies for your lost hours — if you made offer­ings at the Tem­ple of Anu­bis, i am proudly some­what to blame. (And if you met Thoth-Amon as an NPC, that’s me; talk about mis­spent hours.)

    Then there’s the reality-based world of CDad and birthin’ them babies. Huz­zah for doing some real activ­ity amongst all our vir­tual pixel-pushing.

    (Gas­man, you’ll recall Will Rogers – “I’m not a mem­ber of any orga­nized polit­i­cal party, i’m a Demo­c­rat!” If Mitch/Dwight thinks the denizens here on the left are as left as it gets, he don’t get out much, do he?)

  16. jeff borden said on April 30th, 2009 at 2:18 pm

    Dwight is just a tire­some hack. I’m prob­a­bly left of Gas­man socially but would pre­fer a more con­ser­v­a­tive approach to our finances. What Dwight and his pals up on Planet Wingnut­tia will never process is that Pres­i­dent Obama is a mod­er­ate, which used to be a good thing in this coun­try until the loonies decided it wasn’t. Who can for­get the lovely metaphor offered by John Ashcroft that the only things you find in the mid­dle of the road are mod­er­ates and dead skunks.

    Call­ing a bril­liant, well-traveled and well-read man like Pres­i­dent Obama “naive” after eight years of being led by a man who had only left the USA twice to visit Mex­ico, who was gov­er­nor of a state where the governor’s posi­tion is largely cer­e­mo­nial, who had failed at every sin­gle busi­ness ven­ture he’d ever under­taken makes me won­der what word Dwight used to describe George W. Bush??

    The GOP is going to remain a player in the Old Con­fed­er­acy and the sparsely pop­u­lated Plains states. Good thing Dwight likes grits and sweet iced tea, right Dwight??

  17. Gasman said on April 30th, 2009 at 2:44 pm

    jeff bor­den,
    That would be a feat if you were socially left of me. When asked to describe myself polit­i­cally I said the fol­low­ing:

    Imag­ine a lin­ear rep­re­sen­ta­tion of the polit­i­cal spec­trum. We see the famil­iar faces: Gore Vidal, Molly Ivins, Mar­tin Luther King, Jr., Cesar Chavez, oh, and look, there’s Al Franken. Excuse me. SENATOR Al Franken. As we move fur­ther toward the left we encounter Ghandi, then Bud­dha. A bit later is Jesus Christ Him­self. Some­one asks “Where’s Greg?” (That is my given name, oddly not Gas­man.) Then some­one spots a fig­ure way down the left on the hori­zon and says, “oh, there he is.”

    Hav­ing said that, I have never voted “straight ticket” in my life. I fre­quently vote all Demo­c­ra­tic, but as a mat­ter of prin­ci­ple don’t use the straight ticket option. I am lib­eral, but I am also prag­matic and am open to con­sid­er­ing dif­fer­ing philoso­phies if they are pre­sented fairly and hon­estly. I do not and will not, how­ever, com­pro­mise on issues of civil lib­er­ties or social jus­tice. To do so cheap­ens our democ­racy and our stand­ing in the world.

    Dis­agree with Obama if you must, but one charge that absolutely can­not be lev­eled at him is naivete. Most of the right lean­ing talk­ing heads have given him high marks for intel­lect and com­po­sure. He is a very skilled politi­cian who appears to be very shrewd in his deal­ings with the mem­bers of Con­gress from both par­ties.

    It is sure nice to have a pres­i­dent who is artic­u­late, thought­ful, calm, and appar­ently truth­ful. A wel­come change from the swag­ger­ing imbe­cile that spent eight long years flip­ping off the world. The exper­i­ment with hav­ing an arro­gant, igno­rant liar as pres­i­dent was not a win­ning strat­egy for any­one.

    I also was pleased to hear Pres­i­dent Obama restate that, yes indeed as the rest of the world knows, warter­board­ing is tor­ture.

  18. Sue said on April 30th, 2009 at 3:08 pm

    Cooz, stop com­plain­ing. Yes­ter­day one of my cats shred­ded a whole roll of toi­let paper. On the car­pet, no less. I’m exhausted.

  19. John said on April 30th, 2009 at 3:48 pm

    Jeff B.,

    Not to defend the man but merely to cor­rect the record:
    “Bush’s for­eign trav­els have been lim­ited to three vis­its to Mex­ico, two trips to Israel, a three-day Thanks­giv­ing visit in Rome with one of his daugh­ters in 1998 and a six-week excur­sion to China with his par­ents in 1975 when his father was the U.S. envoy to Bei­jing.”

  20. Jim in FL said on April 30th, 2009 at 4:16 pm

    Don’t for­get GWB’s trip to Iraq one Thanks­giv­ing, to server the troops a turkey table dec­o­ra­tion.

  21. Gasman said on April 30th, 2009 at 4:42 pm

    Olympia Snowe, one of the two remain­ing Repub­li­can mod­er­ates within the Sen­ate said the fol­low­ing yes­ter­day in the NYT:

    There is no plau­si­ble sce­nario under which Repub­li­cans can grow into a major­ity while shrink­ing our ide­o­log­i­cal con­fines and con­tin­u­ing to retract into a regional party. Ide­o­log­i­cal purity is not the ticket back to the promised land of gov­ern­ing majori­ties — indeed, it was when we began to empha­size social issues to the detri­ment of some of our basic tenets as a party that we encoun­tered an elec­toral back­lash.

    We can’t con­tinue to fold our philo­soph­i­cal tent into an umbrella under which only a select few are wor­thy to stand. Rather, we should view an expan­sion of diver­sity within the party as a tri­umph that will broaden our appeal.

    If some adults do not emerge from within the GOP, and very soon, they may well become noth­ing more than a relic of Amer­i­can his­tory.

    Note, it’s not just lib­er­als mak­ing the charge.

  22. LAMary said on April 30th, 2009 at 6:15 pm

    I don’t want to hear about it Cooz. I’m on Jury Duty. I’m sit­ting here wait­ing to be placed on another panel. First one I was on this morn­ing dis­ap­peared when we went to lunch break and the defen­dant decided to change his plea to guilty.
    Cather­ine, what he was guilty of was hold­ing up Por­tos in Bur­bank. His fel­low gang mem­bers all got found guilty two cour­tooms down, so he fig­ured his chances were not good.

  23. moe99 said on April 30th, 2009 at 7:02 pm

    I asked some­one who knows a bit about hedge funds for his reac­tion to the state­ment that inter­fer­ing with what hedge funds are enti­tled to hurts retirees, and this was his response:

    “I think that is extremely unlikely for almost any­body, and cer­tainly not true for any sub­stan­tial num­ber of peo­ple. Only a bizarrely incom­pe­tent hedge fund would be so heav­ily invested in Chrysler bonds (or any other spe­cific invest­ment) with somebody’s retire­ment money that even a total loss of that invest­ment would affect anybody’s abil­ity to retire. Indi­vid­u­als who could wind up in that sit­u­a­tion wouldn’t be on a list of qual­i­fied hedge fund investors in the first place, and those whose retire­ment funds invested with a hedge fund wouldn’t have all of their money with any one hedge fund, either. There would almost cer­tainly be mul­ti­ple lay­ers of diver­si­fi­ca­tion between a poten­tial retiree and Chrysler bonds.

    What is likely true is that the cur­rent hold­ers of Chrysler bonds bought them after “the trou­bles” became appar­ent. Peo­ple who had retire­ment money heav­ily invested in Chrysler bonds should have been steered away from tak­ing or main­tain­ing a heavy posi­tion in some­thing like that a long time ago, and would likely have sold and taken a loss (or a paper loss mea­sured from some high water mark in the past), which is how the “vul­ture funds” and hedge funds that own those bonds today acquired them.”

  24. Catherine said on April 30th, 2009 at 7:32 pm

    Not Porto’s! I hope no potato balls were harmed.

  25. coozledad said on April 30th, 2009 at 7:59 pm

    Jury duty does suck. I think I’d rather have a sprain. Even a bro­ken toe.

  26. joodyb said on April 30th, 2009 at 8:39 pm

    cooz, you made my day. i’m guess­ing your neigh­bors are already pretty under­stand­ing or they’d have left by now.

  27. alex said on April 30th, 2009 at 8:44 pm

    Edit: Shot the moon, then drew up my pants. Fif­teen min­utes of fame, recon­sid­ered.

  28. LA Mary said on April 30th, 2009 at 8:54 pm

    Actu­ally it was Mara Sal­va­trucha, a pretty vicious gang, that held up Por­tos, tied up the staff, and used vio­lence on some. We didn’t get the details of the vio­lence. This all hap­pened in Decem­ber of 2007. I don’t remem­ber it, but there was a very tough look­ing guy sit­ting there, get­ting the vibe that the prospec­tive jurors all had a fond­ness for potato balls and would not take lightly any crimes inflicted on the pur­vey­ors of those potato balls.

  29. coozledad said on April 30th, 2009 at 9:16 pm

    I thought it was pretty good, Alex. I just wish there was an edit fea­ture for every­day life. I’d have to set up a refrig­er­a­tor closer to the com­puter, though.
    For bev­er­ages and snacks.

  30. mark said on April 30th, 2009 at 11:11 pm

    Moe-

    In 2005, 15% of all pub­lic pen­sion plan monies were invested with hedge funds. Don’t know the cur­rent fig­ure, prob­a­bly less. But that doesn’t include cor­po­rate pen­sion plans and mutual funds.

    And I don’t care if all the money in every hedge fund belongs to the King of Saudi Ara­bia. It’s not Obama’s money and the hedge fund has a fidu­ciary duty not to give it away. If Obama wants to buy an auto com­pany for the UAW, just raise taxes on the top one-half of one per­cent who are going to pay for every­thing else.

  31. brian stouder said on May 1st, 2009 at 12:06 am

    Well, so long Jus­tice Souter!

    And now let us see what ‘naive hyp­ocrite’ Pres­i­dent Obama can come up with.

    Pre­sume­ably he has a long list of pos­si­bil­i­ties, thanks to his own back­ground and expe­ri­ence, not even to men­tion his wife’s.

    You know, seri­ously, it would be intrigu­ing to name some­one like Hillary Clin­ton to the Court. Since she has actu­ally run for and won elec­tive office, her under­stand­ing of our democ­racy would be tremen­dously illu­mi­nat­ing in that excep­tion­ally pow­er­ful and pretty com­pre­hen­sively unde­mo­c­ra­tic insti­tu­tion…

  32. Gasman said on May 1st, 2009 at 12:27 am

    Since Pres­i­dent Obama is as far to the left as he can be, I’m sure that he’ll nom­i­nate William Ayers to the Supreme Court. After all, that’s been his plan all along. I’ll bet Al Franken and/or Keith Olber­mann are next on the list for his next appoint­ments.

  33. CrazyCatLady said on May 1st, 2009 at 12:52 am

    Hobo pee. What a col­lec­tion of liq­uid sun­shine! Oddly beau­ti­ful, yet repug­nant nonethe­less. It reminds me of the ‘Trucker Bombs’ I occa­sional notice on the free­ways in Detroit. Pop, water, Gatorade or ice tea bot­tles filled with golden yel­low liq­uid, tossed at the side of the road by truck­ers on a long haul. Or maybe even fear­ful dri­vers avoid­ing stops in town. Where ever they come from, there they are. Sparkling in the sun…YUCK!!!!!!!!

  34. Gasman said on May 1st, 2009 at 12:56 am

    Jeff (tmmo),
    A very sur­pris­ing sta­tis­tic: accord­ing to the analy­sis released Wednes­day by the Pew Forum on Reli­gion & Pub­lic Life, reg­u­lar church goers are more likely to sup­port tor­ture.

    More than half of peo­ple who attend ser­vices at least once a week — 54 per­cent — said the use of tor­ture against sus­pected ter­ror­ists is “often” or “some­times” jus­ti­fied. Only 42 per­cent of peo­ple who “sel­dom or never” go to ser­vices agreed…

    White evan­gel­i­cal Protes­tants were the reli­gious group most likely to say tor­ture is often or some­times jus­ti­fied — more than six in 10 sup­ported it. Peo­ple unaf­fil­i­ated with any reli­gious orga­ni­za­tion were least likely to back it. Only four in 10 of them did.

    I am appalled and very much sur­prised by those num­bers. I’m not sure how you could have even a pass­ing famil­iar­ity with the New Tes­ta­ment and the life and words of Jesus Christ and endorse that phi­los­o­phy.

    How­ever, as a Pres­by­ter­ian, I was pleased to read the fol­low­ing:

    The reli­gious group most likely to say tor­ture is never jus­ti­fied was Protes­tant denom­i­na­tions — such as Epis­co­palians, Luther­ans and Pres­by­te­ri­ans — cat­e­go­rized as “main­line” Protes­tants, in con­trast to evan­gel­i­cals. Just over three in 10 of them said tor­ture is never jus­ti­fied.

    Inter­est­ing. I would not have thought that tor­ture would be a very valu­able evan­gel­i­cal tool.

    At First Pres­by­ter­ian in Santa Fe, we had a “tor­ture is wrong” ban­ner up until Pres­i­dent Obama offi­cially banned the prac­tice. I can­not not think of any­thing more anti­thet­i­cal to the Gospel than the notion that any pro­fessed dis­ci­ple of Christ could be con­tent to endorse such bar­barous inhu­man­ity. Whom would Jesus tor­ture?

  35. moe99 said on May 1st, 2009 at 1:54 am

    mark–you’ve not proven any­thing with respect to hedge fund money being invested a) on behalf of pen­sions (2005 is 4 years ago, if you hadn’t noticed) and b)in Chrysler bonds. IIRC most invest­ment in Chrysler bonds is of recent vin­tage, i.e. the bond own­er­ship has turned over, so any­one who curently holds it, had to know there was more than enough risk when they bought into it. Given that the bond­hold­ers are late to the party, their petu­lance strikes me as just that.

    In fact, in think­ing about the plague of enti­tle­ment sen­si­bil­ity, epit­o­mized in the Chrysler bond­hold­ers, it seems to me that it goes much fur­ther in cur­rent soci­ety and can be ascribed as the root cause of the evan­gel­i­cals’ belief in the effi­cacy and legal­ity of tor­ture. This sense of enti­tle­ment can also be seen in the cur­rent Repub­li­cans’ self destruc­tion. The world owes them a liv­ing, one that is liv­ing large.

    For­get oth­ers’ rights, if it inter­feres with their god given right to make a buck at the corporation’s (and the work­ers’) expense. And for­get oth­ers’ rights if we need to get infor­ma­tion and jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for our going to war against Iraq in 2003, par­tic­u­larly if they are just Mus­lims.

  36. Dexter said on May 1st, 2009 at 3:10 am

    It’s huge news that Jus­tice Souter is retiring…a repugg-appointee, he’s been a friend of the work­ing class for nearly two decades…he wants to return per­ma­nently to his Weare, NH home. The home is mod­est, to say the least. google it if you’re inter­ested.
    Word is that Obama will appoint a woman, as 76 year-old Gins­burg stands alone .
    She is not retir­ing until her 80′s she says.

    Sur­pris­ing , to me, is that the UAW will own 55% of Chrysler-Fiat USA when they emerge from bank­ruptcy in June.

    I do not see the beauty of the piss bot­tles. They are just piss bot­tles, which lit­ter the US high­ways, but not like they used to, around here any­way.
    It never was all that bad here, but I have been places where piss bot­tles were all over the roadway-sides.

    Most dis­gust­ing park­ing lot I have seen was the Motel 6 in Charleston, WV…from our car to the office my wife and I saw sev­eral used con­doms just lay­ing on the black­top drive…we got there late, and the car-action was quite active …lots of occu­pied cars.
    One fam­ily were uti­liz­ing a hill­billy hot-tub…they had com­man­deered a gar­den hose and were run­ning water into the back of their pickup truck, and the whole fam­ily were sit­ting in the bed of the truck, get­ting sprayed . They must have had a liner because the water was over­flow­ing the bed.

    I remem­ber when the fax machine was invented…Bob Greene wrote that it would change soci­ety in astound­ing ways.

  37. Dexter said on May 1st, 2009 at 3:12 am

    MAY DAY!
    The Inter­na­tional Work­ing Man’s hol­i­day.

  38. mark said on May 1st, 2009 at 5:42 am

    Yes, moe, bond hold­ers want­ing to be repaid=torture lov­ing evangelicals=muslim hat­ing reubli­cans. Bril­liant, and I hope the party was a lot of fun.

  39. moe99 said on May 1st, 2009 at 9:48 am

    Why mark, you’re stray­ing into ad hominem ter­ri­tory! If that’s all you have….

  40. moe99 said on May 1st, 2009 at 10:17 am

    Bloomberg seems to agree that the hedge funds lost a big game of chicken they tried to play with Obama, and if they con­tinue, they will gar­ner even more oppro­brium.

    http://​www​.bloomberg​.com/​a​p​p​s​/​n​e​w​s​?​p​i​d​=​2​0​6​0​1​0​8​7​&​a​m​p​;​s​i​d​=​a​o​w​m​Z​k​X​0​T​z​E​E​&​a​m​p​;​r​e​f​e​r=home

  41. moe99 said on May 1st, 2009 at 7:02 pm