26th and the tall green trees of Madison Square Park
1 day ago
Friday, October 08, 2004
The word of this twenty-sixth day: HOPE! On all fronts. Let me list several:
+ Last night, twenty six of us (23 students, 2 spouses, myself) sat around a table at Casa B late into the night and celebrated. Each, I dare say, had their own reason to celebrate, but let me tell you of a few:
* One turned 30 in the course of the day;
* All did excellent work on their first assignment. All.
* They work hard and party well: only three people ever skipped a single class the whole semester, and we meet everyday but Friday. No one skipped the party. All but one drank wine or beer. No one had to be escorted home. All were fun, funny, open-hearted and open-minded (yes, all political views are welcome!);
* Let me go on record here: I LOVE coming to class each day. I really do. And I say this not only because they all laugh loudly at my odd brand of humor.
* Note just a few photos below (they gave permission to be on the blog); you may recognize one of the students: when not in class, she patrols State Street. She came last night with her very own breathalyzer. Luckily no one was driving (I walked to my office, even though it was near midnight and the idea of working after a Magic Hand had been refilling my wine glass all night long was ludicrous).
+ A neighbor sent me an article off the AP wires with the following important news:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sen. John Kerry has taken a slim lead over President Bush, according to an Associated Press poll that shows the president's support slipping on personal qualities, the war in Iraq and the commander in chief's bedrock campaign issue -- national security.
Fewer voters than a month ago believe Bush is the best man to protect the country and fight the Iraq war.
The AP-Ipsos Public Affairs poll, completed on the eve of the second presidential debate, showed a reversal from early September, when the Republican incumbent had the momentum and a minuscule lead. With bloodshed increasing in Iraq, Kerry sharpened his attacks, and Bush stumbled in their initial debate.
Among 944 likely voters, the Kerry-Edwards ticket led Bush-Cheney 50 percent to 46 percent. The Oct. 4-6 survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. (Special Report: America Votes 2004, Poll Tracker)
The race was tied 47-47 percent among all registered voters, with a 2.5 point margin of error. Other polls show the race just as tight.
Eight of us are gathering to watch the debate tonight. One could not go through this evening alone. So much depends on it.
+ This morning, in the spirit of hope and fresh starts, I played around with the cable TV remote as I sipped my morning café au lait. My, my! All those channels! I can see myself every few days pushing a button, taking a peek. And the food channel! This was my first glimpse of it. Now I know what the chefs used to banter about when I was an on-line cook at the big L’E. And there's Comedy Central – maybe even tonight? The skies are cloudy, but I am SPINNING WITH HOPE!
(*see “forty-second street pre-election diary” post, September 22, for explanation of post title)
+ Last night, twenty six of us (23 students, 2 spouses, myself) sat around a table at Casa B late into the night and celebrated. Each, I dare say, had their own reason to celebrate, but let me tell you of a few:
* One turned 30 in the course of the day;
* All did excellent work on their first assignment. All.
* They work hard and party well: only three people ever skipped a single class the whole semester, and we meet everyday but Friday. No one skipped the party. All but one drank wine or beer. No one had to be escorted home. All were fun, funny, open-hearted and open-minded (yes, all political views are welcome!);
* Let me go on record here: I LOVE coming to class each day. I really do. And I say this not only because they all laugh loudly at my odd brand of humor.
* Note just a few photos below (they gave permission to be on the blog); you may recognize one of the students: when not in class, she patrols State Street. She came last night with her very own breathalyzer. Luckily no one was driving (I walked to my office, even though it was near midnight and the idea of working after a Magic Hand had been refilling my wine glass all night long was ludicrous).
+ A neighbor sent me an article off the AP wires with the following important news:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sen. John Kerry has taken a slim lead over President Bush, according to an Associated Press poll that shows the president's support slipping on personal qualities, the war in Iraq and the commander in chief's bedrock campaign issue -- national security.
Fewer voters than a month ago believe Bush is the best man to protect the country and fight the Iraq war.
The AP-Ipsos Public Affairs poll, completed on the eve of the second presidential debate, showed a reversal from early September, when the Republican incumbent had the momentum and a minuscule lead. With bloodshed increasing in Iraq, Kerry sharpened his attacks, and Bush stumbled in their initial debate.
Among 944 likely voters, the Kerry-Edwards ticket led Bush-Cheney 50 percent to 46 percent. The Oct. 4-6 survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. (Special Report: America Votes 2004, Poll Tracker)
The race was tied 47-47 percent among all registered voters, with a 2.5 point margin of error. Other polls show the race just as tight.
Eight of us are gathering to watch the debate tonight. One could not go through this evening alone. So much depends on it.
+ This morning, in the spirit of hope and fresh starts, I played around with the cable TV remote as I sipped my morning café au lait. My, my! All those channels! I can see myself every few days pushing a button, taking a peek. And the food channel! This was my first glimpse of it. Now I know what the chefs used to banter about when I was an on-line cook at the big L’E. And there's Comedy Central – maybe even tonight? The skies are cloudy, but I am SPINNING WITH HOPE!
(*see “forty-second street pre-election diary” post, September 22, for explanation of post title)
Thursday, October 07, 2004
How many mistakes can one make in one day?
I fear I made a big one. I have let my impulsive fingers click click click (one used to say dial but now one just clicks) in a wanton and reckless disregard of the human spirit.
Here’s what happened.
Charter sent all these wonderful brochures about expanded cable. Not interested!-- I thought. This is how much I do not watch TV: when I turned it on the day of the first debate and it wasn’t working I screamed at Charter to get it together and fix it! They came the next day and said the cable had been disconnected in the back yard for, it looks like, months.
That says something about my commitment up to now to TV viewing.
But there were the brochures, and friends were watching Comedy Central and I was getting pretty tired late at night and so I called.
You should never do these things on an impulse. Sleep on it – is my sage advice. But no. I called. Another debate is coming up, neighbors are coming over – I want expanded cable! (Besides, it’s virtually cost-free! Special deal this, special package that…And, I was feeling wealthy because I just learned yesterday that AirFrance and Northwestern merged their frequent flyer programs and so that has just zapped me into the stratosphere of mile abundance. Wealth is wealth.)
Today, the Charter young man came out and now I have a box. The box is magic, he tells me. It will let me watch movies on demand. It will give me 77 channels and then some. It will sing, it will play, it will entertain me. He left. I am looking at the box. I don’t want to watch television! I tossed the remote aside and went up to blog instead.
Old habits die hard. I should have slept on it.
Here’s what happened.
Charter sent all these wonderful brochures about expanded cable. Not interested!-- I thought. This is how much I do not watch TV: when I turned it on the day of the first debate and it wasn’t working I screamed at Charter to get it together and fix it! They came the next day and said the cable had been disconnected in the back yard for, it looks like, months.
That says something about my commitment up to now to TV viewing.
But there were the brochures, and friends were watching Comedy Central and I was getting pretty tired late at night and so I called.
You should never do these things on an impulse. Sleep on it – is my sage advice. But no. I called. Another debate is coming up, neighbors are coming over – I want expanded cable! (Besides, it’s virtually cost-free! Special deal this, special package that…And, I was feeling wealthy because I just learned yesterday that AirFrance and Northwestern merged their frequent flyer programs and so that has just zapped me into the stratosphere of mile abundance. Wealth is wealth.)
Today, the Charter young man came out and now I have a box. The box is magic, he tells me. It will let me watch movies on demand. It will give me 77 channels and then some. It will sing, it will play, it will entertain me. He left. I am looking at the box. I don’t want to watch television! I tossed the remote aside and went up to blog instead.
Old habits die hard. I should have slept on it.
In truth, I am suspended between days and between debates. It is night and I still have three papers to reread. There is no “next day.” I am on the same day as yesterday. Twenty-seven is looking awfully like twenty-eight. I am even wearing the same pair of jeans and I have yet to close the curtains for the night. Or is it morning?
Similarily, I am suspended between debates. Tomorrow's, yesterday's (no, make that day before yesterday's), they are almost running into each other. Almost.
I read this morning about one (of many) misstep made by Cheney during the debate. You have to read this. Maybe it’s that I am in a no-sleep stupor, but I find the following completely hilarious (possibly because I think it is the kind of thing that would happen to me). The Wash Post reports:
After Democratic nominee John Edwards raised some nasty allegations about Halliburton Corp., the company Cheney once ran, Cheney angrily responded to the "false" charges. "If you go, for example, to FactCheck.com, an independent Web site sponsored by the University of Pennsylvania, you can get the specific details with respect to Halliburton," he said.
But when people followed Cheney's instructions, they wound up at a site sponsored by administration antagonist George Soros. "Why we must not re-elect President Bush," the site blared. "President Bush is endangering our safety, hurting our vital interests, and undermining American values."
Evidently, Cheney meant to say FactCheck.org a site run by the Annenberg Public Policy Center. Instead, he directed the nation's attention to a Web site that refers people to sellers of dictionaries and encyclopedias -- at least at first. The company behind the site, Cayman Islands-based Name Administration Inc., which also owns sites such as Lipbalm.com and Antarctica.com, was quickly overwhelmed.
"Suddenly they had 48,000 hits in an hour, then 100 hits a second," said John Berryhill, a lawyer for the company. "They had a technical problem on their hands."
To avoid crashing, and to exact revenge on Cheney for causing it such grief, Name Administration decided to forward traffic to GeorgeSoros.com -- a site that could handle the traffic, was not soliciting funds and clearly wasn't tied to Bush. "And you got to admit it was kind of cute," Berryhill said.
Soros's Web site issued a statement saying it had nothing to do with the redirection of traffic.
The irony is that once you did reach the proper site, the one Cheney intended to have you go to, you read that (in their words): "in fact, Edwards was mostly right."
(*see “forty-second street pre-election diary” post, September 22, for explanation of post)
Similarily, I am suspended between debates. Tomorrow's, yesterday's (no, make that day before yesterday's), they are almost running into each other. Almost.
I read this morning about one (of many) misstep made by Cheney during the debate. You have to read this. Maybe it’s that I am in a no-sleep stupor, but I find the following completely hilarious (possibly because I think it is the kind of thing that would happen to me). The Wash Post reports:
After Democratic nominee John Edwards raised some nasty allegations about Halliburton Corp., the company Cheney once ran, Cheney angrily responded to the "false" charges. "If you go, for example, to FactCheck.com, an independent Web site sponsored by the University of Pennsylvania, you can get the specific details with respect to Halliburton," he said.
But when people followed Cheney's instructions, they wound up at a site sponsored by administration antagonist George Soros. "Why we must not re-elect President Bush," the site blared. "President Bush is endangering our safety, hurting our vital interests, and undermining American values."
Evidently, Cheney meant to say FactCheck.org a site run by the Annenberg Public Policy Center. Instead, he directed the nation's attention to a Web site that refers people to sellers of dictionaries and encyclopedias -- at least at first. The company behind the site, Cayman Islands-based Name Administration Inc., which also owns sites such as Lipbalm.com and Antarctica.com, was quickly overwhelmed.
"Suddenly they had 48,000 hits in an hour, then 100 hits a second," said John Berryhill, a lawyer for the company. "They had a technical problem on their hands."
To avoid crashing, and to exact revenge on Cheney for causing it such grief, Name Administration decided to forward traffic to GeorgeSoros.com -- a site that could handle the traffic, was not soliciting funds and clearly wasn't tied to Bush. "And you got to admit it was kind of cute," Berryhill said.
Soros's Web site issued a statement saying it had nothing to do with the redirection of traffic.
The irony is that once you did reach the proper site, the one Cheney intended to have you go to, you read that (in their words): "in fact, Edwards was mostly right."
(*see “forty-second street pre-election diary” post, September 22, for explanation of post)
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
A longish post about how I think I must be living on another planet
This afternoon, in a symbolic move, I put this up:
And I just wish people would remember that this is the election before us.
I was astonished at fellow bloggers who wrote about yesterday’s debate: “a clear win for Cheney" (here) or “a quintessential draw” (here).
Were we listening to the same debate? We are not confusing it with the Lieberman-Cheney discussion of four years back, are we?
Because really, you’ll have to explain to me what you mean by that. A “win” (or “draw”) means different things for different parties. From the Democrat standpoint, a “win” for their party would happen if the debate did not derail the momentum from the last debate – a tough standard because Cheney appears knowledgeable (how he can have credibility at this point is beyond me, but for many voters, he does), much more in control, indeed more “presidential” than Bush. Nothing was derailed. Indeed, many news sources today applauded Edwards’ command of the facts, his seriousness, his attempts at setting straight the wild record that Cheney was flaunting. As a side note, even on the “let’s have another peek at our true blue (or red in this case) Cheney” front, Cheney lost points. So much has been written this morning about his petulance and disgruntlement. We now have George and Dick, the two angry boys who cannot believe that the country, indeed, the world would question their command of the playground.
To me, there was no doubt, then, that Democrats “won” what they needed to win last night.
A “win” for the Republicans would have happened if Cheney had managed to say something that hadn’t already been said by the GOP that would freshly cause one to feel enthusiastic about the same old same old stuff, both in terms of the economy or the war. It would happen if Cheney presented compelling evidence that would discredit Edwards’ or Kerry’s strong allegations. It would also happen if Edwards, the novice in the campaign, would appear stupid, uninformed, weak, etc. We know all about Cheney and his command of (illegitimate) facts. The spot light was on Edwards. The so-called ‘most embarrassing moment’ of Cheney stating “I am meeting you for the first time” turns out to be incorrect, foolish and not responsive to anything voters are worried about (remembering, too, that many many voters were happy to put Edwards on the presidential ticket).
The Republicans lost because they did not undo any of the damage from last Thursday, nor did they manage to let Edwards look bad. Their mission failed.
A draw would happen if both parities gained something or gained nothing. How can you think that this was the result? The Democrats gained by solidifying their momentum. They lost nothing. The Republicans, on the other hand, only rubber stamped a Cheney that we already know all too well, and they failed to get out of the swamp that GWB put them in. Even if you love Cheney (oh dear!), he is not running for president. His work was to make Bush’s lackluster performance look good after all. True, it, too, was an almost impossible assignment. I dare say, Kerry is skilled enough to have pulled it off, but Cheney could not (boost his running mate).
So where is the draw or the Cheney win? I must have been watching a different channel. I just called Charter and purchased upgraded cable. Maybe that’ll help for Friday’s debate – we’ll all be on the same page. Or screen.
I was astonished at fellow bloggers who wrote about yesterday’s debate: “a clear win for Cheney" (here) or “a quintessential draw” (here).
Were we listening to the same debate? We are not confusing it with the Lieberman-Cheney discussion of four years back, are we?
Because really, you’ll have to explain to me what you mean by that. A “win” (or “draw”) means different things for different parties. From the Democrat standpoint, a “win” for their party would happen if the debate did not derail the momentum from the last debate – a tough standard because Cheney appears knowledgeable (how he can have credibility at this point is beyond me, but for many voters, he does), much more in control, indeed more “presidential” than Bush. Nothing was derailed. Indeed, many news sources today applauded Edwards’ command of the facts, his seriousness, his attempts at setting straight the wild record that Cheney was flaunting. As a side note, even on the “let’s have another peek at our true blue (or red in this case) Cheney” front, Cheney lost points. So much has been written this morning about his petulance and disgruntlement. We now have George and Dick, the two angry boys who cannot believe that the country, indeed, the world would question their command of the playground.
To me, there was no doubt, then, that Democrats “won” what they needed to win last night.
A “win” for the Republicans would have happened if Cheney had managed to say something that hadn’t already been said by the GOP that would freshly cause one to feel enthusiastic about the same old same old stuff, both in terms of the economy or the war. It would happen if Cheney presented compelling evidence that would discredit Edwards’ or Kerry’s strong allegations. It would also happen if Edwards, the novice in the campaign, would appear stupid, uninformed, weak, etc. We know all about Cheney and his command of (illegitimate) facts. The spot light was on Edwards. The so-called ‘most embarrassing moment’ of Cheney stating “I am meeting you for the first time” turns out to be incorrect, foolish and not responsive to anything voters are worried about (remembering, too, that many many voters were happy to put Edwards on the presidential ticket).
The Republicans lost because they did not undo any of the damage from last Thursday, nor did they manage to let Edwards look bad. Their mission failed.
A draw would happen if both parities gained something or gained nothing. How can you think that this was the result? The Democrats gained by solidifying their momentum. They lost nothing. The Republicans, on the other hand, only rubber stamped a Cheney that we already know all too well, and they failed to get out of the swamp that GWB put them in. Even if you love Cheney (oh dear!), he is not running for president. His work was to make Bush’s lackluster performance look good after all. True, it, too, was an almost impossible assignment. I dare say, Kerry is skilled enough to have pulled it off, but Cheney could not (boost his running mate).
So where is the draw or the Cheney win? I must have been watching a different channel. I just called Charter and purchased upgraded cable. Maybe that’ll help for Friday’s debate – we’ll all be on the same page. Or screen.
This post is all about pickles. How ever did the cucumber in brine come to depict “a jam,” as in “I am in a pickle”? Or “a muddle”? Or “a plight”?
I should imagine a brine bath would be restorative more than muddling. You know, in the spirit of preserving and rejuvenating, in the way that salt baths typically are. Thus perhaps a brine bath would be in order for a Vice President who, as the NYT today said, appeared “dyspeptic.” I know the references is to “disgruntlement,” but for me, it connotes a man with severe indigestion. I flashed back and imagined Cheney squirming with the kind of heartburn you experience from eating too many pickles. It is maybe in anticipation of this uncomfortable digestive issue that the Republicans, in negotiating the terms of the debate, insisted that the two men remain seated at a table.
As to who is the better “preserved” candidate? It is no secret that Edwards looks far younger than his 51 years. But if we stay with the pickle metaphor as implying a muddle or a plight, I would think that the older gentleman last night found himself in one time and time again. It is hard, after all, to stand in support of a platform which has put this country in the pickle that it finds itself in at the moment – here and abroad. Thus, if you actually listened (or read this morning, as I did) to the substance, I think the brine is swirling around the older one. Um, we all do listen to the substance, don’t we? Don’t we?
On 28th street there is a pickle shop, run by a man who moved to NY from Turkey some while back. He loves New York, he loves his pickles. I found the place by chance, but now I am a complete fan. Yes, it reminds me of pickles I used to buy from barrels in Polish grocery stores. Poles are fussy pickle eaters. None of this sweet vinegary stuff you buy in jars here for your burgers. We like ‘em brined and seasoned with fresh dill. But in this NY place of pickles you can get something I have never tried before: chocolate-covered pickles. It is amazing how many ways you can get into a pickle and how many ways you can get at a pickle.
(*see “forty-second street pre-election diary” post, September 22, for explanation of post)
I should imagine a brine bath would be restorative more than muddling. You know, in the spirit of preserving and rejuvenating, in the way that salt baths typically are. Thus perhaps a brine bath would be in order for a Vice President who, as the NYT today said, appeared “dyspeptic.” I know the references is to “disgruntlement,” but for me, it connotes a man with severe indigestion. I flashed back and imagined Cheney squirming with the kind of heartburn you experience from eating too many pickles. It is maybe in anticipation of this uncomfortable digestive issue that the Republicans, in negotiating the terms of the debate, insisted that the two men remain seated at a table.
As to who is the better “preserved” candidate? It is no secret that Edwards looks far younger than his 51 years. But if we stay with the pickle metaphor as implying a muddle or a plight, I would think that the older gentleman last night found himself in one time and time again. It is hard, after all, to stand in support of a platform which has put this country in the pickle that it finds itself in at the moment – here and abroad. Thus, if you actually listened (or read this morning, as I did) to the substance, I think the brine is swirling around the older one. Um, we all do listen to the substance, don’t we? Don’t we?
On 28th street there is a pickle shop, run by a man who moved to NY from Turkey some while back. He loves New York, he loves his pickles. I found the place by chance, but now I am a complete fan. Yes, it reminds me of pickles I used to buy from barrels in Polish grocery stores. Poles are fussy pickle eaters. None of this sweet vinegary stuff you buy in jars here for your burgers. We like ‘em brined and seasoned with fresh dill. But in this NY place of pickles you can get something I have never tried before: chocolate-covered pickles. It is amazing how many ways you can get into a pickle and how many ways you can get at a pickle.
(*see “forty-second street pre-election diary” post, September 22, for explanation of post)
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
Tango
Wow, that was an interesting debate, wasn’t it?
I watched couples practicing tango at Union South.
Excuse me? You see yourself as a serious observer of the political process and you are telling me you watched tango dancers tonight?
Isn’t that the same thing? Do you understand tango at all? It’s intricate, improvisational, fluid, one leads, another follows, it requires skill and a straight face.
But you saw no politicians tonight?
You might say Fred Risser and I dined together. Both he and I ate at L’Etoile. (He sat at a different table.)
Okay – point blank: did you watch the debate?
Yes. A portion of it. Nothing that I saw changed my mind about the capabilities of those who were debating. You have to remember, in the primaries, I voted for Edwards.
I watched couples practicing tango at Union South.
Excuse me? You see yourself as a serious observer of the political process and you are telling me you watched tango dancers tonight?
Isn’t that the same thing? Do you understand tango at all? It’s intricate, improvisational, fluid, one leads, another follows, it requires skill and a straight face.
But you saw no politicians tonight?
You might say Fred Risser and I dined together. Both he and I ate at L’Etoile. (He sat at a different table.)
Okay – point blank: did you watch the debate?
Yes. A portion of it. Nothing that I saw changed my mind about the capabilities of those who were debating. You have to remember, in the primaries, I voted for Edwards.
I am about as unlikely as anyone to quote Norman Vincent Peale. I was, indeed somewhat surprised that the city honored Peale by “naming” a street after him, though given his influential “positive thinking” messages after World War II and his large following, I suppose one can find reason for the honor. Peale spent a great many years at the pulpit of the Marble Collegiate Church, seen in the background of the photo, at 29th and 5th. Who did his message appeal to? Well, Nixon was a fan (his daughter, Julie, then used the church for her wedding to Dwight), as was Trump, who married Ivana here back in the 70s.
(Across the avenue, btw, in a different league altogether is the Little Church Around the Corner, known to those who are Woody Allen fans at the time of Hannah and her Sisters)
Is there a Peale quote that one can pull for today's political landscape? Certainly. The man lived a long time and had a lot to say. Here’s one notable line:
Part of the happiness of life consists not in fighting battles, but in avoiding them. A masterly retreat is in itself a victory. (Norman Vincent Peale)
(*see “forty-second street pre-election diary” post, September 22, for explanation of post title)
(Across the avenue, btw, in a different league altogether is the Little Church Around the Corner, known to those who are Woody Allen fans at the time of Hannah and her Sisters)
Is there a Peale quote that one can pull for today's political landscape? Certainly. The man lived a long time and had a lot to say. Here’s one notable line:
Part of the happiness of life consists not in fighting battles, but in avoiding them. A masterly retreat is in itself a victory. (Norman Vincent Peale)
(*see “forty-second street pre-election diary” post, September 22, for explanation of post title)
Monday, October 04, 2004
Greetings to you, too!
As I entered the Faculty Lounge this morning, a senior colleague greeted me with:
Hello, Swedish-born wily law prof!
I have the following Q: is there anyone in the entire law building who still does not know that I am Polish?? Wow. And I thought I mentioned it with every sentence.
As to the ‘wily’ bit:
Howe'er with wily freaks your heads be stored (La Fontaine), think wiry!
Or, if I am to be wily, let me recall Lord Byron here:
"Alas!" replies the wily child
In faltering accents sweetly mild;
"A hapless Infant here I roam,
Far from my dear maternal home.”
Which is in Poland. Not Sweden.
Hello, Swedish-born wily law prof!
I have the following Q: is there anyone in the entire law building who still does not know that I am Polish?? Wow. And I thought I mentioned it with every sentence.
As to the ‘wily’ bit:
Howe'er with wily freaks your heads be stored (La Fontaine), think wiry!
Or, if I am to be wily, let me recall Lord Byron here:
"Alas!" replies the wily child
In faltering accents sweetly mild;
"A hapless Infant here I roam,
Far from my dear maternal home.”
Which is in Poland. Not Sweden.
A quiet day, I hope. Early in the morning I read the NYT story about a quiet Republican from Rhode Island (here), Senator Chafee, who is NOT going to vote for Bush on November 2nd.
Quote of the day thus comes, for me, again from a Republican. First the backdrop then the quote itself:
Yet the Rhode Island senator said he was angry himself- at what he regards as broken campaign promises by the current occupant of the White House. He said Mr. Bush's promise to be "a uniter, not a divider" resonated with him, as did Mr. Bush's remark in a 2000 debate that the United States would have to be humble, not arrogant, to be respected in the world.
"As soon as victory was achieved came people with a completely different agenda than being humble," he said. Asked if he regretted supporting the president, he said, "I regret that some of the answers to important questions weren't more forthright and that there wasn't more adherence to campaign rhetoric."
(*see “forty-second street pre-election diary” post, September 22, for explanation of post title)
Quote of the day thus comes, for me, again from a Republican. First the backdrop then the quote itself:
Yet the Rhode Island senator said he was angry himself- at what he regards as broken campaign promises by the current occupant of the White House. He said Mr. Bush's promise to be "a uniter, not a divider" resonated with him, as did Mr. Bush's remark in a 2000 debate that the United States would have to be humble, not arrogant, to be respected in the world.
"As soon as victory was achieved came people with a completely different agenda than being humble," he said. Asked if he regretted supporting the president, he said, "I regret that some of the answers to important questions weren't more forthright and that there wasn't more adherence to campaign rhetoric."
(*see “forty-second street pre-election diary” post, September 22, for explanation of post title)
Sunday, October 03, 2004
For those who missed it…
No, I'm not referring to the debates this week. I'm thinking of the story that was circulating in the NY Sun (here) and the International Herald Tribune (here). Now that the name Kwasniewski is familiar to 61 million Americans (Bush mentioned the Polish president twice in the course of the debate), I want to note here that Kwasniewski is one of the front-runners to replace Kofi Annan when Annan’s term is up in two years.
What, you think it’s too soon to be mentioning a replacement? Hey, if Jay Leno could announce the new host for the Tonight Show five years hence, we may certainly speculate who the new leader will be at the UN.
Of course, many are denying that Kwasniewski is a real contender. They have to. The conventional wisdom is that early-mentioned front-runners are just a smoke screen for the real candidates. In reality though, Poland has a real shot at it. Why? The cynical reason that has been offered is that the United States has to agree to the selected person. The same United States that is tired of having Kofi Annan publicly state to the General Assembly that the US has violated international law. The same United States that loves loves loves Kwasniewski’s unwavering loyalty to American foreign policy (no matter what the policy is, or who articulates it). The less cynical explanation is that Eastern Europe has never had a turn at heading the international organization. The closest Poland itself came to leading the UN was in the 1970s when a Pole was selected to serve as under-secretary general. Yes, well, I’ll let it go at that. There’s obviously a juicy story there, but not one for this post.
Another frontrunner now, btw, is the Iranian President, Khatani. Is this ludicrous? According to the NYSun, an American diplomat commented: "We had a Nazi, why not a representative of a terrorist state?" (The reference here is to the Austrian Kurt Waldheim, secretary general during the 1970s).
What, you think it’s too soon to be mentioning a replacement? Hey, if Jay Leno could announce the new host for the Tonight Show five years hence, we may certainly speculate who the new leader will be at the UN.
Of course, many are denying that Kwasniewski is a real contender. They have to. The conventional wisdom is that early-mentioned front-runners are just a smoke screen for the real candidates. In reality though, Poland has a real shot at it. Why? The cynical reason that has been offered is that the United States has to agree to the selected person. The same United States that is tired of having Kofi Annan publicly state to the General Assembly that the US has violated international law. The same United States that loves loves loves Kwasniewski’s unwavering loyalty to American foreign policy (no matter what the policy is, or who articulates it). The less cynical explanation is that Eastern Europe has never had a turn at heading the international organization. The closest Poland itself came to leading the UN was in the 1970s when a Pole was selected to serve as under-secretary general. Yes, well, I’ll let it go at that. There’s obviously a juicy story there, but not one for this post.
Another frontrunner now, btw, is the Iranian President, Khatani. Is this ludicrous? According to the NYSun, an American diplomat commented: "We had a Nazi, why not a representative of a terrorist state?" (The reference here is to the Austrian Kurt Waldheim, secretary general during the 1970s).
Thirty-one days before the election and I am going to write a post about why I do not especially like cats. If you are a cat person, go ahead and get angry. I know people are really devoted to their animals. I was amused the other day when a cat owner said to me – “oh, my cat is different, he’s really more like a dog than a cat.”
That says it all, doesn’t it?
Several of my neighbors have cats and because I have many places where birds rest in my yard, the cats are often here, waiting. Look at this creepy animal, photographed by me just five minutes ago.
That says it all, doesn’t it?
Several of my neighbors have cats and because I have many places where birds rest in my yard, the cats are often here, waiting. Look at this creepy animal, photographed by me just five minutes ago.
Once, during some social gathering, I was complaining about the cats in my yard. I don’t want to alienate my neighbors, but I do wish that if carnage is to take place, it would not happen in my bird-populated yard. I understand the laws of nature, I just don’t always want to participate in the destruction of the weaker species. I eat meat occasionally, isn’t that enough of a bow toward Darwinism?
The hostess of said social gathering laughed and said yes, indeed, you can’t keep a cat from doing what nature imbued in him (she has a tomcat). Her cat cannot be restrained, she tells me. He goes out each night and preys. He is, she says, a predator.
Thank you for that clarification.
Thirty-one days before the election and I am very much aware of the role of predators in this presidential race. Webster on line says this about predators: “one that preys, destroys, or devours.” I think I’ve come across some this week-end. I am now using this post to announce again: I do not, for this reason, feel warmly about cats. It seems to me that harboring predators is unhealthy.
(If you have tamed your cat to diffuse –rather than encourage – his or her aggressive tendencies, you are forgiven. In fact, you have entered the realm of sainthood as far as I’m concerned. I don’t care if it flies in the face of nature. Aggression should be tamed.)
(*see “forty-second street pre-election diary” post, September 22, for explanation of post title)
The hostess of said social gathering laughed and said yes, indeed, you can’t keep a cat from doing what nature imbued in him (she has a tomcat). Her cat cannot be restrained, she tells me. He goes out each night and preys. He is, she says, a predator.
Thank you for that clarification.
Thirty-one days before the election and I am very much aware of the role of predators in this presidential race. Webster on line says this about predators: “one that preys, destroys, or devours.” I think I’ve come across some this week-end. I am now using this post to announce again: I do not, for this reason, feel warmly about cats. It seems to me that harboring predators is unhealthy.
(If you have tamed your cat to diffuse –rather than encourage – his or her aggressive tendencies, you are forgiven. In fact, you have entered the realm of sainthood as far as I’m concerned. I don’t care if it flies in the face of nature. Aggression should be tamed.)
(*see “forty-second street pre-election diary” post, September 22, for explanation of post title)
Saturday, October 02, 2004
Political games
I went for a walk with a friend this afternoon and we talked about what it takes to be a successful politician. Does shaking hands really affect anything at all? Do face-to-face meetings change people’s minds? Do travels through your home town? Apparently they must, because why else would every candidate engage in this seemingly meaningless activity?
What we didn’t talk about was how easy it is to shoot crazy fire at a candidate for all the wrong reasons. I know. I learnt today.
Here’s my story. Let’s all learn and be angry together:
I had a wonderful, wonderful chat today with a chef who cooked for the Kerrys while they were in Wisconsin. He had nothing but high praise for their informality, their genuine interest in not only the food but the farmers who worked so hard to make it good. He was dazzled by their kindness. This was not politicking. They were in a one-on-one conversation with the chef. There were no expectations that they should be friendly. Quite the contrary, the chef was told that they hadn’t had time together for a while and were looking forward to a quiet evening, just the two of them, in their Spring Green condo.
The chef traveled willingly, prepared their food, bringing with him some bottles of wine to accompany it. They loved the food but thanked him for the wine. They hadn’t expected it and so they had arranged for a bottle to be sent over already. The chef, in telling me this, joked that these big shots probably travel with their own sommelier. I thought that was a funny idea: forget the personal secretary, forget the political advisor, instead – bring your own wine person!
And so I blogged about it. The chef had said that he feels shy about talking about this very real coup (to cook for a presidential candidate) but he didn’t mind if others bragged on his behalf – that was their business.
And so I bragged for him.
Within minutes, a post appeared on a blog (here). I respect the blogger greatly and think it is only coincidence that she has publicly explained her decision to vote for Bush. The title read (and still reads): “she travels with her own sommelier!” I immediately wrote to the poster and told her that this was quoting things out of context as the post was intended humorously. She did write this post update: “Nina emails that the chef was only joking. Think what you will, dear readers.”
Immediately, I had hundreds, hundreds of her readers (who are linked to her through the conservative Instapundit and the Republican Party website) jump to my blog, seeking anything, anything at all to poke holes in Kerry’s lifestyle. Inaccurate? Who cares! Out of context? So what! Ugly? YOU BET!
Neither I nor the linking blogger intended a political statement. But it has become that. Oh yes, I have now had emails from people asking for more details.
Let me just say this: If anyone, ANYONE dares twist this kind, warm-hearted, wonderful, wonderful event (of our local, exceptionally talented chef cooking for the Kerrys) into a political game, they have me to deal with. Tomorrow. On the front lawn of my house. With fists. I am that angry.
What we didn’t talk about was how easy it is to shoot crazy fire at a candidate for all the wrong reasons. I know. I learnt today.
Here’s my story. Let’s all learn and be angry together:
I had a wonderful, wonderful chat today with a chef who cooked for the Kerrys while they were in Wisconsin. He had nothing but high praise for their informality, their genuine interest in not only the food but the farmers who worked so hard to make it good. He was dazzled by their kindness. This was not politicking. They were in a one-on-one conversation with the chef. There were no expectations that they should be friendly. Quite the contrary, the chef was told that they hadn’t had time together for a while and were looking forward to a quiet evening, just the two of them, in their Spring Green condo.
The chef traveled willingly, prepared their food, bringing with him some bottles of wine to accompany it. They loved the food but thanked him for the wine. They hadn’t expected it and so they had arranged for a bottle to be sent over already. The chef, in telling me this, joked that these big shots probably travel with their own sommelier. I thought that was a funny idea: forget the personal secretary, forget the political advisor, instead – bring your own wine person!
And so I blogged about it. The chef had said that he feels shy about talking about this very real coup (to cook for a presidential candidate) but he didn’t mind if others bragged on his behalf – that was their business.
And so I bragged for him.
Within minutes, a post appeared on a blog (here). I respect the blogger greatly and think it is only coincidence that she has publicly explained her decision to vote for Bush. The title read (and still reads): “she travels with her own sommelier!” I immediately wrote to the poster and told her that this was quoting things out of context as the post was intended humorously. She did write this post update: “Nina emails that the chef was only joking. Think what you will, dear readers.”
Immediately, I had hundreds, hundreds of her readers (who are linked to her through the conservative Instapundit and the Republican Party website) jump to my blog, seeking anything, anything at all to poke holes in Kerry’s lifestyle. Inaccurate? Who cares! Out of context? So what! Ugly? YOU BET!
Neither I nor the linking blogger intended a political statement. But it has become that. Oh yes, I have now had emails from people asking for more details.
Let me just say this: If anyone, ANYONE dares twist this kind, warm-hearted, wonderful, wonderful event (of our local, exceptionally talented chef cooking for the Kerrys) into a political game, they have me to deal with. Tomorrow. On the front lawn of my house. With fists. I am that angry.
A hot scoop and a cold market morning
Scroll to your favorite topic:
1. What’s the difference between a September market and an October market?
2. A stream of self-congratulatory moments;
3. You heard it on Ocean first: insider information on Kerry
4. It’s Fall, dang it! Go bake an apple crisp!
5. Pumpkin pierogi
ad 1.
I was away from my Market foraging last week. What a change! First, at 6:30, when I make my first round with a list of potential purchases, it is now DARK and COLD! I remembered the scarf. I remembered the gloves. I could have used a nice wooly cap.
1. What’s the difference between a September market and an October market?
2. A stream of self-congratulatory moments;
3. You heard it on Ocean first: insider information on Kerry
4. It’s Fall, dang it! Go bake an apple crisp!
5. Pumpkin pierogi
ad 1.
I was away from my Market foraging last week. What a change! First, at 6:30, when I make my first round with a list of potential purchases, it is now DARK and COLD! I remembered the scarf. I remembered the gloves. I could have used a nice wooly cap.
ad 2.
So many farmers were flying high after the Wednesday NYT piece on the Market! Congratulatory messages were shouted out back and forth and the atmosphere was jubilant! If I never hear the words “wiry Polish-born” again I will be satisfied. I had a lifetime dose today. These farmers are careful readers.
ad 3.
Ahhhh, you want the scoop. Let me tell it as I heard it, in conversation with Tory, the Chef de Cuisine at L’Etoile. He joined me for one round at the Market and we chatted. I was eager to tell him that his recommendation of a favorite spot to eat in NY was fantastic! Perfect! (Blue Ribbon in SoHo. Try it.) But that’s not the scoop. He was eager to tell me about his week-end. [Why is it a scoop? Because Madison Magazine wants to do a story on it in the next issue. I scooped them!] Here’s how it went:
Tory: So, I wasn’t allowed to say this, but I got a call from Spring Green.
n: Spring Green… Spring Green?
Tory: Yep. Teresa was flying up to join John and they wanted a quiet dinner in their condo, just the two of them, on the Sunday before the debate. They wanted something really good and special and they asked if I would come up and cook it for them.
n: You cooked for John Kerry????? How was it? How were they? What did they eat? How was it????? [I don’t get into celebrity stuff, but this week, how can one not get excited about Kerry?]
Tory: First of all, it was embarrassing because they were late and so in waiting for them, I sort of sprawled out on their couch and was watching TV when they walked in. Then, I went to their kitchen which opened out onto their living room and I cooked. They were really interested in where the food came from, in the Farmers Market, in Jim [of Northwoods Farms]. .
n: What did you make for them?
Tory: Tenderloin (from Northwoods) – they like it “medium” and they were thrilled that it was so juicy, also the salad with mushrooms, and a chocolate Vesuvius.
n: I can’t believe you cooked for John Kerry! So, those worries about them not having places to eat in Spring Green were ill-founded?
Tory: Yeah. They asked me to cook for the staff on Tuesday but I couldn’t because of L’Etoile. So they called Lombardino’s.
n: This was your week, Tory. Amazing successes. Were your parents proud?
Tory: Sure, but they asked how come, in the Cap Times story, I sounded like I couldn’t put a sentence together.
n: Parents have the oddest reactions to things. Tell them that Apple didn’t write that article.
ad 4.
You heard it. Go bake a crisp. Plenty of recipes out there. And try Weston Orchard’s apples – they have a dozen varieties at the Market and you can sample all of them. It’s their apples that make L’Etoile’s crisp as good as it is.
So many farmers were flying high after the Wednesday NYT piece on the Market! Congratulatory messages were shouted out back and forth and the atmosphere was jubilant! If I never hear the words “wiry Polish-born” again I will be satisfied. I had a lifetime dose today. These farmers are careful readers.
ad 3.
Ahhhh, you want the scoop. Let me tell it as I heard it, in conversation with Tory, the Chef de Cuisine at L’Etoile. He joined me for one round at the Market and we chatted. I was eager to tell him that his recommendation of a favorite spot to eat in NY was fantastic! Perfect! (Blue Ribbon in SoHo. Try it.) But that’s not the scoop. He was eager to tell me about his week-end. [Why is it a scoop? Because Madison Magazine wants to do a story on it in the next issue. I scooped them!] Here’s how it went:
Tory: So, I wasn’t allowed to say this, but I got a call from Spring Green.
n: Spring Green… Spring Green?
Tory: Yep. Teresa was flying up to join John and they wanted a quiet dinner in their condo, just the two of them, on the Sunday before the debate. They wanted something really good and special and they asked if I would come up and cook it for them.
n: You cooked for John Kerry????? How was it? How were they? What did they eat? How was it????? [I don’t get into celebrity stuff, but this week, how can one not get excited about Kerry?]
Tory: First of all, it was embarrassing because they were late and so in waiting for them, I sort of sprawled out on their couch and was watching TV when they walked in. Then, I went to their kitchen which opened out onto their living room and I cooked. They were really interested in where the food came from, in the Farmers Market, in Jim [of Northwoods Farms]. .
n: What did you make for them?
Tory: Tenderloin (from Northwoods) – they like it “medium” and they were thrilled that it was so juicy, also the salad with mushrooms, and a chocolate Vesuvius.
n: I can’t believe you cooked for John Kerry! So, those worries about them not having places to eat in Spring Green were ill-founded?
Tory: Yeah. They asked me to cook for the staff on Tuesday but I couldn’t because of L’Etoile. So they called Lombardino’s.
n: This was your week, Tory. Amazing successes. Were your parents proud?
Tory: Sure, but they asked how come, in the Cap Times story, I sounded like I couldn’t put a sentence together.
n: Parents have the oddest reactions to things. Tell them that Apple didn’t write that article.
ad 4.
You heard it. Go bake a crisp. Plenty of recipes out there. And try Weston Orchard’s apples – they have a dozen varieties at the Market and you can sample all of them. It’s their apples that make L’Etoile’s crisp as good as it is.
Ufff! Ten days ago I began the countdown. I thought it would be a creative challenge. It is, instead, exhausting, because it does not allow for a retreat from the political landscape. On the other hand, this is not a time to retreat, regardless of the temptation. If we are willing to put up yardsigns, shouldn’t we be willing to put up a daily blog reminder of how important this election is?
In surfing articles this morning, I was especially interested in reading those that tracked undecided voters. I don’t get this group at all and one always wants to probe and get closer to something that is a complete mystery. So how can voters still be undecided? What are they waiting for? These two candidates couldn’t be more different!
I pulled just one quote from one person in one Pennsylvania town who is still considering Kerry, but wants to basically hand it over to Bush (cited in WashPost). He states:
"Kerry seemed much better prepared, but if we have another war, maybe I want a cowboy in the president's office."
And so what are you going to do with a voter like that? What is he saying? Is it the brainless aggressor we want? A person who is good with the rope? A meat and potatoes man? And what is this about another war? Aren’t we at war now?
Quote of the day: (from the NYT: the president's chief political adviser, Karl Rove, who is normally elusive to the press, sought out reporters to push the campaign's argument that Mr. Kerry was a walking contradiction on Thursday night and that Mr. Bush was focused and pensive during the encounter, not peevish.)
"That wasn't irritated," Mr. Rove said. "I know irritated."
I bet he does.
(*see “forty-second street pre-election diary” post, September 22, for explanation of post title)
In surfing articles this morning, I was especially interested in reading those that tracked undecided voters. I don’t get this group at all and one always wants to probe and get closer to something that is a complete mystery. So how can voters still be undecided? What are they waiting for? These two candidates couldn’t be more different!
I pulled just one quote from one person in one Pennsylvania town who is still considering Kerry, but wants to basically hand it over to Bush (cited in WashPost). He states:
"Kerry seemed much better prepared, but if we have another war, maybe I want a cowboy in the president's office."
And so what are you going to do with a voter like that? What is he saying? Is it the brainless aggressor we want? A person who is good with the rope? A meat and potatoes man? And what is this about another war? Aren’t we at war now?
Quote of the day: (from the NYT: the president's chief political adviser, Karl Rove, who is normally elusive to the press, sought out reporters to push the campaign's argument that Mr. Kerry was a walking contradiction on Thursday night and that Mr. Bush was focused and pensive during the encounter, not peevish.)
"That wasn't irritated," Mr. Rove said. "I know irritated."
I bet he does.
(*see “forty-second street pre-election diary” post, September 22, for explanation of post title)
Friday, October 01, 2004
Never has one sentence in a newspaper generated so much calling and emailing
Actually, after a while it makes you feel rather pathetic. The world is saying “Wow! You got mentioned in the NYT (see post about it on September 29)! Great going!” but it is really telling you “Wow! Finally, mention of you somewhere, somewhere… It’s about time! Don’t you feel you’re wasting your life? You might as well hang up a sign saying ‘Don’t come knocking: I don’t do anything important ever. This is as big as it gets.’”
Today, my Berkeley mother finally reached me by phone. Excerpts from our conversation:
Mom: So, all my friends have been reading all about you! Wiry Polish-born law prof! You know, when I saw that, I thought – ‘wiry,’ is that an insult? Are you maybe a bit sharp and ornery?
nc: Mom, I took it as a compliment. You know: young and agile!
Mom: Well that’s what my friends told me: she’s probably thin and healthy.
nc: [My Mom’s friends are from the senior center where she lives] If your friends think I am more agile than them, I *guess* I should be pleased…
Mom: My old friend from NY called me to tell me she read the piece. You remember, she’s friends with (so-and-so) who had a son just your age. Did I tell you he died of a heart attack? No sign, no symptom, nothing!
nc: Thanks for that cheerful update. Anyway, I’m glad you liked the story.
Mom: You’re famous! I bought five copies of the paper! [Do I detect a rare moment of exuberance and pride?] What do you suppose I should do with them, by the way?
nc: Uh, I don’t know Mom. Send them to my father [He lives in Poland and they don’t communicate].
Today, my Berkeley mother finally reached me by phone. Excerpts from our conversation:
Mom: So, all my friends have been reading all about you! Wiry Polish-born law prof! You know, when I saw that, I thought – ‘wiry,’ is that an insult? Are you maybe a bit sharp and ornery?
nc: Mom, I took it as a compliment. You know: young and agile!
Mom: Well that’s what my friends told me: she’s probably thin and healthy.
nc: [My Mom’s friends are from the senior center where she lives] If your friends think I am more agile than them, I *guess* I should be pleased…
Mom: My old friend from NY called me to tell me she read the piece. You remember, she’s friends with (so-and-so) who had a son just your age. Did I tell you he died of a heart attack? No sign, no symptom, nothing!
nc: Thanks for that cheerful update. Anyway, I’m glad you liked the story.
Mom: You’re famous! I bought five copies of the paper! [Do I detect a rare moment of exuberance and pride?] What do you suppose I should do with them, by the way?
nc: Uh, I don’t know Mom. Send them to my father [He lives in Poland and they don’t communicate].
I know this will generate weird links, but…
Thanks to the reader who brought to my attention an article in today’s Guardian. The title of the article says it all: Orgies are the way to ease social tensions, claims US judge. Which judge and in what context? Read on:
Challenged about his views on sexual morality, Justice Scalia surprised his audience at Harvard University, telling them: "I even take the position that sexual orgies eliminate social tensions and ought to be encouraged."
Now, I am mindful of the fact that Bush promised, if reelected, to appoint more judges like Scalia. Gentlemen, are we allowing our fantasy life to interfere with good decision-making?
Challenged about his views on sexual morality, Justice Scalia surprised his audience at Harvard University, telling them: "I even take the position that sexual orgies eliminate social tensions and ought to be encouraged."
Now, I am mindful of the fact that Bush promised, if reelected, to appoint more judges like Scalia. Gentlemen, are we allowing our fantasy life to interfere with good decision-making?
Thirty three days until the election and I see hope. The CNN polls are holding steady. Americans are not duped by a smirking man of few words and even fewer, disgracefully shabby, ideas on foreign policy. Lines like “my friend Vladimir” and “we were attacked by the enemy” fell flat, as well they should. Both in style and in substance, only a staunch Bush supporter would say that the incumbent presented a compelling case for a continuation of a shamefully misguided foreign policy, one that liberally uses such terms as freedom and democracy, while news clips tell a different story – in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Russia, in Darfur.
Here, consider this snapshot from thirty-third street: two faces, one showing determination and clear thinking, one falling apart from shame and disgrace. After the debate, I am exalted to see that most have placed the correct name card in front of each figurehead.
(*see “forty-second street pre-election diary” post, September 22, for explanation of post title)
Here, consider this snapshot from thirty-third street: two faces, one showing determination and clear thinking, one falling apart from shame and disgrace. After the debate, I am exalted to see that most have placed the correct name card in front of each figurehead.
(*see “forty-second street pre-election diary” post, September 22, for explanation of post title)
Thursday, September 30, 2004
Conspiracy theory
I’m sure of it. This could not be a coincidence. Both the internet (notice the small “i” under the new Wireless guidelines of not capitalizing either the internet or the web) and the cable TV suffered a mechanical failure the night of the debate. In the swing-state of Wisconsin no less. Tell me that you believe it to be unintentional, that the CEO of Charter was not twisting the wires somewhere behind the scenes.
You are blogging now. How could you be blogging with an internet breakdown?
The internet was restored, cable TV is still down.
So you missed the debate? A shame…
Oh no, I watched the debate. I had another non-cable TV, one of those ancient miniscule sets, but it was enough. I saw it all. Kerry clearly "won."
Whoaaaa! How can you say that? Don’t you want to know what others concluded? Didn’t you watch any of the post-election analysis?
That’s the trouble with these debates. Your opinion matters not a diddly swat. It’s all in the hands of the media analysts. America will decide on the wrong candidate based on the fact that some crackola after the debate will say that GW sounded in control or whatever.
Isn't it diddly squat?
Don’t skirt the issue. The issue is that immediately after the debate, a CNN poll indicated that 81% of those who watched the debate believed that Kerry “won.” One hour later, that number was down to 79% and plummeting. Now, either the Bush supporters are delayed CNN-readers, or we have people backing down because some jerko pundit offered her or his profoundly annoying observation on how Bush timed his smirks exactly right. Say what you will, I am with JF (here) and his mom in Iowa on this: Kerry did all that he could and he did it well. Anyone who thinks differently – meet me on the front lawn tomorrow at 6:45 a.m. and we’ll fight it out. That’s the proper way, isn’t it? All fists and no BILATERAL negotiations. EVER. Except with Vladimir. Who’s first-pal. And Kvahshnievskee – did I get that right? You know, the top honcho in Poland? The country that wont kick ass (JF terms) but will kiss ass (NC terms) with any current and future leader of this great land?
BTW, to the Polish Australian who linked to my post yesterday – yes, yes, I can agree to disagree, but COME ON! You’re not that down-under! See the light already!
You are blogging now. How could you be blogging with an internet breakdown?
The internet was restored, cable TV is still down.
So you missed the debate? A shame…
Oh no, I watched the debate. I had another non-cable TV, one of those ancient miniscule sets, but it was enough. I saw it all. Kerry clearly "won."
Whoaaaa! How can you say that? Don’t you want to know what others concluded? Didn’t you watch any of the post-election analysis?
That’s the trouble with these debates. Your opinion matters not a diddly swat. It’s all in the hands of the media analysts. America will decide on the wrong candidate based on the fact that some crackola after the debate will say that GW sounded in control or whatever.
Isn't it diddly squat?
Don’t skirt the issue. The issue is that immediately after the debate, a CNN poll indicated that 81% of those who watched the debate believed that Kerry “won.” One hour later, that number was down to 79% and plummeting. Now, either the Bush supporters are delayed CNN-readers, or we have people backing down because some jerko pundit offered her or his profoundly annoying observation on how Bush timed his smirks exactly right. Say what you will, I am with JF (here) and his mom in Iowa on this: Kerry did all that he could and he did it well. Anyone who thinks differently – meet me on the front lawn tomorrow at 6:45 a.m. and we’ll fight it out. That’s the proper way, isn’t it? All fists and no BILATERAL negotiations. EVER. Except with Vladimir. Who’s first-pal. And Kvahshnievskee – did I get that right? You know, the top honcho in Poland? The country that wont kick ass (JF terms) but will kiss ass (NC terms) with any current and future leader of this great land?
BTW, to the Polish Australian who linked to my post yesterday – yes, yes, I can agree to disagree, but COME ON! You’re not that down-under! See the light already!
The great divide: if you follow thirty-fourth street from the Hudson River, beyond 11th avenue (does anyone ever step anywhere near 11th avenue? I saw not a soul), all the way east to the East River, you will see that indeed, there is nothing similar between the two ends of this important artery. (Note headline in today’s NYT: In Debate on Foreign Policy: Wide Gulf or Splitting Hairs?)
Thirty-fourth street: I come to it 34 days prior to November 2nd and on the day of the important debate on foreign policy.
Thirty-fourth street: so quintessentially American! The symbolism is amazing. On the Hudson River end I am facing the pier where ships, bringing immigrants from Europe, once docked. I came on one such ship way back, during my first crossing of the Atlantic in 1960. But look what has happened to the not-too-long-ago prominent United States Lines! Once a link to European nations, now a police outpost and depository for towed vehicles? Our connections to Europe are different now.
The day of the debate.
Thirty-fourth street: I come to it 34 days prior to November 2nd and on the day of the important debate on foreign policy.
Thirty-fourth street: so quintessentially American! The symbolism is amazing. On the Hudson River end I am facing the pier where ships, bringing immigrants from Europe, once docked. I came on one such ship way back, during my first crossing of the Atlantic in 1960. But look what has happened to the not-too-long-ago prominent United States Lines! Once a link to European nations, now a police outpost and depository for towed vehicles? Our connections to Europe are different now.
The day of the debate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
