Monday Morning Open Thread

Busy day.

Open Thread.

< Sunday Night Open Thread | David Headley Testifies In Tahawwur Rana Terror Trial >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Too busy to check in on IMF/Governator? (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by oculus on Mon May 23, 2011 at 12:00:59 PM EST

    A legislative wizard... (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Mon May 23, 2011 at 12:53:21 PM EST
    in the NY State Assembly is not too busy to try and capitalize on the misfortune of others and get his name in the paper...it's the dumb idea for a law of the day!

    Don't know if it needs to be a law (none / 0) (#5)
    by jbindc on Mon May 23, 2011 at 01:02:10 PM EST
    But certainly seems like a good business decision.  I wouldn't want to go into a stranger's hotel room by myself.

    They're still going in by themselves... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by kdog on Mon May 23, 2011 at 01:14:32 PM EST
    with a panic button...I would think loud screaming would work just as well in a hotel, or the phone in the room, or the housekeepers cell.

    Seems pretty clear this legislative wizard is more concerned with publicity than making the lives of housekeepers easier or safer...or he owns stock in panic buttons.

    One thing for sure, laws passed in haste post-tragedy are rarely good or smart laws.


    Yes, and if it does turn out (none / 0) (#11)
    by KeysDan on Mon May 23, 2011 at 01:23:00 PM EST
    to be something other than what is alleged in the complaint, a panic button would probably not have been useful.  

    I had a... (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Mon May 23, 2011 at 01:32:03 PM EST
    "I've fallen and I can't get up" based joke all cued up, but good taste caught me in the nick of time.

    A good hotel/motel policy idea would have housekeeping work in pairs, which I've noticed is done at some hotels already, sharing the cart as they work both sides of the hallway...or room door must remain open during cleaning.

    I can't say I've ever had my room cleaned while I was in it...is that just in 5 star suites with multi-rooms?  Isn't that kinda odd?


    Yes, my travel experiences are (none / 0) (#27)
    by KeysDan on Mon May 23, 2011 at 01:56:23 PM EST
    the same: always out of the room when the room is made up.  If, there is a reason that a guest must remain in the room all or most of the day (e.g. an out-of-town patient at a nearby medical facility), arrangements can be made for room clean-up.    A NYT op ed article (Monday, May 23) by Jacob Tomsky, a hotelier, writes of his experiences with troubled and troublesome guests, such as those who can't seem to tie their robes properly. It seems there are methods they have to push the buttons of those louts.

    I believe (none / 0) (#34)
    by NYShooter on Mon May 23, 2011 at 02:13:01 PM EST
    she was told the room was empty, and was surprised to find out it wasn't when the naked gent came strolling out of the bathroom.

    But, of course the maids clean the rooms when they're vacant.....unless the guest asks to stay because he/she has paperwork to do, or something like that. I know I've done that a few times when I travelled on business and had to use the room as an "office away from the office."


    Who told her the room was empty? (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by KeysDan on Mon May 23, 2011 at 02:24:12 PM EST
    My understanding is that DSK did not check out (maybe the rapid check out was used).    If the guest does ask to stay, the maid can come back at a later time, or they should notify the supervisor of the circumstances--and, the door should still be ajar with the cart.

    Jeralyn's post below (none / 0) (#79)
    by NYShooter on Mon May 23, 2011 at 04:52:46 PM EST
    "Alleged New Details........."

    ["The maid reported she entered Strauss-Kahn's room shortly before noon on Saturday, May 14, after a room-service employee assured her the suite was empty."]


    You would be surprised (none / 0) (#14)
    by jbindc on Mon May 23, 2011 at 01:28:05 PM EST
    How many people wouldn't be able to hear screams (especially in the fancier hotels like the Sofitel), or how many times people ignore screams and think someone else will take care of it.

    There was a famous case in New York (in case you don't know) - the Kitty Genovese case - where a young woman was murdered in Queens, near her apartment building and was attacked and repeatedly stabbed, all the while screaming for help.  Thirty-eight bystanders and neighbors heard her screams and did nothing to help her (also known as "the bystander effect").

    So my guess is, it could very well happen that screams in a hotel room could easily be ignored as a wild party or a prostitute or whatever.


    In the middle of the night... (none / 0) (#20)
    by kdog on Mon May 23, 2011 at 01:44:30 PM EST
    everyone might assume wild party or sex...mid-morning when rooms are typically cleaned?  

    And wouldn't a housekeeper scared to report harrassment or assault also be scared to hit a panic button on a customer?

    If hotel management cares about safety, working in pairs is the way to go, imo...but I don't think we need any more laws.


    I don't know (none / 0) (#25)
    by jbindc on Mon May 23, 2011 at 01:54:14 PM EST
    And wouldn't a housekeeper scared to report harrassment or assault also be scared to hit a panic button on a customer?

    Maybe not because at that point when s/he is being attacked, they wouldn't have time to think about the consequences to their job.


    Would be interested to find out how (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Mon May 23, 2011 at 01:23:39 PM EST
    frequently hotel service personnel are subjected to physical assault/danger in hotel rooms.  Gore and IMF are the only such situations of which I have any third hand info.

    More common than you think (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by jbindc on Mon May 23, 2011 at 01:32:16 PM EST

    Pretty easy to imagine. Hotel staff are generally (or more like, generally thought to be) poor, working class, who will have no recourse.  May also be preceived to be illegal, so again - no recourse.

    Housekeepers and officials with the main hotel workers union, Unite Here, said that housekeepers were often too embarrassed or scared to report incidents to management or the police. Sometimes they fear that management, often embracing the motto "the customer is always right," will believe the customer over the housekeeper and that the worker may end up getting fired.

    the cubs were in town (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by CST on Mon May 23, 2011 at 01:03:21 PM EST
    for the first time in a hundred years or so, and their fans were out en force, saw cubs jerseys all over the place.

    It was surprisingly congenial.  Showing that Boston fans can in fact be relatively nice to outsiders, so long as they are not rooting for a division rival, anyone we play against on the regular, come from a lineage of long suffering fans, and we only see them every hundred years or so.  It also helps if their team loses 2 of 3 :)

    I remember (none / 0) (#21)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon May 23, 2011 at 01:45:03 PM EST
    a long-ago Celtics game that was the last Boston appearance for a couple of Knicks players (Dave DeBusschere (sp?) in particular) before they retired.  When those players sat down near the end of the game, the Boston fans in the old Garden rose up and cheered and cheered and cheered and nearly brought the roof down in appreciation of these guys who'd broken their hearts, or had nearly broken their hearts, year after year.

    I was there and was one of those cheering, and find I'm tearing up just remembering and writing about it.


    Knicks and Celtics (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon May 23, 2011 at 03:32:48 PM EST
    what a classic, wonderful rivalry -- the good 'ole days, however.

    I think people here (none / 0) (#29)
    by CST on Mon May 23, 2011 at 02:01:45 PM EST
    generally have a great appreciation and understanding of sports and sports history.  Some might say we're a bit obsessive about it, but there you go.  Great athletes on just about any team will usually get a lot of respect around here, especially older ones.  Sometimes that respect means showing the hate, sometimes it means showing the love.  Unless of course you play for the yankees.

    I loved going to red sox games when they would play teams that had former sox players from the 2004 team on it.  Kevin Millar, Trot Nixon, all the guys who got traded after that would still get huge standing ovations everytime they came up to bat.  There's a reason Nomar wanted to end his career here, even after everything that happened.  Unless it was Johnny Damon - who would probably still get booed.


    The pathetic Padres are coming your way. (none / 0) (#31)
    by oculus on Mon May 23, 2011 at 02:04:00 PM EST
    Be kind.  After all, you got Adrian.

    Thanks for the kindness to my (none / 0) (#40)
    by caseyOR on Mon May 23, 2011 at 02:22:01 PM EST
    poor Cubbies. Had their last exposure to Fenway not been 93 years ago (1918 WS), they would not have been so startled by the Big Green Wall and would certainly have swept the Red Sox.

    That 1918 series, by the way, was the Cubs last appearance in a WS. And we haven't won  a Series since 1902. So, really, who could hate us? Look up the word hapless in the dictionary, and you will see a picture of the Cubs, bless their hearts.

    I am coming to the sad conclusion that I, like my parents and my aunts and uncles, will never see the Cubs win a World Series. My late grandfather was the last person in our family to be alive when the Cubs won a Series. Of course, he was only two years old and had no memory of it, but, still, he was alive when the Cubs won.


    believe me (none / 0) (#48)
    by CST on Mon May 23, 2011 at 02:34:03 PM EST
    if there is one team that sox fans have 'sympathy'/'kindness' for - it's the cubs.  We know all about 1918, you guys gave us our last title before the long drought.  I've heard that "chant" from Yankees fans more times than I can count.

    For anyone interested in reading about the 'history' between the two teams here is a good article.

    Never say never!  I can't tell you how many people I heard say the same thing around here for all those years.


    What do you make of the theory... (none / 0) (#56)
    by kdog on Mon May 23, 2011 at 02:43:10 PM EST
    that the Cubs threw the 1918 Series?  

    Seems plausible to me....it was the only way for players of that era to make any cashish.


    I don't know, kdog. (none / 0) (#57)
    by caseyOR on Mon May 23, 2011 at 02:56:17 PM EST
    I hate to think the Cubs threw the series. Although, I guess our long WS drought could be some form of divine retribution.

    Doesn't it seem odd, though, that we know so much about the 1919 Black Sox, and almost nothing about the alleged crimes of the 1918 Cubs? Not saying it's impossible, but it is hard to figure how, if true, it has been kept so quiet over these many years.


    I heard about it... (none / 0) (#60)
    by kdog on Mon May 23, 2011 at 03:04:56 PM EST
    through word of mouth, haven't done my own research, but I heard the rightfielder made some suspicous errors, and got picked off first base more than once???

    None of the games in that WS were (none / 0) (#62)
    by caseyOR on Mon May 23, 2011 at 03:15:09 PM EST
    runaway wins. It was a tough series. In hindsight, there were some questionable plays, especially by Flack. Still, we've got nothing to go on but conjecture and unsubstantiated rumor.

    And, since the whole idea that the Cubs threw the series appears to have originated in some rather vague statement given in a deposition by Black Sox player Eddie Cicotte, well, I think a pinch of salt is warranted here.


    Maybe (none / 0) (#64)
    by jbindc on Mon May 23, 2011 at 03:18:14 PM EST

    CHICAGO -- If Chicago has been willing to believe that a cow caused the Great Chicago Fire, maybe it will buy this one: The White Sox got the idea to throw the 1919 World Series after the Cubs did the same thing one year earlier.

    That's the suggestion - more of a hint, really - from Eddie Cicotte, one of the infamous Black Sox banned from baseball after their tainted World Series against Cincinnati.

    In a 1920 court deposition the Chicago History Museum recently put on its website, Cicotte said "the boys on the club" talked about how a Cub or a number of Cubs were offered $10,000 to throw the 1918 Series they lost 4-2 to the Boston Red Sox.

    Cicotte is as vague as vague can be, failing to name any names or provide any details about how the players might have done it or even if he believes the Cubs threw the Series. But if what he suggests is true it means that when it came to fixing ball games in the early 20th century, Chicago was nobody's Second City.

    Me too Casey. I don't think I will ever see it. (none / 0) (#65)
    by ruffian on Mon May 23, 2011 at 03:25:45 PM EST
    My Dad died at the age of 82 and never saw it.

    Thanks to the Red Sox fans for not being too hard on the poor Cubbies fans. Must have been a little 'there but for the grace of god go us' going on there.


    I'll add that (none / 0) (#69)
    by CST on Mon May 23, 2011 at 03:44:15 PM EST
    I was impressed by how many came out of the woodwork.  I had no idea we had so many Chicago implants around.  It's not often you see home town teams represent like that up here, and I wasn't even at any of the games, this was just people walking around.  So kudos to a strong loyalty in your fan base.

    In a minor defense of NY, we have a ton of NY implants, and I have no doubt that many are very loyal to their teams.  It's just that it can be a public safety hazard to advertise that fact, so many don't.


    We walk amongst you! (none / 0) (#77)
    by ruffian on Mon May 23, 2011 at 04:19:38 PM EST
    I'm sure the local Cubs fans are Red Sox fans too - easy to be both when they are in different leagues and the odds of them ever playing in a WS are slim to none!

    Even out here in the soggy Pac NW, (none / 0) (#85)
    by caseyOR on Mon May 23, 2011 at 10:44:55 PM EST
    Cubs fans abound. When I am out and about sporting my Cubs hat, I am always a bit amazed at the number of people who respond with their own long-suffering Cubs fan stories or simply nod with a rueful smile.

    It gets kind of funny. I've been stopped in the parking lot at Trader Joe's by people who want to commiserate; check-out clerks always have a comment or two; everybody, it seems, wants to know if the Cubs are ever going to win the big one.

    Nobody, except for the occasional sad sad St. Louis Cardinal fan, is anything but sweet about the Cubs. Perhaps people think Cubs fans must be very fragile, and that we will shatter right before their eyes if they don't treat us kindly. Or, perhaps a century of defeat has made us kinder, gentler baseball fans, and that shines through.

    Go, Cubs!


    Cubs - Red Sox.... (none / 0) (#87)
    by desertswine on Tue May 24, 2011 at 12:24:40 AM EST
    Psst...  the word on the street is that the Cubs threw the Series...   in 1918!

    Oculus... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by kdog on Mon May 23, 2011 at 01:22:17 PM EST
    pointed us to this excellent decision by the Supremes...well worth a re-post, might be the best decision and news we get all year.

    After their awful decision last week on warrantless entry and search, Obama's appointments done good this time.  

    The only (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by lentinel on Mon May 23, 2011 at 04:10:16 PM EST
    Supremes that interest me are the ones with Diana Ross.

    Good call... (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by kdog on Mon May 23, 2011 at 07:33:17 PM EST
    No doubt you noticed I didn't (none / 0) (#13)
    by oculus on Mon May 23, 2011 at 01:26:51 PM EST
    initially offer an opinion.  

    It is interesting the release is now being touted as a money-saver and means to provide rehabilitation and training to the remaining inmates.  Purpose of the lawsuit was establish medical care was inadequate due to overcrowding.  


    I noticed... (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Mon May 23, 2011 at 01:36:19 PM EST
    but I'm not shy with mine...I like opening cages and liberation, even if it can be risky, especially considering we live in an over-criminalized society with an embarassing prison population...it's worth it, and absolutely necessary if we can't or won't maintain humane, err humane as possible, prison conditions.  

    We'll charter a bus to NY! (none / 0) (#23)
    by oculus on Mon May 23, 2011 at 01:50:56 PM EST
    Can we trade... (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Mon May 23, 2011 at 01:55:49 PM EST
    for a busload of banksters and Wall St. gamblers, I'll even throw in one billionaire tyrannical mayor!

    Do you anticipate many apprehensions of (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Mon May 23, 2011 at 01:57:59 PM EST
    outdoor smokers?

    Eventually, yes... (none / 0) (#33)
    by kdog on Mon May 23, 2011 at 02:06:30 PM EST
    when smokers refuse to pay their tickets, and warrants are issued for their arrest.

    My immediate prediction is fisticuffs between tyrannized smokers and anti-smoking zealots trying to play Bloomberg's deputy.

    Can you believe the city is actually encouraging citizens to tell people in the park to put out their butts?  We will be seeing the photos of fresh shiners in the Daily News within days, imo.


    I plan to live and let live. (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by oculus on Mon May 23, 2011 at 02:20:42 PM EST
    Good plan... (none / 0) (#44)
    by kdog on Mon May 23, 2011 at 02:26:12 PM EST
    fair warning, I'll be breaking a new law at Shakespeare in the Park, but I promise not to puff at my seat, just for you:)

    I was so smooth you probably didn't even notice when I slipped away to break a longer standing law at "Diary..."  Or did you smell my cologne at the seats? :)


    Ha. You'll probably get kicked out (none / 0) (#54)
    by oculus on Mon May 23, 2011 at 02:42:29 PM EST
    of ticket line.  But--no worries--as I can get a max of two.  Yes, I did figure out you were on a smoke break.  

    NYC will be getting the better end (none / 0) (#32)
    by KeysDan on Mon May 23, 2011 at 02:05:05 PM EST
    of the deal, according to Associate Justice Scalia's dissent.  Scalia states that the majority is ordering the release of "46,000 happy-go-lucky felons".  Associate Justice Clarence Thomas concurred.

    Wonder how CRC will screen for (none / 0) (#37)
    by oculus on Mon May 23, 2011 at 02:18:57 PM EST
    the "happy-go-lucky" 46,000.  See how many lawsuits each has filed against the state while incarcerated?  Disciplinary record?  

    "46,000 (none / 0) (#41)
    by lentinel on Mon May 23, 2011 at 02:23:03 PM EST
    Happy Go Lucky Felons".
    An exciting new musical.
    Opens on Broadway in the Fall.

    "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, the Sequel" (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Mon May 23, 2011 at 02:43:08 PM EST
    I forgot... (none / 0) (#47)
    by kdog on Mon May 23, 2011 at 02:28:33 PM EST
    Queens NY very own native disgrace, Judge Scalia...I'm trading him for a convict too if you agree Oc:)

    I noticed (none / 0) (#59)
    by sj on Mon May 23, 2011 at 03:02:08 PM EST
    And out of courtesy decided to wait before cheering :)

    So.. anybody get raptured that we'll miss? (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon May 23, 2011 at 02:17:34 PM EST
    My neighbor's cat may have been, but not sure.

    Isn't that a question that (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by observed on Mon May 23, 2011 at 02:41:44 PM EST
    answers itself?

    Another ignorant GOP candidate (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by brodie on Mon May 23, 2011 at 03:10:01 PM EST
    stumbles out of the starting gate:

    GOP presidential hopeful joke Herman "Reread the Constitution!" Cain lectures about knowing the Constitution, as his quotes confuse that document with the Decl'n of Independence.  

    This is just after formally declaring his candidacy, and just after appearing on Fox where he clearly demonstrated he had no clue about the meaning of "right of return" in the Palestinian context, and after previously disclosing he had absolutely no plan on the Afghanistan issue.

    Impressive guy on pizza issues though.

    He won the GOP delegates' poll (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Towanda on Tue May 24, 2011 at 11:40:39 AM EST
    for presidential candidates at the state convention in Wisconsin this weekend, I read.

    So the endtimes are upon us, after all, and starting in Wisconsin. It has gotten so weird there!


    The Senate is preparing to vote on (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by Anne on Mon May 23, 2011 at 03:17:07 PM EST
    a bill to extend some Patriot Act provisions; the worst part isn't that they are going to vote, it is that they are going to vote with almost no debate.  By agreement.  

    What are the provisions being voted on?

    There are three provisions at issue. One, roving wiretaps that allow broad electronic surveillance from the FBI on any phone line or communications device. Two, the ability to access business, medical or virtually all other records of any suspect, regardless of the relationship to terrorism. Three, the "lone wolf" provision to allow surveillance of people with no ties to a terrorist group. Earlier this year, the Congress extended these provisions for 90 days. That expires on Friday.

    In other words, they are voting to make sure the government has carte blanche to do whatever it wants, to whomever it wants, with no requirement that there be any connection to terrorism.  In other words, Welcome to the Permanent Surveillance State.

    When did this not become worthy of debate in the US Congress?  Seriously, I just don't get it -Why are the people who are supposed to be guardians of the Constitution just getting out their rubber stamps to okay this stuff?

    I would (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by lentinel on Mon May 23, 2011 at 04:08:16 PM EST
    imagine that the patriot act is not a subject for debate because both parties, and the leaders of both parties, want it in place.
    Obama's AG, Holder, supports it and says we need it more than ever.

    The republicans want it.
    It was their baby after all.

    Ergo - no debate.


    Costa Rica (5.00 / 0) (#76)
    by sj on Mon May 23, 2011 at 04:11:13 PM EST
    is sounding better and better.  It's getting more expensive to live there, though.

    My $0 to $10,000+ online poker run (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Dadler on Mon May 23, 2011 at 04:01:20 PM EST
    Because I just rewrote it and think it's ready to try to get published somewhere, I'm temporarily linking once again to the story of my free money online poker adventure.  Any comments are much appreciated.  BTW, Jeralyn, I used your analysis (giving you credit, of course) and mentioned TalkLeft, hope that's cool.  If it isn't, let me know.  For everyone else who might read it, thank you and I hope you enjoy it.  (LINK)

    Oh, and my son performed with his old band in San Diego last weekend, in their annual adjudicated festival performances.  Both bands he played in received Gold ratings (top 10% nationally), and his low brass section was given a special musicianship award.  Take that, all you high brass.

    Peace, y'all.

    Watching some of the coverage from (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by Anne on Mon May 23, 2011 at 05:58:57 PM EST
    Joplin, MO - I'm just gobsmacked by the devastation.  The physical manifestation of the tornado's power is hard to comprehend, but the people - I just don't know how people are coping; their faces bear such shock, and disbelief and loss.  Maybe the shock is what gets you to put one foot in front of the other, but when the shock wears off and people have nothing, have lost family members and friends - how do they get through that?

    Puts all my so-called problems in perspective, that's for sure.  

    Wish I didn't have this awful feeling that we're in for one hellacious summer, weather-wise.

    "Bipartisan" is the new code word for (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Anne on Tue May 24, 2011 at 10:07:58 AM EST
    "Great news! We agreed on a new way to screw regular people!"

    Good-friend-to-the-common-man Joe Biden is hosting the latest meeting of the Bipartisan Debt Ceiling Group, at which the focus will be Medicare and Medicaid, and how to find cost savings that both sides can agree on.

    The Tuesday session, which will be held on Capitol Hill, is expected to focus on healthcare spending, according to a source close to the discussions.

    Analysts at the non-partisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimate that savings to the U.S. budget deficit of between $25 billion and $130 billion could be achieved over 10 years by increasing the costs to people in the Medicare healthcare program for the elderly.

    Biden's group has initially focused on areas where the two sides can most easily agree.

    The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that these areas could yield deficit savings of between $1 and $2 trillion over the next decade.

    But, here are my questions: what if the things the two sides can most easily agree on are really bad ideas?  What if taking the path of least resistance - "the sandbox is so much more fun when we all share!" - is going to set many people on the path to poverty?  Doesn't that matter anymore?

    I guess not, because the Congress has become a place not where matters of principle are fought over with passion and conviction, or where the Constitution actually matters to anyone, but a place where the most important thing is to agree, to "get things done," even if the things they agree on and are getting done are really, really bad.

    "Bipartisanship" may be, overall, the worst thing to happen to the democracy in more than a generation.

    With the recent polling indicating (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 24, 2011 at 10:20:26 AM EST
    that touching Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security to be political poison, if everyone touches it and is poisoned will it matter?  Voter turn out will be horrible for everyone then and since the Democrats got Bin Laden that should put them over the top.  REALLY DEPRESSING

    wait a minute . . . (none / 0) (#93)
    by nycstray on Tue May 24, 2011 at 10:56:36 AM EST
    are they now talking about scr*wing the current recipients too, not just the under 55 group? I think it's time to buy stock in pitchforks . . .

    Well, if they are looking at a 10-yr (none / 0) (#107)
    by Anne on Tue May 24, 2011 at 12:10:33 PM EST
    cost savings, I kind of doubt that they would be looking to delay implementation until the current crop of 55 yr olds reach the age of 65, because - as we all know - WE HAVE TO SAVE MONEY NOW!!!

    But wait!  They haven't actually done anything yet - which is about the only positive thing that can be said; I get the sense that they are circling - yeah, like vultures - trying to figure out how they can do "something" about Medicare - and Medicaid - without losing their precious jobs.

    I'd suggest we need a "Torches and Pitchforks Cociety," but it would probably be designated a terrorist organization and we'd all end up at Gitmo.


    I have been watching "The One" (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 24, 2011 at 02:59:57 PM EST
    this afternoon with the Queen and the Prime Minister, and he sure does piss me off at home but he never embarrasses me in public :)  Not like some people used to :)

    Action shot (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by jbindc on Tue May 24, 2011 at 03:13:06 PM EST
    They do get on well , don't they (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by christinep on Tue May 24, 2011 at 04:03:48 PM EST
    What is the phrase? The "do ya proud." Anyway: Loved the speech in Dublin yesterday, as it brought to life in front of the Post Office the reminders of how a determined people can grow peace. As for today: Enjoyed the myriad examples of grace from the Obamas, whether at the welcoming ceremonies or Westminster with the choir or ping-pong with the PM & the students. (I'd bet that if our President were to walk into a door, he would do it with grace & aplomb.)

    Newt "Breakfast at Tiffany's" Gingrich, (none / 0) (#2)
    by brodie on Mon May 23, 2011 at 12:30:22 PM EST
    whose wife Callista apparently ran up a bill at the luxury store of between $250-500k a few years ago, now claims the debt has been repaid.  And further, he says the Obama admin could learn a lot from his own fine example of financial responsibility.


    Btw, judging by the picture of Newt's latest wife, I've got her down as a 50-50 mix of a younger Lady Bird Johnson and Janet Leigh.

    To me, Callista looks like (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Zorba on Mon May 23, 2011 at 12:34:17 PM EST
    too much Botox and plastic surgery.  ;-)

    I thought (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 23, 2011 at 01:11:42 PM EST
    the same thing. Her face looks literally frozen as much as Lori on the Real Housewives of Orange County.

    To me, Callista looks like... (none / 0) (#86)
    by desertswine on Tue May 24, 2011 at 12:15:41 AM EST
    kind of a robot.

    That's what (none / 0) (#105)
    by Zorba on Tue May 24, 2011 at 11:42:23 AM EST
    too much Botox and plastic surgery will do to you.  The absolutely flat, no-wrinkles forehead, and the wide-open, surprised-looking eyes are dead giveaways.  The women (and many men, too, for that matter) who go this route all tend to look the same.  

    And it can be kind of scary (none / 0) (#138)
    by Nemi on Wed May 25, 2011 at 05:57:02 AM EST
    [People] who go this route all tend to look the same.
    Channel surfing I recently came upon a talk show hosting Sharon Osborne and Olivia Newton-John. I don't recall them ever looking alike before, but now? I swear I couldn't tell them apart.

    Actually I don't so much blame these women - and men - who has "work" done, as much as the culture and the doctors who convince them that it's necessary.


    Same here (none / 0) (#140)
    by Zorba on Wed May 25, 2011 at 09:34:41 AM EST
    They all look like Stepford Wives.  (Or husbands.)  Yes, they're adults, but getting all this work done to improve their appearance because they think they must look "younger" (to keep their mates, I suppose, and to live up to what they think society expects) seems foolish.  They don't look "younger"- they look plastic.  

    One of the truly scary (none / 0) (#141)
    by Nemi on Wed May 25, 2011 at 01:26:54 PM EST
    - and so very sad - ones: Burt Reynolds. Damn who- or what-ever convinced him that he couldn't get by on charm and personality alone.

    Goes for others too like e.g. Liza Minelli. When I saw her some years back "worked" beyond recognizable, it wasn't until she laughed that I realized that omg and awww, it's Liza hidden in there somewhere. Tragic.


    It's the worship of youth (none / 0) (#143)
    by Zorba on Wed May 25, 2011 at 02:37:31 PM EST
    in this culture.  I shudder, too, every time I see an actress (or model) who is so thin that she appears anorexic (whether she truly is or not).  They all think that they have to be "Size zero," and as they get older, have no wrinkles whatsoever, even if they look not quite human.  Broomsticks topped by a plastic mask.  What in the heck is the matter with breasts, hips, and wrinkles?  These are the marks of our humanity.  

    Like all true outsiders, Newt (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by observed on Mon May 23, 2011 at 01:12:27 PM EST
    shops at Tiffany's. Insiders shop at Cartier---or through auction houses. Tiffany is so gauche.

    I'd say if you really want to spend money (none / 0) (#15)
    by observed on Mon May 23, 2011 at 01:30:35 PM EST
    just for show, shop at Bulgari.
    If you buy jewelry there, you're paying $500  per letter---and that's just at the low end.

    Save your pennies for 2016 (none / 0) (#18)
    by jbindc on Mon May 23, 2011 at 01:35:06 PM EST
    Oh. My. God. (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon May 23, 2011 at 01:45:55 PM EST
    My exact reaction, too. (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Zorba on Mon May 23, 2011 at 01:53:56 PM EST
    Oy vey!

    You took the words right out of my mouth. (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Anne on Mon May 23, 2011 at 02:03:19 PM EST

    It does bring up the question of whether it's better for the Dems' chances in 2012 and beyond to replace Biden on the 2012 ticket with someone who is a more credible heir apparent.

    Can't really think of anyone who would make enough of a difference to get me to vote for Obama, but, as has been pointed out, I am an insanely doctrinaire liberal who is in the minority, so my opinion won't matter a hill of beans to anyone.


    Well, Kirsten Gillibrand (none / 0) (#46)
    by brodie on Mon May 23, 2011 at 02:28:06 PM EST
    might be the one to get me enthusiastic, though for her own ambitions she probably doesn't need the #2 job.

    But a change at VP has to come either from that person or with some organic process which makes it either not unreasonable or inevitable.  And that doesn't appear to be in the cards for this ticket.

    It also shouldn't be entirely surprising that Joe would want to stick around for that one final shot at the big prize.  He's tried twice for it.  And early on -- I mean early on -- he signaled he was a very ambitious guy when he ran for the US senate at age 29.

    Part of me of course would like to see a 2016 run -- the part that looks forward to the next Biden gaffe, such as this one, an immediate all-time classic and my favorite.  Though I have to credit him with making one of the absolute best and quickest recoveries possible under the awkward circumstances.


    Biden's "gaffe" (none / 0) (#51)
    by KeysDan on Mon May 23, 2011 at 02:40:35 PM EST
    may have more to do with 2012 than with 2016.  He may be trying to cut that "organic process" off at the pass. Gee, I wonder what he has heard?

    If he's worried about 2012 he (none / 0) (#58)
    by brodie on Mon May 23, 2011 at 02:56:59 PM EST
    shouldn't be.  There was some scuttlebutt on the blogs a while back about possibly replacing him with Hillary to improve O's re-elect chances and spice up the party enthusiasm, but Hillary nixed that, and that was last year when there was also talk in the same disgruntled quarters about primarying O with an actual liberal.

    It seems that with the capture of Ben Laden and a few other things, like the pathétique GOP field, O and Joe are no longer quite as vulnerable to become another Carter-Mondale admin.


    Look at the bright side (5.00 / 5) (#66)
    by ruffian on Mon May 23, 2011 at 03:31:35 PM EST
    Before I clicked the link I assumed you were talking about Joe Lieberman.

    Ha! (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by lilburro on Mon May 23, 2011 at 04:01:04 PM EST
    I thought the same thing too.  Thank you for disabusing me of that notion as I did not click the link.

    ...which is nothing against jb (none / 0) (#72)
    by lilburro on Mon May 23, 2011 at 04:02:11 PM EST
    I just can't think of any Joe whose run for President would elicit anything more than an "ew/ugh" from me right now.

    I should have been more specific. :) (none / 0) (#73)
    by jbindc on Mon May 23, 2011 at 04:03:40 PM EST
    I thought it was Joe the Plumber (none / 0) (#106)
    by Towanda on Tue May 24, 2011 at 11:42:58 AM EST
    whose name is not Joe, nor is he a plumber.

    By comparison, goofy gaffey Joe Biden is a relief.


    I'm surprised I haven't seen more (none / 0) (#35)
    by observed on Mon May 23, 2011 at 02:15:45 PM EST
    discussion of Obama's Israel policy in the last few days.

    It (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by lentinel on Mon May 23, 2011 at 02:19:45 PM EST
    seems to me that the US is falling apart - fire and floods - and there is little interest in that either.

    I keep thinking about what we could do with the three billion we spend every week on the wars. Every time I see footage of a disaster, I think of that. And we have to settle for a bromide like, "We'll stand together", or some such tommyrot from Washington.


    FEMA cocked-up alabama (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon May 23, 2011 at 02:23:59 PM EST
    big time. Another heckuva job brownie, just not as visible.

    One would think that trucks loaded with ice could be driven and distributed.  One would think... One Ice plant in north Alabama was running on genrators and giving it away.

    I do not think the federal government is prepared for another disaster. Now it's Obama's watch, and I hope he thinks about FEMA's impotence.


    Don't hold your (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by cal1942 on Mon May 23, 2011 at 10:24:36 PM EST

    We can be absolutely (none / 0) (#84)
    by cal1942 on Mon May 23, 2011 at 10:27:19 PM EST
    sure that sensible policy on almost any matter will be out of the question.

    We are down the rabbit hole.


    Robert Fisk (5.00 / 0) (#80)
    by Nemi on Mon May 23, 2011 at 05:09:09 PM EST
    among other zingers fire these at Obama's speech
    Of course, there was the usual rhetoric bath for Libya, Syria, Iran, the usual suspects. And there were the words. Courage. Peace. Dignity. Democracy. A creature from Mars would think that the man had helped to bring about the revolutions in the Middle East rather that sat primly to one side in the hope that the wretched dictators might survive.

    Is Obama just talking too much? I fear so. He was cashing in, bathing in his own words as he did in his miserable performance when he got the Nobel Peace Prize for Speechmaking.
    Lots of rhetoric - but very little help.

    the truth is (none / 0) (#45)
    by CST on Mon May 23, 2011 at 02:27:18 PM EST
    Mostly I wonder if it even matters what Obama, or anyone else for that matter thinks about Israel.  They do not seem inclined to do anything differently.  This struck me as Obama trying to make nice with the middle east by coming out hard(ish) against Israel.  I don't see it working as a pr ploy in the middle east to get the Palestinians or whoever on our side, too late for that.  I think if anything it has just p*ssed off Israel.

    Don't get me wrong, I am fine with p*ssing off Israel.  It's about time some president put them "in the corner" so to speak.  They should not be running our foreign policy.

    I certainly don't think anything substantial will change because of this though.


    Well, I was pleased. (none / 0) (#49)
    by observed on Mon May 23, 2011 at 02:34:42 PM EST
    His statement of policy is clear and logical and fair.

    I liked what he had to say (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by CST on Mon May 23, 2011 at 02:36:34 PM EST
    It's just that the whole thing feels rather hopeless.

    Kind of like tornadoes.


    sure. Big improvement on any President (none / 0) (#53)
    by observed on Mon May 23, 2011 at 02:42:27 PM EST
    in 40 years though, in my opinion.

    Before the Good Friday Accords & Ireland (none / 0) (#78)
    by christinep on Mon May 23, 2011 at 04:30:39 PM EST
    ...a resolution that has generally held since inception during the Clinton Administration...the Irish troubles seemed interminable. Centuries of stand-off.

    So, from Ms. Optimist here (me), I say: Nothing is hopeless. For a number of reasons--not the least of which is the increasing isolation of Israel and Palestinian people, the sheer demographics--even that most intransigent of MidEast situations can & will move forward if pressure, attention are systematically applied. Even Netanyahu appears to have softened his pr critique of Obama's call for starting with the 1967 boundaries a day after they were made. Positioning eventually moves an inch or two or more.

    To look at an uplifting talk about Ireland, and broader contours of resolution of age-long conflict, view the speech the President gave in Dublin today. (I found it on Politico.) That it was very well-received is only one aspect of a speech designed for many audiences. A wonderful reminder of a nation's journey from troubles, of its resilience.


    My understanding (none / 0) (#68)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon May 23, 2011 at 03:41:34 PM EST
    is Pres' call for return to '67 boundaries repeats peace offer made by last Israeli leader.  But the statement's being turned into... you know

    More DSK (none / 0) (#88)
    by jbindc on Tue May 24, 2011 at 09:09:21 AM EST
    From the NY Post.  Don't know how credible it is, but it's yet another interesting piece to this story...

    Friends of alleged hotel sex fiend Dominique Strauss-Kahn secretly contacted the accusing maid's impoverished family, offering them money to make the case go away since they can't reach her in protective custody, The Post has learned.

    The woman, who says she was sexually assaulted by the disgraced former head of the International Monetary Fund, has an extended family in the former French colony of Guinea in West Africa, well out of reach of the Manhattan DA's Office.

    "They already talked with her family," a French businesswoman with close ties to Strauss-Kahn and his family told The Post. "For sure, it's going to end up on a quiet note."

    Oy..listening to Netanyahu (none / 0) (#91)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 24, 2011 at 10:29:54 AM EST
    speaking to the House.  I didn't know Dubya Bush came in a Jewish version too :)  Uh Oh...he's getting hecklers.  That Code Pink

    And he just brought up that you can't (none / 0) (#92)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 24, 2011 at 10:30:44 AM EST
    heckle in Tehran...dig dig dig

    I seem to remember... (none / 0) (#94)
    by Dadler on Tue May 24, 2011 at 10:57:19 AM EST
    ...people being arrested at Dubya rallies for simply wearing anti-Dubya t-shirts.  Guess it must have been during his Tehran KFC campaign appearance.

    And the 51st State... (none / 0) (#95)
    by kdog on Tue May 24, 2011 at 11:08:58 AM EST
    Israel isn't exactly tolerant of dissent...quick to fire them rubber bullets at crowds protesting apartheid.

    He finished his speech (none / 0) (#96)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 24, 2011 at 11:20:07 AM EST
    better than he started IMO.  He actually started his speech by congratulating America for getting Bin Laden and he said "Good Ridden".  What a start when you have the "issues" that his country has.  He just seems too abrasive and telling everyone to phuck off/how do you like me now?  I'm very empathetic toward Israel but wow is that guy aggressive and in everyone's face in a way.

    Sorry Good riddance (none / 0) (#98)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 24, 2011 at 11:22:12 AM EST
    I don't know who types for me sometimes.

    I'd be more empathetic toward... (none / 0) (#99)
    by kdog on Tue May 24, 2011 at 11:26:24 AM EST
    Israel if it's capital was Berlin...original sin of the post-war powers, if well-intentioned...and people of all superstitions and creeds have paid dearly for it ever since.

    kdog....that region of the world (none / 0) (#110)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 24, 2011 at 01:56:03 PM EST
    is where their ancestors come from and a region that they have inhabited since the beginning of time too...not Germany.  Everyone always wants to forget that though.

    And everybodys ancestor... (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by kdog on Tue May 24, 2011 at 02:23:51 PM EST
    came from the fertile crescent...do we have a claim to a slice?  Of course not...that would be ludicrous.  Sh*t they won't let me claim the room in Flushing Hospital where I was born.

    The Holocaust was a heinous murder crime spree in unfathomable numbers committed by Nazis and their sympathizers & collaborators, and the victims were predominantly Europeans.  Homeland compensation for that crime should have been paid by those that committed the crime...but too late to get it right now, there are native born Israelis who now have a rightful claim...so it'll be fubar for another 50 years minimum, if that region is lucky.


    There have been native Jews (none / 0) (#137)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 24, 2011 at 08:49:23 PM EST
    born in the Israel/Palestine area for thousands of years. You are talking around the facts and you know it :)  It is their actual homeland too.

    And native muslims... (none / 0) (#144)
    by kdog on Wed May 25, 2011 at 02:51:48 PM EST
    native christians...surely even a few native atheists, agnostics, and heathens.  

    If there is a god he/she/it is a sick puppy, convincing all of the big 3 one spot is their brands holy spot.


    Not a smart nor safe play... (none / 0) (#97)
    by kdog on Tue May 24, 2011 at 11:21:28 AM EST
    but I'd have to bet sh*t never tasted so good.

    Ewww..... (none / 0) (#100)
    by vml68 on Tue May 24, 2011 at 11:27:42 AM EST
    that is absolutely digusting.

    That it is... (none / 0) (#101)
    by kdog on Tue May 24, 2011 at 11:32:14 AM EST
    but as far as non-lethal weapons go, better than a tasing.

    Felony assault seems a bit much. (none / 0) (#102)
    by oculus on Tue May 24, 2011 at 11:33:13 AM EST
    And who knew CO has 0.05 BA standard.  

    I noticed that... (none / 0) (#103)
    by kdog on Tue May 24, 2011 at 11:40:21 AM EST
    always felt .08 was too low....one can definitely blow a .05 and not be intoxicated or a danger to anybody.  Not an issue for my friend here at over .10...just sayin'.

    Which state will be the first to go .02?  Or a zero tolerance .0000000000000000001?


    I don't know how CO proseccutors (none / 0) (#108)
    by oculus on Tue May 24, 2011 at 01:36:25 PM EST
    prove up impairment at 0.05 BA.  

    No need to... (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by kdog on Tue May 24, 2011 at 01:52:38 PM EST
    I assume the law is written as such that a .05 automatically equals "impaired", even if nothing can be further from the truth...thats why the smart play is always to refuse to blow and take your automatic license suspension...then the man needs evidence of impairment to convict for DUI.

    The law is kinda funny that way...lies become truth, non-crimes become crimes, crimes become "good business".


    'Course (none / 0) (#112)
    by jbindc on Tue May 24, 2011 at 02:03:35 PM EST
    You can't legally drive then, and if you do and get caught, it's more court time and expense for you and possibly jail time.

    Unless you get lucky... (none / 0) (#114)
    by kdog on Tue May 24, 2011 at 02:08:28 PM EST
    and never get pulled over while your license is suspended/revoked.

    Or very very lucky, and the cop who arrested you is embroiled in the tix-fix scandal...then you walk:)


    Or, better yet (none / 0) (#116)
    by jbindc on Tue May 24, 2011 at 02:25:50 PM EST
    You just get a Designated Driver in the first place or call a taxi.

    Or when the state tells you that you have lost the privilege to drive (not a right) because you can't be trusted to be safe on the roads, then you just don't drive.



    But you only blew a .05... (none / 0) (#117)
    by kdog on Tue May 24, 2011 at 02:31:18 PM EST
    and weren't impaired...taxis and designated drivers are for people who are intoxicated and a danger if driving.

    If anybody has a breathylzer I'll booze myself up to .05 and prove it to you...I'm pretty sure we're still .08 in NY, not that I refer to law books to live or anything, only my conscience...better track record than any legislature & executive two-step:)


    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by jbindc on Tue May 24, 2011 at 02:48:10 PM EST
    But maybe you don't realize how impaired you are. It would be interesting to have you take a test and see your reaction times sober, and at varying stages of impairment. My guess is, even when you think you're fine, your reaction time would be slower and your judgment would not be as sharp.  And since this isn't just about you and your freedom - but the freedom of everyone on the road (and sidewalks) at the same time as you, it's a balancing test.

    And note that under Colorado law, you are only considered "impaired" and not "under the influence".


    And, in Colorado (none / 0) (#113)
    by jbindc on Tue May 24, 2011 at 02:06:46 PM EST
    Refusing to take the test is admissible against you in Colorado courts.

    I did :) (none / 0) (#111)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 24, 2011 at 02:00:35 PM EST
    .05 is called alcohol impaired and under the influence is .08.  Course I'm a martini slammer who was born there :)  Can't be too careful.  They will take away your birthday :)

    You have good taste (none / 0) (#119)
    by christinep on Tue May 24, 2011 at 02:54:56 PM EST
    ...assuming, naturally, that you are talking about the pure, honest, exceptionally fine drink on a stem made with good gin. (Not the faux vodka.)

    Big, little, fat, short or tall (none / 0) (#121)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 24, 2011 at 03:02:56 PM EST
    wish I could have kept them all.  I love a good gin as much as I love a good vodka.  I hate rum, whiskey, scotch and all that though....bleh!  I'd rather drink dirty water out of a mudhole :)

    Tangueray makes me not a good person (none / 0) (#122)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 24, 2011 at 03:04:51 PM EST
    though....and I don't why.  I always thought stories like that were tall tales.  Tequila makes me very happy too

    Gin: might as well be drinking hairspray... (none / 0) (#125)
    by Anne on Tue May 24, 2011 at 03:29:58 PM EST
    not a gin fan, obviously.

    I like the smell, and gin-soaked olives and/or onions go down fine, but the drink itself?  Yuck.


    It's "an acquired taste" (none / 0) (#126)
    by christinep on Tue May 24, 2011 at 03:56:13 PM EST
    When the four gal pals would take an evening for dinner, two of them would scrunch up their faces at the sight of that clear white fluid with one olive and I would reply "Imagine eating pine bark or a juniper bush." So...I understand, Anne.

    Now, the other gal pal would sit with her "martini" too...or, more precisely, an imitation drink made with vodka. Cheers, MT! (Avoid the Tanqueray; try Boodles or Bombay Sapphire.)

    What a pleasant little change-of-pace this discussion is, ladies.


    Bombay Sapphire is my go-to gin. (none / 0) (#128)
    by caseyOR on Tue May 24, 2011 at 04:07:10 PM EST
    And a dry martini is my drink, although I do appreciate a fine bourbon.

    A martini is made with gin and a little tiny bit of vermouth. It does not contain vodka. It is not "dirty" , and it does not in any way bring to mind apples.

    I am not a fan of Tanqueray. Plymouth makes a nice martini, as does the aforementioned Bombay Sapphire. My uncle swears by Beefeaters, but I never did take to that gin. I have not tried Boodles. How does it compare to the Bombay?


    My son (none / 0) (#129)
    by Zorba on Tue May 24, 2011 at 04:29:36 PM EST
    makes a killer martini.  He uses very good gin, and he uses a martini shaker.  Fills it with ice.  Pours in a little vermouth, shakes it up with the ice for a bit, then he pours out the vermouth.  Adds the gin, shakes it up, then pours it into a previously chilled, stemmed martini glass. (If you want an olive, he'll add that.)  And that, my friends, is a dry martini.  ;-)

    Zorba - it sounds delicious...and I (none / 0) (#134)
    by Anne on Tue May 24, 2011 at 06:02:22 PM EST
    keep trying, but...no luck so far.

    I'm the same way with coffee...love the smell, love coffee ice cream, but a cup of the brew?  Can't do it - not even with tons of sugar and cream.

    Oh, well...maybe someday.  Hey, I've developed a taste for beets in the last month or so, and the other night, after making them to go with dinner, said to my husband, "I don't understand why I never liked these before."

    Hey, while I have you - sj and I are trying to plan a get-together in Baltimore in the next couple weeks - turns out we both work downtown (she's in Harbor East and I'm across from the Aquarium); we were wondering if you had any interest in a jaunt into town for a long lunch or a dinner, maybe in Little Italy?  If so, I'll let Jeralyn know it's okay to give you my e-mail and we'll see what kind of fun/trouble we can plan!


    You either like gin, (none / 0) (#135)
    by Zorba on Tue May 24, 2011 at 06:23:38 PM EST
    and the taste of juniper berries, or you don't.  I like juniper berries, not just in gin, but as flavoring for sauerkraut and sweet and sour red cabbage.  ;-) Let me know if you have a jaunt a bit later in the year- the next few weeks are problematic, because I have workmen coming in and out.  They're doing major work around the place- power washing and/or painting/wood preserving house, barn, outbuildings, and refinishing floors- and I pretty much have to stick close to home.

    I love gin (5.00 / 0) (#146)
    by CST on Wed May 25, 2011 at 03:04:43 PM EST
    that's just about my only contribution to this.

    Also, it's a little expensive, but I recommend trying Hendricks, with cucumber instead of olive/lime/whatever.  Soooo good.

    I'm more of a gin and tonic gal than martini, but when the craving calls there is nothing better.  And vodka is definitely cheating/lame.


    You are giving me a craving (none / 0) (#136)
    by ruffian on Tue May 24, 2011 at 07:44:56 PM EST
    I have the Sapphire, will check for vermouth. Sounds like the way I make a martini too!

    In the matter of: Gin (none / 0) (#130)
    by christinep on Tue May 24, 2011 at 04:31:58 PM EST
    Boodles vs Bombay Sapphire? Equally good. I first tasted Boodles when visiting the home of Guy Fawkes (an old college joke) for a photo for an old friend; said birthplace had been restored as a little English bar, etc. etc. The Boodles martini there had such exceptional taste mixed as it was with British history that I'll always fancy that Boodles is just right.

    Agree completely with your comments about the proper way to make a martini (altho we have not gotten into "stirred" or "shaken".) Nonetheless, as the most elegant cocktail how--gasp--could it ever be, um, dirty?!?


    I have never tried (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Zorba on Tue May 24, 2011 at 04:35:22 PM EST
    Boodles, but we love the Bombay Sapphire.  I'll definitely have to try the Boodles.  Thanks for the tip!

    I am on a bit of a Bernard DeVoto (none / 0) (#132)
    by oculus on Tue May 24, 2011 at 05:34:36 PM EST
    exploration.  He was quite proud and insistent re how to make a martini.  When Julia and Paul Child came to stay with the DeVotos, Bennie was underwhelmed w/Julia--until she downed two of his martinis.

    link to Bennie's recipe


    So when are you (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Zorba on Tue May 24, 2011 at 05:57:53 PM EST
    making us all some martinis, oculus?  We'll be right over.   ;-)

    I'm with you Anne... (none / 0) (#145)
    by kdog on Wed May 25, 2011 at 02:55:01 PM EST
    anything but gin...I think I turned myself off forever as a teen...it was the only liquor no one would notice going missing in the liquor cabinet...had to fight down every nasty sip of gin and juice, and haven't touched it since I turned 21.

    Dennis Kucinich (none / 0) (#124)
    by jbindc on Tue May 24, 2011 at 03:27:47 PM EST