Annotating Barack and Michelle at Daisy Bakers, Volume 2
That said, I thought it would be inappropriate to go back and fix everything. We are living a real life here, my friends. Warts and all.
On July 4th, 2006, I embarked on a quest to become the pre-eminent American portrait painter of the 21st century. This blog chronicles that journey. With apologies to Joan Didion, I call it THE YEAR OF MAGICAL PAINTING.
Brief personal aside: The urge to paint that ass, Donald Trump is palpable. Visceral.Anyway, all this by way of announcing my upcoming portrait of Nails. I'm doing it as an exclusive to Dealbreaker.com, with the notion that only annotations submitted through that site will be inscribed on the painting.
You think that's Shakespeare?A couple of options for the title:
No--that was a gag. I'm going with Andrew Wyeth.
You mean Arthur Miller?
Hmmm. One of those two, certainly.
Nicely said. Hedge your bets.
1--The Annotated DykstraFeel free to weigh in. I'm partial to #4. As regards the Trump painting, I'm definitely calling it "That Ass, Donald Trump". Not up for discussion.
2--The Annotated Nails
3--The Twizzled Dykstra
You think that's Shakespeare?Anyway, the movie sucked completely. And then there was a big surprise.
Who else would it be?
I don't know. Rogers and Hammerstein?
Well, it was somebody.
Rand means well enough ... but she lacks the intellectual firepower of Sarah Palin.These are difficult times, friends. So it's good to be able to smile once in a while.
That being?What hasn't really been touched on yet is this weekend's release of Atlas Shrugged, the movie. I wonder if it's in 3-D. Anyway, looking backwards about two years, I was amazed and delighted at all the Ayn Rand references on The Fallen Prince. The gears have ground slowly since, but I think it'll be good clean fun to collect annotations from all the Objectivists standing in line to see the movie, and then head to Wall Street and get the other side of the coin.
The dense of the macabre!I finally whited it out. And liked it just like that for as long as it took to eat an artichoke. But wiser heads prevailed.
Yes, sort of. I think she is a bit macabre.
We do too.
That's just the kind of stuff the art historians love.
Isn't it? And here I am, giving it away for free.
You're a prince.
Of a sort, yes.
A lion on the plains of the Serengeti, surrounded by jackals.
Perhaps, but that could be too much.
A jackal on the plains of the Serengeti, surrounded by buzzards?
That might not be enough.
Somewhere in the middle?
Yes, I think so.
A simple man?
A simple man wielding a mighty hammer.
The hammer's a metaphor, right?
You have said that Mr. Sokol did not do anything “unlawful.” But Mr. Sokol bought shares of Lubrizol a day after he told Citigroup to indicate Berkshire’s interest in buying the company.That's a long question. And technically is a group of questions. What's the term for that particular collective singular? A gaggle of questions? An exaltation? A grand jury?
Why don’t you consider that “material” information, a crucial component of insider trading? Do you not believe that a Lubrizol shareholder would have considered such information important to their investment decision? Clearly Lubrizol felt that Mr. Sokol’s inquiry was material enough to hold a board meeting on Jan. 6, one day before Mr. Sokol bought almost $10 million of shares.
If Mr. Sokol was aware of Lubrizol’s board meeting, would you consider that material information? And if a news outlet had reported Mr. Sokol’s inquiry or Lubrizol’s decision to meet, do you not think that the price of Lubrizol’s shares would have risen?
Here is another way to think about it: If a Citigroup banker had bought shares of Lubrizol at the same time as Mr. Sokol, would you have considered that insider trading? Isn’t that the definition of insider trading? What did Mr. Sokol do that was different?
What are you? The Huffington Post?
It would appear so.