nancynall.com » Closed systems.

Closed systems.

Peo­ple these days are always accus­ing one another of liv­ing in an echo cham­ber. To be sure, it’s a haz­ard of mod­ern life. You may find your­self writ­ing things like this:

So, are we sup­posed to use the Span­ish pro­nun­ci­a­tion, so-toe-my-OR, or the nat­ural Eng­lish pro­nun­ci­a­tion, SO-tuh-my-er, like Nie­der­meyer?

That’s Mark Kriko­rian, writ­ing at National Review’s brain­less group blog, The Cor­ner. And OK, so he wrote it, big deal, these things tend to be self-correcting. Not in echo cham­bers:

Most e-mailers were with me on the post on the pro­nun­ci­a­tion of Judge Sotomayor’s name…

Well, of course they were. Per­haps they pre­fer the Ellis Island option, in which the Supreme Court nom­i­nee would have been renamed Sally Sut­ton in exchange for her par­ents get­ting that cushy public-housing apart­ment. But Kriko­rian goes on:

But a cou­ple said we should just pro­nounce it the way the bearer of the name prefers, includ­ing one who pro­nounces her name “freed” even though it’s spelled “fried,” like fried rice. …Defer­ring to people’s own pro­nun­ci­a­tion of their names should obvi­ously be our first incli­na­tion, but there ought to be lim­its. Putting the empha­sis on the final syl­la­ble of Sotomayor is unnat­ural in Eng­lish…

Then there’s a bunch of non­sense about how his name has been angli­cized from the orig­i­nal Armen­ian — one whole syl­la­ble got added, oh my — and you just think stop stop stop you’re going to choke on your shoe, man, but nooo:

Part of our suc­cess in assim­i­la­tion has been to leave whole areas of cul­ture up to the indi­vid­ual, so that new­com­ers have what­ever cui­sine or reli­gion or so on they want, lim­it­ing the demand for con­for­mity to a smaller field than most other places would. But one of the areas where con­for­mity is appro­pri­ate is how your new coun­try­men say your name, since that’s not some­thing the rest of us can just ignore, unlike what church you go to or what you eat for lunch.

You hear that? There ought to be lim­its. Con­for­mity is appro­pri­ate. A man can only bend so far. You let peo­ple pro­nounce their names how­ever they want, and the next thing you know, we’ll have a man in the Oval Office named Barack Hus­sein Obama.

Some­one tell Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito — I mean, Andy Scalls and Sam Allen — there’s a lady com­ing who’s going to give ‘em all fits.

One of my Twit­ter fol­lows said it best: It’s spelled Kriko­rian, but it’s pro­nounced “Kracker.” HT: Vir­go­tex.

Yeesh, what a week so far. Gath­er­ing the police news this week, I found a report of two coy­otes attack­ing a cat. The wit­nesses called police to see if the cat had sur­vived. In clas­sic cop­s­peak, the report revealed: “The offi­cers found that it had not,” and dis­posed of the body. This seems sad all around. Sad that some fam­ily lost its kitty. Sad that two coy­otes lost their meal, although the report wasn’t that spe­cific, so it’s pos­si­ble they got away with enough to make a decent lunch. Sad­der still that this par­tic­u­lar sub­urb spent quite a bit of effort in the last two years try­ing to erad­i­cate their coy­ote pop­u­la­tion, with lit­tle suc­cess. They caught a female with pups, but any­one who knows coy­otes knows this is like killing six rats and pro­nounc­ing the prob­lem solved. Not that coy­otes are rats. Just…it’s sad.

I’ve bored you before at length about one of my favorite things about Detroit — the wild ani­mal life that thrums below the sur­face of human activ­ity. If it can sur­vive at this lat­i­tude, we have it, the coy­otes, the ghetto dogs, pheas­ants, exotics. It’s not exactly Miami, but it’s get­ting there. Speak­ing of which, did any­one read the New Yorker piece last month on the spread of the Burmese python through­out Florida? Worth your time, and then some.

It seems the right time to kick off the blog­gage, then. Another from my Twit­ter clan:

Feral chil­dren — they have their own web­site. With some killer prose: Cer­tainly, it’s true that some ani­mals wouldn’t make good par­ents. It’s dif­fi­cult to imag­ine a croc­o­dile doing any­thing other than eat a human baby. Noted.

You’ve watched “Mad Men.” So you shouldn’t be sur­prised by some of the ad cam­paigns they dreamed up. Check out the one for the Lysol douche. Yikes.

Nate Sil­ver decon­structs the “Obama is tar­get­ing Repub­li­can car deal­ers” meme by point­ing out the obvi­ous: Most car deal­ers are Repub­li­can. There you are.

And here I go. Have a great Thurs­day, all.

81 responses to
“Closed systems.”

  1. alex said on May 28th, 2009 at 7:00 am

    And another great link today. A lit­tle arm­chair psy­chol­ogy that might explain the author­i­tar­ian impulse to Angli­cize Sotomayor and anthro­po­mor­phize your shit-eating dog:

    http://​www​.nytimes​.com/​2​0​0​9​/​0​5​/​2​8​/​o​p​i​n​i​o​n​/​2​8​k​r​i​s​t​o​f.html

  2. coozledad said on May 28th, 2009 at 7:09 am

    New arrivals ought to go ahead and get their South­ern nick­name while they’re at it. If everyone’s called Hoss, Mama, Bull, or Stinky, it makes things eas­ier on every­body.
    A lot of Asian immi­grants have adopted a sec­ond name, because it’s too hard for Amer­i­cans to mas­ter the pho­netic game of three dimen­sional chess that is “Lay” or “Fung”, “Ying” or “Win”. In the mean­time, Amer­i­cans are sad­dling kids with names I’d be reluc­tant to give a chicken.
    It seems to me it wasn’t too long ago that Repub­li­cans were dis­trib­ut­ing copies of “Who moved my Cheese?” and explain­ing that in a World Econ­omy, Pooger might just have to hone his God-given apti­tude for shov­el­ing shit off of a flatbed, instead of man­ag­ing the Safe­way. It’s good to see we’re back to point­ing and squeal­ing at folks like an iso­lated group of chim­panzees, and hark­ing up plug tobacco in the park­ing lot. It just seems more nat­ural.

  3. beb said on May 28th, 2009 at 7:52 am

    It’s the crack of Dawn, Nancy! Go to bed! — Oh, you’re just get­ting up. Never mind.

  4. jeff borden said on May 28th, 2009 at 9:19 am

    The National Review has a trou­bling, well-documented his­tory of being a lag­ging indi­ca­tor of Amer­i­can social progress, most notably in its stri­dent defense of “state’s rights” back in the late `50s and early `60s. William F. Buck­ley him­self wrote many of the arti­cles defend­ing Jim Crow and the so-called “sep­a­rate but equal” seg­re­ga­tion.

    But, he evolved. And while NR might’ve stood in a dif­fer­ent place than me, it was nonethe­less an inter­est­ing read for a period of time. No more.

    The col­lec­tion of fuzzy heads at NR these days are not only grind­ingly doc­tri­naire, but worse, they are dull, bor­ing, lazy thinkers and writ­ers. Mitch Albom and Bob Greene could learn at their elbows.

    So, Mark Kriko­rian vom­its out a bunch of poorly rea­soned and poorly writ­ten sen­tences on pro­noun­ci­a­tions that irri­tate him. And this passes for com­men­tary? Once, a columnist/commentary at NR might’ve read through a body of Judge Sotomayor’s work and weighed in with a well-argued cri­tique. But this is sooooooo much eas­ier.

    Scan the site and try to decide who is the worst writer. Kathryn Jean Lopez? Mark Hem­ing­way? Andy McCarthy? Jonah Gold­berg? Kriko­rian? There’s a rea­son my man tbogg calls it “America’s shit­ti­est web­site.”

    I wouldn’t trust any of these knobs to cover a two-car fatal or a bowl­ing league din­ner, but they sit in Man­hat­tan, heav­ily sub­si­dized because NR can­not sup­port itself with­out fund-raising, and riff on every­thing from Sotomayor’s name to her fond­ness for pork, rice and beans.

    Nice work if you can get it.

  5. MichaelG said on May 28th, 2009 at 9:21 am

    Maybe if the esteemed nom­i­nee had a preppy nick­name like “Muffy” or some­thing. . . Yeah, that’s it. Muffy Sotomayor.

    A lot of Asian immi­grants’ names were homog­e­nized at Angel Island.

    Lysol? Just the thing. A woman who smells like a gas sta­tion restroom.

  6. brian stouder said on May 28th, 2009 at 9:51 am

    The NR/Hannity/Human Events (et al) game is – pro­vid­ing a petina for people’s base prej­u­dices.

    Leav­ing aside know-nothing/xenophobic impulses, we were gab­bing about the num­ber of hyphen­ated sur­names amongts our young folks’ class­mates, and the ques­tion arose – what hap­pens when Dick Smith-Jones mar­ries Jane Doe-Black?

    Will their fine young daugh­ter be named Camilla Doe-Black-Smith-Jones? (she’d sound like a walk­ing legal firm). I think a round of name-pruning is com­ing for some of these (very white bread!) folks, when I’m an old retired guy

  7. jeff borden said on May 28th, 2009 at 9:57 am

    This puts me in mind of the gags on pro­nun­ci­a­tions in “Young Franken­stein,” where the good doc­tor insists on being called “Franken-shteeen” instead of “Franken-stine,” lead­ing his hunch­backed assist to insist on being called “Eye-gore.”

    It’s kind of silly in and of itself that a guy with a difficult-to-pronounce mon­icker like Kriko­rian is snark­ing on the pro­nun­ci­a­tion of some­one else’s name.

    Michael G., shouldn’t the judge be “Sissy” Sotomayor for the allit­er­a­tion?

  8. MichaelG said on May 28th, 2009 at 10:18 am

    OK, “Sissy” it is.

    Brian, wait a cou­ple of gen­er­a­tions. Instead of walk­ing law firms, they’ll be walk­ing ros­ters.

    Jok­ing aside, there’s a guy here at the office who is going through a pro­longed, hel­la­cious and bru­tal divorce. One of the big bones of con­tention is the kids’ names. The guy will sign them up for swim­ming with one name, the wife will sign them up for soc­cer under another. I’ve heard him on the phone argu­ing with her about it. As is so often the case, both par­ents are prime ass­holes and the poor kids suf­fer.

  9. Crabby said on May 28th, 2009 at 10:18 am

    I’m not sure where the line ought to be drawn on names, maybe near the sym­bol that rep­re­sented “the artist for­merly known as Prince”

  10. John said on May 28th, 2009 at 10:19 am

    Brian, you are being very kind to call this two-inch treat­ing of manure sim­ply a patina.

  11. whitebeard said on May 28th, 2009 at 10:26 am

    My given names are Dun­can from my Scot­tish grand­fa­ther and Alois from my Ger­man father, fre­quently mis­spelled, and with Alois, always mis­pro­nounced, although I bet that Gov­er­nor Arnold Alois Schwarzeneg­ger never allowed Alois to be mis­pro­nounced a sec­ond time.

  12. Julie Robinson said on May 28th, 2009 at 10:28 am

    Just like gay mar­riage, in another gen­er­a­tion or two no one will care. Every­one will be S’haquikkquah or the like, because every­one will want a unique name for their kid. Get out of the way for the future, all you over 35. Your time has passed.

  13. Conan the Libertarian said on May 28th, 2009 at 10:39 am

    What you are see­ing with the name thing is an end to the patience of the dom­i­nant cul­ture to do back­bends to accom­mo­date indi­vid­ual whims.

    This didn’t really start at Ellis Island. That’s a rhetor­i­cal diver­sion. This started in the mid eight­ies with the head slap­ping, eye rolling lack of patience for man­u­fac­tured names com­ing from urban com­mu­ni­ties (black and white).

    You fail to men­tion 40 years of Japan­ese buis­ness­peoople, stu­dents, and vis­i­tors who took “Amer­i­can” names because their given names were dif­fi­cult for the natives to pro­nounce. And because it is sim­ple cour­tesy to assim­i­late to your host cul­ture.

    West­ern busi­ness­peo­ple who do exten­sive work in Japan return the favor by tak­ing a Japan­ese name.

    The expec­ta­tion that immi­grants make an effort to assim­i­late to the dom­i­nant cul­ture hasn’t been an issue for the first 200 years of this coun­try. It’s still expected of Amer­i­can vis­i­tors and expa­tri­ots who immi­grate to other coun­tries.

    Not sure why “meet us half-way” is sud­denly an insane expec­ta­tion.

    Take a look at Mod­ern Ger­many. There’s your blue­print for what hap­pens to a cul­ture that does back­bends to guiltily accom­mo­date every eth­nic­ity in lieu of assert­ing a dom­i­nant cul­ture. They are a mess. They have no national iden­tity at all.

    Then take a look at Japan. They accept sta­tis­ti­cally zero West­ern­ers for immi­gra­tion. They don’t want to bend their cul­ture to suit the indi­vid­ual, and they know West­ern­ers will get their elbows through the door and start mak­ing demands for higher toi­lets and manga pages printed in the wrong order.

    Besides Ger­many, where else in the world can I go and demand that the locals change their cul­ture to suit me?

    And Amer­ica should be the one coun­try to do this because?

    Respect your eth­nic her­itage, and I will too. Just meet me (and the dom­i­nant cul­ture) half way. That’s all I ask.

  14. coozledad said on May 28th, 2009 at 10:44 am

  15. Jolene said on May 28th, 2009 at 11:00 am

    So how do you pro­nounce Alois, white­beard? That’s a new one to me.

    Jeff, “lag­ging indi­ca­tor of Amer­i­can social progress” is a fab­u­lous phrase. Can be applied to so many things. I plan to steal it and use it when­ever pos­si­ble.

  16. Danny said on May 28th, 2009 at 11:06 am

    Yeah, I see your point, Nance. Because every­one should agree that it’s much more impor­tant to con­cen­trate on the mildly racist pronounciation-mewlings of a rel­a­tively obscure, con­ser­v­a­tive colum­nist than the arguably overt, racist ejac­u­la­tions of the promi­nent lib­eral Supreme Court appointee.

    I’m busy. You all have lots of fun, today.

  17. alex said on May 28th, 2009 at 11:12 am

    Pro­NUN­ci­a­tions, Danny. Proof­read before you ejac­u­late.

  18. coozledad said on May 28th, 2009 at 11:13 am

    As a white guy, let me just say I’m tired of tak­ing shit from the man. Er, His­panic Woman. The Repub­li­cans are run­ning with a quote from a diver­sity con­fer­ence that has been removed from con­text and delib­er­ately pruned mid sen­tence. It’s all they have.
    Poor old Jesse. They just won’t let the moth­er­fucker die.

  19. LA Mary said on May 28th, 2009 at 11:22 am

    I work in a place full of Asht­giks and Xochitls. Sotomayor is a piece of cake.

  20. nancy said on May 28th, 2009 at 11:23 am

    I just got back and had to res­cue Conan’s com­ment from mod­er­a­tion, so y’all go back a bit, find it, read it and I’ll wait.

    …You’re back? OK. Conan? Since when is ask­ing that one’s name be pro­nounced cor­rectly — and to be sure, i don’t believe Judge Sotomayor has done so — “ask­ing the cul­ture to do back­bends?”

    Her name isn’t Japan­ese or Russ­ian or Hindi. It isn’t translit­er­ated from a dif­fer­ent alpha­bet into Eng­lish. It’s just your basic Euro­pean Span­ish sur­name that sim­ply isn’t dif­fi­cult for any­one with a work­ing tongue to say. So-toe-my-OR. You don’t have to roll the R or any­thing. Just say it: So-toe-my-OR. What. Is the big. Fuck­ing. DEAL?

    Because if you’re going down that road, Krikorian’s road, then ask him when he last called on his pal, Jus­tice SCAL-ya. Scalia even has an Ital­ian nick­name!

    And all that wank­ing about how his Armen­ian name was Angli­cized. In the native tongue, it’s Kri-KOR-yen, in Eng­lish, Kri-KOR-ee-en, and that’s if the speaker is speak­ing slowly. The Armenian-Americans I know would laugh in his face over that one.

  21. Lex said on May 28th, 2009 at 11:26 am

    coo­zledad: Hell, Jesse voted FOR Sotomayor when Bush 41 nom­i­nated her to the fed­eral bench.

    C the L: The not-so-remote pos­si­bil­ity that you’re being ironic and it’s going over my head aside, Sotomayor’s par­ents are from Puerto Rico, which, last I checked, was a U.S. pos­ses­sion. So what the eff does Japan have to do with any­thing?

  22. LA Mary said on May 28th, 2009 at 11:30 am

    I just got an email from a coworker named Bazav­il­vazo. The per­son who han­dles back­ground checks here is named Kbd­jian.

  23. brian stouder said on May 28th, 2009 at 11:31 am

    Poor old Jesse. They just won’t let the mother***er die.

    Well, and note that even Jesse voted to con­firm Judge Sotomayor, when she was nom­i­nated for the 2nd Cir­cuit Court…

  24. moe99 said on May 28th, 2009 at 11:33 am

    Not only is Puerto Rico a US pos­ses­sion, all those born there are Amer­i­can cit­i­zens. Look it up–coutesy of the Span­ish Amer­i­can War.

    And Danny, do your­self a favor and go read some of Sotomayor’s deci­sions rather than 3 para­graphs taken entirely out of con­text. This woman has had what, 20 years on the bench, and this is the best you can come up with? Go back and eat some more Chee­tohs, guy.

    ps: give me one exam­ple of an Amer­i­can who took a Japan­ese name to blend in while work­ing in Japan. James Fal­lows wrote for the Atlantic for years from Japan and he didn’t take a Japan­ese name. He DID write about how it was dif­fi­cult for a gai­jin to find hous­ing in Japan and how most for­eign­ers, as a result were ghet­toized. I don’t think you want to be tak­ing Japan as a coun­try the US should emu­late, guy. Back to the crunch!

  25. coozledad said on May 28th, 2009 at 11:36 am

    Lex, Brian: An edu­ca­tion is a pow­er­ful thing. So they’ve finally moved to the right of Pinochet?
    Dang!

  26. jeff borden said on May 28th, 2009 at 11:41 am

    Isn’t this about sim­ple cour­tesy rather than some dark His­panic plot to poi­son our American-sounding names? Sheeesh. This is right up there with the macho manly men of the right who wail about hav­ing to press “1″ for Eng­lish, as if it takes exces­sive strength and for­ti­tude to exer­cise that digit.

    And I’d be extremely care­ful sug­gest­ing Japan is any kind of soci­ety to emu­late when it comes to social inte­gra­tion. Japan­ese of Korean or Chi­nese descent, whose fam­i­lies have lived there for gen­er­a­tions, are still sub­ject to bla­tant prej­u­dice and dis­crim­i­na­tion. One of my friends here is the daugh­ter of an Amer­i­can male and a Japan­ese war bride. When she vis­ited her cousins in Japan a few years ago, she was pointed at and gig­gled about in pub­lic because she was not pure Japan­ese. They also found her wide smile and hearty laugh too tough to take.

    It’s been six years since I last vis­ited Ger­many, but aside from the deli­cious “doner” stands oper­ated by eth­nic Turks, I saw no evi­dence of a nation bend­ing over back­wards to please immi­grant minori­ties.

    We’d all bet­ter get used to the idea of a global mar­ket­place and work­force, where we’re going to be deal­ing with peo­ple whose names, beliefs and cus­toms are con­sid­er­ably dif­fer­ent. I sus­pect Mark Kriko­rian is one of those who will be unable to adapt if the poor fel­low gets miffed over the pro­nun­ci­a­tion of a name.

  27. nancy said on May 28th, 2009 at 11:42 am

    Paul Cam­pos: Yes.

  28. 4dbirds said on May 28th, 2009 at 11:42 am

    Some of my coworker’s names: Sub­mani­jan, Man­jov, Hong, Rabi­novitch, Chow­dery, Lee, Chiriati, Wilber­force, Moore, Mag­ino, Neuburg.

  29. 4dbirds said on May 28th, 2009 at 11:46 am

    I lived in Ger­many for a total of 17 years. Absolutely loved it. Don’t get me started on the ‘don­ers’. I miss them so much and my waist­line is prob­a­bly the bet­ter for it.

  30. Sue said on May 28th, 2009 at 11:47 am

    I think we should for­get about Mod­ern Ger­many, which is still try­ing to fig­ure out what to do with all those com­mu­nists who used to be rel­a­tives, and also for­get Japan, which thinks Hello Kitty is a high art form, and take our cues from France, which is so picky about lan­guage that you can be exe­cuted for throw­ing an Eng­lish word into a sen­tence. With a lan­guage that’s not allowed to change, we can demand con­for­mity from every­one who doesn’t fit our expec­ta­tions AND con­tinue to use “ejac­u­late” instead of “said” with­out get­ting into trou­ble.

  31. mark said on May 28th, 2009 at 11:50 am

    Well, I cer­tainly didn’t think today would be the day that I would (par­tially) agree with coo­zledad.

    The two most dis­cussed com­ments by Sotomayor really are being taken out of con­text, and given an impor­tance that is unde­served. The “mak­ing law” com­ment was in the con­text of the dif­fer­ence between clerk­ing for a fed­eral appeals court rather than a fed­eral trial court, and it cap­tured one of the essen­tial dif­fer­ences. The com­ment was insight­ful, not alarm­ing.

    The “latina woman” com­ment, as cooz notes, was made dur­ing a diver­sity con­fer­ence. Even con­ser­v­a­tives accept that expe­ri­ence informs deci­sions, which is why we can applaud the rags to riches story, the up by your boot­straps expe­ri­ence, and the mil­i­tary hero/sacrifice back­ground. Sotomayor has a com­pelling story that ought to impart an ele­ment of wis­dom to her decision-making.

    But the press loves a con­tro­versy and the pun­dit class espe­cially so. Attribut­ing that nat­ter­ing to repub­li­cans or con­se­v­a­tives gen­er­ally fits the pre­ferred bias here, but it ignores real­ity. Gins­burg was affirmed 96-3. For Breyer, it was 87-9. Sotomayer will be sim­i­lar, after sim­i­lar ques­tion­ing.

    And it was con­ser­v­a­tives who led the oppo­si­tion to the unqual­i­fied hack, Har­riet Meiers, sac­ri­fic­ing what might have been a reli­able vote in pref­er­ence for a qual­i­fied jurist.

    Democ­rats set the stan­dard for oppos­ing qual­i­fied can­di­dates, offered by a pres­i­dent that has won the right to make the choice, because the can­di­date dares to think dif­fer­ently.

    Han­nity and the oth­ers are enter­tain­ers required to fill a few hours of time every day. Their every utter­ance does not rep­re­sent what any­body is “run­ning with.”

    My pre­dic­tion is that the loud­est crit­i­cism of Sotomayor will come from the abor­tion rights crowd, given the judge’s lack of a prior pub­lic pledge of loy­alty to Roe vs. Wade.

  32. nancy said on May 28th, 2009 at 11:51 am

    And they really make some nice Free­dom Fries there, too. Win-win.

  33. jeff borden said on May 28th, 2009 at 11:55 am

    4birds!

    Amen! My wife and I were stay­ing near the Friedrich­strasse sta­tion in what had been East Berlin, and we became absolutely addicted to those deli­cious treats. We were in Ger­many for 14 days and I’d wager we had a doner at least 10 of them. She con­tin­ues to lament their absence in the culi­nary stew that is Chicago, though there must be a few Turk­ish joints offer­ing them. We just haven’t found them yet.

    The Turk­ish Fes­ti­val is this week­end at Daley Plaza, so we may have to grab the L and check it out just for the don­ers. Con­versely, my neigh­bor­hood, which orig­i­nally was pop­u­lated almost exclu­sively by Ger­man immi­grants, is host­ing Maifest this week­end. So, it’s theringer sausage on one end of town and (hope­fully) don­ers on the other.

    I don’t know. Maybe I’m odd, but I think it’s cool that I’m likely to hear a half-dozen lan­guages or more when­ever I take the L down­town. Span­ish, of course, but also Chi­nese, Korean, Pol­ish, Russ­ian, Ukran­ian, what­ever.

  34. moe99 said on May 28th, 2009 at 11:59 am

    They’ve attacked her gen­der and her nation­al­ity. Why not her reli­gion? If she’s appointed, she will be the 6th Jus­tice of the Catholic faith on the Supreme Court.l

  35. LA Mary said on May 28th, 2009 at 11:59 am

    There are doner places in LA. If you head this direc­tion let me know and I’ll steer you in the right direc­tion for a doner hook up.

  36. jeff borden said on May 28th, 2009 at 12:00 pm

    Mark,

    You are quite cor­rect about con­ser­v­a­tives howl­ing about Har­riet Myers, which was a great thing to see. My God! Imag­ine her on the Supreme Court.

    I also agree that, so far, it’s the pro­fes­sional rightwing wind­bags –Lim­baugh, Han­nity, Coul­ter and the nerds at NR– who are trash­ing Judge Sotomayor. (Gin­grich is a notable excep­tion, but he’s play­ing to his base.) Elected GOP­ers have been very cir­cum­spect and respect­ful in their com­ments about her and her prospects. And for that I tip my lib­eral cap.

  37. 4dbirds said on May 28th, 2009 at 12:00 pm

    Oh Nancy, the pommes frites from the schnell imbus served up in paper cones were won­der­ful. I’m think­ing they might have been fried in beef tal­low cause there’s noth­ing quite so good here in the States.

  38. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on May 28th, 2009 at 12:24 pm

    Jeff, glad you noticed. I tip le cha­peau back atcha.

    Sotomayor will do just fine, and set­tle in by the first Mon­day in Octo­ber. But in other elected offi­cial ret­ro­spec­tion, try this quote on for size.

    “I speak bluntly. Some­times I can be impul­sive. I believe some­thing to be right and do it. And then I don’t worry about it.”

    George W. Bush, right?

    Nope, that’s Harry Reid.

    When phase II of the eco­nomic read­just­ment gets rolling down­hill and picks up momen­tum (because i think we’ve got a ways to go before we hit bot­tom, from which we are most likely to recover, but when, i dunno), there’s going to be some major pitch­ing to do on Capi­tol Hill, and the bench there looks weak.

    The fed­eral bench is doing just fine, i’d say, and that’s with the inevitabil­ity of a Jus­tice Sotomayor already a done deal. The rum­bling ahead, which we may not have leisure for after the failed auc­tions for T-bills that are just around the next cor­ner like a mug­ger with the shakes, is the col­lapse of Roe v. Wade. And Sotomayor is likely to help col­lapse it, hence the odd waf­flings on the left. EMILY’s List doesn’t want Roe to end because they can’t make sense of what the future looks like with­out it.

    Nor can i, for that mat­ter, but it’s com­ing, the post-Roe polit­i­cal land­scape. At any rate, Dr. Dob­son will be eased fur­ther to the side­lines, to join Dr. Robert­son for an energy drink. (Min­er­als from the Dead Sea!)

  39. beb said on May 28th, 2009 at 12:27 pm

    I haven’t had Free­dom Toast in years. I keep think­ing about mak­ing them for break­fast some morn­ing but I’m always run­ning late.

    I’m always amazed by the num­ber of foriegn voices I hear at Metro Beach, one of a num­ber of region­ally run parks in the Detroit area. It’s a really nice beach but it seems like only immi­grants still think that a day at the beach is how you spend a hol­i­day.

  40. Rana said on May 28th, 2009 at 1:08 pm

    Jeff (TMMO), I don’t see Roe being col­lapsed so much as being gut­ted from the inside until it is lit­tle more than a shell. The process is already well under way, as a num­ber of states have tight­ened the reg­u­la­tions to the point that for a major­ity of women abor­tion may be avail­able de jure but not de facto. When there’s only one poorly funded provider in the state, and there’s restric­tions in the form of wait­ing peri­ods and per­mis­sions and court approvals, abor­tion might as well be ille­gal for the gen­eral pop­u­la­tion of peo­ple who need one.

    Over­turn­ing Roe in the courts would ignite a fire under the activists; this slow gut­ting is harder to see and has been going on for a while now.

    The right to pri­vacy is a some­what frail reed here; the real issue is whether the gov­ern­ment has the right to con­trol the bod­ies of its cit­i­zens against their wishes, and, if so, under what cir­cum­stances. Abor­tion is there­fore one piece of a larger issue that includes the mil­i­tary draft, tor­ture, cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment, dis­posal of corpses, organ dona­tion, med­ical exper­i­men­ta­tion, eugen­ics, and so on. It’s an issue that’s never been ade­quately addressed.

  41. moe99 said on May 28th, 2009 at 1:13 pm

    Jeff tmmo, We agree that Harry Reid is a back bencher in terms of abil­ity, but I am sure we part ways as to what a good Sen­ate Major­ity leader should be doing.

  42. coozledad said on May 28th, 2009 at 1:21 pm

  43. Scout said on May 28th, 2009 at 1:37 pm

    So, “Boner” it is, then.

  44. Duffy said on May 28th, 2009 at 2:02 pm

    Off topic spelling humor from this weekend’s national spelling bee:

    http://​www​.youtube​.com/​w​a​t​c​h​?​v​=​V​j​z​r​N​WPul9E

  45. Sue said on May 28th, 2009 at 2:47 pm

  46. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on May 28th, 2009 at 3:06 pm

    Well, Archie is an idiot. That would be like mar­ry­ing Gin­ger and not Mary Ann. (OK, and i’ve always had a thing for Velma, and the movie of Scooby Doo was awful, except for . . . Velma! I think they cap­tured her essence per­fectly.)

    If Jug­head has half a brain, he’ll pro­pose to Betty imme­di­ately.

  47. nancy said on May 28th, 2009 at 3:13 pm

    On Face­book today, Hank Stuever said: “I plan to get a lit­tle drunk dur­ing the toasts at Archie and Veronica’s wed­ding and tell the story of the time he had group sex with Josie and the Pussy­cats.”

  48. Catherine said on May 28th, 2009 at 3:16 pm

    Conan, just what do you mean by “the dom­i­nant cul­ture?” I just came from Inter­na­tional Day at my daughter’s nicely diverse school, which was an eat­a­palooza if I’ve ever been to one. There were 7 dishes from Mex­ico. The other 13 dishes were from Nige­ria, Wales, Scot­land, Korea, Turkey, Iran, China, and I’m for­get­ting the rest. Seems to me the dom­i­nant cul­ture is… Mex­i­can, yes?

  49. Deborah said on May 28th, 2009 at 3:20 pm

    Jeff,

    This morn­ing I took a few min­utes off from work and went through the mar­ket at Daley Plaza where the Turk­ish Fes­ti­val is being held. No Don­ers were seen. Maybe they will have some this week­end?

  50. John said on May 28th, 2009 at 3:23 pm

    Jeff, we all loved Velma (more so than Daphne who seemed a bit slow), but the pre­vail­ing feel­ing was that Velma was play­ing for the other team (not that there is any­thing wrong with that!). For that mat­ter, Fred may have been dab­bling a bit too. Did you ever see Capt. Amer­ica in an ascot?

    Shaggy was the most pop­u­lar char­ac­ter amongst my friends but he clearly had been hit­ting the bong way too often.

  51. Danny said on May 28th, 2009 at 3:31 pm

    Moe, given that I used the term “arguably” as a mod­i­fier, with a lit­tle read­ing com­pre­hen­sion, one could rea­son­ably assume that I am not try­ing to make a “fed­eral case” of her com­ment as I am sure that she will be con­firmed. But as to your argu­ment that “3 para­graphs” are out of con­text, that’s pretty laugh­able on two fronts. First, three para­graphs is a pretty big snip­pet for con­text and sec­ond, you know full well that if a con­ser­v­a­tive jurist had made sim­i­lar com­ments, you’d be falling all over your­self to dis­credit them.

    So other than your main point being wrong, you’re mostly right.

    And I eschew Chee­toes and junk food in gen­eral so’s I can keep my waterboard abs.

  52. Dorothy said on May 28th, 2009 at 3:43 pm

    We demand proof of those abs, Danny…! Post a pic­ture imme­di­ately!

  53. LA Mary said on May 28th, 2009 at 3:49 pm

    No Fil­ipino food Cather­ine?

  54. Catherine said on May 28th, 2009 at 3:54 pm

    Yes! I for­got to men­tion the lumpia.

  55. Peter said on May 28th, 2009 at 4:07 pm

    I think it would have been cool if Archie pro­posed to Jug­head and got mar­ried in Iowa.

    I didn’t see it in the com­ments, so I’m sorry if I’m repeat­ing, but you can pro­nounce it Al LOY or Al LOYZ. Which, BTW, is Hitler’s given name (Alois Schikel­gru­ber)

  56. moe99 said on May 28th, 2009 at 4:15 pm

    Danny, Three para­graphs taken out of con­text from three sep­a­rate inci­dents over a multi year period, when dur­ing the same time period the judge has writ­ten numer­ous legal deci­sions.

    What are those 3 para­graphs? I am assum­ing they are the fol­low­ing:

    1. Sotomayor also claimed: “For me, a very spe­cial part of my being Latina is the mucho platos de arroz, gan­doles y pernir — rice, beans and pork — that I have eaten at count­less fam­ily hol­i­days and spe­cial events.”

    2. Sotomayor made an off­hand remark at a con­fer­ence that appel­late courts are where “pol­icy” is made.

    3. At a 2002 lec­ture in Berke­ley, she said, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the rich­ness of her expe­ri­ences would more often than not reach a bet­ter con­clu­sion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

    Now Danny, none of these quotes indi­cate that Judge Sotomayor is unfit for the Supreme Court. Par­tic­u­larly when George HW Bush (who nom­i­nated Sotomayor to the fed­eral dis­trict court dur­ing his watch) said this of his own Supreme Court nom­i­nee in July, 1991: “I have fol­lowed this man’s career for some time. He is a delight­ful and warm, intel­li­gent per­son who has great empa­thy and a won­der­ful sense of humor.”

  57. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on May 28th, 2009 at 4:47 pm

    Hola — when did Danny say she was unfit? for the appel­late or Supreme Court? He just reserved the right to say there’s a dou­ble stan­dard in how cer­tain state­ments are being heard and inter­preted, with some added snark.

    I sus­pect he and i both think we could have had (and might yet have) a truly wor­ri­some can­di­date, and Sotomayor is not that.

  58. alex said on May 28th, 2009 at 4:51 pm

    Hola your­self, jtmmo. Go ahead and defend that preen­ing nar­cis­sist and his cheetoh-stained abs, but please don’t tell me you con­cur with the lan­guage arguably overt, racist ejac­u­la­tions of the promi­nent lib­eral Supreme Court appointee.

  59. caliban said on May 28th, 2009 at 6:57 pm

    Isn’t the World­WideNet the biggest echo cham­ber there is if you don’t count stand­ing down at Phan­tom Ranch and scream­ing “Why me, Good?” at the infi­nite uni­verse?

    Appar­ently, one-third of Amer­i­cans will watch a delib­er­ately mere­tri­cious trun­cated video clip and insist that Ms. Sotomayor is a racist, when an ane­choic cham­ber of con­text would prove that A’lito (empha­sis on the first sylla’ble told his con­fir­ma­tion inquisi­tors:

    Because when a case comes before me involv­ing, let’s say, some­one who is an immi­grant — and we get an awful lot of immi­gra­tion cases and nat­u­ral­iza­tion cases — I can’t help but think of my own ances­tors, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that posi­tion. [...]

    The echo cham­ber causes peo­ple you’d expect to know bet­ter to dis­re­gard the utterly dif­fer­ent mean­ings of “empa­thy” and “sym­pa­thy”. It leads to the dis­heart­en­ing instance of jour­nal­ists grant­ing legit­i­macy to ques­tion­ing the intel­lect of a salu­ta­to­rian in her Prince­ton grad­u­at­ing class who edited a pres­ti­gious legal jour­nal at Yale.

    Objec­tive jour­nal­ism should shout back “you’re so full of crap” when a com­pletely legit­i­mate judi­cial deci­sion on a Title VII case is mis­rep­re­sented as an assault on brave 9/11 fire­fight­ers, espe­cially when obstruc­tion­ist jack­asses that mock “empa­thy” also want to make it all about the heroic dyslexic fire­fighter. Sym­pa­thet­i­cally, I appre­ci­ate the guy’s effort, and his frus­tra­tion. Empa­thy means look­ing at both sides, and decid­ing the defen­dant has the law on it’s side. That’s what judges are sup­posed to do, right? The oppo­site of activism.

    The net enables dis­sem­i­na­tion of infor­ma­tion and delib­er­ate dis­in­for­ma­tion and malig­nant slan­der and para­noid ram­blings with­out informed edidt­ing, and the infor­ma­tion prospec­tors use the per­sonal sieves of their own biases, pre­con­ceived notions, neu­roses, axes to grind and oxen to be gored. Gold slips down­stream and pyrites and sewage are trea­sured.

    How is a guy that pro­moted him­self to de facto Pres­i­dent and Bones to Shrub’s Mr. Inter­locu­tor (with the com­plic­ity of SC jus­tices that clearly ignored the Con­sti­tu­tion and dis­en­fran­chised Florida), who’s con­sid­ered by a large por­tion of the human race to be both a war crim­i­nal and a prof­i­teer, get­ting the jump on pros­e­cu­tion by spout­ing eas­ily dis­proved bull­shit? And decided that sep­a­ra­tion of pow­ers and three equal branches of Amer­i­can gov­ern­ment were as anachro­nis­tic as the Geneva Con­ven­tions. Well, the echo cham­ber said he could.

    Every­body knows what T. Jef­fer­son thought about the Repub­lic with­out news­pa­pers. It’s painful to watch news­pa­pers go fetal against the onslaught and resort to the unfil­tered pan­der­ing of blog­world. I wrote after spend­ing time with a can­tan­ker­ous and won­der­ful small-town south Geor­gia pub­lisher and edi­tor (owned his own presses). Man had bid­ness sense and jour­nal­is­tic integrity (a Geor­gia tra­di­tion to be proud of, like Ralph McGill). Now the busi­ness foun­da­tions are eroded to the point of accel­er­at­ing col­lapse, and Amer­i­cans are so echo-chamber-intoxicated they don’t even see that inex­orable assault on news­pa­pers is just part of break­ing down the Con­sti­tu­tion.

    I think papers need to go small, weekly guerilla war­fare. The echo cham­ber is essen­tially fear-based, con­formist and total­i­tar­ian. And it’s not just alive and well, it’s vir­u­lent.

    The flaws of the echo cham­ber are per­fectly crys­tal­lized in the cos­mic joke from Kom­mis­sar Karl Rove’s liver lips. Asked to defend his con­tention that’s become meme about SoSotomayor’s intel­lec­tual capa­bil­i­ties and her pro­mo­tion via affir­ma­tive action rather than per­sonal abil­ity and intel­li­gence, wedge issue Turd Blos­som said “I know lots of stu­pid peo­ple who went to Ivy League schools.” That’s got to be the Death of Com­edy piled on top of the Death of Irony. No shit Karl.Your meal ticket’s a bone­headed frat­boy legacy.

  60. coozledad said on May 28th, 2009 at 7:18 pm

    That’s money, Cal­iban.

  61. moe99 said on May 28th, 2009 at 7:23 pm

    Won­der what Kriko­rian thinks of the name of Father Andrew Cutie (pro­nounced koo-tee-AY), the priest who just left the Catholic Church to join the Epis­co­palians over an affair. Just the name, just the name.

  62. Scout said on May 28th, 2009 at 7:34 pm

    Cal­iban, your first post of the day is always your finest.

  63. Danny said on May 28th, 2009 at 7:36 pm

    Yep, Jeff, you pretty much nailed it, as usual.

    Alex. I know it must give you unpar­al­leled joy as a gay man to use my name and the word “ejac­u­la­tion” in a two posts in the same day, but grow up.

  64. Good thing William F. Buckley didn’t live to read this « Blog on the Run: Reloaded said on May 28th, 2009 at 7:41 pm

    [...] it’s Nancy Nall, for the win: “One of my Twit­ter fol­lows said it best: It’s spelled Kriko­rian, but it’s pro­nounced [...]

  65. Deggjr said on May 28th, 2009 at 7:43 pm

    I’m per­plexed … should I pro­nounce someone’s name the way they pro­nounce it or should I delib­er­ately mis-pronounce it? What per­plexes me is why this ques­tion is being asked.

  66. caliban said on May 28th, 2009 at 8:00 pm

    Rove’s den­i­grat­ing SoSotomayor’s aca­d­e­mic cre­den­tials and intel­lect kust bugs the piss out of me. Did Rove grad­u­ate from col­lege? I don’t mean to say a col­lege degree means much more than dick, but excelling in both under­grad and Law School indi­cates some sort of intel­lec­tual rigor, and if you haven’t dis­played same, you should really shut up about any­body else’s achieve­ments.

    Echo cham­ber records seem to indi­cate that Rove con­sid­ered higher edu­ca­tion a tool to avoid going to Viet­Nam:

    n Decem­ber 1969, the Selec­tive Ser­vice Sys­tem held its first lot­tery draw­ing. Those born on Decem­ber 25, like Rove, received num­ber 84. That num­ber placed him in the mid­dle of those (with num­bers 1 [first pri­or­ity] through 195) who would even­tu­ally be drafted. On Feb­ru­ary 17, 1970, Rove was reclas­si­fied as 2-S, a defer­ment from the draft because of his enroll­ment at the Uni­ver­sity of Utah in the fall of 1969. He main­tained this defer­ment until Decem­ber 14, 1971, despite being only a part-time stu­dent in the autumn and spring quar­ters of 1971 (reg­is­tered for between six and 12 credit hours) and drop­ping out of the uni­ver­sity in June 1971. Rove was a stu­dent at the Uni­ver­sity of Mary­land, Col­lege Park in the fall of 1971; as such, he would have been eli­gi­ble for 2-S sta­tus, but registrar’s records show that he with­drew from classes dur­ing the first half of the semes­ter. In Decem­ber 1971 he was reclas­si­fied as 1-A. On April 27, 1972, he was reclas­si­fied as 1-H, or “not cur­rently sub­ject to pro­cess­ing for induc­tion”.

    I was par­ty­ing and pon­tif­i­cat­ing in Thoreau and Shake­spear sem­i­nars at Holy Cross thanks to AP exams while Karl was at Utah, and we shared a 2-S. He was in graver dan­ger than I with the bet your life lot­tery num­ber of 84. Mine was 85. I let my stu­dent defer­ment lapse to 1-A because a friend of my dad’s on the Royal Oak draft Board said that they’d never reach my num­ber because of a high level of vol­un­teers (Fr. Cough­lin appar­ently lived.) And then, Bush’s brain and I got reclas­si­fied.

    Some­times, you find some­thing out on the net that just knocks you back. But, I trans­ferred to Geor­gia, grad­u­ated from the Grady School, and got a Mas­ters in Pub­lic Admin­is­tra­tion from Suf­folk Uni­ver­sity in Boston. I can’t fig­ure out from Google if Rove ever grad­u­ated from any­thing but high school and hard knocks. Still, find­ing out about his Selec­tive Ser­vice timeline’s coince­dence with my own is spooky.

    I wasn’t dodg­ing the draft, and I couldn’t say Rove was either. I was nurs­ing an accep­tance to McGill and I thought I was oppos­ing an immoral war. What­ever Rove was think­ing at the time, he didn’t pull that cow­aedly Dick­less Cheney defer­ment two-step, although I’m sure they both thought black and brown can­non fod­der owed it to their benev­o­lent coun­try to serve as can­non fod­der.

    Any­way, those two aholes engi­neered the most despi­ca­ble slan­der against John Kerry in 2004. That was the echo cham­ber in action. In slan­der­ing Kerry, these guys that chose not to serve (other pri­or­i­ties) smeared their intel­lec­tual supe­rior that chose to serve. That is how the echo cham­ber works. Men that served with Kerry attested to hero­ism. In the echo cham­ber, he was an oppor­tunist and, some­how, despite risk­ing his life when he could have avoided it eas­ily. Mean­while Cheney and Rove got started doing dirty tricks and junior league coin­tel­pro for the Crook and branded Kerry a Jane Fonda fel­low trav­eller.

    Potency of the echo cham­ber demands will­ing sus­pen­sion of dis­be­lief in any­thing that con­tra­dicts your self-aggrandizing and ideology-bound lit­tle world, and facts be damned. It seems that echo cham­ber pol­i­tics requires sub­ju­ga­tion of free press. Base­less slurs against Kerry and attacks on Sotomayor require only that peo­ple do noth­ing but buy crap from liars.

  67. caliban said on May 28th, 2009 at 8:09 pm

    Krik’orian, almost rhymes with diar­rhea. And the there’s Scal’ia. And Soso­su­dia is dumb like Har­riet Miers, and she’s hys­ter­i­cal, and she likes beans and rice.

    Oh, and the rever­sal record, she’s got a bet­ter bat­ting aver­age than any­body cur­rently serv­ing on the Court. Every charge and objec­tion is exposed as ridicu­lous. If the crit­ics had brains, wouldn’t they just shut the hell up?

  68. Dexter said on May 28th, 2009 at 8:14 pm

    My last name is Friend. As my brother and I searched through all avail­able records via the inter­net and the resources the Friend Fam­ily Asso­ci­a­tion of Friendsville, Mary­land pro­vided us, we came to three fam­ily tree pos­si­bil­i­ties, and no “zinger” of evi­dence as to which path we came from…but my pater­nal ances­tors came from Swe­den, Eng­land, or Ger­many. There are thou­sands of Friends liv­ing in Eng­land today, so we could be from that tribe. There are thou­sands of Fre­unds in Ger­many, so we could come from there. There are many Fran­des in Swe­den, and one path takes us there…the ances­tor at the end of that path was Nils Lars­son Frande, Swede-enough for me!
    So maybe our name was changed and maybe not; maybe some day we’ll know.
    Some folks don’t care how we pro­nounce their names. Sports fans will recall the great Tony Perez of the Cincin­nati Reds. For years it was puh-REZ, then late in his career he requested the proper PAIR-ess pro­noun­ci­a­tion.
    I have know two peo­ple named Mar­quis. One was MAR-cuss and one was mar-KEE.
    Really, en espanol, there is very lit­tle fluc­tu­a­tion like that…as Nance has told us, it’s so-toe-my-OR. It’s so easy to learn the rules; I had two years of espanol in high school and I haven’t for­got­ten much of it.

    TY 4 the Andrews updates! My bud­dies and I were bet­ting on this ear­lier this week…I put it all on the nose: Archie just surely would marry Betty and leave the heartache of being hitched to the Lodge fam­ily to—who else? Reg­gie.
    Old man Lodge for a father-in-law? Whoa! My bet is now Betty will end up the town spin­ster librar­ian ala alternate-universe Donna Reed in Pottersville.(Capra’s “It’s a Won­der­ful Life”)

  69. caliban said on May 28th, 2009 at 8:19 pm

    There’s another thing about the idiot wind, and that’s the canard about Sotomayor see­ing appeals in cases she adju­di­cated. She’s exhib­ited, in her career, the integrity to recuse her­self when required. Could Scalia say that? But these bas­tards are really just say­ing she’s unqual­i­fied, dumb, hys­ter­i­cal because she’s a woman.

    This is all dis­grace­ful, and if you are a Sen­a­tor that endorsed the “high tech lynch­ing” whine, I know obscen­ity when I see it. If Rush and Newt and Rove press this, polit­i­cally, and Amer­i­can vot­ers aren’t idiots, Repub­li­cans are the zom­bie party.

  70. alex said on May 28th, 2009 at 9:42 pm

    Dex, that’s a north­east Indi­ana first and mid­dle name also in the nine­teenth cen­tury. I’m aware of it in a Yan­kee fam­ily, the Dun­tens, who came by way of Mass­a­chu­setts and upstate New York.

    Danny, you are indeed a nar­cis­sist. Every time you address me, it’s with allu­sions to me want­ing your body. I’ve known het­ero men like that and they were deluded about women want­ing them too. (In fact, some were pious Chris­tians and upper mid­dle class social x-rays who think a wife is a for­mal­ity and the world a play­ground, but I digress.) Rec­og­niz­ing this cer­tainly made it eas­ier for me to accept that their world views were what they were. Sorry to dis­ap­point but I’m actu­ally com­mit­ted to my mar­riage that you think is some­how destroy­ing yours.

  71. coozledad said on May 28th, 2009 at 10:12 pm

    Alex: Not only a nar­cis­sist, but the guy who wears pre­scrip­tion sun­glasses in the shower at the Y. It’s the kind of per­son­al­ity that makes me want to com­mit exclu­sively to a diet of fries and cof­fee cheese­cake.

  72. nancy said on May 28th, 2009 at 10:18 pm

    Kavya Shiv­ashankar of Olathe, Kansas just won the National Spelling Bee. Or, as Mark Kriko­rian would have it: Kathy Shilts.

  73. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on May 28th, 2009 at 10:52 pm

    How the heck do you pro­nounce the name of that town in Kansas?

  74. Jolene said on May 28th, 2009 at 11:01 pm

    Jeff, I think it’s O-lay-thu.

  75. Little Bird said on May 28th, 2009 at 11:11 pm

    Jolene is cor­rect. I lived in K.C. for a lit­tle over a year. That is how the locals say it.
    (my mother is Deb­o­rah, I just popped in to see what was up)

  76. Jolene said on May 28th, 2009 at 11:20 pm

    Darn! I missed the spelling bee finals. (Spelling was my best sport when I was a kid. Always cho­sen first for spelling bees, last for soft­ball.) Does any­one know whether there’ll be a rebroad­cast? I checked the web­site, but didn’t see any­thing.

  77. basset said on May 29th, 2009 at 12:35 am

    A Bud Light and a shot of Kessler’s for any­one out­side south­west­ern Indi­ana who can prop­erly pro­nounce “Loo­gootee”…

  78. Dexter said on May 29th, 2009 at 12:57 am

    I am an old spelling vet­eran, too, and I watched it this after­noon and the entire final rounds tonight. So many of the kids are repeat con­tes­tants, one girl was there for her fourth bee.
    The bees I went to were the county bees in the Auburn cour­t­house back in the late fifties. I fin­ished sec­ond once and third the other time. When we moved to a larger school I was no longer the best speller in my school, but going in grades 3 and 4 made great mem­o­ries.
    Tonight, I bet the purse on Tim Ruiter , from Cen­tre­ville, VA, who missed “mae­ce­nas” .This home-schooled kid was like an automa­ton, ask­ing short ques­tions and then just rat­tling off the spelling of the damn­d­est words, until he ran into that maecenas…you could tell he had never seen the word…he butchered it badly.
    The win­ner and the 3rd place fin­isher had gone to pre-school together…how odd is THAT? Makes me won­der if an alien got to them and implanted a spell-chip into their nog­gins!
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Any­one catch Barcelona / Man­ches­ter United yes­ter­day from Rome?
    Barca was really fired up and won, 2-nil, for the most cov­eted Cup in Euro­pean foot­ball. FC Barcelona has a player named Messi who knocked in a header late in the con­test to seal the deal. The pageantry, the mag­nif­i­cent stage, the excite­ment was incred­i­ble. I have gen­er­ally ignored soc­cer, but I do watch the huge matches that are some­times shown here in this coun­try. My nephew’s fiance is a rabid Chicago Fire fan, too. I think I may try to catch a Colum­bus Crew match some­time.

  79. Dexter said on May 29th, 2009 at 12:58 am

    bas­set: luh -GO-tee

  80. moe99 said on May 29th, 2009 at 3:35 am

    With respect to how the nom­i­na­tion of Sotomayor should be han­dled, here is Exhibit A:

    http://​www​.salon​.com/​o​p​i​n​i​o​n​/​g​r​e​e​n​w​a​l​d​/​2​0​0​9​/​0​5​/​2​8​/​s​o​t​o​m​a​y​o​r​/​i​n​d​e​x.html

    Again, if you have a prob­lem with her nom­i­na­tion, it should be based upon her writ­ten record, which is sub­stan­tial. Off the cuff remarks are fluff and tell us noth­ing of sub­stance wrt how she would tend to rule. And if you took the time to review the record, as Glenn Green­wald and oth­ers have done, it would show you that she is not a lib­eral, rather she is a mod­er­ate judge. But hey, con­tinue in your ‘knee jerk’ con­ser­v­a­tive right wing ways, and you drive more and more mod­er­ates from your party. Be my guest.

  81. Sonia Sotomayor and a New Form of PC: Pronunciation Correctness! « Prometheus Unbound said on May 29th, 2009 at 9:54 am

    [...] and in need of adjust­ment and “angli­ciz­ing.” Here’s how Kriko­rian wants puts it: So, are we sup­posed to use the Span­ish pro­nun­ci­a­tion, so-toe-my-OR, or the nat­ural Eng­lish [...]