Lounge Closed. Morning Cafe Opened

Posted by froggybottom | Mar 1, 2006 | 65 |

All Night Long at the Froggy Bottom Lounge

This is an Unhosted Cafe.

The bar is fully stocked and there’s crepes if you’re hungry, but it is self-serve tonight..
Don’t forget to feed the meter, this is a tow-zone.
(4s accepted in place of quarters)

Newspapers are in their regular spot next to the door

Please recommend

(and unrecommend the Cafe/Lounge from earlier)

May the 4’s be with you

About The Author

froggybottom

To promote the Booman Tribune's "Froggy Bottom Photography Fair"

65 Comments

froggybottom on March 1, 2006 at 11:35 pm

Is anyone still up?
- maryb2004 on March 1, 2006 at 11:43 pm
  
  Is that you Izzy?
  - Izzy on March 1, 2006 at 11:46 pm
    
    Yes! You’re up!! Thank goodness — it was feeling rather echo-y in here and I just confessed to bad tv habits. Goodness knows what would’ve happened next!
    - maryb2004 on March 1, 2006 at 11:47 pm
      
      I’ve never even heard of top model or whatever. Amazing Race is about the only reality show I’ve ever watched — and I’ve only seen it maybe 7 or 8 times.
      - Izzy on March 1, 2006 at 11:49 pm
        
        OH! I mean, oh. I’m, uh, not all that into it either…
- Isis on March 1, 2006 at 11:58 pm
  
  Did we all fall off our barstools? 🙂
  
  I’m at work doing the “hurry up and wait” routine.
  - Izzy on March 1, 2006 at 11:59 pm
    
    lol!
    
    What do you do? Do you normally work graveyard shift, or are you in a different time zone?
    - Isis on March 2, 2006 at 12:10 am
      
      No, I’m freelancing doing graphic design at an ad agency. I got in at 10 AM this morning!
      
      Not a stressful day, mind you. . . but again, it’s time to wait . . ..
      - Izzy on March 2, 2006 at 12:14 am
        
        Well you definitely should have a crepe with something sugary on it. You must be tired! I advise powdered sugar AND syrup.
      - Isis on March 2, 2006 at 12:16 am
        
        I’m in NYC, I’m sure I could find that, but home sweet apartment is more appetizing right now.
      - Isis on March 2, 2006 at 12:18 am
        
        Opps, waiting over time to go home.
        
        Thanks, Cafe
Izzy on March 1, 2006 at 11:44 pm

Okay, in the last few FB Cafes, a bunch of you have come out as fans of The Amazing Race, Lost, and Gilmore Girls. So who’s got the brass to admit to watching America’s Next Top Model? C’mon! Who’s with me?!?

<crickets>

… anyone?
- Isis on March 1, 2006 at 11:48 pm
  
  I’m at work. I don’t know anything about TV.
  - Izzy on March 1, 2006 at 11:50 pm
    
    Well thank goodness you have me here! 🙂
    
    So what do you need to know?
    - Isis on March 1, 2006 at 11:52 pm
      
      Oh, I wasn’t asking to know anything, I was just confessing my ignorance of television. In fact, I took a guess that the three programs mentioned were actuallyTV shows as opposed to possibly movies. 🙂
      
      I’m pretty lame on American culture.
      - Izzy on March 1, 2006 at 11:57 pm
        
        Well, you probably shouldn’t look into it — the shock might be too much.
      - Isis on March 2, 2006 at 12:13 am
        
        Yes, I was a sensitive child, and stopped watching TV at age 15, I hated the coerciveness of commercials!
      - Izzy on March 2, 2006 at 12:15 am
        
        Ah — irony. I like it.
- growthrate on March 1, 2006 at 11:51 pm
  
  My problem is that I don’t believe in reality. TV.
  
  Is there alternate reality TV? I might watch that…
  - maryb2004 on March 1, 2006 at 11:51 pm
    
    twilight zone
    - growthrate on March 1, 2006 at 11:52 pm
      
      You’re quick!
  - Izzy on March 1, 2006 at 11:52 pm
    
    It’s all alternate-reality tv… cable, c-span. There’s a show right now where Anna Nicole Smith goes to the Supreme Court!
    - growthrate on March 1, 2006 at 11:53 pm
      
      Is that a remake? I’m sure the filibuster scene is something else!
    - maryb2004 on March 1, 2006 at 11:53 pm
      
      wonder what she wore
      - Izzy on March 2, 2006 at 12:04 am
        
        Ask and you shall receive: Basic Black.
      - maryb2004 on March 2, 2006 at 12:05 am
        
        showing the requisite cleavage I see.
      - Izzy on March 2, 2006 at 12:07 am
        
        Hey, she paid a lot for those. She’s not gonna hide ’em. Besides, they might score some points with Clarence Thomas.
      - maryb2004 on March 2, 2006 at 12:14 am
        
        It’s a good thing Rehnquist is dead because he would have made her cover them in his court room. He was a wacko about what women wore in the court. He once bounced a woman out for wearing a pantsuit. And he made a reporter remove a headscarf that she was wearing like a bow. God knows what he would have done with cleavage.
      - Izzy on March 2, 2006 at 12:19 am
        
        Or maybe he would’ve proposed! You never know.
        
        I didn’t know all that other stuff though. Did anyone argue with him about it? A pantsuit? Really?!?
      - maryb2004 on March 2, 2006 at 12:21 am
        
        You don’t argue with the court — you obey.
        
        He banned all reporters from wearing their press passes on cords around their necks.
        
        He was a strange bird.
        
        I’ll find the story — be right back.
      - maryb2004 on March 2, 2006 at 12:26 am
        
        Washington Post archived it but Slate has it.
        
        . . . news intern Roopa Singh [was] attempting to cover yesterday’s oral arguments at the high court. Suddenly, Chief Justice Rehnquist dispatches a marshal to make her remove a tightly coiled head wrap. According to the marshal, Singh’s scarf was “bothering some of the justices.” According to Singh, the marshal said, “Would you take it off? It’s not for religious purposes is it, would you take it off?” Singh went to the bathroom and removed the offending garb.
        So, as he’s done before in situations where women wear pantsuits in his line of vision, or fail to wear jackets, or wear press passes (yes, Rehnquist wants all press passes stowed out of sight once the press corps is seated), the chief interrupts argument to stand and whisper to a marshal, who then wades through the press gallery to noisily remove a reporter because her clothing is distracting. This from a man seemingly undistracted by a colleague seated three chairs to his left, lolling backward in his chair with his eyes shut.
      - DuctapeFatwa on March 2, 2006 at 12:30 am
        
        Those interested may google or ask a Sikh friend.
        
        I am without words, or words that I wish to say, for what I feel for Roopa and his family.
      - maryb2004 on March 2, 2006 at 12:33 am
        
        read the story — she said it wasn’t for religious purposes.
        
        The Washington Post story (which is now archived) said that it was wound around the bun in the back of her head, kind of like a bow.
      - maryb2004 on March 2, 2006 at 12:34 am
        
        and Roopa was a woman.
        
        Apparently Rehnquist never got bent out of shape by what men wore — but then what they wear to court is so boring.
      - DuctapeFatwa on March 2, 2006 at 12:40 am
        
        as I might have thought it would.
        
        (and yes, I know, Roopa is a woman’s name, and yes I posted without thinking, and yes, I just took my pills, but I just can’t say that my thoughts are any different than my feelings were.)
      - maryb2004 on March 2, 2006 at 12:43 am
        
        well, my whole point was that Rehnquist was insane (at least about women’s fashion). I don’t agree with what he was doing but at least we should have our facts straight. Right?
      - maryb2004 on March 2, 2006 at 12:42 am
        
        Here’s the WP story — it was NOT religious it was FASHIONABLE. But not fashionable enough for the chief justice.
        
        and since this is an old story and the man is dead, it’s not worth getting worked up over it.
        
        Wearing Orange, Seeing Red
        
        By Al Kamen
        
        Wednesday, February 27, 2002; Page A21
        
        The Supreme Court was nearing the end of the first of
        two arguments
        involving First Amendment cases yesterday when
        broadcast intern Roopa
        Singh, seated in an alcove in the rear of the press
        section, noticed that
        Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist seemed to be
        scowling at her. He then
        turned to say something to Justice Sandra Day
        O’Connor, Singh said, and
        then briefly left the bench, going back through the
        huge drapes.
        
        Next thing she knew, there was a Supreme Court police
        officer making his
        way toward her. Seems her scarf — a deep orange
        bandanna tied in a coiled
        bun on the nape — was “bothering some of the
        justices,” she recalled the
        officer as saying. “Do you wear that for religious
        reasons?” he asked.
        
        “No,” said Singh, born in Chicago of Indian parents
        and now in her second
        year at Berkeley Law School. The scarf, which matched
        her blouse and went
        nicely with her navy blue suit, was upscale and quite
        fashionable, we are
        told, but not religious.
        
        “Would you take it off?” the officer asked. Singh,
        though deeply offended
        and upset, said she would, and excused herself to do
        so.
        
        She rejects the notion that this is simply another one
        of the high court’s
        goofy dress code incidents — ` la ABC News reporter
        Jackie Judd’s being
        told to stow a dangling press pass because the chief
        justice (he of the
        four gold stripes on each sleeve) doesn’t like hanging
        press passes that
        can catch the lights and be distracting, or the New
        York Times’s Elizabeth
        Becker, who was told she needed to find a jacket to
        wear over her
        perfectly appropriate two-piece, navy blue ensemble.
        
        Singh feels yesterday’s action had implications for
        “some of the
        justices'” abilities to relate to the increasingly
        diverse litigants and
        lawyers and clerks at the high court.
        
        The court, through spokeswoman Kathy Arberg, said,
        “the wearing of hats is
        generally not permitted in the courtroom except for
        medical or religious
        reasons.” Says so in the guidebook. And Singh’s scarf
        covered enough of
        her head apparently to qualify as a forbidden hat.
        (Loop Fans will please
        stop chanting “ad hoc, arbitrary and capricious, void
        for vagueness.”
        Thank you.)
        
        One would think “some of the justices” had better
        things to do than worry
        about this stuff. Guess not.
      - DuctapeFatwa on March 2, 2006 at 12:45 am
        
        I get pretty worked up over that phrase alone.
      - maryb2004 on March 2, 2006 at 12:49 am
        
        It was forbidden because it was NOT for religious purposes. If it was for religious purposes it would not have been banned.
        
        Most court rooms don’t allow the wearing of hats. That, in and of itself, is not strange. What is strange is that the chief justice would be so distracted by this woman’s scarf (her FASHION scarf) that he would decide it was close enough to a hat to interrupt an oral argument to ask for her to remove it.
        
        He was insane.
      - DuctapeFatwa on March 2, 2006 at 12:52 am
        
        that has gripped me. I am aware of the insanity requirement for US Supreme Court Justices. After all, it is their responsibility to select the symbolic figurehead.
      - maryb2004 on March 2, 2006 at 12:56 am
        
        The first clue that the man was off balance about fashion was the fact that he added those stripes to his robe after seeing a Gilbert & Sullivan operetta and being inspired by the costumes.
      - DuctapeFatwa on March 2, 2006 at 12:59 am
        
        That was always something of a hot button (or in this case, stripe) issue for me. Even a child would have enough fashion sense to know that one never, ever wears gold stripes on a judicial robe without having the basic good taste to add a touch of marbiou at the throat.
      - maryb2004 on March 2, 2006 at 1:01 am
        
        I knew that the man who critiqued skating costumes with his rapier sharp wit would see the humor in Rehnquist becoming the fashion police.
      - DuctapeFatwa on March 2, 2006 at 1:06 am
        
        informs me that White Trash Tv may have more of their exclusive report on Britney’s visit to New Orleans, to console the former city, and that it is therefore time for me to cease illuminating the internets and puncture myself and join her in rebuking Ms. Spears for whatever abomination she is sure to be wearing.
      - maryb2004 on March 2, 2006 at 12:30 am
        
        this one is funnier
        
        An example of a “standard” established by the Supreme Court is that attorneys and press (but not spectators) must wear “business attire.” Last week a reporter told me she had once been bounced from the front row of the press gallery for wearing a pantsuit. This week, the Washington Post’s Supreme Court reporter Joan Biskupic wrote about this code, and this morning, just before the oyezes ring out, Marshal Dale E. Bosley–who wears a gray morning coat with tails each day–is bantering with the clutch of reporters in attendance about whether or not such a code exists.
        
        There is talk of another female reporter being redistricted out of the justices’ eyeshot this week, and Bosley maintains that no such anti-pants rule exists. What is indisputably true, however, is that a standard does exist–it’s just anyone’s guess as to what it may be. Anyone troubled by sartorial standards to begin with–what, for instance, is “matching” really?–might find the prospect of Chief Justice Rehnquist passing down notes removing journalists over their purple culottes rather terrifying.
        
        More terrifying than that, however, is the prospect of Chief Justice Rehnquist passing down a note that says, “You are a Spring for God’s sake! No more camels and beiges for you.”
      - Izzy on March 2, 2006 at 12:31 am
        
        Thanks! I commented below.
growthrate on March 1, 2006 at 11:51 pm

Three humps, three legs. Perfect symmetry.
- maryb2004 on March 1, 2006 at 11:52 pm
  
  I didn’t get the camel reference before and I’m equally in the dark now. so
  
  huh?
  - Isis on March 1, 2006 at 11:53 pm
    
    But you have to admit it’s quite a funny image.
  - growthrate on March 1, 2006 at 11:54 pm
    
    Last cafe I just jumped in long enough to complain about being in a committee meeting where we were designing a camel.
  - Izzy on March 1, 2006 at 11:54 pm
    
    Growthrate was in a committee today. Congrats on the camel, gr!!
  - Izzy on March 1, 2006 at 11:58 pm
    
    … and I think the old joke is that the camel was a horse, designed by committee.
    - Isis on March 1, 2006 at 11:59 pm
      
      This must be a refernece to the Dept of Homeland Security, or FEMA.
    - maryb2004 on March 2, 2006 at 12:00 am
      
      that’s why it only has three legs
      
      i suppose
      - growthrate on March 2, 2006 at 12:09 am
        
        Bingo!
maryb2004 on March 2, 2006 at 12:04 am

sorry

I was distracted by something. So what happened to everybody tonight Izzy? why the echo chamber?
- Izzy on March 2, 2006 at 12:06 am
  
  I can only assume we were all exhausted by our rollicking good time this afternoon.
  - Izzy on March 2, 2006 at 12:11 am
    
    … and I’m sure it’s not because anyone (and by “anyone” I mean me) was distracted by any stupid model shows. Or Veronica Mars. Or even Lost. That would never happen. This is a serious blog for serious people.
    - growthrate on March 2, 2006 at 12:14 am
      
      Now they tell me!
Izzy on March 2, 2006 at 12:31 am

Thanks for the story maryb. When you first mentioned Rehnquist in reference to Anna Nicole, all I could think of was this:
- maryb2004 on March 2, 2006 at 1:04 am
  
  Yes, memories.
  
  Sorry it took me so long to tickle Ductape’s funny bone.
  
  Are you still here?
  - Izzy on March 2, 2006 at 1:07 am
    
    Yes! I’ve just been all agog, following your conversation. How did this whole Rehnquist/fashion police thing escape my notice?!? I never knew! I feel cheated somehow.
    
    The stripes on the robe did ring a bell, though. It brings to mind when Nixon changed the uniforms of the staff.
    - maryb2004 on March 2, 2006 at 1:12 am
      
      Guess you had to be a supreme court groupie to notice.
      
      I wish I could find the story on the press passes — because even though he said that it was the light reflecting off of them that was distracting — he only banned them after he stared at a network news reporter’s bosom with said badge bouncing on it. Too distracting for the court. Badges no longer to be worn.
      
      I crack up every time I think about that.
      - Izzy on March 2, 2006 at 1:53 am
        
        Oops. Sorry for disappearing like that. You’re probably asleep by now, but if not, goodnight!
Cali Scribe on March 2, 2006 at 2:44 am

Was supposed to be at church, but my rear end was too sore to consider an hour and a half of pew sitting…even if I grabbed the padded seats in the back. Sent spouse off to represent and chauffeur his folks to church…and turned out it was just him and dad-in-law; mom-in-law sliced a chunk out of her thumb while dicing onions for tuna salad. 🙁 She’s okay, just couldn’t wheel her wheelchair easily, so she stayed home and will go get it checked out tomorrow.

I ended up sleeping most of the evening while spouse was gone, got up when he got home to get something to eat and take my antibiotic — I’m supposed to take it with food but I haven’t really had the energy to eat (a big sign I’m not well!).

Okay, heading back to bed shortly…see you folks in the morning…

Lounge Closed. Morning Cafe Opened

About The Author

froggybottom

65 Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Comments