@Penny: "5:55"--Air wrote all the songs on that album, right? (Look at us, Penny dear, dating ourselves by calling these things "albums.." Ha!) Very charming Euro muzak, but I still think "Lemon Incest" is Mme. Gainsbourg's finest pop music moment yet.
@BlondeGoddess: Really! The Balenciaga campaign should dovetail nicely with her role of grief-stricken mom and homicidal wife in the latest Larsie von Trier flick. According to some Cannes fest-related crap I read, the MPAA is demanding that von Trier re-cut the film, because as is, they won't even release it with an NC-17 rating.. Knowing how mule-ish von Trier is about final cut (and good for him), this might actually mean the film will never land in U.S. theaters.. =(
@snugbug: What happened to freedom of speech (or similar)? People are old enough to make their own choices to see a movie or not without the MPAA censoring. Crap.
Thanks for reminding me of this guy.. Is he still in the shmata trade? A real artist, IMHO. I was so moved by one of his pieces back in 2000--an overcoat he crafted out of the cover of a mattress on which his friend/neighbor Quentin Crisp had ailed and died. A poetic gesture wrought in fabric--although I can see whyit might've sent consumers + critics screaming into the woods.
@Diziet_Sma: She's just modeling for the campaign though, it's not 'stupidly named perfume' BY Charlotte Gainsbourg. I think that's what Watson was getting at. I could be totally wrong though.
@Diziet_Sma: Ah...yes....but...argh. Charlotte's a MUSE! She and Nicholas have a really close relationship and he's often talked about how much she inspires him. Whatever, I love her, I will defend anything she does, let's face it!
"The people I chose to run my new store in London are nice. I cannot work with bitches, I can't, I can't."
You and me both, buddy...though is he saying they're untalented? I don't think talent and non-bitchery are mutually exclusive. It's kind of a destructive mental construct to have.
Nicolas Ghesquière picked the intolerably cool Charlotte Gainsbourg to advertise Balenciaga's perfume.
This makes me happy. I am going to go on a mission to find these ads and make a scrapbook. And also do my best to not think of Anti Christ during said mission.
Edited by AtomiClash: humanitarian misanthrope at 07/16/09 11:35 AM
AtomiClash: humanitarian misanthrope was starred
AtomiClash: humanitarian misanthrope was unstarred
Can I just state my apparently corrupt belief that earmarks are a necessary part of the legislative process? I don't want any bridges to nowhere as much as anyone, I mean, but the problem there isn't that it's an earmark -- the problem is that it's a BAD earmark. Earmarks are important for legislation that's politically unpopular but absolutely necessary -- you think TARP would have passed last year without any earmarks? Earmarks are also not new spending -- they are a way of apportioning money already set aside by the government. So STFU media and STFU grandstanding politicians. Your objections are bullshit, and you know it.
@eatsshootsleaves: I LOVE earmarks because I work in the sciences, and loads of research money comes in earmark form. Case in point: the Repubs picked an earmark for olive fruit fly research as "pork".
This research directly benefits the California olive industry, which employs thousands of people, as well as employing many scientists.
Getting this funding through a non-earmark process would have been difficult and would have taken so much time that the fruit fly would have spread throughout California.
Politics is always going to be dirty, but this is the absolute least dirty we've seen executive politics in 8--probably more than 8--years. I think we'll all survive. There's a lot to be happy about here.
My understanding of the signing statements issue is that Presidents before W used them too, but that W used them in questionable ways (and overused them to boot).
If a President has a legal reason for using a signing statement that is well founded, I don't see the problem. The one that they featured in the article concerned the deployment of US troops on UN peacekeeping missions. I can see how this would impinge upon the President's powers as commander-in-chief.
I would like it if the discussion on this issue was more about the arguments for and against the use of signing statements, rather that the "Bush did it! Bad! Bad!" that seems most prevalent.
"Remember the good old days when Barack Obama could do no wrong and was adamant about getting rid of earmarks and signing statements?"
no, but i do remember the fact that obama never campaigned on ending earmarks and signing statements. he did however campaign on reducing waste, so clearly it makes tons of sense that people would be outraged that he isn't fulfilling john mccain's campaign promise to wage a BS crusade against 2% of the federal budget. i also remember that obama campaigned on ending the abuse of signing statements that took place under bush, when he basically used them to negate parts of bills he didn't like, not parts of dubious constitutionality. he didn't campaign on putting an outright end to a practice that has served an important legal purpose for many decades, because that has been a stupid idea ever since we left the era of simple single issue bills. not to mention that the one he actually issued is based on a straightforward legal precedent that congress continually chooses to ignore despite the supreme court's decision on the issue; it's one that just about every president has had to issue since the ruling came down. clearly though, he should have vetoed a complicated bill to keep the government running, over a small bit of congressional wishful thinking regarding constitutionality; just so he could keep campaign promises that he didn't make. please go ahead, carry on with your nonsense conventional wisdom. it might be a good idea to try criticizing the guy for things that are actually true (there's plenty of stuff that falls into that category).
@sarcasticusername: Thank you. I always thought Obama was for the judicious use of earmarks. Not bridges to nowhere, but you know, projects that actually create work, benefit the citizens, and basically get things done.
If the FDA is split into two parts, I wonder how it would impact regulation of nutritional supplements. Under law, nutritional supplements are actually treated like food.
07/16/09
True story.
She could shill for anything (except Wal-Mart) and I would still love her.
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
Is calling albums "albums" dated?? So retro!
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
Thanks for reminding me of this guy.. Is he still in the shmata trade? A real artist, IMHO. I was so moved by one of his pieces back in 2000--an overcoat he crafted out of the cover of a mattress on which his friend/neighbor Quentin Crisp had ailed and died. A poetic gesture wrought in fabric--although I can see whyit might've sent consumers + critics screaming into the woods.
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
"Ahh, the SMELL of it!" Remember that one?
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
You and me both, buddy...though is he saying they're untalented? I don't think talent and non-bitchery are mutually exclusive. It's kind of a destructive mental construct to have.
07/16/09
This makes me happy. I am going to go on a mission to find these ads and make a scrapbook. And also do my best to not think of Anti Christ during said mission.
07/16/09
07/16/09
Derelicte is so over. Just ask Derek Zoolander.
07/16/09
03/13/09
03/12/09
03/12/09
This research directly benefits the California olive industry, which employs thousands of people, as well as employing many scientists.
Getting this funding through a non-earmark process would have been difficult and would have taken so much time that the fruit fly would have spread throughout California.
Yay earmarks!
03/12/09
03/12/09
I dunno. I just can't get outraged over this. I find the potential expansion of the Bagram prison more worrying.
03/12/09
If a President has a legal reason for using a signing statement that is well founded, I don't see the problem. The one that they featured in the article concerned the deployment of US troops on UN peacekeeping missions. I can see how this would impinge upon the President's powers as commander-in-chief.
I would like it if the discussion on this issue was more about the arguments for and against the use of signing statements, rather that the "Bush did it! Bad! Bad!" that seems most prevalent.
03/12/09
03/12/09
no, but i do remember the fact that obama never campaigned on ending earmarks and signing statements. he did however campaign on reducing waste, so clearly it makes tons of sense that people would be outraged that he isn't fulfilling john mccain's campaign promise to wage a BS crusade against 2% of the federal budget. i also remember that obama campaigned on ending the abuse of signing statements that took place under bush, when he basically used them to negate parts of bills he didn't like, not parts of dubious constitutionality. he didn't campaign on putting an outright end to a practice that has served an important legal purpose for many decades, because that has been a stupid idea ever since we left the era of simple single issue bills. not to mention that the one he actually issued is based on a straightforward legal precedent that congress continually chooses to ignore despite the supreme court's decision on the issue; it's one that just about every president has had to issue since the ruling came down. clearly though, he should have vetoed a complicated bill to keep the government running, over a small bit of congressional wishful thinking regarding constitutionality; just so he could keep campaign promises that he didn't make. please go ahead, carry on with your nonsense conventional wisdom. it might be a good idea to try criticizing the guy for things that are actually true (there's plenty of stuff that falls into that category).
03/12/09
03/12/09
03/12/09