Slate's Bizbox




the breakfast table: An e-mail conversation about the news of the day.

Marjorie Williams and Tucker Carlson

from: Marjorie Williams

The Three Martini Lunch

Posted Thursday, Nov. 2, 2000, at 6:52 PM ET

Dear Tucker,

Actually, I couldn't afford to drink very much during my brief stay in college. I can even remember going to the bank and standing in line (this being before the days of the cash machine) to withdraw exactly $5. Don't I sound like I went to school in 1936? Anyway, two years was definitely enough to convince me that college is wasted on the young.



Instead I went to work in book publishing, a pursuit that involved far more boozing than college had--I actually had lunch with people who drank the proverbial three martinis, and it took me about four years to figure out that I couldn't get all the way through one without seeing double for most of the afternoon. Dropping out of college was certainly the right thing for me to do at the time, but I can't say that reading the slush pile and typing letters for an editor (an impossibly old fellow of 30) was more ennobling than two more years of school would have been.

What a life Lardner led. The Post obit included the neat fact that Katherine Hepburn basically swiped the script credit from Lardner on Woman of the Year. I somehow missed the detail that Lardner had married his brother's widow, but goodness! For some reason it made me think of the other best brother story I ever ran across. I went through a phase as a Post reporter in which I got fascinated by people's wills----the way you could just walk into Superior Court in Washington and get the last will and testament of all these amazing Washingtonians. At one point I read Joe Alsop's will, which, among a great many other very controlling directives, set aside some money to replace the tombstone that Stewart Alsop, who died before Joe, had chosen in advance for himself. Joe found his little brother's choice not quite up to snuff (if I remember correctly, the term he used was "very ill-chosen") and had been biding his time for a chance to replace it. Talk about the last word.

Which this must be. It's been a pleasure visiting with you all week, Tucker. After this cleansing tour through marital gossip and Jeopardy (and the jeopardy of marital gossip), I'm ready to get back to politics next week.

Here's mud in your eye,
Marjorie

from: Marjorie Williams

The Three Martini Lunch

Posted Thursday, Nov. 2, 2000, at 6:52 PM ET
Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Marjorie Williams is the author of a weekly opinion column for the Washington Post, a contributing writer at Talk magazine, and a member of Slate's "Book Club." Tucker Carlson writes for the Weekly Standard and Talk magazine.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Reader Comments from The Fray:


[Notes from the Fray Editor: The first two posts below comment on different Breakfast Table topics, but we can't help sensing a connection, and a rather cruel blow at the BT participants.

The other important topic is of course Jeopardy. David Franklin's post is here. Kevin Bertsch gives a detailed analysis (we feature the conclusion below) and says "Tucker you still don't understand"--though it seems to us at The Fray that Mr Carlson's words "Blow yourself up before you let yourself squeak by" make it clear he doesn't need to understand strategy. Meriadoc points out that "knowing the answer" doesn't seem to feature in any of this discussion, and there are other comments throughout The Fray.

Elsewhere, Lisa Hancock-Jasie generously gives Tucker Carlson two reasons not to like Rupert Murdoch, and then another two later on.]


I'm aghast at what Carlson and Williams say about their college days. My years at Brown, in physics and then computer science, were the most intensive periods of sustained learning of my life. I guess it's true, very few people go into quantum physics because they can't make it as journalism majors.

--Bob Munck

(To reply, click here.)


Sure, space colonization isn't getting as much attention as, say, Al Gore's earth tones, or the latest Oprah appearance. No surprise. Columbus' voyage wasn't thought of as important at the time either. That's because the chattering classes, then and now, are more interested in gossip than news. They like to talk about each other, and about the people they fondly imagine they're like, or will be like some day, or at least will have influence over some day.

In all of this, of course, they're mostly wrong. But a close connection to reality has never been the strength of the chattering classes. That's for the boring geeky types who actually change the world.

--A.G.Android

(To reply, click here.)


[Reaction to Wednesday's entry:]


In third place, sometimes the right move is to bet everything, sometimes it's to bet nothing, and sometimes you bet part of what you have. David's strategy was perfectly rational, and to have bet everything to avoid appearing 'wimpy' would have been to substitute macho stupidity for brains, which is generally not a winning move on Jeopardy.

--Kevin Bertsch

(To reply, click here.)


[Reaction to Tuesday's entry:]


Why do issues like a kiss or Oprah dominate? The answer is because the press, and by this I mean the working press not the pundits, have been reduced to recycling AP wire stories churned out by the same five writers for the same five major papers every day. Facts that don't fit preordained story lines are jettisoned. Al Gore is a liar, that's the story, run with it. George Bush doesn't lie, he's stupid, and his misstatements are just good natured mistakes. This is what passes for journalism. The punditocracy, by which I mean those highly paid folks like your own Tucker and Marjorie who take it upon themselves not to be journalists, but to provide their opinion on everything, whether they are qualified in the subject matter or not, have completely punted in this election. It is they who declared that going on Oprah was a good idea. It is they who decided Bush was a frontrunner before the first vote was cast in Iowa. It is they who have declared Clinton-fatigue a factor. It is they who refuse to delve in any depth into the issues of the day.

Ask not for whom Al Gore kisses, he kisses for thee.

--John Burns

(To reply, click here.)


[Reaction to Monday's entry:]


One key sign that it doesn't look good for Gore is Joe Lieberman's decision to remain in the Senate race in Connecticut. Based on that decision, I suspect that the Dem's internal polling numbers look worse than the public tracking polls. If Lieberman either loses the Vice Presidency or withdraws from the Senate race, the seat would be a shoe-in for the Democrats, while if Gore/Lieberman win, it will be assured for the Republicans. If it looked like Lieberman might be the next Vice President, there would be a lot of pressure on him to withdraw from the Senate race.

--J.Travers

(To reply, click here.)









Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Over the Line
Harold Ford Jr. | I know what it's like to be smeared by your opponent.
: The Positive in Negative Ads
PLUS » Milbank: The President's Lullaby