Print

[A Friend of Charlie]

Morning, muchachos.

Hola, Bret.

[razgueado]

Today's Birthdays

Those born on this date are under the sign of Scorpio. They include:

scholar Desiderius Erasmus in 1466;
writer Ivan Turgenev in 1818;
costumer Edith Head in 1897;
actor Elsa Lanchester in 1902;
writer Evelyn Waugh in 1903;
artist Francis Bacon in 1909;
scientist Dr. Jonas Salk in 1914;
Baseball Hall of Fame member Bowie Kuhn in 1926;
actor Joan Plowright in 1929;
musician Charlie Daniels in 1936;
Basketball Hall of Fame member Lenny Wilkens in 1937 (age 88);
actor Jane Alexander in 1939 (age 86);
actor Dennis Franz in 1944 (age 81);
musician Wayne Fontana (Mindbenders) in 1945;
musician/actor Telma Hopkins (Tony Orlando and Dawn) in 1948 (age 77);
Olympic/National Track and Field Hall of Fame member/TV personality Caitlyn Jenner in 1949 (age 76);
actor Annie Potts in 1952 (age 73);
entrepreneur Bill Gates in 1955 (age 70);
musician Stephen Morris (New Order/Joy Division) in 1957 (age 68);
musician William Reid (Jesus and Mary Chain) in 1958 (age 67);
comedian/TV personality Sheryl Underwood in 1963 (age 62);
actor Lauren Holly in 1963 (age 62);
actor Jami Gertz in 1965 (age 60);
comedian Andy Richter in 1966 (age 59);
actor Chris Bauer in 1966 (age 59);
actor Julia Roberts in 1967 (age 58);
actor Jeremy Davies in 1969 (age 57);
musician Ben Harper in 1969 (age 56);
musician Brad Paisley in 1972 (age 53);
actor Joaquin Phoenix in 1974 (age 51);
actor Gwendoline Christie in 1978 (age 47);
musician Dave Tirio (Plain White T's) in 1979 (age 46);
actor Matt Smith in 1982 (age 43);
actor Finn Wittrock in 1984 (age 41);
actor Troian Bellisario in 1985 (age 40);
musician Frank Ocean in 1987 (age 38);
actor Devon Murray in 1988 (age 37);
actor Sierra McCormick in 1997 (age 28);
actor Nolan Gould in 1998 (age 27);
Olympic gymnast/TV personality Stephen Nedoroscik in 1998 (age 27).

Fifteen.

[LuvTooGolf]

Today's Over/Under is 16.

15

And Brad Paisley's bday is today, talk about another brush with a coinkydink.

Lost me on that one.

Earlier mention about his WS national anthem performances.

[A Friend of Charlie]

I understand you meant this for Travelin Dave, but allow me to answer, so that you can fully get my position.

Yes, I believe that there should be structures outside the executive branch that impose limits upon what the executive branch does with the resources that the executive branch controls. I always assumed this was part of the checks and balances our forefathers intended. But I'm sure you know the old adage about assuming.

Well, there is an open question about the separation of powers and the powers of the chief executive, which the SCOTUS is likely to settle this term as it reconsiders Humphrey's Executor v United States.  But the monuments in Washington DC are under the auspices of the National Park Service, which is an executive branch agency, and the White House itself is also under the auspices of the Committee to Preserve the White House (which was created by an executive order of LBJ) and the Capitol Planning Commission, which was enabled by an act of Congress, but is also an executive branch agency populated by presidential appointees. 

Followup question: Does it disturb you to learn that in 2009 Barack Obama, with private funding, installed basketball hoops and markings on Dwight Eisenhower's tennis court, and didn't submit the plans to the National Capitol Planning Commission?  Or is that too minor a change to bother with?

I hadn't considered the basketball court change because it was relatively minor, but if that was done without submitting plans, then it does bother me. I wonder though, did Ike submit plans to put the tennis courts in to begin with?

I erred.  It was Teddy Roosevelt who installed the tennis court.  And no, he did not submit the plans for approval, because there was no agency yet in existence to which they could be submitted.  The National Capitol Planning Commission wasn't created until 1924.

Either way, I was just curious. In the end, I don't have a say on whether or not something gets torn down, or built up in D.C. so this conversation is moot.

[LuvTooGolf]

Gotta log out, drop the oldest off at work and head to the dentist. Hazzuh!

[razgueado]

If you're trying to correlate putting a basketball hoop on a tennis court with demolishing a large part of a building and replacing it with a building twice the size of the White house, I guess you won't get it  Of course each president has changed the interior.  There have been swimming pools, bowling alleys that don't alter the exterior facade.  While I thing the patio is in poor taste, from a historical perspective, not an issue.  Putting big flagpoles outside, tacky and out of perspective, but go for it.  Planting roses, vegetables, your favorite pot variety, go for it. Yes, the major gutting and addition of a balcony were major but necessary for preservation of the building.  The balcony addition while controversial was within the architectural aesthetic.  This addition fits in as well with the architecture as those stupid ferris wheels in Paris, London, Seattle and wherever else.

Well, architecture is outside the scope of my inquiry.  But now I'm curious.  What is so radically different about the architecture of the ballroom?  James McCrery is a recognized expert in neo-classical architecture, and these elevations look to me like they match the White House architecture.  But you disagree?  Why?

Scale.  you want a garage twice as big as the main house?

If you want something that big for function, you put it behind the main house (don't know if there is room).

There we run into the question of what is the front of the White House, and what is the back.  The address is on Pennsylvania Avenue, but there is no defined "front door" to the White House.  Employees enter either the West Wing directly or through the East Wing, and guests at state dinners enter through the East Wing, which is why Teddy Roosevelt first built the East Wing in 1902, because 200 dignitaries arriving, mostly in carriages then, at the door facing Pennsylvania Ave jammed up the avenue and pissed off the locals.  So he constructed the East Wing, which has its own long private drive off of Pennsylvania Ave and a turnaround at the south end for carriages and automobiles. 

Effectively, most of the square footage occupied by the ballroom will be "behind" the White House, which is to say, to the south of Pennsylvania Ave. To build a ballroom anywhere but as the East Wing would entail far more excavation, and would obscure the view of the White House from the President's Park and the Ellipse. And to my mind, that would be a greater violation of "history" than to put the ballroom where state guests have been arriving since Teddy Roosevelt.

It's not clear to me whether the structure will be taller than the White House.

But, okay, it's the size of the thing that violates your sense of aesthetics.  I get it. 

[razgueado]

I understand you meant this for Travelin Dave, but allow me to answer, so that you can fully get my position.

Yes, I believe that there should be structures outside the executive branch that impose limits upon what the executive branch does with the resources that the executive branch controls. I always assumed this was part of the checks and balances our forefathers intended. But I'm sure you know the old adage about assuming.

Well, there is an open question about the separation of powers and the powers of the chief executive, which the SCOTUS is likely to settle this term as it reconsiders Humphrey's Executor v United States.  But the monuments in Washington DC are under the auspices of the National Park Service, which is an executive branch agency, and the White House itself is also under the auspices of the Committee to Preserve the White House (which was created by an executive order of LBJ) and the Capitol Planning Commission, which was enabled by an act of Congress, but is also an executive branch agency populated by presidential appointees. 

Followup question: Does it disturb you to learn that in 2009 Barack Obama, with private funding, installed basketball hoops and markings on Dwight Eisenhower's tennis court, and didn't submit the plans to the National Capitol Planning Commission?  Or is that too minor a change to bother with?

I hadn't considered the basketball court change because it was relatively minor, but if that was done without submitting plans, then it does bother me. I wonder though, did Ike submit plans to put the tennis courts in to begin with?

I erred.  It was Teddy Roosevelt who installed the tennis court.  And no, he did not submit the plans for approval, because there was no agency yet in existence to which they could be submitted.  The National Capitol Planning Commission wasn't created until 1924.

Either way, I was just curious. In the end, I don't have a say on whether or not something gets torn down, or built up in D.C. so this conversation is moot.

Historically, when it comes to the White House, it is the sitting President who says what happens.  And even though the National Capitol Planning Commission was formed in 1924, it really doesn't have any formal jurisdiction over the White House. Its approval is a courtesy, and given that the chair is also the president's Staff Secretary, it pretty much becomes a rubber-stamp. LBJ created the Committee for the Preservation of the White House by executive order, which really has the most influence.  But both of these commissions are populated by presidential appointees.

There is really no administrative power over the White House beyond the Executive Branch - no "checks or balances" - except if the President wants Congress to fund changes to it, in which case they have the power of the purse.  And there's the power of public opinion, which swings some weight.  Short of that, Presidents can do with the White House pretty much as they will.

[A Friend of Charlie]

I understand you meant this for Travelin Dave, but allow me to answer, so that you can fully get my position.

Yes, I believe that there should be structures outside the executive branch that impose limits upon what the executive branch does with the resources that the executive branch controls. I always assumed this was part of the checks and balances our forefathers intended. But I'm sure you know the old adage about assuming.

Well, there is an open question about the separation of powers and the powers of the chief executive, which the SCOTUS is likely to settle this term as it reconsiders Humphrey's Executor v United States.  But the monuments in Washington DC are under the auspices of the National Park Service, which is an executive branch agency, and the White House itself is also under the auspices of the Committee to Preserve the White House (which was created by an executive order of LBJ) and the Capitol Planning Commission, which was enabled by an act of Congress, but is also an executive branch agency populated by presidential appointees. 

Followup question: Does it disturb you to learn that in 2009 Barack Obama, with private funding, installed basketball hoops and markings on Dwight Eisenhower's tennis court, and didn't submit the plans to the National Capitol Planning Commission?  Or is that too minor a change to bother with?

You know it is.

Actually, I really don't, and that's the point of this discussion.  I'm trying to understand where people draw lines between what is sacred and profane when it comes to the White House property.  People were very upset that Trump replaced the grass in the Rose Garden with a limestone patio.  But nobody was upset that Obama stuck basketball hoops on the tennis court and had basketball markings painted on it.  So are the grounds sacred or not?

I expect nobody here would disagree that the gutting of the interior of the White House and installation of a steel infrastructure under Truman was necessary, especially after a piano nearly fell through the second floor.  But how does that gutting square with what Kathleen Willey has called "the overwhelming history" that has been lost by knocking down the East Wing?  Is the history in the walls, or is it just hanging on the walls?  Because if it's in the walls, then every single presidential administration since John Adams has destroyed history by building and tearing out offices inside.  But if the history is hanging on the walls, or sitting on the floors, then why are we upset that a president has knocked down the walls to rebuild them? 

Also, when do the walls become historic?  The last time the East Wing was knocked down and rebuilt was 1942.  So is it after 50 years that a structure becomes historic?  80 years? Is a building immediately historic if it is erected on the White House grounds?

I'm not being flippant, I promise.  I really don't get where people put their boundaries, and clearly people have placed them in different places in their minds than I have.  So I'm trying to understand.

I think there is a degree of flippancy there, but the point is made. So I never heard this before, and I admit it may have to do with the media being more left-leaning. Therefore, it is difficult for me to comment if I don't know all the facts. In this case, I'll have to use my gut feelings and say that the President or someone on his staff has found yet another loophole.

[razgueado]

I understand you meant this for Travelin Dave, but allow me to answer, so that you can fully get my position.

Yes, I believe that there should be structures outside the executive branch that impose limits upon what the executive branch does with the resources that the executive branch controls. I always assumed this was part of the checks and balances our forefathers intended. But I'm sure you know the old adage about assuming.

Well, there is an open question about the separation of powers and the powers of the chief executive, which the SCOTUS is likely to settle this term as it reconsiders Humphrey's Executor v United States.  But the monuments in Washington DC are under the auspices of the National Park Service, which is an executive branch agency, and the White House itself is also under the auspices of the Committee to Preserve the White House (which was created by an executive order of LBJ) and the Capitol Planning Commission, which was enabled by an act of Congress, but is also an executive branch agency populated by presidential appointees. 

Followup question: Does it disturb you to learn that in 2009 Barack Obama, with private funding, installed basketball hoops and markings on Dwight Eisenhower's tennis court, and didn't submit the plans to the National Capitol Planning Commission?  Or is that too minor a change to bother with?

You know it is.

Actually, I really don't, and that's the point of this discussion.  I'm trying to understand where people draw lines between what is sacred and profane when it comes to the White House property.  People were very upset that Trump replaced the grass in the Rose Garden with a limestone patio.  But nobody was upset that Obama stuck basketball hoops on the tennis court and had basketball markings painted on it.  So are the grounds sacred or not?

I expect nobody here would disagree that the gutting of the interior of the White House and installation of a steel infrastructure under Truman was necessary, especially after a piano nearly fell through the second floor.  But how does that gutting square with what Kathleen Willey has called "the overwhelming history" that has been lost by knocking down the East Wing?  Is the history in the walls, or is it just hanging on the walls?  Because if it's in the walls, then every single presidential administration since John Adams has destroyed history by building and tearing out offices inside.  But if the history is hanging on the walls, or sitting on the floors, then why are we upset that a president has knocked down the walls to rebuild them? 

Also, when do the walls become historic?  The last time the East Wing was knocked down and rebuilt was 1942.  So is it after 50 years that a structure becomes historic?  80 years? Is a building immediately historic if it is erected on the White House grounds?

I'm not being flippant, I promise.  I really don't get where people put their boundaries, and clearly people have placed them in different places in their minds than I have.  So I'm trying to understand.

I think there is a degree of flippancy there, but the point is made. So I never heard this before, and I admit it may have to do with the media being more left-leaning. Therefore, it is difficult for me to comment if I don't know all the facts. In this case, I'll have to use my gut feelings and say that the President or someone on his staff has found yet another loophole.

I'm really not being flippant, T.  TD objects to the size of the ballroom, and while I don't, I can understand his reasoning.  That's something that makes sense to me. I'm still unclear what the heck Kathleen Willey is talking about when she refers to the "overwhelming history" of the East Wing.  I can't find any historic event that occurred in the East Wing.  It wasn't even the domain of the First Lady until 1977.  And I don't see how walls can have history in them in any real sense, and in any case the walls get futzed with every time there's a new president.  It's never crossed my mind what presidents do with the White House, whether Democrat or Republican.  But I'm listening, because it obviously crosses some people's minds.

I do confess that I think a lot of the outrage has to do with who the sitting president is, and that if Obama had done it, there wouldn't be the same outrage (except perhaps by Republicans). But I'm exploring it here because y'all tend to be more reasonable.

[A Friend of Charlie]

Today's Birthdays

Those born on this date are under the sign of Scorpio. They include:

scholar Desiderius Erasmus in 1466;
writer Ivan Turgenev in 1818;
costumer Edith Head in 1897;
actor Elsa Lanchester in 1902;
writer Evelyn Waugh in 1903;
artist Francis Bacon in 1909;
scientist Dr. Jonas Salk in 1914;
Baseball Hall of Fame member Bowie Kuhn in 1926;
actor Joan Plowright in 1929;
musician Charlie Daniels in 1936;
Basketball Hall of Fame member Lenny Wilkens in 1937 (age 88);
actor Jane Alexander in 1939 (age 86);
actor Dennis Franz in 1944 (age 81);
musician Wayne Fontana (Mindbenders) in 1945;
musician/actor Telma Hopkins (Tony Orlando and Dawn) in 1948 (age 77);
Olympic/National Track and Field Hall of Fame member/TV personality Caitlyn Jenner in 1949 (age 76);
actor Annie Potts in 1952 (age 73);
entrepreneur Bill Gates in 1955 (age 70);
musician Stephen Morris (New Order/Joy Division) in 1957 (age 68);
musician William Reid (Jesus and Mary Chain) in 1958 (age 67);
comedian/TV personality Sheryl Underwood in 1963 (age 62);
actor Lauren Holly in 1963 (age 62);
actor Jami Gertz in 1965 (age 60);
comedian Andy Richter in 1966 (age 59);
actor Chris Bauer in 1966 (age 59);
actor Julia Roberts in 1967 (age 58);
actor Jeremy Davies in 1969 (age 57);
musician Ben Harper in 1969 (age 56);
musician Brad Paisley in 1972 (age 53);
actor Joaquin Phoenix in 1974 (age 51);
actor Gwendoline Christie in 1978 (age 47);
musician Dave Tirio (Plain White T's) in 1979 (age 46);
actor Matt Smith in 1982 (age 43);
actor Finn Wittrock in 1984 (age 41);
actor Troian Bellisario in 1985 (age 40);
musician Frank Ocean in 1987 (age 38);
actor Devon Murray in 1988 (age 37);
actor Sierra McCormick in 1997 (age 28);
actor Nolan Gould in 1998 (age 27);
Olympic gymnast/TV personality Stephen Nedoroscik in 1998 (age 27).

Today's Over/Under is 16.

11.

[A Friend of Charlie]

Today's Over/Under is 16.

15

And Brad Paisley's bday is today, talk about another brush with a coinkydink.

Lost me on that one.

Earlier mention about his WS national anthem performances.

https://cigarbanter.com/forum/index.php?topic=4146.16

[razgueado]

I'm really beginning to believe people have lost their minds concerning the Stock Market.  30,000 layoffs from Amazon and 20,000 from Google hit the news this week, along with the news from last week that auto lenders are in trouble, and the Stock Market soars.  I can't see how this isn't Alan Greenspan's infamous "irrational exuberance."  I'm not buying right now, other than what is being done for me in my state retirement plan and in my HSA.  I'm hoarding cash, if you can call the coupla grand a month I have to stash "hoarding", because I think a correction is coming.

[A Friend of Charlie]

Wordle 1,592 4/6

⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛
⬛⬛🟨⬛⬛
⬛🟩⬛🟩⬛
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

[A Friend of Charlie]

I understand you meant this for Travelin Dave, but allow me to answer, so that you can fully get my position.

Yes, I believe that there should be structures outside the executive branch that impose limits upon what the executive branch does with the resources that the executive branch controls. I always assumed this was part of the checks and balances our forefathers intended. But I'm sure you know the old adage about assuming.

Well, there is an open question about the separation of powers and the powers of the chief executive, which the SCOTUS is likely to settle this term as it reconsiders Humphrey's Executor v United States.  But the monuments in Washington DC are under the auspices of the National Park Service, which is an executive branch agency, and the White House itself is also under the auspices of the Committee to Preserve the White House (which was created by an executive order of LBJ) and the Capitol Planning Commission, which was enabled by an act of Congress, but is also an executive branch agency populated by presidential appointees. 

Followup question: Does it disturb you to learn that in 2009 Barack Obama, with private funding, installed basketball hoops and markings on Dwight Eisenhower's tennis court, and didn't submit the plans to the National Capitol Planning Commission?  Or is that too minor a change to bother with?

You know it is.

Actually, I really don't, and that's the point of this discussion.  I'm trying to understand where people draw lines between what is sacred and profane when it comes to the White House property.  People were very upset that Trump replaced the grass in the Rose Garden with a limestone patio.  But nobody was upset that Obama stuck basketball hoops on the tennis court and had basketball markings painted on it.  So are the grounds sacred or not?

I expect nobody here would disagree that the gutting of the interior of the White House and installation of a steel infrastructure under Truman was necessary, especially after a piano nearly fell through the second floor.  But how does that gutting square with what Kathleen Willey has called "the overwhelming history" that has been lost by knocking down the East Wing?  Is the history in the walls, or is it just hanging on the walls?  Because if it's in the walls, then every single presidential administration since John Adams has destroyed history by building and tearing out offices inside.  But if the history is hanging on the walls, or sitting on the floors, then why are we upset that a president has knocked down the walls to rebuild them? 

Also, when do the walls become historic?  The last time the East Wing was knocked down and rebuilt was 1942.  So is it after 50 years that a structure becomes historic?  80 years? Is a building immediately historic if it is erected on the White House grounds?

I'm not being flippant, I promise.  I really don't get where people put their boundaries, and clearly people have placed them in different places in their minds than I have.  So I'm trying to understand.

I think there is a degree of flippancy there, but the point is made. So I never heard this before, and I admit it may have to do with the media being more left-leaning. Therefore, it is difficult for me to comment if I don't know all the facts. In this case, I'll have to use my gut feelings and say that the President or someone on his staff has found yet another loophole.

I'm really not being flippant, T.  TD objects to the size of the ballroom, and while I don't, I can understand his reasoning.  That's something that makes sense to me. I'm still unclear what the heck Kathleen Willey is talking about when she refers to the "overwhelming history" of the East Wing.  I can't find any historic event that occurred in the East Wing.  It wasn't even the domain of the First Lady until 1977.  And I don't see how walls can have history in them in any real sense, and in any case the walls get futzed with every time there's a new president.  It's never crossed my mind what presidents do with the White House, whether Democrat or Republican.  But I'm listening, because it obviously crosses some people's minds.

I do confess that I think a lot of the outrage has to do with who the sitting president is, and that if Obama had done it, there wouldn't be the same outrage (except perhaps by Republicans). But I'm exploring it here because y'all tend to be more reasonable.

First of all, I don't appreciate being referred to as more reasonable. Second, I'm not too ashamed to admit that I have no idea who Kathleen Willey is. Is today her birthday? 

[A Friend of Charlie]

I understand you meant this for Travelin Dave, but allow me to answer, so that you can fully get my position.

Yes, I believe that there should be structures outside the executive branch that impose limits upon what the executive branch does with the resources that the executive branch controls. I always assumed this was part of the checks and balances our forefathers intended. But I'm sure you know the old adage about assuming.

Well, there is an open question about the separation of powers and the powers of the chief executive, which the SCOTUS is likely to settle this term as it reconsiders Humphrey's Executor v United States.  But the monuments in Washington DC are under the auspices of the National Park Service, which is an executive branch agency, and the White House itself is also under the auspices of the Committee to Preserve the White House (which was created by an executive order of LBJ) and the Capitol Planning Commission, which was enabled by an act of Congress, but is also an executive branch agency populated by presidential appointees. 

Followup question: Does it disturb you to learn that in 2009 Barack Obama, with private funding, installed basketball hoops and markings on Dwight Eisenhower's tennis court, and didn't submit the plans to the National Capitol Planning Commission?  Or is that too minor a change to bother with?

You know it is.

Actually, I really don't, and that's the point of this discussion.  I'm trying to understand where people draw lines between what is sacred and profane when it comes to the White House property.  People were very upset that Trump replaced the grass in the Rose Garden with a limestone patio.  But nobody was upset that Obama stuck basketball hoops on the tennis court and had basketball markings painted on it.  So are the grounds sacred or not?

I expect nobody here would disagree that the gutting of the interior of the White House and installation of a steel infrastructure under Truman was necessary, especially after a piano nearly fell through the second floor.  But how does that gutting square with what Kathleen Willey has called "the overwhelming history" that has been lost by knocking down the East Wing?  Is the history in the walls, or is it just hanging on the walls?  Because if it's in the walls, then every single presidential administration since John Adams has destroyed history by building and tearing out offices inside.  But if the history is hanging on the walls, or sitting on the floors, then why are we upset that a president has knocked down the walls to rebuild them? 

Also, when do the walls become historic?  The last time the East Wing was knocked down and rebuilt was 1942.  So is it after 50 years that a structure becomes historic?  80 years? Is a building immediately historic if it is erected on the White House grounds?

I'm not being flippant, I promise.  I really don't get where people put their boundaries, and clearly people have placed them in different places in their minds than I have.  So I'm trying to understand.

I think there is a degree of flippancy there, but the point is made. So I never heard this before, and I admit it may have to do with the media being more left-leaning. Therefore, it is difficult for me to comment if I don't know all the facts. In this case, I'll have to use my gut feelings and say that the President or someone on his staff has found yet another loophole.

I'm really not being flippant, T.  TD objects to the size of the ballroom, and while I don't, I can understand his reasoning.  That's something that makes sense to me. I'm still unclear what the heck Kathleen Willey is talking about when she refers to the "overwhelming history" of the East Wing.  I can't find any historic event that occurred in the East Wing.  It wasn't even the domain of the First Lady until 1977.  And I don't see how walls can have history in them in any real sense, and in any case the walls get futzed with every time there's a new president.  It's never crossed my mind what presidents do with the White House, whether Democrat or Republican.  But I'm listening, because it obviously crosses some people's minds.

I do confess that I think a lot of the outrage has to do with who the sitting president is, and that if Obama had done it, there wouldn't be the same outrage (except perhaps by Republicans). But I'm exploring it here because y'all tend to be more reasonable.

First of all, I don't appreciate being referred to as more reasonable. Second, I'm not too ashamed to admit that I have no idea who Kathleen Willey is. Is today her birthday? 

Now I looked her up and am even more confused. Apparently, she was embroiled in the whole Monica Lewinsky scandal. Is she claiming that it happened in the East Wing?