Gee, I seem to remember it was a very, very big deal when Jim Morrison simulated masturbation on stage in Maimi -- dude nearly ended up a client of the Florida state penal system. By comparison, all that poor, repressed Madonna got out of her calculated displays of ersatz onanism was tons of publicity -- and obviously, the undying respect of the Broadsheet staff.

I doubt we'll have the same luck with Chalabi.

I have the feeling this won't be the beginning of a beautiful freindship ...but we can hope it's the beginning of the end to one of the most cynical and disasterous chapters in America's foreign policy.

Thanks to the original DeHavilland Comet's disconcerting habit of blowing apart in mid-air (due to cabin metal fatigue), the world's airlines just felt a lot more comfortable in ordering 707's and DC-8s. In fact, I think (but am not totally certain) the only airlines that ordered new Comets were BOAC and BEA -- and they had to, for patriotic reasons. The fact is, by the time the Comet 4 came along, Boeing and Douglas had simply designed better jetliners -- planes capable of carrying more peole for longer distances at a far lower cost per passenger. (And remember, it was the low operating cost of the jetliners vs. maintenance-intensive propliners that initially attracted the airlines. The fast speed and ocean-hopping capabilities were just icing on the cake.)

If Boeing and Douglas hadn't come along with their superior jetliners (and their production capacity to churn them out en masse, which DeHavilland utterly lacked), widespread adoptation of jet travel would have taken far longer. Possibly, transatlantic jet travel would have followed the 'right crowd and no crowding' Concorde model rather than the current Greyhound-bus-of-the-skies model(at least as practiced by US carriers).

So the Comet may have been first by a small margin -- but it was hardly the most significant. As any half-awake business student will tell you, the first product on the market is seldom the most succesful.

...especially appreciated the rundown on Comets 2 and 3. I always wondered what happened to those missing numbers.

All that, and a shoutout to the VC-10 -- a gorgeous plane no doubt, especially with its four jet engines grouped at the tail. (Although that may be why it was the loudest jetliner ever put into service -- a character in 'Quadraphenia' pays The Who the ultimate compliment of comparing the band's sonic assault to a VC-10.)

It seems most British jets from that period were way more sleek and sophisticated than their Yank counterparts -- particularly planes like the Comet and the Avro Vulcan, with their engines buried completely within the wings. Stunning sculptural forms -- but as cost-effective devices for delivering passengers and bombs, not so hot.

But doesn't the Comet still soldier on as the Nimrod recon/AWACS plane -- although now encumbered with all manner of grotesque goiter-like radomes?

Knightly and Johansson are the most highly-regarded actresses under 25 in Hollywood (hence the Oscar nods). So it's not as if they're publicity-hungry starlets who have to be willing do anything to grab the spotlight. They had the power and position to easily say 'no' if they thought it was demeaning to themselves -- or to every actress, or to their entire gender. So to insinuate that these two powerful, accomplished (and by all accounts, self-confident) young women were somehow bullied or tricked or pressured into showing more flesh than they wanted to ...well, it just doesn't ring true.

Rachel McAdams was willing to say no, although she doesn't have nearly as high a profile as the other two -- and therefore had a lot more to gain by doing the shoot.

So she did what she wanted to do, while Knightly and Johansson did what they wanted to do.

Isn't that the way it's supposed to work?

But is there any reason on earth why both spouses should be working (and leaving their children with some underpaid caregiver) if one of them makes enough to support the family in Mahattan luxury?

OK, it would be nice if more of those pram jockeys were husbands, but most of those 'opting out'women were probably making less than their husbands. (Admittedly, that's another issue to explore.) So having them stay home just makes good economic sense, even if you don't want to take any supposed maternal instincts into account. (And for the sake of this argument, let's assume none really exist.)

Are we back to claiming feminism means it's more important to hold an unncessary job than it is to provide necessary parenting? (Remember, we're not talking about working class families struggling to pay the mortgage and the heating bill -- this is all about rich folk who can easily spend more in one night at a restaurant than I make all week.)

And anyway, doesn't the very term 'opting out' indicate choice, which I thought was the bedrock of feminism? Or is the term intended to be condescending -- like say, the tone of this article?

Let's see, a village built around a big Catholic church that literally -- and figuratively -- dominates the town? Where have we seen that before? I mean, I know religious conservatives of all stripes want to go back to the good old days, before the Enlightenment fucked up God's plan by telling people they could reason for themselves. But I guess it's not enough to think and act like you're back in the middle ages -- now you've got to live in an environment that looks like it, too.

Still, as creepy and as cheezy (no pun intended) as this place is, I suppose it's still better than the alternative -- a megachurch surrounded by big box retailers, mcmansions, and mcmansion-wannabes. (Oops, I just described 95% of the rest of the greater Naples region.)

...Degenerates Harassing Schoolgirls

Want to bet these very same creeps were totally (and vocally) outraged about Clinton's Oval Office antics?