Just a comment on John Godfrey and Kings. Am I missing something but has not John created something exceptional at Kings? Some university presidents can raise moeny well - Wade M for instance - but few make real and positive change possible as I think that John has. Do people recognize his achievement?

I guess people look at these "opportunities" differently. Rex allowed himself to be used as one of the President's "props" and I suppose when you do that, it's not expected that you'll be asking any tough questions in the "one on one"; you become part of the "team”, in this staged “event”. Also, in any setting there’s a fine line between asking legitimate questions and making legitimate points, and just being plain rude, or exposing yourself as an obnoxious twit. As LBJ said to Pearson: “I don’t invite you into my house, to have you start pissing in my kitchen”. Personally, regardless of any other points that could have been raised by Rex, I think I might have turned a little bit on the President when he started calling me “Hammock man”. That kind of familiarity irks me, even coming from the leader of the free world. Fifteen minutes after meeting the guy and he’s using a “nickname” for me? I still think people who I’ve never met before, especially in business-like settings, should ask permission before they even use my first name, let alone start calling me by some nickname they just dreamed up. While it’s meant to be jocular, it is condescending, especially when preceded by the question: “What do you think, Hammock man?” It suggests the questioner doesn’t take the responder seriously and is not really interested in the answer. It begs the response: “ Duh, I dunno, whadda you think Dubya - wanna grab a coupl’a brewskis and watch some football?”.

I believe that in order for a society to carry any dignity, it must offer a certain amount of respect to positions of importance, regardless of the individual that holds that position (Respect is not subservience - Respect the rank, not the man). I see a problem in how our society views which positions are "of importance", just as it fails to see what is "offensive" (Jel-Lo is not important, as good as she is to look at). The vague definition of these terms allows some to interpret their actions and views as "breaking barriers" rather then offensive. (Will the "N" word ever be considered as breaking barriers?...I hope not!) Morals and values instilled by our parents are the biggest influence on how we develop such attitudes as adults.

I like your reference to the "respecting the rank" Wayne. I know, "you salute the rank, not the man", but as important: the rank must return the salute, right "Wayner man"?

Sir...yes,sir!

(...as I mutter an unmentionable under my breath)

Also, in dealing with Wayne’s comments on “respect” and “rank”, I’m interested in knowing Alex Colville’s reaction Alan’s “challenging (him) on his use of shadows”. I suppose Colville could have humored Al, taken the challenge seriously and engaged in some further discussion with him on the point, in some polite fashion, like someone with grace and “rank” might do. Perhaps the more appropriate response to the challenge might have been: “I’m sorry, forgive me, I’m not familiar with your work. What medium to you work in, and in what gallery might I see your work displayed.” That also would have been an appropriate response, and probably ended the “challenge” about “his use of shadows”.

I raise the point about Alan and Colville, and Wayne’s point on respecting the rank of these people of accomplishment, because Alan’s view about the “allegedly important” has a dismissive egalitarian cynicism about it - suggesting that the accomplishments of these “deserving equals” is something that anybody could do, if they could just get off the couch or if they had the right breaks, the will, the desire, the ambition, the smarts, the talent etc.(So, I’m meeting the President of the United States - Ho hum -I’m bored already - wonder if he’s gonna give us some snacks?). This cynical view suggests that the accomplishments of these “regular joes” shouldn’t “set them apart”, or give them a position of “respect”, and that anyone’s point of view is as important as theirs, even in their field of accomplishment, and although that someone else may not have done anything like what they’ve done, that someone has read about it, or saw it on TV, and therefore is duly qualified to“challenge” them in their areas of expertise or accomplishment. These people are the people who usually end up talking to themselves at cocktail parties.

It's like watching kids play hopscotch following you two - leap, leap, leap. The point was only that the aura of office lead to a wasted opportunity. Being impressed with office over actions finds us in deficits, defrauded or just backing the wrong horse depending on the circumstances. Handsome is as handsome does. The answer, not that you were asking, was that Colville uses few shadows in his photorealist paintings causing difficulties with perception of weight. Only by not being in awe, as Godfrey on Colville's shoulder at that moment was teaching us, could we get to real questions and answers.

Again, an “opportunity” to do what, exactly? Spout some nonsense to Mr. President on Keynesian economics, or missile defense, or nuclear proliferation, or the role of liberal democracies in the world, and the like? Like he hasn’t heard it before - oh, yeah, I forgot, hasn’t heard it from you, before. That’s a certain type of conceit that no one should walk around with. That kind of talk at the kind of function Rex agreed to participate in, would be like taking a dump on the conference room table. We’re not talking about something similar to the Munich meeting and Chamberlain being enamored with Hitler here. It sounds like Rex took this unexpected, “name pulled out of the hat” “opportunity” to size up the man, and he liked what he saw, and the way he was treated. Maybe that’s what sticking in your craw.

Bosses must love you..."lead me!"..."tell me what to think!"

Spout some nonsense to Mr. President on Keynesian economics, or missile defense, or nuclear proliferation
<p>
I think Alan's point is that people are too easily impressed with elected officials and the brouhaha associated when meeting up with them. In Rex's case this is clearly the point as he only talks about how the President was ('Hammock Man') and about the speech of the president afterwards:
</p>
<small>He wants to invest in '05 and '06, same amounts. But as I told you, this aspect of the tax relief package will expire unless Congress acts. He said it's really hard -- and he's right, by the way -- really hard to be a planner with -- in the face of tax uncertainty. </small>

<p>Looking at Rex's story, this is far different what Rex actually was talking about ('tax uncertainty'?). If so, this damn wells sounds like what Alan already figured out: 'he was picked and then flattered and then used'.
</p>

[...and here I thought I was going to jump in on the Man from near Peterborough (SN?) and start a really thrilling "Oh yeah?" "Sticks and Stones" kind of debate...]

Actually, the point made has nothing to do with what I or you, for that matter, "think" about anything; rather, it has to do with your assertion that we should be spouting off at every "opportunity". And as we get older, and assume positions of responsibility, we are expected to exercise a little more judgement, as to what we say, when we say it, and to whom; as opposed to, say, some callow first year university student. Maybe you should take the "opportunity" to comment on, or question City Council's fiscal management, next time your asked by Council to appear before them to address some legal issue? D'ya get the drift?

I don't think anyone has suggested that Rex wasn't "used" - it's clear he was a willing prop. But if he had any problem with that, I couldn't see it in his blog. There seems to be a suggestion that because he was so "uncritical" of Bush, that somehow he lost at "opportunity" to say what he thinks about this issue or that, as if he "must" have had some oh-so-important bone to pick with Dubya and since Dubya was sitting across the table, there was no better time than the present to start pickin'. Then he could blog about how he "gave Dubya a piece of my mind, but I waited until I finished my desert", and then we'd all be happier that Rex didn't miss that opportunity to be a self-satisfied twit.

That's "dessert", again, apoolgies.

The "apooligies" was a poor attempt at humour. I think I have to lighten up a little.

Don't worry about lightening up. We are a full service rant facility. <p>I do know what you mean about choosing the moment but all I am suggesting is that too often people retract from taking the opportunity when presented with it or even that we are trained to "know your place". I suppose if we do not know when and how to do this, leaders cannot be blamed for going off in directions the population do not support. That is one of the best things about the situation the Liberals find themselves are in - people are actually pissed off and saying so.

“This is above all - to thine own self be true
and it must follow, as the day the night, thou can'st not then be false to any man"
Polonius in Hamlet, I, iii

I quoted Polonius’s little nugget of wisdom to his son, to suggest that we all have a point at which we cannot be “bought” or “swayed” by those holding positions of authority – even the most “gushing” of us. In this western liberal democratic culture of criticism, no one, no matter what powerful position they hold (or how saintly they appear, for that matter) can today avoid having their “flaws” exposed publicly, as all of us are “flawed” in some fashion, and there are those who are all too eager to expose those flaws, if for nothing more than to satisfy their personal desire to “equalize” these powerful people. Rex, I am sure, is aware of that too. He knows that Bush is “flawed” - he hears it every day in the press, and he may even believe some of the “flaws” to be true. But his “own self”, his own “self-awareness”, dictated it more important to him that he listen and observe during this “opportunity”, and base an opinion on what he heard and saw. How can he be faulted or criticized for that?

By the way, Al, that wasn't you "gushing" like a little school girl in one of those pictures with the guy from Sloan was it? Was that before or after you suggested he restructure the song and change the "hook" in "The Rest of My Life"?

Gushing very much like a school girl. I gave my best advice all those years ago when I suggested the slide tackle.

Rex was "used" because he was speaking to a polital figure you don't like? Is that all there is to you?

"Slide Tackle: sliding into the ball and knocking it away from an opponent; if the player executing a slide tackle hits the attacker's legs before striking the ball, it results in a penalty (direct kick); if poorly executed, a slide tackle could result in serious injury or death to an opponent, which will result in a penalty with either a red (in the case of death) or yellow (in the case of serious injury) card being issued, especially when coming from behind. It is a technique usually seen as the last refuge of the slow-footed. See also 'Dangerous Play' and 'Wing(Nut)'".

Frig, Lee - you're right. I feel so empty now.

And, Nay...was that you I cleated? So sad.

[The thread is still live but off the active list page as it has pretty much reverted to me saying "oh, yeah?".]

Yeah, I can see you're all broken up about it. Ouch! I think that's gonna leave a mark!

I just don't want to be bitchy with the Lees of this world. Life is too short.