May 30, 2005
WAITIN' ON THE JUDGEMENT DAY:
Europe stunned (Leader, May 30, 2005, Guardian)
France's emphatic rejection of the EU constitutional treaty is a stunning blow at a time when the continent faces grave economic problems and political challenges. Much comment in recent weeks has suggested that a no vote, while embarrassing, could be shrugged off, since the treaty of Nice will allow the union to carry on functioning.But that misses the point that the constitution was agreed unanimously by 25 member states representing 455 million people from Helsinki to the Azores and from Nicosia to Warsaw. It represents a considerable investment of political capital and is a carefully-crafted compromise between different visions of the union, streamlining its functioning and boosting its clout in a world dominated by an unassailably powerful US. Despite the dire warnings of eurosceptics, it sets limits on integration. Its defeat - by 55% - 45% according to initial official figures - is very bad news for those who want a more coherent Europe punching at its weight.
Except that it's in the same weight-class as Karen Carpenter. Posted by Orrin Judd at May 30, 2005 12:00 AM
It's a new century oj. Time to upgrade from Karen Carpenter to Lindsay Lohan.
Posted by: Pat H at May 30, 2005 1:19 AMExcept that Lindsay Lohan is a healthy lass, and not at all waif-like.
Kate Beckinsale, on the other hand, is quite lithe and lean.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at May 30, 2005 4:10 AMOrrin Judd said:
"But that misses the point that the constitution was agreed unanimously by 25 member states representing 455 million people from Helsinki to the Azores and from Nicosia to Warsaw."
There are only 25 member states in total, and although the leaders provisionally accepted the constitution, only 9 states have actually ratified it (Austria, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain). This is far from representative of the whole of Europe.
A lot of people spent a lot of time fighting to try and maintain their independence from a united Europe; we have a heavyweight history to consider.
Posted by: Tad at May 30, 2005 5:36 AMTad:
The story says that.
History is over. Europe's present is the problem.
Posted by: oj at May 30, 2005 7:38 AMSo it does, and all the more reason not to be a Guardian reader.
Europe's present may, indeed, be the problem, but until History is forgotten there can't be a cohesive Europe. While you can still see the ruins of attempted unity it's hard to hand over any responsibilities to a united body. It's in the blood.
Posted by: Tad at May 30, 2005 8:12 AMMichael, Lohan now makes Kate Beckinsale look like Kirstie Alley. Check the link if you dare (sfw of course):
http://www.thesuperficial.com/image.php?path=/archives/ll22.jpg
Posted by: Pat H at May 30, 2005 10:50 AMPat H:
Lohan's got nothing on Mary Kate Olson. Plus half of Lohan's weight loss was due to the surgical removal of the shadows on her shoes.
Posted by: Fred Jacobsen (San Fran) at May 30, 2005 11:56 AMRumors abound that she is on the old fashioned Hollywood Diet: Eat, Snort, Puke. Repeat as needed.
Posted by: Pat H at May 30, 2005 3:09 PMMary Kate Olson is good. Cameron Diaz looks like an animated skeleton. Lohan is a porker.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at May 30, 2005 4:27 PMPat if your link is telling the truth you are right about her diet. Although why a man of your stature would know this is a disturbing question.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at May 30, 2005 4:38 PMRobert,
Closets, skeletons etc.
Robert:
I must come to the aid of my friend and colleague Pat H.
You said:
"Except that Lindsay Lohan is a healthy lass, and not at all waif-like."
Behold, the Lohan before (All-American girl) and after (jonesing junkie) pix: http://www.defamer.com/hollywood/gossip/lindsay-lohan/index.php#dept-of-false-advertising-snl-selling-last-years-lohan-104301
You said:
"Mary Kate Olson is good. Cameron Diaz looks like an animated skeleton. Lohan is a porker."
Check out this Mary Kate photo, then tell me where she fits in terms of animated skeleton: http://www.thesuperficial.com/archives/000942.html
Both sets of pictures, of course, are work-safe.
You said:
"Pat if your link is telling the truth you are right about her diet. Although why a man of your stature would know this is a disturbing question."
Not to speak for Pat H (is 'he' a man?), but, as the father of a fifteen-year old girl, I try to keep up with this celebrity nonsense because I find this obsession with weight by teenage girls to be ridiculous, if not destructive.
So, Robert, you may now visit these tabloid sites in the spirit of research. I gotta go before oj bans me from his site.
Posted by: Fred Jacobsen (San Fran) at May 30, 2005 10:11 PMIt is of little real importance, but to clear up the occasional confusion, I have officially changed my signature to Patrick H.
And Fred, of course such sites are ONLY for spirited research. I mean, nobody (cough) could actually get enjoy a sight like "The Superficial" could they?
Also, I'll be in the Bay Area on the 11th then fishing up at Clear Lake for a week. I hope the weather's pleasant.
Posted by: Patrick H at May 31, 2005 1:26 AM