In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations.

E-Mail Donald
Demographer, recovering sociologist, and arts buff

E-Mail Fenster
College administrator and arts buff

E-Mail Francis
Architectural historian and arts buff

E-Mail Friedrich
Entrepreneur and arts buff
E-Mail Michael
Media flunky and arts buff

We assume it's OK to quote emailers by name.

Try Advanced Search

  1. Seattle Squeeze: New Urban Living
  2. Checking In
  3. Ben Aronson's Representational Abstractions
  4. Rock is ... Forever?
  5. We Need the Arts: A Sob Story
  6. Form Following (Commercial) Function
  7. Two Humorous Items from the Financial Crisis
  8. Ken Auster of the Kute Kaptions
  9. What Might Representational Painters Paint?
  10. In The Times ...

Sasha Castel
AC Douglas
Out of Lascaux
The Ambler
Modern Art Notes
Cranky Professor
Mike Snider on Poetry
Silliman on Poetry
Felix Salmon
Polly Frost
Polly and Ray's Forum
Stumbling Tongue
Brian's Culture Blog
Banana Oil
Scourge of Modernism
Visible Darkness
Thomas Hobbs
Blog Lodge
Leibman Theory
Goliard Dream
Third Level Digression
Here Inside
My Stupid Dog
W.J. Duquette

Politics, Education, and Economics Blogs
Andrew Sullivan
The Corner at National Review
Steve Sailer
Joanne Jacobs
Natalie Solent
A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
Rational Parenting
Colby Cosh
View from the Right
Pejman Pundit
God of the Machine
One Good Turn
Liberty Log
Daily Pundit
Catallaxy Files
Greatest Jeneration
Glenn Frazier
Jane Galt
Jim Miller
Limbic Nutrition
Innocents Abroad
Chicago Boyz
James Lileks
Cybrarian at Large
Hello Bloggy!
Setting the World to Rights
Travelling Shoes

Redwood Dragon
The Invisible Hand
Daze Reader
Lynn Sislo
The Fat Guy
Jon Walz


Our Last 50 Referrers

« Reunions 1: Long Ago or Ever-Present? | Main | Rocky Architecture »

August 01, 2007


Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

* Here's some irresistable porn for sportscar freaks. Bugatti, Porsche, Lamborghini -- now aren't those some sexy names?

* I had a good time surfing through this gallery show of art inspired by William Shatner.

* Agnostic remembers what he enjoyed so much about "Clueless."

* Alias Clio considers women's power over men.

* Glenn Abel wants you to start using active verbs.

* Were Virginia Woolf's mandarin-socialist and feminist views dependent upon a staff of female servants? (Link thanks to ALD.)

* Are you eager to build an outdoor eating space in your back yard? Architect Katie Hutchison volunteers a number of helpful tips.

* Say hello to "El Pasco".

* Literary critic Sven Birkerts persists in believing that the opinions of literary critics are crucial. How can such an intelligent and talented man be such a high-minded dimwit?

* David Chute suspects that Chinese martial arts movies are the world's oldest action genre.

* What to do with all the old sex toys? (Link thanks to Raymond Pert.)

* Why are the English so much more frank than we are about the importance of migration as a political topic?

* At Comic-Con, Anne Thompson interviews porn star and action-movie-hero-wannabe Jenna Jameson. "I'm a nerd at heart," Jenna tells Anne. (CORRECTION: The interview was actually conducted by Anne's colleague Erin Maxwell.)

* Kevin Michael Grace found Microsoft's Vista 'way too moody a mistress.

* DVD Spin Doctor suggests some DVDs to watch in celebration of the life of Ingmar Bergman. Lester Hunt offers a sensible response to Bergman's work.

* MBlowhard Rewind: In honor of the recent death of film director Michelangelo Antonioni, here's my posting about his brilliant 1975 film "The Passenger."



posted by Michael at August 1, 2007


Re Sven Birkerts, the person who wrote the following:

'the old Freudian "polymorphous perverse," that libidinally undifferentiated miasma of yearnings and gratifications'.

The problem with much awful prose is that you are left wondering what the author means. This can have a certain Jabberwocky charm. In the case of the above, you do know what the author means, so you are left with just the brute ugliness.

The person who wrote the words quoted should never again lecture on literary values. Never again, in the tide of the times.

Posted by: Robert Townshend on August 1, 2007 4:03 AM

That Birkets column is interesting, in a grim way. I like the way the adjective "credentialed" slips in there to modify "literary critics". As if there could be any other real credential for a critic than that people find them worth reading!

Would people still read and pay attention to (say) Michiko Kakutani if she didn't have the platform of the Times to stand on, and had to make her way with a blog? Birkets no doubt would find that thought experiment unnerving - look at how easily we might lose the voice of one of our most credentialed critics! But the likely conclusion of the experiment is something he'd find even more frightening: there are other people who read as many books as Michiko Kakutani, and who can write about them in an interesting and useful way. Perhaps her standing as a critic was not so much recognized by the New York Times as, well, created by it? That's probably not the sort of credentialing Birkets has in mind, but pretending it doesn't exist won't help.

I think that he's actually mourning the death of Edmund Wilson, and all he represented. But that world was dying before the blogosphere came along. The internet has, in addition to throwing more dirt on top of it, illuminated the grave so as to make it unmissable.

Posted by: Derek Lowe on August 1, 2007 6:53 AM

The criticism of Virginia Woolf and her servants is actually an old one, despite that Telegraph writer, who by the way gets it wrong. Woolf's mistake with her servants was to try to be too friendly, and then to revert to being the boss when she found it necessary. So quarrels, hurt feelings, and misunderstandings were common. She had to spend much of her domestic life placating the women who worked for her.

But the article misses an even more important point. AND PLEASE PAY ATTENTION, PEOPLE, BECAUSE THIS REALLY IS IMPORTANT. Housework before appliances, electricity, and widely available running water - all of which were common problems in smaller town and in the country (even in the city if you were poor) was really, really, really, difficult and time-consuming. If you wanted, as Woolf's nephew and biographer Quentin Bell put it, to live in any kind of comfort or cleanliness, SOMEONE had to be at work 10-12 hours a day - less if there were more servants - to make sure standards were kept up.

So yes, of course she depended on her servants. But not for her "socialist feminist" or "mandarin" views. For being able to work at all, because without the servants, she would have been the one doing all those things. Cooking with a coal-fired range (which has to be stoked all day to keep going). Setting fires, sweeping fireplaces, re-setting fires. Cooking from scratch, really from scratch: plucking birds, gutting fish, baking sweets. Canned food existed, but can openers hadn't been invented, you sort of stabbed the things open with a knife. Frozen foods non-existent. No vacuum-cleaners. Oh, and that's leaving out laundry. Done by hand, or if you had electricity, in wringer-washers, which is almost like by hand. Mending. Clothes too costly to throw away.

People like that Telegraph writer live in an unreal world of the mind, one that simply doesn't understand that SOMEBODY had to/has to do those things. Of course, in many cases, it was the woman of the house, and still is. But - to recapitulate: you couldn't do that, and write too. There wouldn't have been any feminism at all if some women hadn't had female servants. (Male servants were a mark of prestige for those who could afford them, and their workload was usually lighter.) Or any writing by women of any kind. After all, you couldn't expect men to take over that kind of work, now, could you? Not without a little feminism to push them along...

Posted by: alias clio on August 1, 2007 9:20 AM

"Why are the English so much more frank than we are..."? Well, if they are it's very recent. Until those bombings on the Tube, the whole of The Left and the Media did all they could to suggest that everyone who spoke up was racist, fascist, demented, evil. They still try to hint at it.

Posted by: dearieme on August 1, 2007 10:07 AM

Re: Virginia Woolfe. Reminds me of the NYRB headline: Revolution Is a Luxury Which Only the Bourgeosie Can Afford.

Re clio's comment: So true. For a sympathetic picture of what domestic life was like in the days before appliances, at least in Calvanist New England, I recommend Harriet Beecher Stowe's novel, "Old Town Folke." It was possble to have a certain amount of leisure back then, but only if one had what good Calvanists called "faculty" -- that, plus at least one servant, usually black.

Posted by: Luke Lea on August 1, 2007 10:48 AM

I read the Alias Clio bit about lesbian feminism and Camille Paglia, etc., and wondered:

"Do people like Clio know that most people just don't know about this stuff and don't care?"

I remember talking to the Karaoke Queen, who is all Jersey girl, about this stuff, and when I went into the litany of people like Paglia, Dworkin, etc., her response was:

"Huh? Who's that?"

When I explained to her, she responded that she really wasn't interested and didn't care.

I suspect that 99.9% of Americans share the Queen's outlook. It's amazing how important stuff like radical lesbian feminism seems when you are in certain neighborhoods of Manhattan, and how totally irrelevant it is in the remainder of the country.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on August 1, 2007 11:24 AM

Servants are beside the point. Woolf was an anti-Semitic, self-absorbed, narcissistic nitwit, and would have been no matter who did her housework.

Posted by: tschafer on August 1, 2007 12:16 PM

Shouting Thomas, my post wasn't really about Camille Paglia at all. The citation was a jumping-off point to talk about women and the sexual power we're supposed to have, as you would have realised if you'd read through the post. And I did refer to the fact that I didn't think the issue of lesbianism was all that relevant to the point anyway. The issue also came up in the comments.

For the record, I live a long day's drive from Manhattan and I've been there only once in my life. My family is from Western Canada and I daresay I know nearly as much about the Real World as you do, if from a different vantage point. But I don't mind if you make assumptions like that. It does exasperate me, on the other hand, to be rebuked for opinions and attitudes that aren't actually evident in what I've written.

Posted by: alias clio on August 1, 2007 12:52 PM

"Servants are beside the point. Woolf was an anti-Semitic, self-absorbed, narcissistic nitwit, and would have been no matter who did her housework."

... and she wrote some great books, too.

Posted by: american fez on August 1, 2007 1:07 PM

I don't know if Woolf was those things, but who cares? She's not famous for her feminism, she's famous because she was a literary genius.

Posted by: BP on August 1, 2007 1:16 PM

Thanks for the link but all credit for the interview goes to my colleague Erin Maxwell

Posted by: Anne Thompson on August 1, 2007 3:29 PM

Thank you for the hot car video. It was good for me; was it good for you?

Posted by: susan on August 1, 2007 5:13 PM

Alias Clio has it just right. I remember that my mother spent much of her life at an ironing board, pressing shirts and pants and handkerchiefs and blouses and skirts, and especially ironing big heavy sheets. That was in the period before artificial wrinkle-free fabrics replaced cotton. She also darned socks, had a heap of clothing in her mending basket, cooked meals from scratch, and found time to love us all. Clothing had to be hung out on a line to dry, and in wet weather hung in the basement to dry. Was she poor? My father was a patent attorney and we were middle class people. Even with a cleaning woman who came once a week, my mother's burdens were staggering by today's carefree standards. Moderns haven't the faintest idea how much technology has freed them from toil.

Posted by: Richard S. Wheeler on August 1, 2007 6:25 PM

Robert T. -- That is an ungainly passage, isn't it? FWIW, Birkerts often seems to me to happier pondering the place of literary criticism than, y'know, actually saying anything of interest about fiction or poetry ... Leaves me wondering if criticism (and pondering) is what he deep-down prefers ...

Derek -- That's really smart, tks. Funny how that word "credentialed" just popped out, isn't it? And I especially like the idea that the Times created Kakutani's standing. Reviewing and criticism are so weird. There are tons of people who have interesting observations and responses -- why do a few dozen of them get, er, credentialed as pros? When you see the process up close it can look mighty arbitrary. I mean, what if luck, push, and connections play far more important roles than talent and/or brains?

Clio -- Personally I favor the idea that we should all have trust funds. And it's always key to point out such basics as the importance of appliances and other tech advances. But I wonder if you aren't missing a bit of the point of the article. It isn't that Woolf had money and help -- nothing wrong with that -- let alone that she wrote. It's that she espoused feminist and socialist views while 1) having an independent income, and 2) not even being a good employer of other women. So far as politics and policies went, she seems to have been one of the "limousine liberals" or "trust-fund Marxists" of her era.

Dearieme -- That's too bad. Still it seems as though at least a few elements in British public life are starting to be willing to take on the subject. Encouraging? Not-encouraging? What baffles me a little is the general unwillingness to acknowledge that population and migration (and thus immigration-policy) questions are already important, and are bound (as the world becomes more crowded) to become more important. I mean, why not just shut our eyes to reality entirely ...

Luke-- I really should catch up with Harriet Beecher Stowe, thanks for the reminder.

ST -- The slugfests people in tiny circles pursue can be pretty funny, can't they? Still I'm glad Paglia is in there talking trash and causing havoc. Have you read much of her? I think you'd actually find much of what she says -- at least the more non-academic stuff -- simpatico. She's (generally speaking) a big fan of masculinity, popular culture, poetry and art, and has been hilariously furious with post-'70s feminism ...

Tschafer, AmericanFez -- I actually like a lot of Woolf's writing, but I suspect I'd have had big reservations about her as a person. Was she anti-Semitic? I'd missed that. Her husband was Jewish ... Oh, life is so complicated, darn it ...

BP -- She was certainly the literary talent, but she was also taken very seriously as a thinker about feminism and politics -- "Three Guineas," "A Room of One's Own" ... These were really famous and influential books. She was also (maybe unfairly) turned into an icon and symbol by the '70s academic-feminist crowd. So maybe it's worth taking stock of how her ideas and how she actually lived jibed or didn't-jibe.

Anne -- Thanks for clarifying, I've fixed.

Susan -- (... sound of purring and languourous cigarette-smoking...)

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on August 1, 2007 6:44 PM

Well, M2B, I did point out that the writer of this article has it somewhat wrong, and that VW's relationship with her help was skewered because she tried too hard to befriend them. Of course, that's her version of the story, but it does come through in her diaries: the many times she spent so much time talking to Nellie and Lottie that she couldn't get any work done. And as it happens I've also read a short memoir, written by the Woolfs' cook long after both were dead (she was actually working at their house when VW died), who said they were both excellent employers. I can't remember her name, and the book itself is buried somewhere in a box.

As for the "trust fund" issue, the Woolfs' income wasn't really independent. They lived on a little "family money" for a time - but it wasn't enough to give them anything like a middle-class way of life. As if you or I had to live on $15,000 a year. It can be done - but not easily. Their financial records were well-kept, and I think are in LW's papers. Their main income came from LW's journalism (he had a regular job - I forget for which left-wing paper), and when VW began to be successful, from her novels.

As I said in my own piece on VW on my blog, this territory has already been well-covered - by the Left of her day, who mostly regarded her as a bourgeois parasite. When she killed herself, some idiot wrote, "she has anticipated the judgment of History, and taken the logical step." In any case, I don't think she was ever really a socialist, except in the most tenuous way; her family had a long connection with the Liberal party. Her husband was the one who led her to socialism, and it was his "thing" much more than hers. The only really political book she ever wrote was Three Guineas, which her husband didn't like. It's later American (and now English) feminists who have tried to link her to socialism, because her somewhat muddled politics suit theirs.

I was a Bloomsbury buff in my twenties, so I know their history rather well.

Posted by: alias clio on August 1, 2007 7:07 PM

Hey, people, get a room! I mean, a garage.

The Onion piece: c'mon, I can't believe I'm the only one who found it funny! [except Michael, of course]. I know at least, two couples whose life seems to be the copy of that, which is even funnier. I sometimes wonder why did they buy a 4 bedroom house for the family of four - now I know: to keep the equipment well-oiled and ready.

While on the topic of thriftiness in housekeeping: here's another idea (coming from one of my friends in Israel) of what to do with outdated machinery: recycle it as akitty toy! [the aquamarine monster is the new favorite]

Posted by: Tat on August 1, 2007 7:39 PM

Richard -- The amount of work mere survival used to require is staggering, isn't it? What a luxury to be able to take so much for granted.

Clio -- I'm completely unsure what your point is, then. That Woolf was a good boss, not a bad one? But if, in your words, "quarrels, hurt feelings, and misunderstandings were common. She had to spend much of her domestic life placating the women who worked for her," then it's fair to say that she was a bad boss, no? As well as more than a little sentimental and vain. But maybe you're after something else ... Part of what puzzles me about your point is that the piece is a book review -- presumably the reviewer is passing along material from the book, and presumably the book-writer has turned up some fresh material. If so, then why not find the info interesting rather than "wrong"? I've done time in Bloomsbury too, and despite how voluminous the literature is I certainly wasn't left with the impression that everything was known and/or settled.

Tat -- That was defintely an Onion classic, no?

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on August 1, 2007 7:59 PM

Even when we treat Woolf as a feminist theorist, her personal conduct is not relevant to evaluating her ideas. If she didn't live according to her own ideas that makes her a hypocrite, but it doesn't make the ideas wrong.

Of course she did have some disagreeable ideas about social class, but you don't need to look at her life to see that--she states them explicitly in Three Guineas (which, incidentally, is written in a more literary than theoretical style, and most of which is a great read).

Posted by: BP on August 1, 2007 8:34 PM

The article in the Telegraph awakens my historian instincts. After years of hearing complaints about government planning, we are seeing the results of the lack of such a planning.

Basically there are more bodies than the current services allow for. And when that happens service deteriorates, and complaints mounts, plus a lot of less lovely behavior such as scapegoating and prejudice.

And I go back to the Industrial Revolution, and the demand thta the Goverment do Something. The Industrial Revolution got a lot of peasants into the city to work in the new industries, and what resulted was a lot of bodies for which there were not enough lodgings, nor services, nor transportation. That is a lowering of the quality of life for everybody, and a general crankiness that did not bode well for those who said that the free market would solve it eventually.

Then came the clincher. The discovery that epidemics were not a fact of life to be endured stoically, but an avoidable evil that could be prevented with proper hygiene. Which meant, more or less making sure that everyone voided only in approved receptacles connected to a sewage treatment plan. When we use a toilet, and hold on until we find one, no matter how uncomfortable we do not reflect on the social engineering feat that was to make us so. It was a huge one, but we do not realize it.

So, between the coercion needed to convince people to install and use toilets, and the willingness to provide "proper" housing (i.e. with proper toilet), the seeds of government planning were planted.

This is my theory. Anyone wants to discuss it?

Posted by: Adriana on August 1, 2007 11:26 PM

Michael --

Thinking about your shifting reactions to "The Passenger": When it first came out I recall thinking the movie was mysterious, artsy and slow -- a challenge, a puzzle. Now, it plays like a fairly straightforward thriller with great cinematography and some vague plotting. (I do love the film.)

Like to think I've learned a thing or two since the 1970s, but this might point to a much wider acceptance of what was called "arthouse fare" back then.

Americans love their moronic films. They also have become much more visually sophisticated and accustomed to challenging filmmaking. Of last year's best picture contenders (for what it's worth) only "The Pursuit of Happyness" was relatively simple Hollywood fare.

If "The Passenger" were first released today, I suspect that a contemporary film reviewer would not dwell on its pacing or cinematography or otherworldly qualities. We have come a long way thanks to filmmakers like Antonioni.

Thanks for reading and linking.

Posted by: Glenn Abel on August 2, 2007 3:51 AM


There was a considerable municipal regulatory apparatus in place in Britain during the Industrial Revolution. It was, sadly or inevitably (depending on your political views) extremely unhelpful. For example, houses were taxed depending on the number of windows in them, which incentivized people to build airless warrens. There were also extreme restrictions on building materials during the Napoleonic wars (and even after, I think), which encouraged (or virtually mandated) cheap, substandard housing. As for sanitation, that was also made, if anything, worse by various municipal regs (and the move to stricter forms of hygeine largely preceded any scientific knowledge of disease mechanisms; it was, apparently, largely aesthetically motivated.) There's a whole book on this topic which I've got someplace in a box (I just moved.)

In fact, the whole topic jumbles conventional left-right ideology. The left blames the "factory system" for the miseries of living in the newly burgeoning industrial cities of industrial revolution Britain, which is unfair because the factory owners weren't in charge of or able to dictate town planning in those cities (they lacked political muscle during the most heinous early decades.) The right can accurately point out how bad government planning by those municipalities was actually far more to blame for the miseries of the (relatively well paid) work force, but essentially concedes in making that argument the essential role of the public sector in developing infrastructure (including rules) for private enterprise. If you like, you can also toss into the mix the complexities of culture change and scientific progress, although those are in many ways outside both "social engineering" or "the market" per se.

Posted by: Friedrich von Blowhard on August 2, 2007 5:56 AM

"Personally I favor the idea that we should all have trust funds."

There you go, giving candidates their campaign slogans, for free.

Personally I find Woolf unreadable. And horsefaced. My two cents.

Posted by: ricpic on August 2, 2007 11:14 AM


Either way, it is a gold mine for any historian who has not yet decided what his/her thesis will be.

Posted by: Adriana on August 2, 2007 12:21 PM

God oh god, how I hate Antonioni, me along with Orson Welles and Ingmar Bergman. I've seen all his Italian films and may take a look at The Passenger on your recommendation, but with very low expectations.

Posted by: Thursday on August 2, 2007 3:58 PM


Sorry for my short answer,but I see so many historeis that hinge on ideology that I wonder if anyone remeambers that apart from thinking and believing human beings have physical bodies and those bodies occupy space, move around, consume fuel, and leave waste products. And that they have a way of irritating each other.

I think that the error of the conservatives was to accept that it was the job of Government to provide those things, instead of coming up with their own way to do it (much less trouble that way - never discount the power of lazyness in decision making. As Bob the dinosaur says to Dilbert "I say yes and there is more work for me, I say no and there is more work for you.... Decisiosn.. decisions..), Of course eventually Goverment got a handle in it, and inefficient and all, ended up being trustd to solve more and more problems.

It was not the best solution, but it was the most readily available, and when people get cranky, or have any sense of urgency, they grab what is faster, not what is best.

(Suppose you need some plumbing done. If you have a non-emergency, you will conduct a search for a good plumber, and one whose rates you find reasonalbe. But if you find yourself with water up to your ankles, then you'll take the first one who says will come right away...)

Posted by: Adriana on August 2, 2007 4:22 PM

I AGREE with Robert Townshend; Sven's prose has gone through a cuisinart; he also doesn't know what enormity means. Uggh; a real fine advocate for the great literary tradition going back through the NY Times to Homer...

Posted by: Doug Anderson on August 2, 2007 8:50 PM

Adriana -- Couldn't agree more! The Modern Marvels TV-docu series actually covers some of these topics. Short, fast, with just enough (to my tastes) history. One of my favorite episodes was on "Bathroom Tech." What a great prism through which to think about life ...

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on August 2, 2007 10:32 PM

"Goverment got a handle in it, and inefficient and all, ended up being trustEd(by whom?-T) to solve more and more problems."
"After years of hearing complaints about government planning, we are seeing the results of the lack of such a planning."

Alan Sullivan:
" ...demands for more government spending — the stock response of liberals when government fails."

I'm amazed how somebody can call herself a historian and spout socialist/statist nonsense, as if there never was Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc...almost 90 years of World history omited.

Posted by: Tatyana on August 3, 2007 2:44 PM


Of course I call myself a historian, as I am by John Lukacs description, a person who likes to study history, and who has a historical perspective - that is an awareness that things were not always as they have been, and that there was a process involved in changing the conditions as they were once and the way they are.

I see by your comment that you suffer from the tendency I deplored above, making history the history of ideas as if these took only place in disembodied minds.

The historical conjuncture was an example of what Lukacs calls a change in consciousness. His favorite example is the prosperity of Switzerland which came when, thanks to the Romantics, mountains were no longer seen as ugly, to be avoided, but beautiful, and a healthy place to be, thus starting the tourist industry, because "the mountains that men saw in the nineteenth century were no longer the mountains the men in the eighteenth century saw".

My contentio was that in the nineteenth century epidemics, which up to now were seen as a feature of life, a normal part of it, to be endured with prayer, were seen now as something to be avoided, and creating a sense of urgency about it. Which meant was that whoever came up with solutions first would earn the trust of those demanding those solutions, and that trust would carry on for other things.

To the point that conservatives accepted that those things were to be done by Governemnt, good bad, or indifferent, they conceded the race before it started, and lost a trust that could have been theirs for the taking.

Posted by: Adriana on August 3, 2007 4:51 PM


You may be offended by the words "lack of planning" but it is the only adequate description for what is taking place.

Suppose that you, as a householder know that you are getting some people to stay overnight. You do count how many, do you? Do you check how many chairs you have? How many beds? Do you look at your refrigerator? Do you make reservations at the hotel for the overflow? Do you shop for groceries? Do you, if the influx is too great, get a couple of port-a-potties?

If you do none of those things, and then you have a house full of people who have little food, no place to sit, no place to sleep, and are in an endless line to the bathroom, then you can be accused of lack of planning.

Anyone who a) knows of a large influx of people coming this way and b) does not expand the services it is responsible for had shown lack of planning, and that was what the people had the right to complain about.

Posted by: Adriana on August 3, 2007 6:02 PM

Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember your info?