AdamSmith

Stu, never stayed in the Chelsea but share your interest in doing so. First read of it years ago in Arthur Clarke's The Lost Worlds of 2001, mentioning he lived there while writing "2001" with Kubrick. He told of being able to go down to the bar and have a drink with such as William Burroughs and Allen Ginsberg when in need of inspiration. Fascinating blog here, giving inside views of the travails wrought for long-term artiste-type residents by the hotel's change of ownership in recent years, and consequent efforts to raise rates and force out said low-paying long-term guests: http://legends.typepad.com/

Six years ago, when it was pretty new, Ritz Battery Park was a very nice property. Have not stayed there since. Not much to do down there at night, though. If your amusements are in other parts of the city, expect to spend a lot of time in taxis. But as TY says, if you plan to import your entertainment and have it with you full-time, who cares?

You don't think they're used to such by now?

On t'other hand, prompting enemy troops to burst out in choruses from B-grade musicals would seem to make them more lethal. Or, worse, attempting massed Leontyne Price impressions.

One fears that, by the time we are all drawing last breaths, our species' carbon emissions will have been curbed by collapse of the ocean food chain. Because that event could, belatedly, force us to recognize the vast food value in the planet's (dwindling?) petroleum reserves. Arthur Clarke was, to my knowledge, among the first to point out how shortsighted to have squandered these complex hydrocarbons for nothing but their thermal energy.

No sunlight comes between Rex Reed's assessment of Adam Sandler, Seth Rogen et al. and my own. But I did once hear an interesting bit of biodata. To another journalist who knew Reed personally, I remarked that Reed's reviews always seem resentful. His colleague said, Yes, exactly the word! And explained that Reed is eternally bitter at having failed to have his own career in theatre, despite a couple of small film roles.

Well ... you know what Alice Roosevelt Longworth said, when told that Coolidge had died: "How could they tell?"

Eerie, no? I have to soak my head in cannabis, Corona, and every damned kind of thing to get anywhere near that groove. Wonderful how naturally it comes to her.

Without comment: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/28/w...l_n_246034.html

... Following that link, I find myself sucked into rereading the whole thing. Propelled along by such as: Jack. Oh, Gwendolen is as right as a trivet. As far as she is concerned, we are engaged. Her mother is perfectly unbearable. Never met such a Gorgon . . . I don't really know what a Gorgon is like, but I am quite sure that Lady Bracknell is one. In any case, she is a monster, without being a myth, which is rather unfair . . . I beg your pardon, Algy, I suppose I shouldn't talk about your own aunt in that way before you. Algernon. My dear boy, I love hearing my relations abused. It is the only thing that makes me put up with them at all. Relations are simply a tedious pack of people, who haven't got the remotest knowledge of how to live, nor the smallest instinct about when to die. Jack. Oh, that is nonsense! Algernon. It isn't! Jack. Well, I won't argue about the matter. You always want to argue about things. Algernon. That is exactly what things were originally made for.

... I shall have to win another contest here, take Andre to Stratford, and check this out. It will erase the memory of the half-hour of 'Coraline' we endured last month. With apologies to any who liked that production.

The (alas) indispensable Google affirms your memory. Except for minor point that the citation appears to be "Rise," not "Arise". Even more apt to our present context-twisting. P.S. The citation: http://www.readeasily.com/oscar-wilde/00196/001960010.php

Delicious! Although one's particular favorite is: "Not even for ready money!" ... said nearly as often of local boys as of the subject (suggestive!) vegetable in the play.

The Wall Street Journal's Terry Teachout is more than amused... That Was No Lady If you’re looking for one-stop theatrical shopping, go north to the Stratford Shakespeare Festival, which in summertime more or less takes over the smallish Ontario town for which it is named. This year the festival is presenting 14 plays on four stages, and the fare is richly varied. Much is being made of the fact that under Des McAnuff, the new artistic director, the festival has cut back on Shakespeare (three plays this season, five last season) and beefed up the budget for its roster of crowd-pleasing musical comedies. Be that as it may, classical theater remains Stratford’s mainstay, and Brian Bedford’s brilliantly zany staging of “The Importance of Being Earnest†is good enough to justify a trip to Canada all by itself. Mr. Bedford’s production of Oscar Wilde’s ever-enchanting comedy of turn-of-the-century English manners is built around a gimmick that turns out not to be the least bit gimmicky: In addition to directing, he also plays Lady Bracknell, the money-hungry monster of propriety who is determined to stop Algernon and Gwendolen (Mike Shara and Sara Topham), her nephew and daughter, from marrying beneath themselves. I don’t care for camped-up drag acts, but Mr. Bedford, who makes himself up to look like Queen Victoria and carries himself like a snooty gargoyle, is giving us something completely different, an impersonation so sharp-witted and closely observed that it demands to be accepted on its own daring terms. Not since I last watched Mark Morris enact the double role of Dido and the Sorceress in his modern-dance version of Purcell’s “Dido and Aeneas†have I seen a man play a woman so convincingly. Indeed, I might well have taken it for granted that Lady Bracknell was being played by a woman had I not glanced at the program before the curtain went up. I’d be tempted to say that Mr. Bedford’s star turn was the best thing about this “Earnest†were it not for the fact that everything and everyone else is just as good. Instead of galloping through their lines at the breakneck speed of farce, the cast strolls unhurriedly from scene to scene, giving Wilde’s double-edged epigrams plenty of time to seek and destroy their satirical targets. Desmond Heeley’s fantastic set, which looks as though Georges Seurat had sculpted it out of marzipan, adds immeasurably to the production’s comic zing. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...3949293078.html

It would also be duller. Having to watch for the footpath suddenly becoming littered with sharp tacks enlivens the walking. Wikipedia is invaluable: On the last episode of I Love Lucy, the last line is "Shoot, if you must, this old red head!" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Fritchie Also from Wikipedia: The comedian Mark Russell once parodied her quotation as "You can do anything you want with this flag, but don't mess up my hair!" Herself: Her poet-immortalizer (did everyone in the 19th century bear uncanny resemblance to one another?):

I ought to quit reading things like this. Doctors missing consciousness in vegetative patients 12:47 21 July 2009 by Celeste Biever If there's one thing worse than being in a coma, it's people thinking you are in one when you aren't. Yet a new comparison of methods for detecting consciousness suggests that around 40 per cent of people diagnosed as being in a vegetative state are in fact "minimally conscious". In the worst case scenario, such misdiagnoses could influence the decision to allow a patient to die, even though they have some vestiges of consciousness. But crucially it may deprive patients of treatments to make them more comfortable, more likely to recover, or to allow them to communicate with family, say researchers. In a vegetative state (VS), reflexes are intact and the patient can breathe unaided, but there is no awareness. A minimally conscious state (MCS) is a sort of twilight zone, only recently recognised, in which people may feel some physical pain, experience some emotion, and communicate to some extent. However, because consciousness is intermittent and incomplete in MCS, it can be sometimes very difficult to tell the difference between the two. In 2002 Joseph Giacino at the JFK Rehabilitation Institute in New Jersey and colleagues released the first diagnostic criteria for MCS. Then in 2004, Giacino released a revised coma recovery scale (CRS-R) – a series of behavioural tests based on criteria that can be used to distinguish between the two states. Alarm 'appropriate' To see if the revised scale improves diagnoses, Giacino and Caroline Schnakers of the Coma Science Group at the University of Liege in Belgium, with colleagues, spent two years using CRS-R to re-diagnose patients admitted to a network of Belgian intensive care units and neurology clinics with head injuries that resulted in some kind of disturbance to consciousness. The clinics and units all used a "clinical consensus" agreed by a range of specialists to diagnose patients. Some of the specialists relied on qualitative, "bedside" observations to diagnose patients, others used older diagnostic tools, but none used the CRS-R – the only one designed specifically to distinguish between MCS and VS. Of the 44 patients diagnosed as being in a vegetative state by the clinicians, the researchers diagnosed 18, or 41 per cent, as being in a MCS according to the CRS-R. "We may have become much too comfortable about our ability to detect consciousness," concludes Giacino. "I think it's appropriate for there to be some level of alarm about this." Giacino concedes that, because there is no objective way to measure consciousness, he cannot exclude the possibility that the reason for the discrepancy is that the CRS-R is over-diagnosing MCS. Examiner bias However, Schnakers argues that CRS-R should be more accurate because it specifies how many times each test must be repeated – and how many responses are needed to give an indication of consciousness. This, she says, guards against missing awareness in someone who pops in and out of consciousness, or mistaking a reflexive response for a response based on consciousness. It should also control for "examiner bias", where someone subjectively decides whether the patient is conscious or not, adds Giacino. What's more, the revised scale also makes use of some new insights. One sign of consciousness is whether someone follows the path of a moving object, known as "visual pursuit". Many clinicians simply look at whether someone follows a moving pen or person, says Schnakers. The CRS-R specifies the use of a mirror, which she argues may prompt a reaction in someone who is conscious, but who does not respond to a moving pen. "When you move an object, it is less powerful," she says. 'Death or survival' So why do clinicians still use the qualitative assessment? "Their focus is more typically on death or survival" and on biological factors that need treatment, such as how long a patient needs to be in an intensive care unit, says John Whyte of the Moss Rehabilitation Research Institute in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, who was not involved in the study. "For their purposes, the distinction [between MCS and VS] doesn't matter much." For the patient and the family, the difference between MCS and VS can make a huge difference, though. Drug treatments, painkillers, physical therapies designed to stimulate the brain, as well as techniques for encouraging communication, are more likely to be given to someone in a MCS. In some jurisdictions, whether food can be withdrawn may depend on whether or not they are in a VS, says Whyte. "It's very important to be sure of the diagnosis," says Schnakers. Journal reference: BMC Neurology (DOI: 10.1186/1471-2377-9-35) http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1749...e-patients.html

And away we go... Climate engineering research gets green light Hacking the planet to rein in humanity's effect on the climate has been given a scientific stamp of approval. The umbrella body for meteorological scientists in the US is about to endorse research into geoengineering as part of a three-pronged approach to coping with climate change, alongside national policies to reduce emissions. New Scientist has seen the final draft of the American Meteorological Society's carefully worded position paper on geoengineering. The AMS is the first major scientific body to officially endorse research into geoengineering. The document states that "deliberately manipulating physical, chemical, or biological aspects of the Earth system" should be explored alongside the more conventional approaches to climate change. Conventional approaches means reducing emissions – "mitigation" in policy-speak – and adjusting to the unavoidable effect of climate change – known as "adaptation". The paper states that "even aggressive mitigation of future emissions cannot avoid dangerous climate changes resulting from past emissions. Furthermore, it is unlikely that all of the expected climate-change impacts can be managed through adaptation. Thus, it is prudent to consider geoengineering's potential benefits, to understand its limitations, and to avoid ill-considered deployment". Trials likely Opponents of geoengineering may be reassured to find that the statement calls for studies into the social, ethical and legal implications of geoengineering solutions, and for methods to be developed in a transparent fashion. A New Scientist special report on geoengineering earlier this year highlighted the need for such studies. Research, including some private studies, into geoengineering solutions is gathering pace and it's likely that small and eventually large-scale trials will soon be carried out. Yet there are few, if any, international frameworks in place that can regulate attempts to engineer the climate, despite the fact that the impacts of large-scale geoengineering will be felt on a regional and possibly global scale. "I think this is an important step towards developing an 'official' research programme on intentional climate intervention established in the United States," says Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution of Washington in Stanford, California, and a proponent of research into geoengineering. "I think it is increasingly likely that we will see government funded research programs into ways to decrease the amount of climate change caused by increased greenhouse gas concentrations," he says. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1749...reen-light.html

Now changing into a dry pair of drawers.

I think what Stu is actually doing is bemoaning Northerners' tendency to be embarrassed by the human condition, and admiring the Southern bent toward rueful delight in same. Or maybe I am projecting again.

On a matter this dire, I am all with Mr. Stevens about it being "not a choice between, but of." If the string runs out on one line of inquiry, as it usually does, I do not want to learn, too late in the day, that we ought to have pursued all likely possibilities in parallel. As with our consideration of our politics, so with life at large. We have always been such great tragedians that our only salvation lay in being even greater comedians. I know of no more hilarious book than As I Lay Dying, for example. Not to mention, stepping down a bit, the entire oeuvre of Flannery O'Connor. Or, back to an earlier point, Sen. Ervin's use of wit and ridicule as the tools of righteous anger during Watergate.

All right, Galifianakis ran a hapless, inept campaign. While Helms, his campaign manager Tom Ellis & crew were inventing the demonically effective tactics of wide-scale fundraising, voter microtargeting, and personal-divisive-destructive messaging later honed by Atwater and carried to perfection by Rove. You'll recall one of Helms's most oft-used slogans against the Greek: "Jesse Helms -- he's one of us." I ought to know I can't sneak anything by you. P.S. Your Colmer sounds vaguely reminiscent of our tippling Andrew Johnson.

TY! This Tar Heel takes exception. Remember Sam Ervin. Actually, here is a demographic analysis, or at least excuse. Helms got elected in 1972, the first election cycle to show the effects of the migration of substantial numbers of Northeast Corridor Republicans into the Research Triangle and other parts, courtesy of new plant openings by IBM, Monsanto, Burroughs Wellcome, etc. Those votes, added to the native bubbas, tipped it. Trend has continued since, with such as the state's emergence as a national banking center. Before 1972, old-time Democrats had, for better or worse, a lock on state politics since just after Reconstruction. One has to go back to Andrew Johnson to find anything quite as bad as the recent crop.

...quoth the fish to their first offspring fool enough to wonder about life on dry land? Less flip, the engineering possibilities of 'terraforming' other worlds are coming more and more into view. (Especially given the sharp boost those technologies could get in the next half-century here at home. A small but serious movement is taking shape to think about actively intervening in the climate mess, out of fear that the thing has already passed a tipping point, and that just decelerating carbon emissions going forward will be far too little, too late.) For good or ill, you're right. As Oberg's article above reminded, puncturing my highflown naivete.

When one begins to despair at the depths of one's own stupidity, this proves one could be even worse off. My favorite part of that article: Mr. Sibrel, who sells his films online, has hounded Apollo astronauts with a Bible, insisting that they swear on camera they had walked on the Moon. He so annoyed Buzz Aldrin in 2002 — ambushing him with his Bible and calling him “a coward, and a liar, and a thief†— that Mr. Aldrin punched Mr. Sibrel in the face. Law enforcement officials refused to file charges against Mr. Aldrin, the second man on the Moon.

Good article by space historian James Oberg on why we really went to the moon (cuts the legs out from some of my points) and what could get us back there: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5380736/ns/tec..._science-space/