Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Tab Dump

• Is climate change turning out worse than we thought?

• Caitlin Flanagan has a lengthy, but devastating, attack on Rielle Hunter.

Meet the king of the Afghani blogosphere.

This is probably the greatest poem ever written.

• What it's like to have dinner at El Bulli, the greatest restaurant in the world.

By Ezra Klein  |  August 12, 2009; 7:00 PM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Is this 1994 All Over Again? An Interview with Nancy-Ann DeParle
Next: A Question of Time


dont forget...

perseid meteor shower tonight!
catch yourself a falling star!

Posted by: jkaren | August 12, 2009 8:36 PM | Report abuse

El Bulli is definitely on my "before I die" list.

Posted by: SteveCA1 | August 12, 2009 9:26 PM | Report abuse

El Bulli: 'where's the beef?' (just kiddin)

pretty amazing. Any idea what just the meal/wine cost?

[my guess: 40 courses at US$9.00 per course is near $400 (times two), plus wine ($150/person). hmmmmm $1100 for 2? I guess once in lifetime can be somewhat rationally justified (if one ignores billions of hungry people - heheh).

But it does seem more like a half-day dessert than a 'meal'.

Would the world's best restaurant be required to post the calorie count?

Posted by: JimPortlandOR | August 12, 2009 10:57 PM | Report abuse

"Any idea what just the meal/wine cost?"

About EUR 220 per person for the tasting menu (30-ish courses), not including wine. One of the cheaper 3-stars, in fact.

There are lots of blog accounts of dining at El Bulli, unsurprisingly...

Posted by: pseudonymousinnc | August 12, 2009 11:14 PM | Report abuse

"But there he was, shooting for president, and the reason you had to take him seriously, the reason you figured there was something more to him than met the eye, was that he had this phenomenal wife."

LOL -- Somebody actually thought that???

And the pig here -- in case you're not keeping up -- is John Edwards.

Posted by: whoisjohngaltcom | August 13, 2009 7:42 AM | Report abuse

Caitlin Flanagan


How devastating can an attack be when it's wrapped up in a tidy little cliched sexist bow that Caitlin Flanagan repeats over and over and over again?

Posted by: westofthedc | August 13, 2009 10:10 AM | Report abuse

Quite frankly, I can't find a point in Flanagan's article except, perhaps, generalized vituperation and projected anxiety. I mean, where's she going with it? Is she bashing Helen Gurley Brown or not? Is she blaming Helen Gurley Brown for Rielle Hunter, or is she blaming Rielle Hunter for not getting HGB's schtick right? Is she blaming John Edwards, or does she just think he's a vapid schmuck who got led around by his penis by an opportunistic husband-poacher?

Flanagan can turn a phrase, but I continue to be amazed that her style of projecting her personal reality onto the world around her and conjuring from it this kind of miasmic, unstructured, assumption-laden gloop continues to get her published.

Posted by: nolo93 | August 13, 2009 10:11 AM | Report abuse

Ezra I'm pretty sure the adjective is Afghan not Afghani. You might want to check the Post's style guidelines.

Posted by: Castorp1 | August 13, 2009 10:44 AM | Report abuse

What nolo93 and westofthedc said.

Take this Caitlin Flanagan sentence, please:

"In fact, I had never loved anyone yet, because I was years away from having a child of my own, and until you’ve done that you’re just guessing about love, gesturing toward it, assuming that it’s the right name for a feeling you’ve had."

Maybe that was true for her.

Or this one:

"But the movement wasn’t much of a starter for the young women of the American steno pool—call them the Seven Thousand Sisters—who barely made it all the way through Doctor Zhivago, let alone The Second Sex, and who, moreover, had no desire to go through life looking like Sasquatch and feeling angry all the time."

Oh, please. Can we dispense with the bull$#*t wingnut stereotypes of how feminists all looked hideous? I was there. As a 55-year-old guy, I wish I could go back in time and take advantage of some of the opportunities I passed up at the time.

The one about feminists being perpetually angry is equally nonsensical. Obviously, feminists on the public stage in the 1960s and 70s spent a lot of time being angry, but they had a lot to be angry about. Married women were only slightly better than property; women were denied entry to good jobs and good schools for no other reason but their gender; women were fair game for sexual harassment and acquaintance rape; and girls were fair game for being molested and raped by adult men. You'd be angry too - but in my experience, most of them didn't spend their hours out of the limelight being enraged by all these things. (Don't ask me how.)

Posted by: rt42 | August 13, 2009 11:28 AM | Report abuse

re caitlin flanagan's article

i read her article with great someone who lived through the fifties and sixties and the gospel according to betty gloria and helen.
i would also be interested in one day, reading a piece that ms flanigan might do on angelina jolie, jennifer aniston and brad she did on rielle hunter and elizabeth and john edwards.

i may be wrong, but i think that watching jennifer aniston, in spite of her easy goingness, success, beauty and bravery, touches a very complicated place in many women.
after all, elizabeth edwards continues to elicit a great deal of sympathy and rielle hunter seems generally despised.
and life has not really dealt rielle hunter the best hand either....
but what does one make of angelina jolie?
especially, what do other women make of angelina jolie?
i think for most women, watching angelina jolie on the arm of brad pitt, looking almost inhumanly beautiful, radiant and emaciated after having/caring for a brood of children, living in chateaux and being a spokesperson for children's organizations...visiting scenes of devastation in foreign countries and shimmering even in the dust.....while starring in blockbusters and getting respectable reviews.....
makes many women wonder about how life really works in the most karmically personal terms.
a few months ago, angelina jolie said something to the effect that she wished her children could see the wonderful, loving chemistry between her and brad pitt, in "mr. and mrs. jones."
even though, brad pitt was married to jennifer aniston at the time that movie was made.
i wonder what helen gurley brown would think of that?

i think many women feel greatly for jennifer aniston.
even though she has so many wonderful attributes, there is something terribly disquieting in the way this triangle continues to play out.
for me, it is impossible to see the week's photographs of angelina jolie, without thinking of jennifer aniston, and imagining that if must take a lot of courage to be her.
whatever she feels on the inside....she tries really hard and holds it all together for every woman who watches this all play out.
who doesnt want to give jennifer aniston a big hug.
and what a place to find oneself in, even when you try to convince the world that you dont need a big hug.
i cant understand angelina jolie at all. from almost any perspective...(maybe ms. flanagan would like to give that a try)
i think jennifer aniston is a very brave woman.

Posted by: jkaren | August 13, 2009 2:19 PM | Report abuse

"sorry...i meant the film, "mr. and mrs. smith."
not surprisingly, the whole thing reminded me of the song,"me and mrs jones!"

Posted by: jkaren | August 13, 2009 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Agree with everyone about the obnoxiousness of the Flanagan piece. Take this last paragraph:

"...the thing that will stand as her life’s remembered work—is that she brought another woman to her knees: polluted the home in which Elizabeth is raising her children, made her steady approach toward death a time of exquisite anguish and fear, made a mockery of the marriage and home that she tended as a tribute to her late son, Wade."

Right. Because Rielle Hunter is chiefly responsible for the pain experienced by Elizabeth Edwards, not, I don't know, the man who recited wedding vows to her.

Posted by: bupkiss | August 13, 2009 3:21 PM | Report abuse

I meant to add that this seems like a lot of attention on Flanagan's part, directed to a subject that isn't worth the attention. I mean, who really cares about Rielle Hunter? What's her importance? There are always groupies trying to hit on celebrities. She was one.

In the end, as bupkiss indicated, this is about John Edwards' personal shallowness. And even that well's been emptied out. Writing a long article about the particular groupie that managed to get him into bed is really a complete waste of time.

Posted by: rt42 | August 14, 2009 5:58 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company