perfidy

Do you remember, from the late eighties, those commercials that showed an incredible array of products, services, and holdings, and then ended with the line, "We're Beatrice"? Those really creeped me out.

Actually, Bush & Kerry are related, if memory serves. Third cousins, several times removed. So genetics, of a sort, ain't out of the picture just yet, although I get your drift.

From sad personal experience, I can attest that the handful of high-profile (and low rent) board members I've dealt with are, as a group, considerably less than they're cracked up to be. I've endured monothematic drooling retards in person who, if you believed the WSJ, were in reality the second or third coming of Christ.

The primary way they get on boards is based on the boards they're already on, but we all knew that. Incest, in company directors, is best. So say the directors themselves. It helps to keep their many inadequacies a bit more secret.

The "They Rule" site brought back some bad memories, but thanks for pointing it out.

Patton,
I work in higher ed, and have written the glowing assessments of board member candidates- giving capacity, giving thus far, other philanthropy and boards, etc.

I dunno if any of them were drooling retards, because I rarely meet them. But, as you suggest, the person on paper is often vastly different from the person in the flesh, whether he's on a company's board or a college's.

Now, you and JohnO, if "They Rule" suits your fancy, peep Mark Lombardi: [url=http://www.pierogi2000.com/flatfile/lombardi.html]http://www.pierogi200…]

He marries a geometry and depth of knowledge to maximum paranoia and conspiracy theories, all presented with a penciled, study-hall method. Bless him. I have a copy of his "George W Bush and Harken Energy" piece. Wonderfully strange.

Wow.

What an interesting concept, on a whole bunch of levels, even aside from the fact that some of the pieces appear to be fun-to-look-at art.

First, there's the factual level - connections that aren't obvious until the appearance of pieces like these.

Second, there's the innuendo, the assertion, the outright lie that can be a required part of such art.

Third, there's the piece de resistance; the knowledge that, at some point in the creation of the art, you KNOW he had a Homer Simpson moment, realized that a connection didn't actually exist, said "D'Oh!", and had to rethink the physical design, again.

I'm thinking Harkin Energy is an interesting piece, indeed. There are probably a couple people I know or knew scattered throughout it. But Osama's not one of them.

If you read a bit about the guy, you'll find that he has (well, had- he's dead) dozens upon dozens of library-style card catalogs filled with notes, sketches, and symbols on people, companies, and other entities used in his work.

I think people have tried to buy them, and the Feds have worked with them, but as far as I know they are either in storage or occasioanlly displayed but always under stweardship.

And we know you didn't know Osama. Just like we know that the FBI is monitoring blogs these days...

Heck, half the hits on my site from DOJ are referrals from you guys' site.

So there.

Who says links don't generate traffic?

Patton, part of the reason for that might be that I work at DOJ.

Part of the reason, sure, but what about the remaining zero percent of such hits that wouldn't be accounted for by your theory?