Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Catch That Replaces "The Catch"

In football there is a famous catch. It's called "The Catch." Joe Montana to Dwight Clark. It was more than a quarter of a century ago, Jan. 10, 1982 to be precise.

The San Francisco 49ers, led by Montana, were fighting for the NFC Championship against the Dallas Cowboys. In the closing minute of the game, with his team trailing 27 - 21, Montana went back to pass and was flushed from the pocket. He drifted to his right, almost the sideline, as two defensive linemen bore down on him. After a pump-fake, Montana finally lofted a high, floating pass toward the very back of the end zone. It was up for grabs. Seemingly out of nowhere, Dwight Clark appeared in the frame and with body fully extended somehow snagged the football with his fingertips and brought it into his body for the go-ahead touchdown. The Catch is so famous it has its own Wikipedia entry, under "The Catch (American Football)."

But now there's a new catch.

From this day forward, The Catch will refer to the amazing catch of -- hold on while I make sure I spell this guy's name correctly -- David Tyree in the closing minute of Super Bowl XLII. Yes, that David Tyree: The David Tyree who caught five passes all year. They need to make a movie about this guy. He's nobody -- except now he's the guy who made The Catch. Until now he was so obscure, I bet even the most hardcore Giants fan -- even Weingarten! -- had never heard of him.

I've wasted a lot of my life watching football and can't recall ever seeing a greater catch. Sure, there have been circus catches before, including receivers catching the ball behind the back of a defender. We've seen one-handed catches galore. But this was on the biggest stage in the final minute of a game wiith his team trailing. And head to head with The Catch, this one was better. Eli Manning had to elude a more violent pass rush than Montana -- Manning almost went under, but tore himself away and managed to toss that prayer downfield. And although both Clark and Tyree had to make leaping grabs, by comparison Clark's catch was schoolyard stuff, something you'd see in flag football. Tyree's practically caught the ball with the back of his neck and his shoulder blades.

Ben Walker of the AP has filed a great story about Tyree's catch.

Interesting detail: The defensive back on the play, Rodney Harrison, helped pin the ball to Tyree's helmet and give him the chance to get a handle on it.

Quote from AP story: "I am a man that really has to capitalize on his few opportunities," Tyree said. "Some things just don't make sense and I guess you can just put that catch there with them."

You can now capitalize that "catch," Mr. Tyree. I'll put a call in to Wikipedia.


By Joel Achenbach  |  February 4, 2008; 7:52 AM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Some Basic Truths of Campaign 2008
Next: The Long Road to Super Tuesday

Comments

First and Goal for me?

bc

Posted by: bc | February 4, 2008 8:36 AM | Report abuse

The Catch would have never happened without The Scramble and The Throw.

Posted by: yellojkt | February 4, 2008 8:42 AM | Report abuse

"We're only going to score 17 points?" Brady said Wednesday.

Um, well, no Tom. Plaxico Burress was too generous.

At the risk of sounding too revisionist, I'd like to point out that the Patriots won a division where the other three teams won a combined 12 games all year and were all below .500. The Giants played in a division where three out of four teams made the playoffs and none of the four had a losing record. The Patriots played every good team in the league (except the Packers) and beat them all during the regular season or the playoffs. The Giants played and beat Tampa, Dallas (who had defeated them twice already) and Green Bay on the road, then beat New England on a neutral field. Perhaps the most interesting thing in all of this is that these two teams met twice this year, once in a game that meant nothing and once in a game that meant everything and both times they all tried hard and played well and both games were exciting and close and both times the margin of victory was the same. And, thankfully, no tuck rules were involved.

Posted by: kurosawaguy | February 4, 2008 8:43 AM | Report abuse

I must say, *that* was a heck of a football game, even if it didn't turn out the way I expected.

And that was an amazing catch, though if you look closely, you could make a case for the nose of the ball touching the ground as Tyree had it pinned to his helmet as he went down.

Still, no call from the replay Officals upstairs (coaches can't challenge in the last two minutes), so they must not have seen it the way I did.

For all that, the Giants won, and kuods to Boko999 for predicting not only the correct result but the exact final score in yesterday afternoon's Boodle.

I consider *that* astonishing as well.

bc

Posted by: bc | February 4, 2008 8:46 AM | Report abuse

k-guy, you may have noticed that Tuck now plays for the Giants.

Also, when I found out that the Giants were considered the 'away' team for this game, I thought to myself, "Uh-oh," but I didn't say anything.

bc

Posted by: bc | February 4, 2008 8:51 AM | Report abuse

SCCs: "Officials," and "kudos".

And feh on me.

bc

Posted by: bc | February 4, 2008 8:52 AM | Report abuse

For CP from the last boodle:

In Claire Tomalin's biography of Jane Austen, she makes the case that Jane died of lymphoma instead of Addison's Disease. Of course, at this late date, the discussion is academic, but her comments are interesting. The symptoms Jane noted certainly seem to be more aligned with lymphoma than Addison's.

http://www.amazon.com/Jane-Austen-Life-Claire-Tomalin/dp/0679766766/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202133538&sr=8-2

Posted by: Slyness | February 4, 2008 8:59 AM | Report abuse

Looking at my bookcases last night for some time before heading over to the nearby big-box book retailer, trying to figure out which one(s) best describes how things get done in Washington. (Game, what game?)

Would it be P.J. O"Rourke's 18991 "Parliament of Hoors" ? You know that I had to avoid "The Filter" here with this spelling.

Or would it be some of Ralph Nader's works? Perhaps his 2000 "Ralph Nader Reader" or better yet, his more recent, 2002, "Crashing the Party."

Or should I have purchased Arianna Huffinton's 2003 "Pigs at the Trough: How Corporate Greed and Political Corruption are Undermining America."

Or should I go deep historically--perhpas Jospeh Ellis's "American Creation" about how the "founding fathers" weren't able to come to grips with the race problems at the Constitutional Convention, specifically how Blacks and Natives should be "treated." But wait, that was Philadelphia.

Posted by: Loomis | February 4, 2008 9:00 AM | Report abuse

SCC: O'Rourke...1991

Posted by: Loomis | February 4, 2008 9:01 AM | Report abuse

Pssst, martooni, Paul Krugman at the NYT today writing again about the diffrences between the Hillary and Barack health care plans...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html?hp

And SCC all those other typos in the first post. Shame on me for not turning on the overhead light, sight typist that I yam.

Posted by: Loomis | February 4, 2008 9:07 AM | Report abuse

"Charlie Wilson's War" is pretty good about how things get done.

I finally roused myself to watch The Game when it became clear it wasn't boring. Saw The Catch. Having seen Coughlin several times a week as he was setting up the Jaguars some years ago, it was great to see him having such a big night, too.

Posted by: Dave of the Coonties | February 4, 2008 9:08 AM | Report abuse

Loomis, look in the bookstore under Barry, Dave.

Posted by: Curmudgeon | February 4, 2008 9:13 AM | Report abuse

G'morning boodle! How about that game?! I watched it grudgingly at first, having been around too many people on Sat. to look forward to more guests, but Mr. F prevailed and as usual he was right. An exciting game with good friends making wry comments is fun indeed. Besides, with no real rooting interest going into the game the result hurt no feelings and was a real thrill. The Catch indeed.

I'll have to watch the JA biopic tonight.

I think there is no way you can learn how Washington works from a civil servant or military perspective from any book. There are plenty of big sellers about corporate influence and the "power broker" ilk, but those are as soldiers say "echelons above reality." The culture at mid-level is why byzantine is still an adjective.

Off to back boodle, and get some work done. Toodles.

Posted by: frostbitten | February 4, 2008 9:13 AM | Report abuse

*SIGH*

Posted by: Scottynuke | February 4, 2008 9:19 AM | Report abuse

Krugman is right when he says "I've read many assertions that only the most wonkish care about the fine print of their proposals."

Both candidates have abandoned any single payer plan and rely on mandates, subsidies, and tax credits. I saw Hillary on This Week trying to explain the difference between the two plans and it was sorting TweedleDee frum TweedleDum. Any hope of either plan escaping K Street unscathed are negligible.

Posted by: yellojkt | February 4, 2008 9:20 AM | Report abuse

Yeah, I have to agree with Joel's assessment of that Manning to Tyree pass. It had many characteristics of greatness:

A miraculous escape from am imminent game-ending sack.

An uncharacteristic pass forced by desperation. (This wasn't a Hail Mary pass because that prayer is far too wordy.)

A catch of acrobatic complexity.

An underdog team in the fourth quarter of a SuperBowl game.

Finally, of course, there are those intangibles such as the Pat's perfect season and Manning's big brother watching from the sidelines.

I doubt any of those who saw it shall forget it anytime soon. No matter how much they might try.

Posted by: RD Padouk | February 4, 2008 9:23 AM | Report abuse

Pretty amazing game, since most Super Bowls have been blow-outs after the middle of the first half. I don't know how Eli doesn't go down in that pass rush. I'm not sure whether the nose of the ball touched the ground, and I don't think there was enough there to overturn the call in any event.

We were tired on Saturday after having to clean house so the new fridge could get delivered, then had to go to a somewhat bizarre tea (I may discuss that event later). So we decided to go get a DVD at Blockbuster. Turns out almost all the new issues come in widescreen, which turn out in letterbox on the regular TV. So Wife of Nut says, the heck with this, let's go look at HD TV's. So new we have a new 32" Vizio HD TV a year ahead of time. FiOS is coming next month, after which we should be able to enjoy real HD reception (tying your new HD TV into a standard basic cable box only gets you a bigger picture, not a better one).

Posted by: ebtnut | February 4, 2008 9:28 AM | Report abuse

Yep, there is no shortage of books about the incompetence and venality of the federal government guaranteed to induce a nice cathartic and blissfully empowering conniption fit of moral indignation.

But I would prefer to actually try to make the government a wee bit better from within.

Posted by: RD Padouk | February 4, 2008 9:29 AM | Report abuse

Tyree played in Super Bowl 17? Dude's old.

Posted by: Joe in Raleigh | February 4, 2008 9:30 AM | Report abuse

SCC: So now we have...
It is Monday, isn't it.

Posted by: ebtnut | February 4, 2008 9:30 AM | Report abuse

Great catch, buts lets not go to overboard about him being a nobody. He was an All-Pro before.

Posted by: JOn | February 4, 2008 9:33 AM | Report abuse

Dang Roman numerals... never get it right.

Posted by: Achenbach | February 4, 2008 9:33 AM | Report abuse

Joe's right. Last night was XLII, not XVII. One begins to understand the fall of the Roman Empire when one contemplates Super Bowl LXXXVIII forty six years from now.

Posted by: kurosawaguy | February 4, 2008 9:36 AM | Report abuse

An unexpected financial windfall has my wife contemplating a new HDTV. We're looking in the 42" range. In reality, a 32" 16:9 screen is the moral equivalent of a 26" 4:3 tv, which that has always been sufficient for us, but it's tough to fight size escalation in the service of older eyes. And of course a real tv for the living room (as opposed to the 20" hand me down in there right now) would require a real sound system. The life of a slave to conspicuous consumption is tough.

Suggestions and admonishments are both welcome.

Posted by: yellojkt | February 4, 2008 9:38 AM | Report abuse

*scotty, sorry to read (or interpret fom your posts) that you're feeling moribund this morning*

Posted by: Loomis | February 4, 2008 9:44 AM | Report abuse

I caught the game last night in fits and starts. Watched the beginning drive and subsequent score and got the feeling that the Giants came to play. Not every team can drive against the Pats defense for the betrter part of 10 minutes. Left until halftime as laundry and a couple of errands intervened, catching the end of the halftime show and the score, 7-3. Missed the entire second half and the subject of the kit, but caught the last Giants score and the end of the match. Quite a game. Had the last dance with my youngest daughter for quite a while at the Daddy/Daughter valentines gig on Sat. night. We had a grand time, especially when the DJ spun Love Shack.

Posted by: jack | February 4, 2008 9:45 AM | Report abuse

Wistful? Sure.

Frustrated? Indubitably.

Moribund? Not so much.

LindaLoo, I'm led to understand there might have been a question directed my way yesterday, but I didn't Boodle. I don't think I would have had any opinions to share in any case. Thanks.

yellojkt, FWIW, I think I converted a few folks to HDTV last night. *shrug*

Posted by: Scottynuke | February 4, 2008 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Great kit Boss.
Here are some boodler reactions to the play.

Waaaahooooo

Posted by: Boko999 | February 3, 2008 09:51 PM

Oxygen...need...more...oxygen...

Posted by: Curmudgeon | February 3, 2008 09:52 PM

Posted by: Karnac the Magnificent999 | February 4, 2008 9:58 AM | Report abuse

Well, that was a football. I "saw" some of it -- that is, I was in the room with a large screen (52 inch, giant to me) showing the game and watched occasionally. Tom Petty was good. Interesting beard. At least it hid his chin. After the half we went home and the Boy found the Puppy Bowl. It was very cute.

My cousin made lamb & black bean chili that was close to the best chili I've had of any kind, along with red onion relish, guacamole, cumin crema, and fruit salad. I brought the cookies, brownies, apple cake and beer.

Posted by: Ivansmom | February 4, 2008 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Whoops, I forgot the real treat. Cousin made fry bread to go with the chili.

Sorry Scotty & other Patriots fans. I thought it would be nice if they won, because of that whole undefeated thing. Oh well. My family was impressed that I knew what teams were playing and which had been undefeated. I had to admit my knowledge came from the Boodle.

Nice Kit, Joel. It is as if I saw the Catch myself, which I didn't.

Posted by: Ivansmom | February 4, 2008 10:01 AM | Report abuse

bc - Having recently gone down this path (The HDTV bit, not the windfall) I recommend the following:

The fundamental question is if you want Jetson style flatscreen or not, and if you are viewing it in a bright room or not.

If you want flatscreen and the room is bright - go LCD

If you want flatscreen and the room is dark - go Plasma


If you don't care about flatscreen then check out DLP and the many, many permutations thereof.

Within these categories let price be your guide.

And remember, a HDTV is only as good at the input signal.

Posted by: RD Padouk | February 4, 2008 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Got me a Chrysler, it's a big as a whale and it's about to set sail!

Great song, jack... sounds like you had fun.

And hey... does it count if you only *heard* The Catch? Does anyone else listen to games on the radio anymore?

Posted by: TBG | February 4, 2008 10:02 AM | Report abuse

And who could forget:

Poop.


Posted by: pj | February 3, 2008 09:56 PM

Never mind the oxygen. I'll try some carbon monoxide now, please. Thank you.

Posted by: Curmudgeon | February 3, 2008 09:57 PM

Posted by: Karnac the Magnificent999 | February 4, 2008 10:05 AM | Report abuse

I'm feeling curmudgeonly this morning. (Yeah, that comes as a shock, I know...) but there's a couple of WaPo headlines or decks that are ticking me off, and I note a general trend of liusy headline writing over the past few weeks. Case in point #1: William Booth's piece on political dynasties says "Dynasties Are Few, But Familiar." And the deck says: "While rare, political dynasties are as American as mudslinging, pork." [Never mind that Booth has been channeling the Boodle.] So, OK, which is it? Are they rare, or are they as common as mudslinging and prok? You can't have it both ways. So let's read the actual story. Turns out, in fact, Booth *never* says the words "few" nor "rare," and never uses and suimilar wording either; in fact, he goes the other way, citing statistics and examples like crazy. For instance: "Stephen Hess, a historian at the Brookings Institution, first made his name as the author of the 1966 book "America's Political Dynasties," which begins with the fact that there have been 700 families with two or more members of Congress, and they account for 1,700 of the 10,000 men and women who have served in the House and Senate."

So who the he11 decided "rare" and "few" were accurate reflections of Booth's piece? I'll bet a dollar to a donut Booth didn't.

Case #2: the Erica Jong teaser: "A vote for Hillary is a vote against the patriarchy." And the hed on the actual piece itself: "Hillary vs. the Patriarchy." This is *exactly* what you'd expect from Erica Jong, some anti-male screed, perhaps...only she doesn't say it. Not even close, not by a country mile. She starts off excoriating Bill Kristol, and then goes into a long explication about Hillary and her career, the various hardships and difficulties she's had to over come. Not once does Jong use the word "patriarchy," nor anything close to it. She doesn't blast the male establishment. The large majority of her piece is what I'd describe as a fairly non-partisan and fairly objective recital of HC's career. And only in the very last graf, at the bottom of the second page, does she say this: "I trust her because all her life, her pro bono work has been for mothers and children. And mothers and children -- of all colors -- are the most oppressed group in our country. I trust her to speak for our children and grandchildren -- and for us. She always has." Never mind if you agree; but that does sound like some sort of shot at "the Patriarchy" to you? Not to me. Sounds to me like she's just sticking up for moms and kids. I am not so blasted insecure that I take that as a blow to my male ego. I mean, jeez, give me a break.

I think that headline and deck were written by someone (I'll leave you to speculate upon his gender) who *expected* it to be a screed against the horrors and atrocities of the pen1le patriarchy (because Jong can in fact do that) but never actually bothered to read it.

Bad copy desk work, Joel. Very bad. {Noting, BTW, that the WaPo.com copy desk is different from the dead-tree copy desk(s), which is usually very good; and I don't know how the dead-tree people treated these two pieces.]

Posted by: Curmudgeon | February 4, 2008 10:08 AM | Report abuse

And of course there's...


Giants 17, the other guys 14.

Posted by: Boko999 | February 3, 2008 12:37 PM

Posted by: TBG | February 4, 2008 10:10 AM | Report abuse

What comes between annoying and intolerable?

Posted by: Boko999 | February 4, 2008 10:14 AM | Report abuse


Hey William Booth... if you're here.. I'm a big fan!

Posted by: TBG | February 4, 2008 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Thanks T.

Posted by: Boko999 | February 4, 2008 10:15 AM | Report abuse

I dunno, Boko. I'd guess stupid.

Posted by: jack | February 4, 2008 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Mornin Boodle
Scotty sorry to see your boys lose and I'm sorry if my rooting for them caused them to finally lose.

We listened to the radio at work and the lobby TV was on as well ,about 10-15 people were in the lobby to watch the game.It was on an HDTV.The picture was so nice, the instant replays were so clear and yes BC,I thought the ball on the catch hit the ground and I was so surprised they didn't look at it more. But Manning did a great houdini escape just getting out of the pass rush. Then when he threw it everyone was yelling no,no don't throw it, till he caught and everyone was yelling Yes yes. There were some great nailbiting plays in that "Drive".

But I was just as impressed with Brady desperation heave to Moss on the 2nd to last play.It hit him in the hands in stride some 70 yards downfield.

Pretty good finish to a Super Bowl!!

Posted by: greenwithenvy | February 4, 2008 10:27 AM | Report abuse

Let's see, Boko..

banal
catatonic
dormant
excruciating
foppish
gnarly

and

histrionic

to name but a few.

:-)

Posted by: Scottynuke | February 4, 2008 10:28 AM | Report abuse

I would like for someone to cite the rule, with link if possible, which says the ball cannot touch the ground on a completed pass play. My understanding has always been that if the receiver clearly controls the ball before hitting the ground that it is a catch no matter what and that the ground touching business only enters into it if the ground assists the player in gaining control, i.e. trapping the ball on the ground. I know there is some mumbo jumbo about "performing a football move" after gaining control, but in this case Tyree caught and was downed all in one motion, and the ball was not the first part of his body to touch the ground, so I would interpret this to mean that he was down before the ball touched, if it did.

Posted by: kurosawaguy | February 4, 2008 10:41 AM | Report abuse

K-guy, I can't cite you the exact number of the rule, but yes, the ball is not allowed to touch the ground on a pass play, in any manner, during the initial "catch" phase, which includes falling to the ground. On a running play, of course, the ball becomes dead at that spot. And that rule also cuts in after the completion of the catch phase of a pass. Of course, they keep tinkering with the parameters of the catch phase and what constitutes a "football move" after the catch. But in this case, at least, the ground-touch rule is clear. I missed the replay on whether it did (I was sobbing piteously, and had the carbon monoxide mask on, obscuring my vision). (FWIW, I reffed football for a couple years.)

Posted by: Curmudgeon | February 4, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

I like the Mannings. I'm happy to see lil' bro getting the limelight.

I just hope he's as good on Saturday NIght Live as his brother was. If he can dance with Will Forte, then he'll be my MVP.

Posted by: TBG | February 4, 2008 10:50 AM | Report abuse

boko, I laughed when I saw your 17-14 yesterday afternoon as I was holding a 14-17 ticket for the family pool... The eventual winner of the pool doesn't even know how many players are on each side or even if there is an equal number of player on both sides. Her thinking was, the last game was so close the results will be the same but turned around in this one. Not a bad way to think about it and she even got the spread right.
I'm a little, but just a little, peeved about Manning getting the MVP while the real story was the pass rush the front 6-7-8 put on Brady. Picking any of the guys would have been unjust to the other but still, Tusk stood out somewhat with 2 sacks.
This talk of HDTV give me inchititis. I didn't see the ball touch the ground on my 24" TV after The Catch.

Posted by: shrieking denizen | February 4, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse

This explains why I like the Mannings...

"You try to remember the emotions that you felt at this time last year, but it's hard to believe I could have been much happier than I am right now," Peyton said. "It's one of the happiest times of my life, I promise you."

Posted by: TBG | February 4, 2008 10:55 AM | Report abuse

SCC others and gives, to pick a couple.

Posted by: shrieking denizen | February 4, 2008 10:59 AM | Report abuse

With all our talk of political dynasties, the Manning football dynasty now takes on real luster. And more unusual, the odds of two brothers winning back-to-back Super Bowls...well, I wouldn't even know how to compute the odds on that.

There are a fair number of father-son and mother/daughter stories in sports, and a couple of brother-brother (the Barbers, Tiki, Ronde and Seville, among others) but nothing on the order of back-to-back winning Super Bowl QBs.

Posted by: Curmudgeon | February 4, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

I wonder how Tiki feels about retiring now?

Posted by: TBG | February 4, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Here's the catch-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5BWzoyzVbc

I don't think he does touch the ball to the ground. He catches it with two hands, then traps it against his helmet with the right hand, then controls with both hands and rolls to his right as he is downed. In only one of the replay angles does look like maybe it touches and that's because the DB's foot obscures the view, but in all the replays the movement of the ball is smooth and uninterrupted.

Posted by: kurosawaguy | February 4, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

yellojkt, if you're looking for something less than 50", don't get sucked into the 1080p hype. It will cost you more and you won't see the benefits on a 42" set. Unless you play video games or are into Blu-ray (snicker), there's no 1080p content, anyway.

At the size you're talking about, I'd look at plasmas and I'd start by looking at panasonic.

Posted by: Joe in Raleigh | February 4, 2008 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Loomis, I've never read a book that I thought did a good job explaining how Washington really works.

O'Rourke's book is funny but outdated (it's two Administrations behind), and I've never read Huffington's, but I don't know how much she really knows regarding How Things Work. She throws a nice party, though.

Having said that, I haven't read "It Looks Like a President Only Smaller."

I can't believe I'm going to go here - and please excuse the possible crassness - but I think that trying to explain in print How Washington Works is like trying to verbally explain the experience of an 0rgasm. Unless you've acutally experienced it yourself it's difficult to understand without context.

Maybe I'm wrong about this.

bc

Posted by: bc | February 4, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

I can't think of anything in football but the Richard brothers, Maurice "Rocket" and much younger Henri "Pocket Rocket", both won the Stanley Cup as captains of the Montreal Canadiens. They played and won Stanley cups together in the late 50's as well. But given the central role the QB has in football, the Mannings' accomplisment is much more special, I think.

Posted by: shrieking denizen | February 4, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

TBG, to answer your earlier question, yes there are some of us that listen to the game on radio. Watching football on TV just doesn't do it for me.

Posted by: DandyLion | February 4, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

I, too, read the William Booth article about dynasties, but not first up as far as clicking on the link. I read in Booth's piece that historian and biographer David McCullough had a hissy fit to think that people believe the Adamses were a dynasty.

I'm going to go off on a tangent here, since I saw on TV this morning and read in our paper, also this morning, that Maria Shriver, wife of California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, endorsed Barack Obama. That said, I also want to mention that my husband yesterday afternoon headed to a barbecue specialty store, and I tagged along so that I could go to another big-box retailer chain store, where I purchased Sy Hersh's 1997, "The Dark Side of Camelot." I don't know how many of you are aware, but there is a bit of Kennedy history in Califoria, specifically Lake Tahoe, truly my home turf.

I don't know when Cal-Neva Lodge came into my consciousness as a kid. I remember the outside of the lodge and its signs and how it sat the ground in relationship to the lake far better than I remember the interior. The state line runs squarely through the middle of the building, and as I recall, the gaming part of the house was on the Nevada side of the interior and the restaurant, which I think served buffet style, was on the California side of the inside. The fun part for my sister and me as kids was straddling the painted line indicating the stateline outside the structure each year, my dad taking pictures.

I remember Cal-Neva far better for two things. Once, when we drove over for lunch as we did almost once each summer during our camping vacations, we stopped at a curio shop and my father bought umy sister and me straw hats, which we kept and wore for years. Mine had pipe cleaner palm trees and little monkeys with little eyeballs pasted on them that rolled. The second event was running into comedian Milton Berle one year, my sister and I standing as close to him as possible without distracting him in his converastion with another individual, after my parents ooohed and ahhed over him once they recognized him.

Once a guesthouse and hunting and fishing lodge, the building was rebuilt in 1937 as a lodge/casino after a devastating fire. In the 1950s, patriarch Joe Kennedy bought into it--whether in part or in whole is unknown, using an old business contact as a front, the Kennedy patriarch having frequented the Lodge for decades. During John Kennedy's presidential campaign in the early 60s, Frank Sinatra and several others purchased a 49.5 percent stake in Cal-Neva, the true owner in Sinatra's share almost certainly mobster Salvatore Giancana. With Sinatra's name and financial investment, the Lodge in the 60s became known as Sinatra's Cal-Neva.

Sinatra helped to bring in top-flight entertainment--no doubt about the time we saw Milton Berle. A call girl ring was run from the front desk. A number of mobsters frequented the lodge, including Giancana, who was not allowed to set foot in any casino in the state because he was listed in the Nevada Gaming Comission's Black Book. Money spread around to police solved that dilemma, enabling Giancana to come in by helicopter. Money flowed out of the Lodgee on what were known as "skim runs" but money also flowed in from Giancana in Chicago.

Giancana also made at least one appearance at Cal-Neva in 1962, when Marilyn Monroe was there. Days away from death, she was agonizing over her relationships with John and Bobby Kennedy. People who observed her at the Lodge saw a woman either drunk or drugged--in a tragic state, to be sure. Sinatra had taken pictures of Marilyn--about nine--down on all fours during the time, but the film was destroyed.

With all these goings-on, Frank Sinatra was eventually cornered by Ed Olsen of the Nevada Gaming Control Board, yet John Kennedy had not abandoned Sinatra entirely, putting in words on his behalf while in Las Vegas to then-Gov. Grant Sawyer. The Nevada gambling authorities formally stripped Sinatra of his licenses on October 22, 1963, a move that probably set the Chicago mob back about $470,000. Let me note (not that I'm linking these events in any way, just pointing out history) that Kennedy was shot exactly one month later in Dallas, on Nov. 22.

Of course, the real irony of the story is that Joe Kennedy was the father of an attorney general dedicated to destroying everything the mob stood for, yet was co-owner in a casino with mobster Sam Giancano.

And did I mention that at the bookstore last night, I found the biography of Frank Sinatra on the remaindered table at 75 percent off, written by Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan. I've borrowed from them; they tell this story with far more detail. Not that this had anything to do with Obama, but a lot to do with dynasty--and Tahoe.

Posted by: Loomis | February 4, 2008 11:15 AM | Report abuse

No, from that slo-mo I don't think it touched the ground either, K-guy. Really a phenomenal catch.

At the time I wondered if the refs might have/should have blown the whistle for Manning being "in the grasp," but in general, I'm glad they didn't; I generally like to see the zebras let 'em play...and they did.

Two hair's breadth aspects on the same play. The razor's edge doesn't get any sharper than that.

Posted by: Curmudgeon | February 4, 2008 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Of course Giants' fans know about Tyree. He has been a great special teams player and pro-bowler. Only someone who does not know the commitment of Giants' fans would suggest that Tyree is unknown. He was a very good pass receiver at Syracuse.
Only Osi among the Giants is going to the Pro Bowl. That says something about the TEAM. What a great win!

Posted by: H R Coursen | February 4, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Jeepers bc - if that's true you would think I would enjoy my job a whole heck of a lot more.

Posted by: RD Padouk | February 4, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Oh, bc, bc, bc. You're analogy in your 11:12 could get us all into SOOOOOOOOOOOO much trouble.

You naughty boy, you.

Posted by: Curmudgeon | February 4, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

This from Norman Chad-

"I don't want to say Tom Brady subconsciously wanted to lose, but he did promise his girlfriend an engagement ring if the Patriots won."

Posted by: kurosawaguy | February 4, 2008 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Shriek, don't forget the Sutter brothers, :-), OK maybe not on the same level.

Just watched the youtube clip and I couldn't see the ball hit the ground, good catch. Only watched the opening drive and was impressed but not enough to keep watching.

Posted by: dmd | February 4, 2008 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Actually, Mudge, bc's comment explains everything. You gotta be there.

Posted by: Slyness | February 4, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Speaking if of pleasurable moments, did anyone else find it endlessly entertaining to see the Terminator beat the cyber-stuffing out of that annoying FOX robot?

Posted by: RD Padouk | February 4, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

I couldn't find anything on the website, but I think my FIOS set-top is 1080i.

Posted by: yellojkt | February 4, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

RDP, that robot beat-down was noted several times. With glee.

:-)

Posted by: Scottynuke | February 4, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

"Tribes on the Hill" takes an anthropological view of the shennanigans in Congress. It's sort of a 'How a Bill is Made' book with jokes but I guess it's way out of date because I read it just after reading "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72."
Should the race go to the convention I think the fate of the Florida delegation will be interesting. IIRC in HST's book there were several floor fights and some neat parliamentry manuvering.

Posted by: Boko999 | February 4, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

I see earlier I mentioned bc instead of yellojkt regarding HDTV. Sorry. Coffee must not have kicked in yet.

Yello - I don't think anybody uses 1080p yet except Blu-ray and HDDVD. Personally, I find the distinction between 1080p, 1080i and 780p to be pretty hard to see unless you go over 50 inches. And they all kick butte on the standard resolution of 480i. So it really does come down to price.

Posted by: RD Padouk | February 4, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

Note: How often those Big O's are faked--by us. Do the math, bc.

"When Harry Met Sally."

[Harry and Sally discussing O's]

Sally Albright: Most women at one time or another have faked it.

Harry Burns: Well, they haven't faked it with me.

Sally Albright: How do you know?

Harry Burns: Because I know.

Sally Albright: Oh. Right. Thats right. I forgot. Youre a man.

Harry Burns: What was that supposed to mean?

Sally Albright: Nothing. Its just that all men are sure it never happened to them and all women at one time or other have done it so you do the math.

Posted by: Loomis | February 4, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

[after Sally fakes The Big O in a deli]
Older Woman Customer: [to waiter] I'll have what she's having.

---------------------------------------
Harry Burns: How long do you like to be held after sex? All night, right? See, that's your problem. Somewhere between 30 seconds and all night is your problem.

Sally Albright: I don't have a problem.

Harry Burns: Yes, you do.

Posted by: Loomis | February 4, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!

A: Yes it is!
M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
A: No it isn't.

Posted by: Python Fan | February 4, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse

S'Nuke. I won't pretend to be disappointed by yesterday's results but let me tell you that I feel your pain. I've been a Toronto Maple Leaf fan all my life. They haven't won a Stanley Cup since 1967 in large part because the owner of many years, Harold Ballard, wouldn't cough up the cash to get first class players.

Fun Fact:
78% of the visitors to Harold Ballard's grave make a beer run on the way.

Posted by: Boko999 | February 4, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Another thought on tellys. From some research I did late last year the price for HDTVs has probably bottomed out. To keep profit margins up, the manufacturers are adding features and removing older models from the market. So if you want to take advantage of getting lower res sets at a reduced price, you better act fast before they all vanish.

Posted by: RD Padouk | February 4, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

I didn't watch the game, nothing new there...my husband and I try hard to at least learn the names of the teams that are playing and we pretend to be excited the morning after, opening up the newspaper to see who won.

I thought it was pretty funny that Miami fans were reported to be thrilled that their 1972 perfect season record would stand--funny, since they almost had a perfect season this year too, as Dave Barry pointed out, missed being "completely defeated" by one game. Sad to have to go back 35 years to bolster your team spirit.

Anyway, although I didn't watch the game, even the day-after discussions are being haunted, for me, by the memory of Michael Leahy's incisive article about the consequences of the game for retired players. I wonder if it tempered anyone's enthusiasm for the game yesterday--I'm sure I could not have watched a tackle without flashing back to the article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/29/AR2008012904015.html

Posted by: kbertocci | February 4, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

And I guess, Boko, they don't stop at the Mens' room on the way there, either, eh?

Posted by: TBG | February 4, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

I thought that was an oxymoron.

Posted by: Yoki | February 4, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

SCC: And I guess *what you're saying* Boko...

Posted by: TBG | February 4, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Sure dmd, there were so many Sutter brothers at one point that it is almost inevitable that two of them were captains of their team when they won the cup...
The echo generation of the Sutters is approaching the NHL levels. Most are still in the junior and minor leaugues but it's coming.
There are so many memorable brother sets in the NHL, it's hard to choose from. I've seen the Stastnys (Marian the Old, Anton the Young and Peter the Great) play for the Nordiques back in the days, they were great although Marian was not in his prime anymore. The Stastnys made an echo generation of their own as well, of course.

Posted by: shrieking denizen | February 4, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Mr dr had a sort of stunned look when he came to announce the game was over and told me what happened.

CP, the only thing I thought was a little overdone was the drinking part. They seem to have her drinking copious quantities in comparison to all the other characters. She is also the only one shown to be hungover. It just seemed strikingly a Jane only thing.

What I worried was that they wouldn't give her the sharp tongue she showed in her letters. In Carol Shields biography of Austen, she speaks of the sharp tone of the letters, and refers to comments other family members made about it as well.

Overall, I thought it was pretty good. But then I have only read the one biography. I'm going to fix that soon though and read others.

One other thing. Could someone please give Gillian Anderson something sensible to say? Such as in from someone who read the books? I'm really irritated by her remarks. Whoever is writing her lines is probably responsible for the fatally flawed, bad, awful, horrendously miscast Kiera Knightly version of Pride and Prejudice.

Posted by: dr | February 4, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

At Katz's Deli, you can sit at the exact table where Sally faked it. They have a sign marking it and everything.

http://livebythefoma.blogspot.com/2007/04/when-harry-crossed-delancey.html

If your having what she's having, make sure to order it on the side.

Posted by: yellojkt | February 4, 2008 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Loomis, the difference between an O and faking an O is the difference between the Bush Administration and responsible government. Of course, both of them end with someone getting forded. At least with the fake O, there's lip service.

bc

[note: Mudge, over to you. Feel free to work in the words "tongue lashing."]

Posted by: bc | February 4, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

dr,
The Kiera Knightly version is not that bad. I find the set decoration and art direction more plausible. In the Colin Firth version, I have a hard time believing the Bennets were all that bad off since there home look as nice or nicer than the Bingley's. And anything with Donald Sutherland in it can't be that poorly cast.

My wife is aghast that she has to wait for the P&P conclusion since it's in two parts. She'll just have to make do.

Posted by: yellojkt | February 4, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Good guess TBG, Jack? you can do better.

Good to see dmd, and SD survived the blizzard.


Posted by: Boko999 | February 4, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

SCC: you're

When it comes to knowing grammar, I'm just faking it.

Posted by: yellojkt | February 4, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

A round muscle, perhaps?

Posted by: jack | February 4, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Just one little quibble: nothing - I mean, nothing - will ever replace The Catch. For a 49ers team that hadn't been relevant since 1972 and had just suffered through the Joe Thomas era, it was like a magical gift from above. And while it's been mythologized these days a little too strongly, it was a turning point not only for our team but for all of pro football - a new era in which teams like the Giants, Redskins and 49ers were dominant, not the Cowboys, Steelers and Raiders of the previous decade.

The Catch stands alone (though some would argue that Montana's eight-yard pass to John Taylor to culminate a 92-yard drive to win Super Bowl 23 rivals it). It's a key moment in professional football history. I don't think anyone 25 years from now will remember much about last night's game other than the Patriots had a chance to make history and fumbled it.

Posted by: Darren | February 4, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

I always thought that faking the O was when a basketball player took a dive in the paint while someone was driving to the hoop.

Posted by: jack | February 4, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Ivansmom, Did you put bean, chili and best in the same sentence?

Posted by: bh | February 4, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Today in the Post's Science Notebook there is a nifty little article about the pitcher plant: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/03/AR2008020302863.html

And some pictures of pitcher plants: http://images.google.com/images?gbv=2&hl=en&safe=off&q=pitcher+plant

I'm kind of bummed out about the game for two reasons. The first you can guess, the second: I didn't get to watch it. I discovered yesterday evening at 6 o'clock that have absolutely no channel 5 reception. Unless the pregame broadcast was of a blizzard. My plan was to record, and watch the commercials tonight.

Posted by: omni | February 4, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Survived the blizzard, yes. Enjoyed it, not so much. I had better things to do than snowblowing an hour and a half Saturday morning, than shoveling an hour both Saturday and Sunday.
On the other hand the Gatineau park was breathtakingly beautiful Saturday afternoon, before the hordes of cross-country skiers showed-up and defiled the snow.
There is so much snow the deers are confined to their deer yards, it's pretty rare it happens in the area.

Posted by: shrieking denizen | February 4, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

I survived well also, of course I stayed home from work Friday and enjoyed a snow day with the kids. Less snow than they had warned but very slippery. Temps are supposed to warm again to almost 50F tonight with rain, should be nice and soggy and then another quick freeze.

Posted by: dmd | February 4, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

The undercurrent of hockey talk made me think of all the nights we spent in front of the telly watching the Habs on Hockey Night in Canada with Howie Meeker at the mike. Then, out of nowhere, I thought of Gaetan Duchesene, just because he had such a cool name. I asked my wife if we could name our son after him and got a perplexed look and a prompt no.

Posted by: jack | February 4, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

bc, you wanna get me banned for life?

Posted by: Curmudgeon | February 4, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

And I wouldn't go against Larry Robinson for a boatload of $100 bills.

Posted by: jack | February 4, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Shocking, ain't it, bh? I suppose you could call it a stew. It had ground lamb, black beans, a tomato base and chili seasonings. Beans or not it was really good.

And commenting from last night to Yoki, frostbitten, and others: after years of trying I am convinced you cannot expect people to reply, even if you put RSVP or "Please Reply" on the written invitation in large bold letters. Not to children's birthday parties, not to grown-up gatherings. In many years we give at least one large by-invitation gathering. Without fail about a third of the invitees reply. About a third don't, but show up anyway. About a third fail to show. All these categories are fluid, and any "yes" may not show while a "no" may be there. We just plan accordingly, and when gift bags are involved made one for every child, whether they'd responded or not. Someone always had a slbling who was delighted with an extra bag.

We, of course, always RSPV. We also write thank-you notes.

Posted by: Ivansmom | February 4, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

bc writes:
Loomis, the difference between an O and faking an O is the difference between the Bush Administration and responsible government.

Sorry, bc, I'm not buying this argument. I think the difference between the Bush administration and responsible government is the difference between a fully functionioning male and a male with E.D.

Posted by: Loomis | February 4, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Ivansmom, I fart in the general direction of the ignoramuses who think that beans shall have no part in chili because I can and they can't.

Posted by: shrieking denizen | February 4, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Yellojkt, you are a brave man going into P & P territory. But yes, the 05 version was that bad. I'm not comparing it to the Ehle-Firth version either (many believe Firth was miscast. I contend it didn't matter, because he is a really really good looking man). I compare it to the book.

You are right about the house, the 05 film gives more an air of not enough money, though the porch on the house is all wrong for the period.

Part of the reason I know how bad it is, IS that Donald Sutherland looks forced, discomfitted even. You have to be heinously bad to make Donald Sutherland look less than utterly genuine.

I will fax my set of the earlier version to Mrs. jkt. She won't have to wait.

Posted by: dr | February 4, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

missed 6, 7 an 10. Darnit

http://encarta.msn.com/quiz_201/Super_Bowl_quiz.html

Posted by: omni | February 4, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

8/10 - 4 & 10 incorrect.

Posted by: dmd | February 4, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

dr, that P&P didn't do a thing for me. Lady Catherine visiting at night? Noooo way. Lizzie on a swing? She was 20, a full-grown adult. And messing with an Austen plot is heresy, if not blasphemy, in my book.

Elder dottir gave me Sense and Sensibility for Christmas. Now that is a wonderful version, but it's faithful to the book.

Posted by: Slyness | February 4, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

good afternoon,friends. wow, some conversations this day. just getting in from the laundry room, and time to go get the g-girl or meet the bus.

tried to watch the game but fell asleep, but JA your description of the "catch" was like being there. very good kit.

the closer to voting time, i suspect this boodle might just be too hot to visit.

God loves us so much more than we can imagine through Him that died for all, Jesus Christ.

Posted by: cassandra s | February 4, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

7/10 on the football quiz. I'd rather be lucky than good.

We ran across the 1940 version of P&P (w/Laurence Olivier as Darcy) the other night. The costumes were so Scarlett O'Hara-in-draperies wrong that it took some watching to realize that the O-man was a very good Darcy. The story was at least as faithful as other adaptations. I guess a screenplay by Aldous Huxley helps.

Posted by: yellojkt | February 4, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

9/10 missed # 6 which is funny because I have a tshirt that is Baltimore Blank the answer to #6.

Posted by: greenwithenvy | February 4, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

shrieking I'm with you. I was just sticking it a little to ivansmom because she keeps saying there are no beans in her chili.

Posted by: bh | February 4, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

8/10 on the quiz. Seems to me that there have been a time or two when two players were named co-MVPs. Didn't two of the Cowboy D-linemen win when they beat Denver? I think the front four were more deserving than Manning yesterday.

Posted by: kurosawaguy | February 4, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

I got 9/10 on the Super Bowl quiz. I got #10 wrong, of course. I shoulda gone with my gut.

Hey.. speaking of "how Washington works"...

Mr. G finally got his start date for his new gummint job. February 18. Yeah... it's a holiday. He gets paid to stay home on his first day of work. Hooray for gummint jobs.

Posted by: TBG | February 4, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

More true or less true today--a passage from Nader's 2003 book, "Crashing the Party"? (p. 216)

It was my second time at the [Madison Square] Garden. The first time was in 1979, at a No Nukes concert with leaders of the anti-nuclear power movement. There hasn't been a single nuclear power plant ordered in the United States since then--the time of the nearly catastrophic Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania, when people in New York City were wondering whether a radioactive cloud could be heading their way. This time at the Garden I was at the point in the campaign where I had to go beyond the usual explanations of how the two parties are letting Americans down. I made my own pleas:

To the 51 percent of ADULTS WHO DO NOT VOTE: Realize your power. Don't drop out of democracy. We need you--we even need your skepticism.

To CORPORATIONS: You were designed to be our servants, not our masters.

To the MEDIA: Your best exposes of corporate abuses are not resulting in change and you're not asking why.

For the POOR: The major public housing project in this country is building prison cells. The Democrats and Republicans give only lip service to raising the minimum wage. They ignore the crushing burden on ghettos from the corporate crime wave and don't even talk about health insurance for all.

To the YOUNG: You need a party that shuns cheap rhetoric and replaces it with reality.

Posted by: Loomis | February 4, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Well, after last post I did the research. SBMVPs- only 8 defensive players in 42 games. Only one player from losing team. Only one set of coMVPs, Harvey Martin and Randy White. Only one special teams player, Desmond Howard.

Posted by: kurosawaguy | February 4, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

7/10

Mahovlich
Esposito
Oops, sorry. I so bemused

Posted by: Boko999 | February 4, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

I'm not sure why you posted the Nader quote, Loomis. For what it is, it is as true now as it was when he wrote it. However, it is a broad-based complaint regarding not only Nader's opinion of the shortcomings of our political system, but the larger habits of society. It doesn't have anything to do with how government works, or even in a particularly substantive way with how government should work.

Posted by: Ivansmom | February 4, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

This YouTube is slow and repetitive and NOT safe for work: But it had me laughing me behind off. Gawd I love Sarah Silverman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnVJZkDuVBM

Posted by: omni | February 4, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

The Silverman video was linked at Celebritology earlier. It's good to see an actor have a sense of humor about himself. Unless the video is true, which then makes it even funnier.

Posted by: yellojkt | February 4, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse


Gonna vanish for a couple of days to attend offsite meetings. Let's hope that the world seems more settled after Super Duper Tuesday, although I suspect it will not.

Posted by: RD Padouk | February 4, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Loomis, I'm not buying the ED argument.

A man with ED can't fake one of the main aspects of The Job.

But I guess he can find other ways to distract you from that fact for awhile.

Faking it - well, once you go down that road, you're probably stuck doing that forever and hoping no one wants to talk about it.

I think the Arbusto Administration would *like* to be able to fake it.

bc

Posted by: bc | February 4, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

I'd like to think the Bush Adminstration was like a man with E.D., but that would mean he wouldn't be scr3wing us like he is.

Posted by: TBG | February 4, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Have fun, RD!

Posted by: TBG | February 4, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

We can be sure that Ron Paul is not faking it. I'm sure that the words 'Yes, yes, YES!" have never passed his lips.

Posted by: kurosawaguy | February 4, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Hilarious k-guy! But what about "oh my god!"?

Posted by: Pop Socket | February 4, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

rd,

Don't rendition anyone we wouldn't rendition.

Posted by: yellojkt | February 4, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Or claiming to have "seen god."

Posted by: LostInThought | February 4, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

http://sports.aol.com/nfl/superbowlads

Posted by: omni | February 4, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, Slyness, I think the lymphoma could be the cause. Auto-immune illness predispose people to lymphoma, some varieties moving very quickly on the heels of a, say, lupus or Addison's crisis.

DR, I am still formulating my thoughts about the biopic but here are two comments:

the combination of acerbic stance AND sadness and regret

do not seem right to.

I also think that Jane's wit -- rapier, really -- was often sheathed. I think that perhaps too much was presented to counter the image of a repressed, do-gooding, brilliant but frustrated spinster.

Bonus third comment!
Greta Saachi was miscast at Cassandra. J and C were only two years apart. GS looked like an aunt or a very ill person. During the scenes to suggest Jane's descent into illness, GC looked much more wan and worn than Olivia Williams.

Posted by: College Parkian | February 4, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Hi Pop Socket!

Posted by: Ivansmom | February 4, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

New Kit!

Posted by: shrieking denizen à la dijonnaise | February 4, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company