All true. I was working on the assumption that Tracy's characterization was an accurate portrait of his character. Only he would know for sure. Or would he?

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200811/multiple-personalities

Of course, assumptions are cheap and easy, which is all I could really afford, as I was attending to my dead pig. I'd still wager against your other conjectures in Vegas, though. Remember, in addition to the alleged conflict of interest, we have additional information. Like, airfare ain't cheap. If he were only smitten by Tracy's kitten, as it were, he's an awfully extravagant John.

I agree with your third hypothesis. The man's mind is muddled. But he be muddled because he be smote.

Exercising an urban planning vision? For some reason your fourth conjecture reminds me of Fritz Lang's wonderful dystopian Metropolis. Those damn urban planners, always plotting to keep the workers down!

Yes, could be a lot of things, but I'd still bet a beer and a pretzel he's smitten.

BTW, the fact that your beau so readily discounts the value of something so obviously dear to him is a pretty good indication that he's smitten.

I wouldn't worry about the environment too much. These kinds of things tend to resolve themselves. You'll either break off the relationship, or move in together. In either case, I doubt the environment will have much to do with it.

Now I have to get back to my environmental wasteland to eat a dead pig and some navy beans simmered in olive oil w/ fresh sage, thyme, and garlic.

How many long distance relationships like this would it take to destroy the planet?

The planet has limited resources. Assuming universal equality, there are two possible solutions. Either everyone lives like a pauper, or we control the world's population to the point where we don't have to feel so damn guilty about a self-indulgence now and then.

Of course, universal equality is a pipe dream for the foreseeable future. Instead, the privileged classes will reap the benefits of their industrial societies while the rest of the world molders in abject poverty. And then they will blog about their terrible eco-moral dilemmas.

I'd say anyone typing on a mercury and lead filled computer about their ecological misgivings is a hypocrite. For penance, they should be go live in a truly subsistence only society so that they can experience the life they romanticize first hand.

Especially the ridiculous animal poop haters. Put a really big number on the amount of shit animals produce and, ewww, it's just so gross!! A big juicy steak for the first genius to guess what happens to plants without animals. Don't like the _concentrations_ you say? Then reduce your own goddamn concentration, you pavement producing filthy monkey, and the problem will be solved.

I didn't hear any apology, other than his "I'm sorry I didn't know people could be so stupid." Investors got burned, so now they will be more cautious he says. No intervention necessary. Let the free market continue to work its magic.

If you really believe recent events pave the way for a new understanding of market mechanics, you greatly underestimate the intransigence of the plutocracy. Make no mistake. The pigs will not duck their tails between their legs and run. They will proclaim the virtue of unmitigated greed and unfettered markets forever. They have learned nothing. If you think the world has learned anything, then understand that it is a pyrrhic victory which will be under eternal assault by the rich and powerful. Their numbers may be small, but their influence is great.

I believe a person's beliefs about the purpose of marriage derive from their religious beliefs; and as such, should not be endorsed by government in any form. Government should not endorse gay marriage, government should not endorse any marriage. Marriage has nothing at all to do with the proper functioning of our government.

It has an impact on our current tax code. The only way interpersonal relationships should affect our tax code is because society generally seems to want to give people a break who are raising children. Again, this should have nothing to do with whether or not marriage is involved.

Get government out of the marriage business altogether.

The south pole, of course. Familiar and safe.

And warm.

Once again, Paglia, the ultimate sycophant, sucks up to the dominatrix du jour. The fact that Camille can see Palin as anything but the vapid empty headed pull-string doll that she is proves beyond reasonable doubt that Camille is all about style sans substance. I only wonder - is there room in Camille's heart for her old flame Madonna to share space with the young, vital and virile Palin? Is she a serial monogamous brown-noser, or a polygamous personality worshiping slut?

Ignoring Palin is not perilous, it every thinking person's duty. The nation's infestation of kooks and cultists producing and consuming a steady diet of intellectual tripe is the real peril. Validating Palin is nothing but more of the same narcissistic hubris which characterizes the shallow provocative dialectic this column has come to typify.

Stop looking for love under the overpass. Lost empty headed bimbos are really not your type. There are some really great girls worth your attention. Tina Fey, for example.