By Matt Talbot
IT HAS BECOME ALMOST REFLEXIVE IN OUR SOCIETY to use the decade of the 1970s as a sort of nadir of tasteless tackiness. You know the tropes: orange shag carpet, bell bottoms, lime-green velour upholstery, and so on.
Here’s the thing, though: such commentary has always carried a distinct whiff of elitism to it. What makes me say that?
The 1970s were the last decade where popular tastes were primarily influenced by the folks in the (then) broad middle of the income scale — because that was also the last decade when the middle class was big, rich, and healthy enough to have the lion’s share of the buying power.
It was the last great heyday of what I think of as Bowling Alley America.
Bowling alleys. Remember those?
There were Day-Glo polyester shirts, bright orange plastic chairs, swoopy Jetsons architecture, carpet the color of bubblegum, glittery bowling balls, loud shoes, elaborate victory dances, beer in plastic cups, the parking lot filled with American cars — big, garish, exuberant American cars in every metal-flaked color it was possible to make, made by well-paid, unionized American labor.
It was fun, it was glorious, and it was, according to current social mores, almost scandalously egalitarian.
The people pitching balls down the lanes on a typical Saturday night were a big, wide swath of the American economic spectrum — maybe not the yachts-and-polo-ponies set, nor the truly destitute, but everyone else was represented there. Car mechanics, dentists, Realtors, production line workers, landscape maintenance people, linemen for the power company, even the occasional university professor — they all were there, all mixed together and laughing, letting their hair down, thoroughly at home with one another.
I remember it well. I also remember that anyone who gave the slightest indication that he might be putting on airs was swiftly informed in a million little ways that he just needed to get over himself.
The interiors of people’s houses could be, I admit, a touch … baroque, let’s say. But put aside your preconceptions and think about this: are today’s interiors really any better? In certain respects, I would argue they are a good deal worse — too often they are suffocatingly conformist, mannered, hard-surfaced, clinical. Kind of sterile, really.
Go to any “high-end” housing development built in the last 20 years and I bet you a million dollars the kitchen will have a stainless-steel refrigerator, granite counters and a stove that, if it is not an actual Viking Range, is doing its very best to look “professional grade.” (The conceit there is that all that hardware is “necessary” because of all the Grand Entertaining the owners are Important Enough to need to put on.) The furniture will be in muted colors and completely and utterly non-challenging to any convention of “taste.” Lighting throughout the house will be in the form of recessed cans and will look very “designed” and kind of theatrical, as if the house is a stage set — a sort of Potemkin Affluence.
All that cold granite, clinical stainless and “artful” muted lighting reminds me, frankly, of tombs — places where the homeowners buried their individuality out of fear of stepping even one degree away from what people in the Hamptons (their betters, don’t you know?) might approve of.
I’m old enough to remember when the aesthetic regime changed, early in the Reagan administration. Out went color and self-expression in our wardrobes, and in came Preppy conformity. (Think about that word, “Preppy,” by the way. The reference is to Preparatory School, and particularly the old East Coast boarding high schools, Attended by some of the most elite people on Planet Earth. The library at Phillips Andover Academy is larger than many college libraries, and the yearly tuition is $41,300 — again, these are insanely elite people we’re talking about here.) As the money began flowing remorselessly to the top of the income ladder as a consequence of the plutocrat-friendly tax and regulatory regime established by Reagan, so too the taste-making began to be dominated by these few privileged folks — and the lion’s share of the buying power gains having been had by them ever since.
Bowling Alley America had its flaws, for sure — plenty of them. For one, absolutely everybody smoked. In my eighth-grade metal shop class, we all made ashtrays, because it was one thing our parents were sure to need. Brawls were a more or less regular feature at the local dive bars (and as I recall, more bars were dive-ish back in those days — does anyone remember the Mona Lisa Club on First Street? Winks? What the heck was the name of that bar down toward the end where the bikers used to go?) Those American cars in the bowling alley parking lot were too often poorly made and gulped gas at an appalling rate. The economy struggled during that decade — there was seemingly intractable inflation coupled with economic growth more sluggish than the post-war average.
So, were the 1970s some sort of heaven on Earth? Not at all. But given a choice between exuberant, colorful self-expression and frigid, stainless “taste,” you can give me orange shag, avocado green fridges and macramé any day — and give me back the broad and solid middle class that liked those things.
Matt Talbot is a writer and poet, as well as an old Benicia hand. He works for a tech start-up in San Francisco.
Sharing is caring!
This is the best article in the Herald so far this year. Unfortunately the Town Club at 417 First St as torn down in the mid 70s. I remember seeing tourist ladies looking aghast when ducks walked in to eat the bar dog’s food! Has anyone seen a duck go in a bar lately? I haven’t and I look every day. I agree about the granite and stainless steel too. Can’t even find a Greasy Spoon in Benicia anymore ! What about pool halls with neon signs out front. Probably couldn’t pass muster anymore. By the way Winks was named after Wink Gando. He was a toll taker on the first Vallejo bridge and people said he winked as they paid and that’s how he got his name. The sign on the bar at 615 First was a neon eye that winked. The only cooler neon sign I have ever seen was at the Duck Club in Colusa. The bar had a neon duck whose wings flapped. Now that’s over the top right? Bot sure if our sign ordinance would permit it here though!!!!
“This is the best article in the Herald so far this year.”
Boy, that ain’t saying much. I’ll have to say that, although wordy, the article a few days about about Benicia’s water history was better.
Lets face the facts. These days a town like Benicia is lucky to even have a newspaper …
You are hereby invited to try your hand writing an article, on any subject, for your local newspaper. Check it off the bucket list. I promise to be a gentle editor. Ed.
This poor fellow has no clue about the 40, 50, 60 or anythjing for that matter. He just is telling you the fashion statment of the time. The middleclass was loving two car garages, vaction to Tahoe etc. Matt I do not no where you grew up? But I get the feeling your memory is failing. Did your house have a color TV? By 1970 many houses had color TV. Was that not the middle class expressing themselves. Yes, I think so. You are so far out of touch I am very concdernede about your memory or is it something you read and did not expierence. This article is a joke. Matt if you care to review this area at the time you are talking about I do believe I could give you a very good lesson. Sorry Matt your memory or your readings are not even close.
Huh? Taste is controlled by a few privileged people in the Hamptons? People can’t make their own decisions as to how to decorate their homes?
Has it occurred to Matt that people — normal, middle-class people — may actually prefer the modern look to the tacky excesses of the 70s? That they find the muted colors and granite counters and recessed lighting attractive and a warm and welcoming environment?
He speaks of the glories of “self-expression” but apparently only if that accords with his likes and dislikes. Seems he is in a contest wtih the Hampton crowd as to who should arbitrate “taste”. But fortunately, we are free to ignore both Matt and the imaginary Hampton people that haunt Matt, and can choose to make our homes as we like them within whatever means we have to do it and in whatever style suits our own unique taste.
Do you know how to grade an article in this paper? By how much Bobby L hates it. A+ Mr.Talbot, and I appreciate how you do not let your homosexuality interfere with your opinions.
I’m good friends with Matt.
First of all, he’s not gay.
Second, what would that matter?
Mr. Headly, I appreciate how you do not let reality interfere with your opinions.
Good comment
Mr. Headly, I’m wondering if you were joking and I just didn’t get the joke?
The great thing is you still have a choice to make your house look like crap from the 70’s buy why are you so elite to think you know why others have moved on with their tastes? Progressive sure have a problem with progress.
I personally know someone who graduated from Phillips Andover. She is a minority from a poor area in New York City. She went on to receive an Engineering degree from a prestigious school on the East Coast, and a Masters degree in Engineering from UCB. She is now pursuing her PhD. She once told me that if she had not gotten out of her neigborhood, she would likely have ended up as a single mom with multiple children living in the projects – just like all of her friends from middle school.
Those darn, elitist prep schools should be wiped off the face of the earth!
Phillips Andover providing scholarships to the occasional poor kid is fine, Tom, but why not make sure that the school district in New York she came from provides a great education to the kids she left behind?
Matt what did you think of John Headley comment. I did not think this run would develope into that. Comments and disagreements are fine. But stepping that low is very low class. I might include Unreal American also.
Matt –
I am very much in favor of great public schools. I believe that we should prioritize our government spending on high priority needs first (police, fire, schools, infrastructure) and prioritize wants later. We fail to do that prioritization, in my opinion.
That said, I don’t know if the school district that she left was good or bad. She needed a change in her environment AND a good school. I don’t know that any government can create a positive environment for everyone.
For my friend, it took an outside agency’s assistance:
http://prepforprep.org/
According to their annual report, last year they received $4.5 million, or 40% of their budget, from individual contributions. Based on information on their website, it is safe to assume that a large portion of those donations originated from alumni of their program. Who also are alumni of “preppy” institutions.
Not all rich people are “bad”. Not all rich people are selfish. Leaving money in the hands of successful, affluent people can and is beneficial to society overall. It would be politically impossible for the NYC government to create a program that places gifted individuals in private schools. Nonprofit agencies such as Prep for Prep would have far fewer resources if the wealthy were taxed at 90%, as you advocated in your earlier piece.
Tom – again, I have no problem with giving kids scholarships to prep schools, and I agree that rich people being generous is laudable. Tax deductions can support such behavior.
None of that, however, takes away from the fact that prep schools are astonishingly elite institutions, and that everyone aspiring to be a preppy is everyone aspiring to be an elite.
What I was getting at in the column is that the change from we’re-all-in-this-together to all-hail-our-new-corporate-masters was a change for the worse. We went from egalitarianism to elitism, and that change was a change for the worse, in my view.
Also worth mentioning: ” Leaving money in the hands of successful, affluent people can [be] and is beneficial to society overall…” sounds fine, but it leaves out a structural problem I mentioned in my previous column: low marginal tax rates and a general “leave the rich alone” approach to public policy leads to wealth concentration at the top, and then (eventually) a destabilized economy and society.
Matt –
I believe that the statistics from Phillips Andover’s website, cited below, refute your contention that prep schools are “astonishingly elite institutions.” 41% people of color, 46% receiving finacial aid that averages 78% of tuition shows a remarkably diverse student body with a high percentage of people who need significant assistance in order to attend. How can such an institution be categorized as “astonishingly elite”?
My Dad was a blue collar worker. Mom stayed at home and raised four kids. We went to a parochial elementary school on a construction workers salary. When I was entering high school, I asked my parents about attending a modestly priced local prep school. I started working as a paper boy when I was 10. I’ve been working ever since. Some of my childhood savings were required to cover my high school tuition, as well as my college tuition. Because I and my family worked, saved and invested in education are we “elitists”?
You state that we have changed to an “all-hail-our-corporate-masters” mindset. A generation ago, people went to work for one company for life. Now people change jobs, companies even professions 5 – 6 times per career. How does that make us beholden to corporate masters? I see the current freedom and flexibility to change as being the antithesis of being under any master.
Marginal tax rates are low. Effective or average tax rates are even lower. Check out irs.gov some time. Interesting data indeed! Taxes are low for everyone, not just the rich. The federal government is borrowing over 40% of its budget. That is unsustainable. We can’t cut spending by 40%. It will be a long time before the economy grows by 40%. We can’t raise taxes by 40%. We need all three. Cut spending, enact pro-growth, pro-investment, and pro-business policies to grow the economy, and raise tax revenue by raising taxes on everyone.
Wealth will always concentrate on the top. Why does that bother you? Why should that lead to a destabilized economy and society? Instead of demonizing high income earners, perhaps we should thank them for covering our bills. According to the National Taxpayers Union, the top 1% pay 37% of taxes, the top 10% pay 70% of taxes. What happens when the rich are not allowed to accumulate wealth? They’ll make less money. When they make less money, they will eventually pay less in taxes. Who will make up the difference when wealth is redistributed? The bottom 50% of earners who currently pay 2% of income taxes paid?
What will you advocate for once you’ve run out of everyone elses money? What tax rate are you, personally, willing to pay?
Tom – Rich people are always going to be rich people, conceded. But excessive wealth concentration at the top hurts economic growth, because there ends up being not enough purchasing power left in the pockets of people who will spend those dollars top keep the economy growing. As I said in my previous post, the owners hog so much of the wealth that their workers (who are ultimately their customers) are unable to afford the products they produce.
What happens when the rich are not allowed to accumulate wealth? They’ll make less money. When they make less money, they will eventually pay less in taxes. Who will make up the difference when wealth is redistributed? The bottom 50% of earners who currently pay 2% of income taxes paid?
Well, I’ve nowhere proposed that “the rich…not [be] allowed to accumulate wealth.” What I’ve proposed is a return to higher taxes on people who can afford to pay them, plus more brackets as one approaches the income stratosphere. Rich people did just fine in the post-war boom years, when the top tax rates were almost 3 times what they are now.
What I’m calling for is the establishment of a situation in which productivity gains are widely shared in the form of higher median compensation. The median wage has barely budged in 30 years, and even taking into account things like fringe benefits, gains in total compensation stopped tracking with productivity gains in the late seventies – right around the time that the gap between the rich and the rest began widening. That gap is now a yawning chasm. This situation is structurally unjust, and “leave the rich alone” does nothing to change it – in fact, it is how we got here.
Matt –
Higher taxes on the wealthy will result in the wealthy having less money to spend. It is a solution to what you perceive to be a problem, the increasing gap in wealth accumulation. However, affluent people having less money will result in lower net investment. Less capital available to operating and expanding businesses will mean fewer jobs. Less capital means fewer startups, fewer Googles, Microsofts, Genentechs… Which will result in less wealth in the future. Rinse, lather, repeat.
The rich having less money to spend will result in fewer purchases. Those purchases also support jobs. In 1990 a 10% tax was added to luxury yatchs. Sales plummeted. Fewer salespeople. Fewer mechanics. Fewer kids polishing new boats in the yard. In 1993 the tax was repealed.
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/07/business/falling-tax-would-lift-all-yachts.html
Raising the median wage will result in goods costing more, eroding the standard of living of those who would suddenly have larger paychecks. Again, a solution to your perceived problem of income inequality, but what would that do to the standard of living? It certainly wouldn’t improve it.
So what if the average income hasn’t increased in 30 years? 30 years ago kids had to go to the library to complete school assignments. Now people have multiple home computers, high speed internet and instant access to more information than the Encyclopedia Britanica ever held. 30 years ago rivers caught fire. Our environment is now in much better condition. A head on collision was almost certainly fatal. Now entry level cars have multiple air bags. I could go on. Despite flat incomes, our standard of living has significantly improved. If the inventors of those technologies have become wealthy from their inventions that make my life better, great! If the people that risked losing their investment in Microsoft have instead become wealthy, great! I hope that incentivizes others to dream, invent, invest, become wealthy and continuously improve my standard of living despite a flat income.
Higher taxes on the wealthy will result in the wealthy having less money to spend. It is a solution to what you perceive to be a problem, the increasing gap in wealth accumulation. However, affluent people having less money will result in lower net investment. Less capital available to operating and expanding businesses will mean fewer jobs. Less capital means fewer startups, fewer Googles, Microsofts, Genentechs… Which will result in less wealth in the future. Rinse, lather, repeat.
I pointed this out in my last thread, but there were plenty of startups in the days of high marginal tax rates – Hewlett Packard, Apple, and even Microsoft were founded and flourished when tax rates were much higher than today.
The rich having less money to spend will result in fewer purchases. Those purchases also support jobs. In 1990 a 10% tax was added to luxury yachts. Sales plummeted. Fewer salespeople. Fewer mechanics. Fewer kids polishing new boats in the yard. In 1993 the tax was repealed.
Tom, the yacht-polishing industry (is that really the example you want to use?) is a pretty small factor in our national economy because there are not very many rich people. Even if all of them doubled their annual purchases of yachts, limousines and polo ponies, it would add a negligible amount to employment. If ordinary workers got regular raises, on the other hand, then that would result in vastly more economic activity, because ordinary workers number in the many millions – think of it as 100 new yachts versus one million new washing machines. The current problem is not a lack of confidence caused by plutocrats fearing tax increases and new regulations – it’s that they don’t have enough customers to buy what their companies are making.
Raising the median wage will result in goods costing more, eroding the standard of living of those who would suddenly have larger paychecks. Again, a solution to your perceived problem of income inequality, but what would that do to the standard of living? It certainly wouldn’t improve it.
I hear this a lot, but you’re leaving out something crucial: as long as median income increase no faster than the rate of productivity growth, it actually won’t result in rising prices. If workers produce, say, 10% more stuff in a year, but work the same amount of hours, then you could give them a 10% raise without raising prices, because the man-hours required to create the same amount of stuff decreased by 10%. (in the real world, this is an oversimplification, but the principle holds.)
Productivity has vastly increased over the last 30 years, but the median income has barely budged. Another way of saying that is, “workers are working smarter and harder, for the same amount of money.” This seems fair to you?
Matt stated, “workers are working smarter and harder, for the same amount of money. This seems fair to you?”
Workers working harder and smarter should result in the workers having higher income. But let’s be honest. Most productivity gains are the result of improved software, computer systems or better machines. Economists call this labor / capital substitution. With more capital (equipment) employed, less labor is required for the same unit of output. In those situations the workers are not working harder. Those returns on additional productivity should go to the people that invested in the improved software, computer systems and better machines. Personally, I believe that a best practice for attracting, retaining and motivating a work force is through some type of profit sharing arrangement. The more a company makes the more you get paid. Employee stock ownership plans or bonuses tied to profits are examples of this. What is your opinion of profit sharing?
You state that workers making 10% more stuff could result in paying workers 10% more without raising prices and admit that is an oversimplification. Yes, it’s an oversimplification. Increasing supply by 10% will result in lower prices. How much lower depends on the elasticity of demand (there go those darn economists again). It’s the law of supply and demand. Your proposition also ignores competition. A company that is 10% more efficient can reduce their prices and grow their business overtaking companies that are providing lower value to their customers.
You don’t like my yacht example. Okay. It shows that when affluent people stop spending it impacts middle class people. No matter what example I give, you will always be able to say that there are more middle class people therefore it’s better that the middle class has more money. But how is that redistribution accomplished? Let’s look at your example 100 yachts versus one million washing machines. One million washing machines at $250/washer = $250 million. 100 yachts at $2.5 million/yacht also = $250 million. So how do we transfer the $250 million from the rich to the rest of us? How do we transfer $250 million from yachts to washing machines? Thugs with guns stationed at marinas across the country? Through taxation and a new washer in every middle class house program? If that $250 million flows through the inefficient government processes much less than $250 million will be returned to the economy. GDP is reduced by whatever percentage the government is less efficient than people making their own decisions. It also results in fewer jobs in the yacht industry. Again, yachts are just an example. Fill in any other class of good or service that the affluent purchase and the story is the same.
Yes, you pointed out in your earlier article that startups have thrived even in high tax environments. I don’t believe that I said that startup investment would cease at higher tax rates. To the extent that the wealthy are the investors in startups, less money in the hands of the wealthy will result in less investment, fewer startups (not zero startups) and fewer jobs. Also higher taxes will result in lower after tax profits for investors. Limiting the potential upside of investing will also reduce investment. People are not going to risk losing their money on risky investments like startups unless significant gains are possible. Talk to any investment manager about risk / reward investment decisions.
Tom – before I get to your substantive points, may I just say that I appreciate the fact that your comments are substantive and fact based?
Let’s look at your example 100 yachts versus one million washing machines. One million washing machines at $250/washer = $250 million. 100 yachts at $2.5 million/yacht also = $250 million.
Well, sure, but you seem to be missing the point. It takes more labor to make a million washing machines versus a hundred yachts. More labor = more paychecks = more final demand in the economy.
To the extent that the wealthy are the investors in startups, less money in the hands of the wealthy will result in less investment, fewer startups (not zero startups) and fewer jobs. Also higher taxes will result in lower after tax profits for investors. Limiting the potential upside of investing will also reduce investment. People are not going to risk losing their money on risky investments like startups unless significant gains are possible.
Well, there are many other factors in play too, aren’t there? Final demand is also a major factor – after all, why invest in the production of cool new products if no one can afford to buy them?
Matt –
I would like to thank you for taking the time to pen two well written, thoughtful articles and engaging in respectful dialogue over potentially contentious issues. It takes guts to put yourself out for the all the world to see.
Regarding your point about it taking more labor to build a million washing machines versus 100 yachts; that may be true, it may not be. Consider the complexity of a yacht, fuel system, propulsion system, navigation, electrical, sanitation… A washing machine is fairly simple, stamp some metal, paint it, install a simple drive system and a simple controller. It may very well require more labor to build 100 yachts than one million washers. One thing is certain, if the government endeavors to take $250 million out of any sector GDP is decreased by $250 million. If the government then redirects that money into another sector, it will only increase GDP by $250 million is the government is 100% efficient. It isn’t.
Your points about demand are good ones. A healthy economy requires healthy demand. Healthy demand requires a strong middle class. How can we best insure a strong middle class? Redistribution? Not in my opinion. Having a multitude of employment opportunities is the best solution, again in my opinion.
How can we enable that multitude of employment opportunities? First, we have to be competitive on the world stage. Some may not like that fact, but it is the reality that we face. How can we be competitive with a relatively high labor cost? One way is to be more productive. The hourly labor rate can be high, but if that high cost labor produces high quality products at high volumes then the cost per unit can be competitive. But other costs will have to be low. We can’t compete if we have high labor costs, high regulatory compliance costs, high utility costs or scarcity of utilities and high taxes. How can we have low unemployment with a highly efficient workforce? We need a large economy full of opportunities. (A rising tide to lift all yachts).
Build the XL pipeline. Drill in ANWR. Frac the natural gas wells. Build more power plants. Provide more water. Do these as safely as possible and understand that there will be some environmental consequences. Every species impacts the environment. There is no reason to expect that humans will not. Better to have a few more ugly pipelines and fewer homeless people.
We also need to accept that no set of laws will prevent all undesirable outcomes. There will be an occasional ENRON. Martha Stewart will not be the last person convicted of insider trading. It is better to suffer periodic setbacks than to have a regulatory environment that is so restrictive, so risk-averse that economic potential is stifled. We can have too few regulations. We can have too many. My opinion is that we currently have too many. And we pay a heavy price for those restrictive regs. We just never get the itemized bill that would make those costs obvious.
Matt I would take a look at the cost of doing business today. Manufacturing cost are energy and man power. Energy cost now have the opportunity to be considerable less. Man hours are now being and have been greatly reduced with high tech production. This combination will get greater production at very competitive prices. The answer to getting the folks back to work is not redistribution of wealth. It is manufacturing expansion. More manufacturing means more jobs. Responsible regulations must be part of the equation not the negative side but the positive side. This country has the energy sources and the high tech industry to get the job done. It is starting to happen. Once less expensive energy became part of the equation you now have the right combination for manufacturing growth. California is sitting on a gold mine in the Monterey shale oil field. Just waiting to be tapped. It will with the Enviro Greenies kicking and screaming all the way to no where. This will be done also with the help of Silicon Valley and very inexpensive energy cost. We are already seeing a drop off in electric cars and the battery company that use grant money to pay folks not to work just to keep it open. Not good. The future for growth in this country is are huge source of energy and our very advanced high tech industry. California is the leading state in emmission control. But at the same time we must use that advantage to take the next step in energy production. Just watch it happen in the next twenhty years. Matt you will be on top of the world.
Matt stated:
“Phillips Andover providing scholarships to the occasional poor kid is fine, Tom”
According to Phillips Andover’s website:
Students of color = 41%
Recipients of financial aid = 46%
Tuition for boarding students: $44,500
Average Grant for returning students: $34,600
I would argue that those statistics show that the “elite, preppy” institutions are highly diverse. They certainly refute your statement that Phillips is “providing scholarships to the occasional poor kid”.
http://www.andover.edu/About/Pages/FastFacts.aspx
It does appear that Andover is generous with scholarships, Tom. Point taken.
Thanks John for the compliment. You are correct John his article is only opinion. He does not talk about the movie house when it was called the State Theatre. Nor the lengendary JM or Chet Carr. The Ferry boat from Martinez. What was above Lucca’s and other places in this town. His article is an opinion laced with an attack on the so called rich. He does not remember pill hill, every town has a pill hill. What kind of cars did doctors drive. When we addressed everyone as Mr. or Mrs. Respected school teachers, religion, police, authority and just plain respect for others regardless of what their stature in life was. I do not know what world Matt lived in. But it sure was not mine nor do I recall most of what he talking about. It appears most of it is pure fiction. This article is written by a left wing Liberal Socialist. Yes I did just say that. So now all the local Liberal Socialist can now attack me. I do love it.
Conservative Fascist, Mr. Talbot grew up in this town, unlike you. So his memories of it are more valid than yours. Go to Martinez and reminisce for the paper there.
Well what do you know the oxy moron just made a comment and proved he/she/ Mike is a Liberal Socialist. Believe me Mike I do know more about this town than the Liberal Socilist Matt. What about barrage balloons? You seem to know a lot about this town. Ever play basketball or football at the old high school gym with Chet Carr. I doubt that very much. Mike you and Matt have a lot if catching up to do to get even close to me. Neither of you ever suited up for home games. Is that why they called you twinkle toes.
Ha! You don’t even know what words mean, Conservative Fascist! Go back to Martinez!
Mike, he/she I go to Martinez all the time. Picked up in a Limo and escorted around town to say hello to all my friends. You are welcome to join me he/she/Mike if you have a very expensive suit and some fine looking shoes.
Limo = wheelchair
Friends = bottle of gin
Real American=Anti American Liberal Socialist with a hint of Marxist.
Please define socialist and Marxist, just this once, so I know whether I qualify. I promise I won’t ask again
If you do not know I can not and will not help you. You are on your own on this one. By the way what did you think of the John Headley comment about Matt. Not me, I already know what you think of Bob Livesay the Great One.
One good reason we have moved beyond Matt’s beloved “avocado refrigerators from the 70s”:
“If it’s avocado or brown-colored, it’s time to retire it,” he [Noah Horowitz, senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council] said. Refrigerators from the 1970s, the last time I believe those particular appliance colors were in vogue, use three to four times the power of today’s models.
From: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/business/yourmoney/10shortcuts.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Mr. Talbot’s article is based purely on his observations and life experience. I do find the ideas, themes, concepts, opinion, and general free association that emerge in the comment section to be quite entertaining at times. Here are some of those:
Ducks
Stereotypical misconceptions on athletic ability and sexual preference, and stereotypical misconceptions on sexual preference in general
Literary criticism
Team apparel
The level literacy amongst some that comment
Appliance efficiency
Dive bars
Self expression by means of watching TV
Obvious baiting
Reminiscing about the “superior” days of yore
Imaginary people
The offering of one’s recollection against someone else’s recollection in a qualitative fashion
Misplaced nostalgic ramblings
Education
A great system for grading articles
Generalized and misinformed political labeling
The haphazard throwing-down of gauntlets
The discounting of the aesthetic values of others
Social obsolescence
Religion
Folks of moderate means coming to the defense of the wealthy sans any potential for future reciprocity.
Blinding self aggrandizement
Matt it is called create the demand. It has been happening for many years in this country. We create the world buys.
I’m feeling better about my avocado green counters already!