Charlie

That would explain a lot of recent typos and confusing posts. I hope you can get the lens fixed quickly, because there will probably be lots to comment on at the Aussie Open.

I have just finished Polk's Folly: An American Family History, by William K. Polk, a retired history professor (Harvard and Chicago) and member of the State Department in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. He tells the story of America through the history of his own family, whose seminal ancestor was Robert Bruce Pollok, a Scottish soldier in Oliver Cromwell's army who emigrated to the British colony of Maryland in the 17th century. Robert Pollok/Polk's piece of land on Chesapeake Bay was called "Polk's Folly" because it was not very promising financially, and later generations spread out over America, producing many prominent politicians and military men, including James K. Polk, President of the United States from 1845 to 1849. Polk family members played roles in the Revolution, the Civil War, and World Wars One and Two, everything from foot soldiers and fighter pilots to major generals and senior diplomats. Polk uses their experiences, based on troves of family documents as well as official papers, to tell a history of America as well as of his family, and he tells it extremely well, even though it becomes hard at times to keep track of how individuals are related to one another. What I found most interesting was his explanations of the sociology of the South during the 18th and 19th centuries, which was much more complex than a simple tale of heroes and villains. His perspective on 20th century world history, in which he and his immediate family were political and diplomatic insiders, is also fascinating. He ends the book with the mysterious murder of his brother George Polk, a well known international political journalist, in Greece during the Greek civil war following World War Two, a subject about which few Americans know very much. It made me want to move on to more sources about that messy post-war period.

Thanks for giving me another excuse to look at that photo again.

It's Gasquet, but which is your favorite country, France or New Zealand? It was actually a pretty close match all the way from beginning to end (I watched the whole thing).

I'm not sure that is a two lane roadway.

Umm, William, Jann Wenner is a man, and I don't think the pronoun is "her."

Chastity is also an abnormal lifestyle choice. What do they intend to do about it?

Before you ask: 1950 Buick.

If he has been a member of RM for seven years, it does seem unlikely that he is 25.

Curious. Of course, the reviewer's photo could be newer than the escort's photos in the ad. (The escort does have one unusual tat on his left side that is revealed in only one of the photos.)

The custom in the US has been for Presidents to establish their own museums/libraries after they leave office, usually with financial help from private donors. If I remember correctly, Clinton and GW Bush were already publicly planning their libraries before they left office.

Why does the photo posted next to the reviewer look exactly like the escort? In any event, I'll keep an eye out for him cruising around town in a BMW.

I saw The Mousetrap at the St. Martin's Theater sometime in the 1970s, but I don't remember anything about the plot.

This part of the thread on Presidential libraries started with @Luv2play commenting that Truman was the last President not to enrich himself through his holding of the office. Then he backtracked and said that Carter should be added to that list. I pointed out that Carter made money by writing books after he left office, that sold largely on his fame as a former President. Then you countered that other Presidents also wrote books; however, I tried to stay on topic by responding that the books didn't make them much money. The fact that you studied books that were written by those Presidents, and that you thought Truman was a better President than Carter, may be true, but they don't seem relevant to the question of whether or not a President enriched himself after leaving office. At least you did remove the post in which you brought up the fact that Milton Eisenhower was president of Penn State, which didn't seem relevant to anything. But, of course, this whole topic has gotten sidetracked anyway from the subject of Presidential libraries, which are interesting in themselves.

Yes, Truman did write his own two volume Memoirs, but it was written for a scholarly audience and most reviewers thought it was too long and boring for a popular audience; it never made a best-seller list. When it was eventually re-issued years later, an editor cut out almost half of the original material to make it saleable. The majority of the money-making books were written by others, like Merle Miller and David McCullough, about him and his administration. Eisenhower's only best-selling memoir, Crusade in Europe, was written before he became President. Yes, Milton Eisenhower was president of Penn State for several years--he was also president of Kansas State and Johns Hopkins--but how is that relevant to this topic? The question was about which Presidents used the title to enrich themselves.

I'm sure you read a number of books ABOUT Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson and Ford, but they were not written BY those men in order to make money for themselves. Carter has written several books since leaving the office of President, for which he has been well paid. Many of the books that are advertised as "by Harry Truman," for example, are simply compilations by other authors and editors based on Truman's private papers and letters, and often published after he was dead. Ford often made speeches after leaving office, for which he was well paid, and they were sometimes published, but he wrote very little.

Nadal and Djokovic are on opposite sides of the draw, so they can't play one another unless it's in the final.

Well, I don't think all his books would have sold much if he hadn't been President.

I think the question of choice has a lot to do with whether one exists in a context in which choice is possible. I was aware during puberty that I was sexually attracted to males. I was never sexually attracted to a woman, but I have always had close emotional friendships with women, and I could have chosen to spend my life with a female partner--probably in a non-sexual relationship, because I have never tested my ability to function in a heterosexual relationship. I would have relieved my sexual desires with fantasies and masturbation rather than in actual sex with other men. Social and religious conservatives would probably have found my "lifestyle choice" acceptable. Even in sexually conservative cultures, one can usually have a homosexual orientation as long as you channel it into certain acceptable non-sexual activities. However, I discovered at an early age that my environment allowed me to have sex with the men I was attracted to, as long as I was discreet about my "lifestyle." As my environment became more openly liberal, my "lifestyle" opportunities broadened, and I took advantage of them to exercise more "freedom of choice." I also took advantage of living in a society in which I could safely question and challenge what was considered "normal." I chose to have romantic as well as sexual relationships with other men, and eventually married a man, something that would have been an unthinkable lifestyle choice when I was young.

Mummified and placed in an attractive sarcophagus.

Sorry, I can't tell the make or model.

One of the first escorts I hired ripped off my underpants like that. I said, "What are you doing?!!" He replied, "Oh, I saw there was a tiny tear in the fabric and I thought that meant that was what you wanted." He was either not very experienced, or too experienced.

Well, he WAS President when I was born, but not when I was a teenager. And Eleanor was not buried there then, because she was still alive when I was in college.

Which of his real names?

It was so long ago that I forgot about visiting the FDR library at Hyde Park with a school group when I was a teenager.