I just had someone kicked out of an office I share with several others at work. The office was already too small and overcrowded; they tried to stick a late hire in with us. I complained; he was moved. Now I've heard through the grapevine that this person is pissed off at me, even though he was moved to a bigger space with more room.

Should I feel guilty? I don't. I feel glad that this person is gone and those of us remaining have more room. I also feel that this person ought to feel happy that he's landed in a better place. But that's his business. Sharing office space is a difficult negotiation in the best of circumstances. It's also a crapshoot. It's like neighbors -- the annoying asshole who stomps around over your head and has loud fights with his girlfriend is the greatest guy in the world to people who don't have to live underneath him. Honestly, there's no good solution. Probably the best thing the boss could've done was allow the OP to move someplace else, not jerk this other woman around. But that doesn't make it her fault.

Timbuktom: get over yourself. Fired for making a remark about wanting a different office space? Please.

def.: 1) A meaningless, circular phrase that says the same thing backwards or forwards: "God, guns, lipstick," etc.

2) An exaggerated Northerner accent, deliberately keyed to a good-ole-boy, Southern twang

3) Any supporter of a certain candidate who mindlessly repeats said phrases and/or falls for said accent

is a good word for how I feel watching the yanks flounder as everyone wallows in nostalgia for the last few games at the stadium. i drove by it on my way into NYC last weekend and i have to admit, it sure looked grand -- i'm sorry i never took in a game there. aside from that, it's good riddance to the yanks and i look forward to a rare postseason without them.

all irony aside, jeter is in decline, but the real issue seems to me to be a-rod. he looks like a loner out there and he's never quite clicked as a yankee. he may have a few years left as an elite player, but his enormous contract and inability to hit in the clutch will outweigh whatever cosmetic changes they're able to make in the meantime.

Thomas:

You're right. If the stakes weren't so high, I'd almost wish McCain were elected just so I could watch him squirm his way out of the absurd, contradictory promises he's already made. The problem is I wonder if those who vote for him will even notice (see related article on "cognitive dissonance").

First, we need to turn this into a national security / patriotism issue. As in, any corporation or CEO too greedy to do what's best for itself and the country because of compensation issues is essentially engaging in an act of treason. Call it "financial terrorism" if you want. Shame and intimidate them into doing it if nothing else works. Nobody had a problem with that when the Iraq war was being shoved down our throats in 2003 (well, except for the vilified few who were eventually proved right). The major roadblock to the idea of corporate, fiscal patriotism is that it goes against the capitalist narrative of Gatsby / Gecko that "greed is good, more is better," etc. But we need to try.

Second, I'm very disturbed by the collective, enforced denial a previous writer noted. I've noticed it too. "Stay the course," "Don't take your money out of the bank / the market," "It's bound to level off," etc. Says who? When politicians and economists are admitting they don't even understand what's going on, why should the average joe trust them on this? There's a whiff of panic that runs underneath all the reassurances. Nobody wants to see runs on the bank and a total collapse, and whistling past the graveyard may actually work. But it might not. If this plan is any indication, there's really no safety net for anyone but the richest few.

One of the major failings of the Dem party from the mid-90s on has been the collective turnings of backs on Nader and his critiques of just this sort. Clinton shunned Nader and I still think Gore's biggest mistake (among many) was not making some effort to bring Nader and his issues into the tent in 00. Maybe this is the wakeup call we need to realize that consumer-based protections and regulations and corporate oversight do not equal straight up communism.

And yes, yes, I realize the string of disappointments and broken promises. But the fact of being able to give a speech like this at all seems like a big step forward to me.

Or does Jeter have one of those faces that makes him look like a lock to be a fat ex-ballplayer some day? Can't you just see him up in the broadcast booth with his double chin and thick neck popping out of a shirt collar? W.S. rings glittering on his fat fingers?

You know you can.

I'm of two minds about Jeter -- as a hitter he's good, clutch, whatever you want to call it. He's not great. He doesn't give me that same gut-churning feeling that great hitters, even A-Rod, do (I hate the Yankees, all right?). He looks good up there and he never seems to take a bad at-bat.

As a fielder, statistically, he's awful... but as others have pointed out, somehow he seems to make plays. Ask Jeremy Giambi. The guy's a ballplayer, and he just gives you that kind of feeling. He's probably the only Yankee of the past 15 years that I don't actively hate.

i think my favorite part is the long, awkward pause when couric repeats the question about mccain freddie mac / fannie mae, closeup on palin's confused face, and then she repeats the exact same pre-packaged talking point.

she looked like a fifth grader who'd been caught without her homework.