How could 1970s interior decoration have happened?

I don't know. Pay attention this time.

 

From the article, which is in The Washington Post:

"Raccoon in a Dumpster"? Who knew "Dumpster" is a brand name?

Did you, like me, have trouble with today's NYT crossword because the clue "Raccoon in a Dumpster" seemed to refer to something more specific — a fictional character? — than just a raccoon in a dumpster? I see Rex Parker — who bills himself as King of CrossWorld (as opposed to just another king of one of many crossworlds) — also got tripped up by the capitalization:

And then there was the SE [corner of the puzzle], where the capitalization of Dumpster (49A: Raccoon in a Dumpster, e.g.) really, really threw me. I thought "Raccoon in a Dumpster" was a show or a meme or something. A title, at any rate. Certainly not a plain old raccoon in a plain old Dumpster-brand Dumpster. Argh.

Speaking of tripped up, I would never — like Rex — have written in "LSD" for the clue "Hallucinogen nicknamed 'embalming fluid.'" It took me a while to get to the right answer — PCP — but I know enough about LSD to know that "embalming fluid" is not an apt descriptive.

Anyway, here's the Wikipedia article for "Dumpster," which I'd never before understood as a brand name:

The word is a genericized trademark of Dumpster, an American brand name for a specific design.... The word "dumpster", first used commercially in 1936, came from the Dempster-Dumpster system of mechanically loading the contents of standardized containers onto garbage trucks, which was patented by Dempster Brothers in 1935. The containers were called Dumpsters, a blending of the company's name with the word dump....

Genericized. We should have been saying "Dumpster-brand garbage containers" all this time.

By the way, the answer for "Raccoon in a Dumpster" was "forager."

ADDED: I'm not coordinating my themes with James Lileks, but he happens to be writing about the NYT crossword this morning. Nothing about Raccoon in a Dumpster. He's talking about the perennial charge that the NYT crossword is old and white:

So the crossword is old and white. So what? Well, it’s in the Times, and thus it should be inclusive, and that means abandoning terms that Young Persons of Color don’t get, or, if they do get them, don’t find them appropriate for the newspaper....

This is a problem Rex Parker often writes about. I think what's more important than abandoning any terms is not having the puzzle full of words that older middle-class white people know fairly easily but other people would have to look up. It might be fun for me to fill in the names of characters from 1960s TV shows but just a drag for somebody who was born in 1995. As for now-frowned-upon terms like "Eskimo" — which Lileks discusses at the link — the problem is more the casual reliance on the word. It shouldn't be appearing in puzzles frequently, and it should have a clue that acknowledges that it's not currently in use, not something light-hearted like "______ Pie.'"

"Yes, it's an old motel sign. It doesn't fit the style of the grocery store, so I assumed they knocked down something else and saved the sign."

Writes the great James Lileks in the comments to my "square look at signs" post, which had my photo of this interesting sign with bland words on an exciting red shape I found in Orderville, Utah:



Lileks adds: "Voila! The sign in all its original beauty, here." And this is what he found:



Beautiful! I just love that the motel turned out to say Orderville.

"Even though we have sung China’s praises on this blog and social media, and saw some of the most incredible landscapes imaginable, the truth is we struggled there."

"China turned us into bad people. The pushing, the shoving, the pollution, the spitting, the lack of respect toward the environment and their fellow human beings, the oily food, the wasteful attitude that is now ingrained in their psyche, we could go on. This is not to say we didn’t have great experiences and meet wonderful people, because we definitely did. But those moments were far less common for us. We hate being negative, and it may sound arrogant or pathetic, but that is the truth.... We would snap at each other over small things, and these minor arguments would turn into all-day affairs. Alesha would get angry at me over trivial matters, and I would retaliate. In the end I stopped being the caring partner that I should be. I neglected Alesha’s feelings and she would attack me for neglecting her. I continued to neglect her because I couldn’t stand being attacked. It was a vicious cycle. Alesha started to resent travel, and I grew numb to it. Nothing excited us anymore. Just like you can lose your passion for a hobby when it becomes a job, we’re starting to become jaded with travel...."

From "This Couple Traveled The World Together And Admits It Strained Their Relationship/Social media makes traveling as a couple look like a honeymoon every day. One couple admits that that’s not always the case."

So part of this was that they made travel their job, but at least they were making money, not hemorrhaging money.

Email from James Lileks.

How cool is it to get email from James Lileks? Subject line: "Knew this would come in handy some day."

Body of the message:



Get it?

"How to Undress a Victorian Lady in Your Next Historical Romance."

"Authors Who Crave Verisimilitude Learn to Unlace a Corset in a Good Bodice Ripper."

Apparently, it was much harder to get the lady's clothes off than the average fiction-writer would have you believe. But, generally, in fantasies, clothes come off — even fall off! — much more easily than in real life.

This makes me think about "The Peculiar Art of Mr. Frahm."

"But no, it must be funny, because David is funny and hip. Right?"

"Or maybe not; maybe he’s actually a brackish, hermetically-souled guy who’s spen[t] the last twenty years going from table to table with a giant wooden grinder, asking anyone if they want some fresh-ground scorn with that. Say when. Or maybe he’s about as edgy as a soccer ball, and exists only to remind people they were Edgy once, and hence must be ever-blessed with the gift of Wryness and Irony. With those shields we can never grow old, you know. We’ll always be as sharp and perceptive as we were when we were sitting on a cast-off sofa in college, working through a midweek buzz, happily fellated by the preconceptions the TV so charitably provided."

"Maybe I’m old-school, but 'President fires CEO' looks as wrong as 'Pope fires Missile.'"

Lileks.

The headline.

"'Stump the Dog.' Sounds like the easiest TV game show ever."

Lileks tweets — referring, of course, to the Sussex spaniel that won Best in Show at the 133rd Annual Westminster Kennel Club show. A much-needed laugh for me (after doing those 2 death posts in a row).

IN THE COMMENTS: I'm not sure why this fit in the dog post, but there's a lot of talk about what Valentine present a man should get for a woman. It started when Michael H said:

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being 'Punch His Lights Out' and 10 being 'Cut Up His Clothes and Call a Junk Yard Dog Divorce Attorney', how would you rank receiving either of these gifts on Valentines Day?

A). A Vermont Teddy Bear wearing something cute.

B). A Pajama Gram.

Thanks.

AND: The ineffably adorable Psychedelic George says:

I know what women want:

a) Wool socks. Good thick wool socks. Not heavy and ugly, but cute good thick wool socks.

b) On a budget? Flannel. Otherwise—cashmere.

c) Tea. If it sounds disgusting to the male palate, she will love it. Try 'Vanilla Sleepytime."

d) A subscription to 'Oprah.'

e) All things Jane Austen.

f) Wine.

Remember what I said about the socks being cute. And wool.

ADDED: I've corrected the text above to change "Original George" to "Psychedelic George." I'd mixed up 2 of my Georges — just when I was doing my big "ineffably adorable" compliment. I hope his girlfriend doesn't think it was the other George who got her the cute wool socks. Psychedelic George has only been commenting here since February 5th — under that name at least — and he's really stood out as a great commenter. And I mean no disrespect to Original George.

MORE: I'm told Original George = Psychedelic George.

A little photowalk to test out what my new 24 mm lens can do.

Here's the new lens. (It was the right answer to the question "Notice anything?" — a post that got a lot of comments. It seems you like these puzzle photo posts.)

So I was testing out the lens today. First, as I was sitting in my favorite café, I caught a woman glancing over the top of the NYT to check out the fashion on the street.



Yes, we're wearing leggings in Madison. But the main thing I wanted to test out with the lens was architecture. Like this:



Yes, we're flying the French flag here in Madison. The reason I was concerned about the lens and architecture is that I want to be prepared to take photographs on the Wright & Like tour this Saturday. Check out the houses you can tour. If you come to the right Frank Lloyd Wright house at the right time, I'll be the docent showing off the living/dining area. I won't be combining photography with docenting, but I will on my own go to all the houses and photograph the exteriors (as I did on last year's tour: here). To join the tour:

Tour Headquarters | The Gobbler Restaurant, I-94 and Highway 26 Centrally located in Johnson Creek, WI

The Gobbler Restaurant, a not-to-be-missed futurist style building, will be our one day tour headquarters. The site is located south of Interstate Highway 94 (Exit 267) off Hwy 26 and will open at 8 a.m. for ticket and merchandise sales. Same day tickets are $55 (non members) and $50 (members).

James Lileks wrote about The Gobbler here: "This site is an appreciation of a lost slice of American architecture and design - a period when just about everything had run off the rails, and good taste, restraint and classic traditions were utterly abandoned." Ha ha. Please go over there and click through all the pages. It's hilarious. Anyway, there will be bad taste and good on the Wright & Like tour.

Here are some daisies with an adorable tiny bee:



And here's a fly who has no idea he's not as cute as the bee:



And here's a tree that's not cute either. In fact, it seems vaguely obscene:



Just a walk around 2 blocks with a new 24 mm lens in Madison, Wisconsin.

IN THE COMMENTS: I'm told it's not a bee. It's a hoverfly. I apologize to the flies. Apparently, some of them are very cute. And maybe some insults need to be hurled at bees. Zachary Paul Sire says:

Bees are not cute. They are ruthless killing machines. Trust me on this one.

Revenant say:

bees = the devil

Chip Ahoy say:

We're taught those wonderful bees pollinate flowers and that's a good thing. But then once I noticed one particular bee positively rape a flower bud. It didn't wait for the flower to bloom. It forced open the bud and climbed in, buzzed around inside, bzzzzzz bzzzzzz bzzzzz, came out covered in sticky pollen and looking kind of drunk. Bees are naughty.

The Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act.

Thank you, Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota.

Via James Lileks, via Instapundit.

Give me freedom of choice on my light bulbs, or I will start a movement to ban your evil mercury fluorescent bulbs of death.

"Ladies! Please!"

Oh, no! Mr. Whipple died!



Dick Wilson, who was 91, made over 500 commercials as Mr. Whipple, the man who tried to stop women from squeezing the Charmin. What was squeezing Charmin all about? Whipple was an agent of sexual repression, wasn't he? But he was so delightful, and he never succeeded in stopping the ladies from.... squeezing the Charmin.

ADDED: James Lileks thinks very deeply about Mr. Whipple:

Mr. Whipple [was] the fellow who tried to impose rules he himself could not follow, and thereby revealed not only the essential hypocrisy of the puritan impulse, but the uselessness of imposing any sort of “standards” on human behavior....

Uncle Jay Explains the News.

Today's key word, kids: Blogosphere.

ADDED: Beltway Blogroll transcribes my favorite part of the video:

Among the thousands of political blogs, he said, there is "one for every type of political prejudice." He divided them into helpful categories and flashed screenshots of examples for each category:

1) The "godless, socialist, hate America, Bush-is-Hitler, cut-and-run, nanny state, tree-hugging, amnesty, traitor, left-wing, scumbag blogs": Crooks & Liars, Daily Kos, The Huffington Post, Talking Points Memo and TalkLeft.

2) The "neocon, corporate, racist, Bush-is-god, flag, Bible, homophobe, cold-dead-hands, transfat, right-wing scumbag blogs": Instapundit, La Shawn Barber's Corner, Little Green Footballs, Michelle Malkin and SteynOnline.

3) And the "more independent-thinking, left or right, perhaps libertarian, make-up-your-mind, who's-side-are-you-on, mamby-pamby, scumbag blogs": Ann Althouse, BuzzMachine, Lileks.com and Andrew Sullivan.

Turning Japanese?

The comparison of American law to Japanese things in the last two posts was purely coincidental. The post quoting Ted Olson was already up when I read the email calling attention to the Lileks quote. So don't be expecting a theme day.

"Rational basis" and the "origami project."

As we were talking (and talking) yesterday about whether there's a rational basis for excluding same-sex couples from the benefits of marriage, a California appellate court issued a decision analyzing exactly that. Despite the numerous comments here yesterday, I did not think anyone had articulated an impressive basis for the law. Nevertheless, "rational basis" is a low standard, so I didn't think that a court would have much trouble declaring that it's found one -- assuming that the court was inclined to leave things to the legislature.

Here's how the California court put it (PDF):

[T]he opposite-sex requirement in the marriage statutes is rationally related to the state’s interest in preserving the institution of marriage in its historical opposite-sex form, while also providing comparable rights to same-sex couples through domestic partnership laws.... (See Lawrence v. Texas, supra, 539 U.S. at p. 585 (conc. opn. of O’Connor, J.) [stating in dicta that “preserving the traditional institution of marriage” is a legitimate state interest].)...

In addition to tradition, the Attorney General argues the marriage laws are justified by a related state interest in carrying out the expressed wishes of a majority of Californians....

Of course, the mere fact that a majority wishes it so cannot save an otherwise unconstitutional law. Majoritarian whims or prejudices will never be sufficient to sustain a law that deprives individuals of a fundamental right or discriminates against a suspect class.... But, in reviewing a challenged law under the rational basis test, we must give due deference to the Legislature’s considered judgment....

So there you have it. (Satisfied, Professor Schweber?)

An emailer points out that the concurring opinion by Judge Parrilli quotes a phrase from blogdom's James Lileks:

If respect for the rule of law is to be maintained, courts must accept and abide by their limited powers. The Constitution is not some kind of “origami project” to be twisted and reconfigured to accomplish ends better left to the democratic process.

Of course, it takes no origami level expertise to fold the judge's words back on themselves and accuse the court of twisting and reconfiguring the law to avoid interfering with what the majority wants. The key phrase is "better left to the democratic process." The judges think this matter is better left to the democratic process, and the Constitution can be folded into that shape. Predictably, the judges pat themselves on the back for this handiwork. They have, they tell us proudly, upheld the rule of law by accepting their limited powers. But we onlookers know all too well how to refold that one and say that the rule of law requires not only that a judge resist acting where there is no legal right, but also that a judge must say what the law is and do what it requires.

Crumb and Lileks.

Here's what James Lileks says today about Robert Crumb:

Never liked Crumb -- his work always gave off that foreign 60s vibe that was so beloved by a certain demographic of the Stoner-American community, the Loser Whom Time Passed By. By the mid-70s there was nothing so pathetic as someone who held on to 1968 as the ne plus ultra of civilization, and felt content to ride out the subsequent decade in a haze of genial aimlessness. I used to wait on these guys every night -- they'd get off work at the U, order up a pitcher of 3.2 beer, and wander over to the jukebox to play Janis Fargin' Joplin tunes, A sides AND B sides, with a little Marley to show off their spiritual side. Urgh. One of them drew Mr. Natural on the wall of the men's room. They were distinct from the other Stoner demographic, the guys who would play old Stones tunes and play pool and smoke the strongest cigarettes allowed by law and give you an Elvis sneer if you came back to empty the ashtrays. They hated, on sight, the other college stoner clique, the Sensitive Types who listened to complex progressive rock and ordered tea with six packets of honey. (Dude, pack the bong. This cut has 7/8 time AND a Mellotron!) But somehow, if you were a stoner, you were supposed to appreciate Crumb. I never got it.

Lileks really needs to see the movie "Crumb." He's mixing up people who like Crumb with Crumb himself, who can't stand those people either (and hates rock music). There are still plenty of despicable things about Crumb, but it's not that he's a 60s hippie -- it's something quite a bit more disturbing. Anyway, "Crumb" is a great movie -- far better than "American Splendor." I just watched "Crumb" again for about the sixth time the other day.

Actually, I see a similarity between Lileks and Crumb: both have a fascination with the styles of a bygone day. Lileks is fixated on the 60s and 70s, Crumb on the 20s and 30s. Crumb, though, is more horrified by the present and in love with the past, and it might be just about the reverse for Lileks.

This is as good a place as any to comment on Lileks' book, "Interior Desecrations," which did not make me laugh out loud a lot the way his earlier book, "The Gallery of Regrettable Foods," did. Here's why. I never had the experience of believing the kind of food in "Regrettable Foods" was good, so that book for me was entirely the experience of disbelief. How could anyone ever have thought that was a good idea?! But I vividly remember when plenty of people, including me, thought the extreme interior designs of the 70s were just fabulous. For me, reading "Interior Desecrations" was a very eerie, unsettling experience. Looking at those pictures, I could see that everything was a hideous, horrible mistake, but I simultaneously relived the feeling of loving those things and associating them with freedom, artiness, and good politics! For me to read that book was to see beauty and ugliness in the same thing at the same time -- far too intense of a confrontation with personal fallibility to make me laugh. So what I thought was going to be a big laugh -- and can recommend to you for a big laugh -- was for me a strangely profound experience.

Is "Merry Christmas"/"Happy Holidays" the new red/blue?

I see Metafilter is discussing the Lileks response to the James Woolcott response to Lileks, Instapundit, etc. etc., commenting on the way "Happy Holidays" is replacing "Merry Christmas." Now, the whole subject has been talked about so much that it's going to seem like saying "Merry Christmas" is throwing down the gauntlet. Is "Merry Christmas"/"Happy Holidays" the new red/blue? We're declaring political positions now with our choice of seasonal pleasantry?

In a related development, my local Borders bookstore is not playing any Christmas or seasonal music of any kind this week, it seems (based on my afternoon visits on Monday and Tuesday). Is this some sort of declaration of blue state-iness? Personally, I found it a relief not to hear Christmas music (or the related "it's snowing"/"I'm cold" music) while shopping, but I wonder if turning it off is now some sort of staunch political move.

People have worried about the commercialization of Christmas, but now we've got the politicization of Christmas. Must politics leak all over everything?

Smart computers, funny books.

Today, on Amazon, I ordered James Lileks' book "Interior Desecrations: Hideous Homes from the Horrible '70s." The mysterious inner workings of Amazon then spewed forth the suggestion that I buy P.J. O'Rourke's "Peace Kills," and the fact is I had just bought the CD version of "Peace Kills" at Borders a mere a two hours earlier. Kind of scary!

Anyway, I'm eager to read "Interior Desecrations," because I've never laughed so much at a book as at the previous Lileks book "The Gallery of Regrettable Food." Lileks has a way of looking at a photograph that you yourself can already see is pretty funny but then using just the right words to describe telling details in the photograph to make them much, much funnier than they already were. I mean, read his caption here ... the part about cats.

UPDATE: Hey, Lileks noticed that I bought his book. That's pretty cool.

Strange compliment of the day.

"Ann Althouse (who is a lot like Lileks except for the fact that she's occasionally interesting and could probably kick somebody's ass in a fight) ..."

That's from TBogg.

Gore and "brownshirts."

As discussed by James Lileks (via Instapundit), Al Gore is calling his internet critics "brownshirts." Quite aside from the general inadvisability of calling your political opponents fascists, you'd think that if Al Gore wanted to call someone a fascist, the last synonym he'd pick from the thesaurus would be "brownshirt," considering that he was famous for literally wearing a brown shirt. I'm just distracted into thinking about that whole Naomi Wolf/alpha male business again. He's lost control of his imagery in more ways than one.