There must be a problem: this question isn't actually about bras at all.

Pacing!

Questions:
1. Does the relative's law firm actually need her help? As in, does it represent any significant/noticeable professional hardship for her to leave, rather than staying for 6 more months?
2. Are there any family cultural issues with NYC?
3. Does she have any identifiable long term career goals towards which she could be ostensibly working?

I ask #2 because my gut reaction is that the family will view this move as an immature, Wanderjahr-type thing. "Oh, fancy Ms. Z. thinks she's too good for us, our town, our firm, and she has to go work as a waitress in NYC, like in 'Friends' or 'Rent.'"

I don't think the family has to be NYCphobic for that attitude, but I think that if they're NYCphiles, then it disappears. #3 also suggests a way to counter such a reaction: "But Mom, I want to get into being a mob lawyer, and NYC is the only place to go!"

IANAL so I probably shouldn't even be commenting, but I presume it's not the NY bar she's waiting to hear about - to what extent does that affect job prospects in NYC?

If she can make it there, she'll make it anywhere. It's up to you, New York, New York.

Never mind, I was skimming the post.

Might a more sensible way of managing the move be to find someplace cheap and local while she studies for the NY bar, fly out to take it, and keep working for the family firm until she passes?

This is very sound advice. Z does not have to be in NY to study for or take the bar. And in terms of looking for a job, her chances are generally much better if already employed.

It is much easier for me as a perspective employer to understand "Working in Iowa as a lawyer and now wants to move to NYC" than "I'm an un-employed law school graduate working as a dishwasher while I want for my bar exam score." The second situation screams out "there is a reason this person could not find a job as a lawyer. Do not find out the hard way." This may be unfair when applied to any specific person, but it is a presumption one would have to do a lot of work to overcome.

Indeed, depending on resume, there is no reason to wait until Z passes the bar to look for a job in NYC. If Z is a graduate from "a fairly prestigious law school" and has reasonable grades, not having yet passed the bar is not as big a problem as being off the law school to job conveyor belt to which LB refers.

Finally, while we generally focus on hiring associates coming out of BigLaw so as to keep our high end litigation boutique mystique (such as it is), Z should send me her resume and what she is looking for. It is possible I might have some specific thoughts if I have more facts. Lizard Breath has my work e-mail address.

Come to think of it, I have no idea if there's any sort of residence requirement. Anyone know?

There isn't. But it may mean having to take the exam in Albany.

Uh, sorry, I just saw the "show more." Sorry to the extent that 3 is LB-pwned.

"But Mom, I want to get into being a mob lawyer, and NYC is the only place to go!"

Now that's definitely some parochial east-coast elitist bullshit.

But still solid advice.

Idealist is dead on. It's easier to find a job in law from a current stable position than from a temp position.
Z needs to understand, though, that since she's off the biglaw conveyor belt, she's going to be making *a lot* less than she would at a big firm, and she's not going to get into a big firm for at least several years, and then only if she has a particularly hot specialty and is "lucky." (Biglaw is not the winning of the lottery it sometimes may seem to outsiders). That makes NY in particular very expensive.

And yeah, being a non-NY resident only means having to take the bar in Albany. Which isn't so bad.

It makes sense to wait a year. Then a prospective employer can look at Z's resume and think "wants to get out of small town practice, I can understand that" instead of "wow, only been in that firm 2 months and already skipping out."

And 'waiting a year' means sign up for the next available NY Bar Exam (Feb, I think, but I don't know what the deadline is for signing up in advance), take it, and by the time you've passed we're talking about more than six months from now already.

Ideal and balt are right about job hunting. The only way I could see moving before passing the bar making sense would be if you had a legal employer who would hire you pending your passing the NY bar.

since she's off the biglaw conveyor belt . . . she's not going to get into a big firm for at least several years

Assuming Z wants to spend some time in BigLaw, one tried and true path is getting a clerkship in the SDNY or EDNY. Of course, this takes grades and resume (and there is a year or two lag between hiring and starting), but clerks are highly sought after.

Depending on Z's areas of interest, Z might also consider looking for work with a state prosecutor's office. Federal prosecutorial experience can be even better for the future career, but that's usually something that people jump to after a year or two in BigLaw, not before -- and in New York, especially SDNY, it's a particularly tough job to get. I think there are jobs you can get in a DA's office straight out of a good law school, though I'm not sure. And the Manhattan DA's office may be an exception, because the geographical locale is so desirable. (That said, New York is more than Manhattan.)

I've had friends try and fail to get Manhattan DA jobs -- for a low paying gov't job, it's pretty competitive.

I'm not surprised. (Another example of the same thing is the DC public defender's office.) I do have one friend who got hired by the Manhattan DA, but she had a very good resume (straight out of a prestigious clerkship). I would guess she was above the minimum needed to get hired there, but I don't know by how much.

As far as it relates to legal career advice, this question is completely impossible to answer without more specific information, such as grades, school, the kind of law the person wants to practice, the nature of her relatives' firm and the reasons why she is there.

With that said, any law-related "temp" job for a lawyer, particularly a recent law school grad, is a huge red flag for most employers ans should be avoided.

And with all that said, I've never met anyone who has ever told me that a decision to escape an oppressive family and take a gamble on a tough life in a big city was a mistake. Even the struggling actors and screenwriters I know don't feel that a better option would have been to never have taken the chance.

She should just face the cold career reality and go to law school.

-

The non-disaster worst case is living in Hoboken and doing doc review in a midtown basement.

In my kinder and gentler days I'd have suggested cross posting to JD Jive.

Did this shaftee always live with family ? Moving a few times in early adulthood is recommended.

Hello,

Re: #3
1. Relative's law firm can definitely use her help, but specializes in an area somewhat removed from her ideal career path. Also, she's been doing more non-lawyery stuff there than she would like.
2. No real issues with NYC or anywhere else except that they worry about her being on her own and not making a success of it.
3. Yes, Z. knows the kind of law she wants to practice, and as per 1 above, she's not really getting a chance to learn it at her relative's firm.

Re: 7
Those all sound like good points. I wanted to keep it as anonymous as possible, since of course there are so many lawyers around here, but "fairly prestigious" in this case means a school that everyone in NYC has heard of, and that probably sends a good chunk of people to BigLaw every year (so far as I can tell). But yes, she's definitely off the treadmill, which is where she wants to be. I will definitely be suggesting that Z. read these comments of course, and will have her contact Idealist thru LB.

Re: 14
Z. doesn't really want to do anything with criminal law, so DA and PD would probably be a bad fit, to say the least.

Re: 17
Z.'s family isn't oppressive at all. It's just, you know, living with family when you're fully an adult and not in school or anything can be a little bit of a drag, even if the family is really nice (which they are).

Re: 20
Z. has had a broad range of life experiences, so it's not really a "see the world" thing as much as the specific offer of NYC and career prospects and not living in current city (which is not Z.'s hometown).

Wow, this is like writing a heebie-geebie logic puzzle or something! I really need to get Z. over here to get the benefit of the hivemind firsthand. Be nice to her! (Well, relatively nice. And I already told her about w-lfs-n, so she's forewarned on that front.) Thanks for all the advice so far!

Look for the job without waiting for the bar. Firms employ people prior to admission all the time.

And I already told her about w-lfs-n, so she's forewarned on that front

Forewarned is foreseduced.

she's definitely off the treadmill, which is where she wants to be

Do you mean that the treadmill is where she wants to be, or that off the treadmill is where she wants to be?

Based on a careful style analysis, 19 looks like spam by You Know Who to me.

careful style analysis is funny
hopefully you are not suggesting to delete it
the comment is that, not very poetic, but he's trying to reciprocate coz italics
i wish he'll take some handle and start to write whatever on topic, not foul things of course

well, since this is the NYC thread
i think i like our new lab better, it's warmer, more organized, spacey coz i'm throwing many things out
i can walk a few steps to the corridor window and have a look at Manhattan at the horizon

||

I'd like to demand ask for some generic, perfunctory sympathy from the Mineshaft. My new job pays well but is stressful, I have a million things to do almost literally, a week to do them in and an office move to execute in the middle of it. Also, I am a mighty Spartan warrior facing down a horde of evil, malformed Persians. One of the above sentences represents my genuine predicament. Thanks in advance for changing the entire focus of this goddamned thread to me and my petty daily grievances, regardless of the pause / play symbols bracketing this post.

|>

This is for DS: Sarah Palin's Wallpaper.

Any time, dude.

A thing of beauty. I knew I could count on Emerson.

my sympathies, DS
My new job pays well but is stressful, I have a million things to do almost literally, a week to do them in and an office move to execute in the middle of it.
good night

30: What an awesome video! Is there a Romanization available of the title? I am Cyrillically-challenged.

Apparently McCain is losing it.

Scary, not funny. For all I know this will strengthen him with some key demographic.

31: Veselaya karusel'—roughly "the merry merry-go-round", a series title like "Merry Melodies".

Also, Slack, sympathy. Fucking Persians.

32: The wallpaper in 28 will look just lovely in the Oval Office.

sorry slack. I'm sympathizing from afar. I'd offer Z advice but I'm totally unqualified to do so. don't know why I'm letting that stop me all on a sudden, but...

The info linked in 32 is unpersuasive to me thus far. It doesn't seem that bizarre that McCain would repeat the "we'll meet with our friends" line. I wish that instead of saying that in his first answers he refers to Mexico, etc., a Spanish speaker (anyone? anyone?) would offer at least a loose translation. I hope the English transcript will be released soon.

This, however, is immediately excellent:

"Obama also quoted McCain's vow to take on the "old boys' network" in Washington, adding:

The ol' boy network? In the McCain campaign, that's called a staff meeting.

I really didnt want to start my morning with the image of DS bare-chested, oiled up, and wearing a loin cloth.

There's more at Talking Points memo. There's no evidence in any record of the interview that McCain knows that Spain is an ally, knows that Spain is in Europe, or knows that Zapatero is PM of Spain. Some Spaniards thought McCain was deliberately snubbing Zapatero, but there's not enough evidence to conclude even that. The interviewer gave McCain one or two extra chances to redeem himself, with a couple of free clues, but he still failed to figure out what was happening.

Conclusion: McCain is a man of the people who is a master of foreign policy, and his election is virtually certain.

Oh yeah, and my perfunctory sympathies to you, Doc.

39: Yeah, I read the stuff at TPM. I'd just really like to know what he actually said in the first part instead of relying on others' characterization. I'm perfectly willing to believe it's true, but I want to deal in facts.

Audio I

Audio II seems to have been taken down

I was just trying to listen to audio 2. It appears to play, but I can't hear anything. The conspiracy widens.

Hmm. But I can't hear audio from any of the other stories either. Can you?

Just close your eyes and listen, Kraab. You'll hear the voices soon enough.

More

I don't actually understand Kraab's problem. (Generally, if it's good enough for JMM it's good enough for me. A lot of the moderates and centrists seem to be starting to wise up_. There are citations in there, and paraphrases. It's hardly just subjective impressions, even if there's no transcript. Aravosis and Mrs. Atrios (fluent in Spanish) have listened to the Spanish translation.

The possible conclusions seem to be that a.) McCain was having a big senior moment, b.) he doesn't know who Zapatero is and was treading water, or c.) he feels the need to snub Spain. "A" is compatible with either of the others, but "B" and "C" are alternatives.

Considering that he couldn't come up with a good answer after being told who Zapatero was, "A" seems likely.

Not to imply any compassion for McCain, but the sleep deprivation inherent in campaigns could also have something to do with it.

I'm with Sir K on this - I find it hard to believe the Republicans would nominate someone for president who is completely clueless on foreign affairs.

47: In all seriousness (please ignore snarky 48), I'd be sympathetic to anyone who had to maintain a coherent media presence every day - except there's not a chance in the world that any Republican would return the favor. Therefore, as a matter of purest logic, I can only conclude that McCain is senile.

That still leaves "A". The interviewer apparently gave McCain more than one chance to get back on his feet. Remember, he's picked up Hillary's "3:00 in the morning" meme. He doesn't even seem to be a daytime guy.

48: Just for VP, right. Because certainly George W. Bush is a powerhouse.

I really hate you people, by the way. Did Bill Clinton do that kind of thing? Gore? Kerry? In your areas of expertise, do you do that kind of thing? (Yes? Remind me not to hire you for anything.) McCain's foreign policy experience is one of his selling points.

Actually I hate all Democrats. It's just pure chance that we're not talking about the other minds problem by now, or some stupid thing Martin Van Buren said in 1841. Because we're Democrats.

Not to worry about 3:00 AM calls and knowing who the heads of all those countries are, he'll have people to do that for him. McCain will be concentrating on the mavericky vacuity that would be at the wavering core of his Presidency.

English version of McCain Interview

You people are sucking at giving Z. advice. SHe'll probably just end up a street person in Montreal, thanks to you all.

Now, on to the interesting stuff: I think that the McCain thing is a fairly big deal - the fact that the interviewer kept trying to coach McCain wipes away any excuses about "pop quizzes" or "campaign confusion": Anyone who reads the papers should be able to respond competently to a question about "Zapatero of Spain, in Europe". That said, there are 2 problems with this torpedoing McCain's candidacy:

1. This may well get swamped by the Wall St. news.
2. This is so bad that it's not clear to me that Obama can push it. I feel as if this is a deal where the press needs to get the story to a threshold with the public, at which point Obama can mention it without having to explain it. If you think about an attack ad (from Obama), if it has to explain what happened, it kind of has to offer a theory as to what happened, and you don't want to be explicit about senility (people would freak), nor do you want to take that off the table.

Maybe my concerns at the end can be handled by really good ad people, but, frankly, I think we all agree that such people are not working for the Obama campaign at the moment.

I'm astonished that McCain is getting sympathy about this. Don't say "McCain might have been genuinely confused, or maybe just tired, or maybe he was trying to snub Spain." Possibly true, but who gives a shit? Insted, say "John McCain thinks Spain is in Latin America. John McCain says you should vote for him because of all his supopsed 'experience', but he knows less about foreign affairs than your typical fourth grader. (Of couse we could have guessed this just knowing that McCain voted with George W. Bush over 90% of the time last year.)" This isn't Mauritius, it's SPAIN. Make John McCain defend explain for himself why what he said wasn't abysmally stupid. Let your accusation and his defense dominate a news cycle.

Snubbing Spain would be a very big point against him. That's not a defense. So would senility, though we're not supposed to talk about that.

Further: If/when Obama uses this, I think it would be fabulous to link it to Palin's clueless moment on the Bush Doctrine. Nothing eviscerates a political opponent like showing them to be fools, and Palin's "What aspect of the Doctrine, Charlie?" plus McCain's "I'll stand up to our enemies" reveal them to be Not Ready for Prime Time. Devastating.

Actually, maybe this pairing also resolves my concerns in 55: by linking McCain's hedging to Palin's hedging (which is so recognizable), you successfully categorize McCain's in the mind of the viewer. It sweeps past the idea that it's hard to keep track of all these other countries, or maybe you're accusing McCain of senility, or who fucking cares about Spain.

Oh, and it occurs to me that this is pretty well up Biden's alley, isn't it? A lot like the old, "Rudy said he doesn't know who is closer to nuclear weapons, Iran or NKorea."

Snubbing Spain would be a very big point against him.

Certainly not with the vast majority of Bush voters. The question is how many Bush voters have absorbed the Know-Nothing xenophobia of the modern Republican party, and how many are willing to walk away from anything stinking of that.

57: agreed, John, but it's still less effective to say "it must be a, or b, or c", even if they're all bad. Just pick the worst one and charge him with it. Let him get behind a microphone and explain why the real truth is one of the slightly-less-bad things.

59: There are plenty of people who would enjoy hearing an implicit snub of any European country, sure, but for McCain to stand up and say "Oh, I wasn't confused, I was just trying to insult Spain" would come across very poorly indeed.

38: In my defense, I look pretty good in a loincloth.

You find yourself attractive?

61: Good point; it's not something that works when you make it explicit - esp. since Spain was hit by al Qaeda, it's really easy for Obama to say, "Now John McCain is insulting our allies in the GWOT - Spain, who lost 352(?) people in al Qaeda attacks just 911 days after 9-11."

Still nothing on the front page at NYT.com

62 cries out for a Flickr-group posting.

63: When I see myself in a mirror, that one DiVinyls song goes through my head. You know the one.

64: And lost even more in Vantage Point. I watched it on the plane!

NO ONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION. Good headline from Adam Serwer at TAPPED.

I preferred "No one expects the Alaskan politician."

This story engaged my liberal crouch-mode, to my chagrin. "Oh, geographical knowledge? That's an egghead thing to criticize someone about."

69: Fortunately, it's not eggheaded to expect a grown man to be able to tell a Zapatero from a Zapatista.

Zapatero from a Zapatista

I assumed that was the mix-up he made.

Mini, if the excerpts that are linked above are anywhere close to accurate, the reporter was very explicit in clarifying who she was talking about and giving his name and title.

I'm kind of sympathetic to how unfair the foreign-dignitary "Gotcha!" stuff can be -- Bill Clinton famously won some stupid media trick on that by being able to name a Chechen military leader...although he said "Chechnyan". (Ha! Gotcha!)

But this incident, as noted upthread, was not a "Who is so-and-so?" or "What is his country/position?" kind of Trivial Pursuit. McCain was given that info. It was a policy question about whether the US would be willing to meet with a supposed ally. And it was asked by a reporter from a major, respected newspaper. So I'm OK with holding his feet to the fire.

This election will hinge on low information voters, like all of them. The fact that McCain bolloxes up shit like this isn't going to make a difference to them unless he keeps doing it and the media pick up on it as a pattern. For the base this is nothing, perhaps even a net plus, since spitting on euroweenies makes their dicks hard. It's the well intentioned middle of the road types who need to be swayed, and this isn't going to do it.

Yes, the reporter tried to remind him that spain is in Europe by saying "What about Europe?" But he responded to that with "What about me what?"

You can't expect an old-school guy like John McCain to understand what someone is talking about in a crazy foreign accent like that reporter had. I'll bet his hearing was damaged when he was a POW, although he doesn't like to talk about things like that.

"What about my what?" answered "What about your up?"

73: The fact that McCain bollixes this sort of thing up is presumably part of why Obama is polling in the lead.

John, I never said I didn't believe it could be true, just that I wanted to check out the evidence. Once I am able to do so (my flight's about to take off), I'll issue my ruling.

Mini, if the excerpts that are linked above are anywhere close to accurate, the reporter was very explicit in clarifying who she was talking about and giving his name and title.

I know my reaction is stupid. We should hold his feet to the fire. But I'm not sure how to best frame it for the low-info community, per 73. You always have to overcome the "well, I don't know that either" factor.

Idea: a video superimposing the interview with bone-simple facts, like "Spain is a close ally of the US," "Spain is not in the Western Hemisphere," and "McCain has [done whatever w/r/t Spain-US relations]." Let people see how basic the errors are and tell just by viewing that he's being either stupid or senile, without being all "don't you see how important this is?!".

Does McCain in Spain stay mainly sounding lame?

But seriously, could McCain be a pump-head? Has he ever been on the artificial heart?

Otherwise we've got Alzheimers, Parkinsons, or the combo platter, Lewy Body dementia.

Or nothing. I ain't no doctor.

You always have to overcome the "well, I don't know that either" factor.

I don't know anything about political communications, and I'm happy it's not my field. But the thing is, this IS NOT one of those "I didn't know that either" situations, because it's not about the guy's name.

It's about whether somebody is on our side. And every American *does* have opinions about which countries are on "our side." England is. France isn't. Blah blah.

Someone should ask McCain if he foresees the possibility of taking military action against Spain.

A very nice angle for Obama occurred to me: "Senator McCain has criticized me for saying that I'd be willing to meet with the leaders of Cuba and Iran. This surprised me, since American presidents met with Soviet Russia - a far worse regime and more dangerous threat than these - throughout the Cold War. But now that we know that he is unwilling to meet with the leader of Spain, I'm not so surprised."

Sheunemann has officially announced that McCain said this because he's mad at Spain. This won't get him out of this.

OK, McCain's campaign says he was purposely refusing to commit to a meeting with the Spanish president:

McCain foreign policy adviser Randy Sheunemann said McCain's answer was intentional.

"The questioner asked several times about Senator McCain's willingness to meet Zapatero (and id'd him in the question so there is no doubt Senator McCain knew exactly to whom the question referred). Senator McCain refused to commit to a White House meeting with President Zapatero in this interview," he said in an e-mail.

But I'm not sure how to best frame it for the low-info community, per 73.

Jesus. You don't. Someone who really truly is so low-info as not to care whether McCain can hear, process and answer a simple question is not your target. Someone who does care is. There are enough people who will care to make it worth talking about. The seriously low-info voters are what you have hairstylists and makeup artists for.

This story engaged my liberal crouch-mode, to my chagrin. "Oh, geographical knowledge? That's an egghead thing to criticize someone about."

What?

I can see that criticizing some bloke down the pub for not knowing something trivial might be an asshole move.

Politicians, people in positions of power, the well-educated, etc. Fuck that shit. Mock the ignorant.

McCain is still mad at Spain for Voting Aznar out of office after the Madrid bombing, and Zapatero's subsequent withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq. Especially those troops wearing the Cruz de Santiago de Compostela.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/aug2003/spai-a12.shtml

ttaM,

Yeah. Even we clueless ignorant Americans still mostly expect someone to know that Spain is in Europe and is generally a friend to the US.

It is not a Jeopardy question like "What language to they speak in Brazil."

Are we really that ignorant? (well, OK, bad question)

84: ttAM, I don't say this much, but I think in this case your outside-the-US perspective is a handicap. Avoiding coming off as a picky, overintellectual scold is important in political life here. It's really easy for "mocking the ignorant" to slip-slide into "Obama's an elitist who thinks you're stupid."

(I note that I still have my own biases to overcome, because seeing TLL link to the World Socialists made me smile.)

re: 88

Avoiding coming off as a picky, overintellectual scold is important in political life here.

I don't mind being told that mocking the ignorant goes down badly among the ignorant.

Kidding aside, surely the operative factor here is how you do it?

My mind is so open my brain fell out, Witt.

surely the operative factor here is how you do it?

Yes, absolutely. What I was trying to say is the the zone of "acceptable ways to do it" is narrower in the US than the UK (in my modestly-informed opinion). Thus, it's easier for a politician, stand-up comic, political pundit, blog commenter, whatever to trip themselves up and do something that backfires.

(I mean, I have good friends, not unlike the folks at the "mommy blog" Mary Catherine was talking about recently, who were distressed that Obama was so "negative" and "critical" in his convention speech. They are dyed-in-the-wool Democrats but they don't generally like rough-and-tumble or gotcha techniques -- and it doesn't take much to seem rough.)

re: 91

Here, comedians would just straight up say:

"That McCain, eh? What a stupid ignorant Alzheimer's ridden ignorant old bastard."

Then start being nasty.

re: 92

Jesus. How do these precious little flowers get by?

I don't mean to be nasty, but, fucksake. Isn't it funny though how that perception of roughness only ever seems to cut one way?

Similar to 92, my good friend remarked last night that it bothers her that both sides lie so much.

Yes, my friend (who always votes Demcoratic, of course) mournfully posted a link to one of those patented Washington Post articles about how 50% of the lies were by Obama/Biden and 50% of the lies were by McCain/Palin. I pointed out that the things identified as "lies" by the Democrats were not actually lies, but merely statements of fact that did not include all available facts that were vaguely related to the original statement and therefore could be seen as unfair despite being accurate. But no, it's far less controversial to seek exact balance.

"They're no better than we are" is the primary Republican defense. This is the innoculation method -- accuse your opponent of doing what you're planning to do. It works. It goes along with "attack your enemy's strengths".

I had to listen to a bureaucrat recently excuse the impenetrable complexity of her agency's process by saying that the US was better at it than any other country she's ever lived in (and she's a diplomat's daughter, so that's a lot).

I wanted very badly to make the analogy that saying "We're better than other countries that are terrible" is a little like saying "Yes, I slap my daughter, but other people KILL theirs." The point of comparison is wrong.

Interesting email over at Sully's place about Palin and magical thinking.

Take ordinary evangelism and inject it with a load of self-serving, complacent materialism, and you've got prosperity theology.

Besides hoping for mysterious blessings from magical, unknowable sources, you also never ask yourself where the good things you get came from. So a propserity Christian could be involved in, e.g., supervising slave labor in Saipan, and the lesson they'd get from it would be that God's ways are mysterious and that for his own reasons he had blessed them.

"That McCain, eh? What a stupid ignorant Alzheimer's ridden ignorant old bastard."

John McCain: so old, he's still bitter about the Spanish-American war.

As a slip, it's not worth going all indignant about, but surely it is worth quite a bit of mockery.

max
['What a strange thread.']

John McCain: so old, he's still bitter about the Spanish-American war.

Absolutely brilliant.

I'm surprised I haven't seen a similar line earlier.

I'm astonished that McCain is getting sympathy about this.

Oh, I'm sympathetic. That poor, confused old man deserves the very best nursing home to care for him in his declining years. The White House should not be that nursing home.

78: Spain is not in the Western Hemisphere

Um.

Since McCain has so utterly insulted Spain and its people, the appropriate apology will include a return of Florida to their possession.

104: Oh, come on. The continent it's attached to is almost all in the Eastern Hemisphere.

Picky, picky, picky. (Actually, I can't visualize the map for shit. Is Spain all west of Greenwich, or does it straddle the meridian?)

or does it straddle the meridian?)

Spain is no flip-flopper!

The Kraab doth pronounce: Now that I've listened to the interview, I can almost accept the explanation that McCain wasn't sure whom she was talking about at first because he didn't hear the interviewer well enough -- some combination of being on the phone and her speed and accent.

But if he couldn't hear her clearly you'd think he would have asked her to repeat it, so that suggests to me that he didn't recognize the name but thought that he should.

Either way, I don't think it's enough to have him labeled as senile, but it'll get talked about and if he does this once or twice more, it'll be a big problem.

(Free wifi at the Charlotte airport! Woo!)

106: McCain is a stickler when it comes to longitude!

106: In my mind I thought it was all west of the Greenwich meridian. But in meatworld, the northeastern portion (including Barcelona) is east of it.

The stupidity from his campaign compounds the slip itself. Old, out-of-it, to proud to admit it, and paid bloodthirsty liars with their own agendas as top advisors. What could go wrong?

104: Hey, how 'bout that. I never connected the location of the Prime Meridian with what falls in which hemisphere.

I think that the French are still mad that the Prime Meridian runs through Greenwich and not Paris. For a while there were competing systems.

LB, I suck at geography so I got a world map for about 10 bucks from Kinkos and put it above and behind my computer display. No lie.

It is PC and somewhat work related cause we've got labs all over the world.

JP nails it.

I think that the French are still mad that the Prime Meridian runs through Greenwich and not Paris. For a while there were competing systems.

Probably not so much now that greenwich mean time is defunct and the standard is set in France.

Probably not so much now that greenwich mean time is defunct and the standard is set in France.

Incidentally, this is the reason every time I'm pwned - my computer is still set to GMT, which is of course slightly behind FranceMetricTime, or whatever it's called.

116: UTC prolly. You're pwnage is in small fractions of a second, I guess.

see how well i avoided explaining the joke?

So pwnage is caused by the perfidious Frogs. I shouda node.