text:
The Hobo and The Gypsy: Mad Men, Season 3, Episode 11
It's more complicated than that. ~ Don
In Season 1's brilliant episode of Mad Men, "The Hobo Code," we learned about Dick Whitman's childhood by focusing on a time that a hobo visited his father's Depression-era farm, seeking shelter and food and a bit of money for some work, only to be cheated by Archie Whitman's meanness (in both senses of that word). The young Dick seems fascinated by the vagabond, who teaches him about "the hobo code" – the chalk signs that hobos of that era left on fences or walls to inform the next vagrant who came by whether the person who lived there was kind and generous or a cheat like Archie. (Think Twitter for the 1930's.)
But of course (like almost everything in this series), "the hobo code" has two meanings, which have become more apparent as the show goes. Don has been living by the hobo's code, which is to move through a world but not belong to it, or to the families or homes you visit, and his struggle throughout the entire series has been about deciding whether to remain a hobo, a man without a real home or identity, or to take the risk of becoming a real person, including fully committing himself to his family. By signing a contract at work recently, he put the first nail in the coffin of his hobo life, but he did not look happy about it, and in cheating more seriously and close to home with Suzanne, he seemed to actively un-do that act in a spasm of rebelliousness against commitment.
In Episode 11 of Season 3, "The Hobo and The Gypsy" (a parallel identity that Don has also inhabited), Don is finally confronted with the costume he has been wearing, as artificial as the ones his children take on at episode's end. In shedding it, Don finally learns that intimacy can only arise out of authenticity and truth. But before we get to the dramatic denouement that we've all been waiting for, we see two other sets of characters debate issues of identity and truth-telling as they try to make peace with their past dreams – and demons.
Roger is visited by an old flame, Annabelle, with whom he shared a Lost Generation love affair in Paris, "on vacation while other people were jumping out of windows" after the 1929 stock market crash. Both spoiled heirs to family fortunes, Annabelle nevertheless had callously dumped Roger for lacking direction, breaking his heart. Now a widow, she wants to rekindle their love affair, having realized that Roger was "the one" as well as "the one that got away" but Roger has to gently but firmly break the news to her that she wasn't, for him, turning down her advances by calling himself a happy newlywed and insisting that "this girl is different." But which girl? Given how much more appealing Annabelle is than the utterly vapid Jane (at least to this middle-aged woman viewer), we have to believe that Roger (who loves living up to his name) must genuinely be in love with someone, but whether it's Jane or Joan, we are left to wonder.
Having failed in her quest for love, Annabelle is still hoping for a miracle to save her family horse farm, which is literally looking like the dog's dinner. Throughout the episode, we are reminded of Shakespeare's immortal question, "What's in a name?" -- but while a rose by any other name might smell as sweet, in the wake of the 1962 film, The Misfits (a title that fits so many MM characters), horsemeat stinks. People have become squeamish about what's in dog food, a hypocrisy which Annabelle ascribes to the fact that unlike "beef" and "poultry," there is no euphemism to make horsemeat palatable. Despite her recognition of the power of words, she wants Sterling Cooper to solve the problem without any change in the formula or the name, because her father came up with it.
As with other agreements Don enters into, this one is made to be broken. As he will later with Betty, he has to explain the hard truth to Annabelle, saying "the name has been poisoned" and must be changed, arguing against her sentimentality with "it's just a label on a can" and the real point is that "it's a quality product." Just as Smitty has his head-slapping moment of realizing that the focus group dog owners are describing themselves in how they characterize their dogs (prompting one of Don's trademark dry-as-toast comebacks, "This your first group?"), so too is Don describing and also selling himself, as he's done every day since becoming Don Draper. While acknowledging the value of a product's (or a person's) name, he sees no reason to be attached to it when necessity argues otherwise.
Annabelle, however, is having none of it, still valuing patrimony in a way that Don has left far behind (perhaps because his father was an SOB – but then so was Annabelle's, according to Bert). Annabelle and Don may have both eaten horsemeat (a fact that seems to shock Roger when Don says it) but we immediately know without being told that she had it in a bistro in Paris and Don had it on the farm, probably because a horse had to be put down, and meat couldn't be wasted. From such life experiences come different values, ones that also separate him from his upper middle class wife, as well as from silver spoon mouthed Roger.
In the end, Annabelle can't handle the truth, either from the horse's mouth (Don) or the horse's ass (Roger) and so gets back on her high horse and leaves Sterling Cooper in the dust.
I realized there are other ways to heal people rather than cutting them open. ~ Greg
Our next two players in this episode of Truth or Consequences are Joan and Greg. While Greg mopes around, bemoaning his lost dream of being a general surgeon (if not Surgeon General), the ever-resourceful Joan calls up Roger to ask if he could possibly find her a better job, and the tender, funny, intimate conversation between the two leaves you wondering if Roger is being honest about which girl he's in love with.
Greg is half-heartedly pursuing his new career plan to be a psychiatrist, and practices interviewing with Joan (who I'd hire to be my coach any day) while revealing his disdain for the tenets of the profession. After first evading her question about why he's choosing psychiatry by saying, "That's kind of personal," he surprises Joan (but not us) with the news that his father once suffered a nervous breakdown. Showing she too wants authenticity, Joan compliments him on how he comes across when talking with honesty and vulnerability, but Greg scoffs at the idea of openness and so blows his interview and the chance to hear other people open up about their feelings for the next 40 years.
After throwing a toddleresque tantrum ending with the immortal words, "You don't know what it's like to want something your whole life and count on it and not get it, OK?" – making plain his belief that women couldn't possibly have dreams or ambitions -- Joan shows she knows a thing or two about shrinking heads by throwing a vase at his fat thick one (yeah, Joanie!) to get it back down to manageable size.
Chastened (or perhaps brain-damaged), Greg comes up with a solution that makes him nearly bust with pride, even as he admits how obvious it was all along: He's going to Be All He Can Be in the Army, which is so desperate for doctors, they'll even take Dr. Cut Up (as Roger calls him), giving him a surgical residency and making him a Captain. Of course, later he might have to go to Germany or even Viet Nam "if that's still going on" but he doubts it.
Joan looks stunned at this news, but also relieved and happy. Greg assures her that she won't have to work anymore because Uncle Sam will take care of both of them, but given we've heard Roger recommend her to a fellow exec who needs someone to organize his office, I foresee a conflict coming in which Joan will have to decide if she's really ready to put her feet up and get knocked up, or if she misses the authority she had at work more than she wants to admit.
Interesting as they are, these storylines are mere warm-ups for the heavyweight match of Truth or Consequences between Betty and Don.
Betty learns the truth of her situation and the consequences of a potential divorce when she takes the kids to visit her father's house and negotiates with her brother William over selling it. He wants to buy her out, but not at market price, but that's not even the bad news. That comes from the family lawyer, Milton, who Betty asks for advice about her marriage, confessing what she hasn't even spoken aloud yet – that her husband has deceived her and everyone else.
Milton seems unfazed by this news (leaving me to wonder…isn't there something called matrimonial fraud, and if so, wouldn't this qualify?) and instead paints Betty a grim picture of New York divorce law – she won't get any money and Don could even get the kids. True to the time, he asks her the two key questions women in her situation were always asked: Does Don hurt her? (Although in the upper middle class manner, he delicately phrases it as whether he "scares" her.) And: Is he a good provider? Hearing her answers, he advises her to go home and work things out with the father of her three children.
With cold legal water thrown in her face, Betty surprises Don by coming home sooner than expected – and just as he's about to leave on a getaway with Suzanne, who has realized that she wants more and is beginning to push for it, a move that surprisingly Don responds to, revealing how close he is to abandoning his marriage.
But Betty's showdown at the "You're Not OK Corral" not only wipes that possibility off the map, it even seems to make Don forget Suzanne is out in the car waiting for him. Or at least it felt that way, and I'm sure I'm not the only viewer who was on tenterhooks, expecting Suzanne to burst in just as Don and Betty finally had it out (a scripting mistake, in my opinion, that undercut the intense dramatic power of this confrontation that we've waited so very long for).
Don at first resists Betty's demand that he open up his Drawer of Mystery, and his vehement "this is my desk – it's private" speech suggests that a man's desk is like a woman's purse – not to be trifled with unless you have permission to enter. Given that in psychological terms, a woman's purse is considered analogous to her vagina, I guess that means those big ole wooden desks represent a man's privates. Certainly in this case, we know the desk hides Don's Dick.
I don't even know him. I met him at the wedding. ~ Milton the lawyer about Don, but seemingly channeling Betty
In an extended and masterfully played scene (by both actors), Don not only comes clean (well, mostly) with Betty about his life, narrating it with the family pictures she's uncovered, but also finally allows himself the emotional release for what he's lost (especially Adam) as well as for what he's gaining (authenticity and intimacy with Betty). It's heartbreaking to see Don finally acknowledge that he drove Adam to his death by denying him the contact that he wanted, and that it came about because he didn't want to risk losing the life that he'd created as Don.
"He hung himself," he tells Betty bluntly, and that's true not just of Adam but Don as well, who killed his birth identity and hung himself in taking a new identity, with all the strictures that such a deception entails.
Betty's response, "Am I supposed to feel sorry for you?" is satisfying in a way almost all of her dialogue is here, as she finally takes charge of her life and her relationship, not letting Don get away with anything, calling him a "very very gifted storyteller" who can explain anything while still saying nothing. But Don's response to that question, "I don't know," seems utterly sincere. We see that he isn't speaking from self-pity as Betty suspects but instead, having opened up a vein, is now pouring out the truth like blood that can't be stopped.
Yet even in spilling his story with seeming relief, Don fudges a few facts, saying that the Army mixed up the identities and not that he deliberately exchanged the dog tags, using the classic rationalization, "I didn't think I had a choice and I don't know what the difference is." And when Betty catches his lie about getting divorced from Anna "the minute" they met (when it was actually just 3 months before they married) and asks, "Why couldn't you tell me any of this?" he bristles and deflects with, "When? The day we met? On our first date? On our wedding day?" capping it with the ultimate put-down, "Why did you need to know?" Betty's response, "You don't get to ask any questions" fails to address the point – that of course his future wife needed to know about his past.
While the focus is on Don, Betty reveals herself as well, saying that she'd always assumed that Don was "some football hero who hated his father" and that she'd known he grew up poor because he "doesn't understand money," a comment which carries echoes of her father's sneers to Don that "you people think everything is about money' as well as Roger's rich-boy country club put-downs. Like those two men, Betty thinks people don't understand money if they don't see it exactly the same way she does, as a signifier of class and position, rather than as merely a useful tool (the way Don does).
Similarly, Don and Betty have differing views of identity. Don, seeing identity as a tool just like money, argues facilely that "people change their names, Bets. You did." To which she retorts, "I did, I took your name" – a name which she now knows is false, and thus an affront to the deep familial and social meaning that names have for her (as they did for her parents).
Her father had claimed that Don couldn't be trusted "because he has no people" and it is only in presenting his people, in a raw storytelling style utterly different from his usual slick pitches and seductions that Betty slowly begins to trust Don, real sympathy breaking over her face as he tells her the names and fates of his kin. And yet Gene was right – Don has no people because "they all died." He has only Betty and his kids, and in the end he asserts his connection to them, correcting Betty who has spoken of his hiding secrets in "her" house by saying "This is our house. Those are our children."
Hobo and gypsy no more, he has joined himself to Betty at last. Upon first being confronted, Betty notes his uneasiness and asks, "Are you thinking of what to say, or are you just looking at that door?" to which he responds, "I'm not going anywhere."
And for once, he doesn't. Betty may follow him from room-to-room with the shoebox of secrets and threaten, "We're not done here," but it is Don who takes the shoebox into their bedroom, that most intimate spot of married life, and asks her to sit down next to him, so he can finally consummate their marriage by telling the truth of who he is.
Earlier, Joan has told Greg that psychiatry is "a field about the most intimate details of life," to which the clueless Greg responds, "More intimate than their organs?" Here we see not a psychiatrist's couch but a married couple's bed as the site of intimacy -- not of organs in sexual ecstasy, but of hearts opening in honesty.
As with sexual encounters, the real moment of truth occurs in the cold light of morning, when lovers must face each other (and themselves), and accordingly we see Don and Betty (under the ever-watchful eye of Sally) exchange what could be married couple banalities about breakfast but which we know say so much more:
Betty: You want something?
Don: You gonna have something?
They thoughtfully solicit each other's desires, but acting in tandem at last, neither eat, before parting with tenderness and promises to go trick or treating with the kids that night. At that time, we again see them in perfect sympathy, the conversation about dinner echoing the one of the morning:
Betty: Do you want anything?
Don: No.
In an act of nurturance and affection, Betty takes the sandwich she's been eating and hands him the remaining piece, which he eats. Don is choosing not to want something unless his wife and partner wants it and has it as well, and in the end, he finds he is wanting nothing and yet gets fed.
Trick-or-treating with the kids a short while later, their neighbor Carleton says "Well, look at this, we have a gypsy and a hobo!" to the kids before surveying Don and Betty in their suburban costumes and joking, "And who are you supposed to be?" In their rueful, resigned and yet finally contented faces we read their unspoken answer: Ourselves.
Like Bobby, who announces his intention to be an astronaut for Halloween but ends up as a hobo, we don't always become the people we dream of being. But there might still be a bag of candy for us in the bargain, if we're willing to give up the trick for the treat.
Twitter for the 1930's nearly killed me.
I couldn't help but find the long confessional scene slow - regurgitating information we mostly knew already- and drawn out. Thus it broke my suspension of reality enough to think "This just screams 'Jon Hamm for Emmy' ". It didn't help that I was more interested in whether poor misguided Miss Farrell was still waiting in the car.
The interesting question is "what now?" Two episodes left in the season, and if Betty's not leaving Don, what fun will we have?
I love reading your posts, though, always. But I have to say, I wish MM would stay in the office more and in the home less.
Betty's discovery of the box brought out the best in her and in this episode she behaved like a genuine adult. And unlike Don, who needed a drink when she confronted him, she doesn't need to use alcohol as an emotional crutch (although she's fond of nicotine). What is Don going to do with this new, assertive, truth-telling wife?
I think the Greg military decision opens up future Viet Nam connections in the story line. And they certainly have to find a way to keep Joan in this; I think it may be back with Roger--who obviously still cares for her -- while Greg is in training.
I agree that the acting between Don and Betty was exceptional in this episode. And we are heading for November. The dramatic irony of us knowing how history enfolds adds immeasurably to the story line and elevates this series.
But now, lucky us, so do you.
Great analysis. While I wondered about Suzanne bursting in or being found, the longer he didn't acknowledge her the more I was convinced he really was invested in coming clean with Betty.
I continue to cringe at Betty's coldness with her children just as I am amazed at Don's ability to be kind to them, when he was not raised with kindness himself.
To me, this episode was a power shift. Despite the Draconian Divorce law, Betty now has the power to "out" Don. He HAS to stay or face the consequences.
One historical quibble about Greg's reference to Vietnam. I don't think that was on anyone's radar in 1963. The Gulf of Tonkin incident was not until Aug of 64, and the first American combat troops were not sent until 1965. The audience knows what's coming, ( and this will be a convenient way to free Joan of Greg), but I don't think most Americans are any more aware of Vietnam than they are of the Beatles at this point in time.
I didn't get the eating horsemeat contrast between Don and Annabelle, so I'm glad you picked up on it. I was kind of wondering what purpose it served to have Don say that he had eaten it.
Also, I never thought for a minute that Suzanne would come to the Drapers' door (although I did wonder of anyone would see her in Don's car or see her leaving).
I'll echo whoever said that I wish they'd spend a little more time at Sterling Cooper. I could watch a whole show take place in Bert Cooper's office. That is one of the most beautiful rooms I've ever seen on television.
Silkstone, I look forward to your recaps/essays even more than I look forward to the show itself, and this time you've simply OUTDONE yourself.
Another point: It's not that Betty now has the power to "out" Don, though she does; now she is complicit. She has as much to lose as he; his secret now becomes hers. So, any increase in truth and intimacy between them will come from not the power that she now has in the relationship, but from the fact that they are in it together.
Susanne, thanks! I need to give credit to Kaybell for inspiring that first line because of her comment last week that the entire ep could be summarized as "Betty realizes Don is really a Dick." It was a short leap from there to my joke. But I did think up the Twitter one (I love to make fun of Twitter whenever I can).
Brian, I didn't find that scene slow -- this is MM, after all, where things move slowly, and this is THE scene we've been waiting 3 seasons for, so it deserves a full playing out. I was thinking last nite about where things go from now, too. I agree with people who said we may not have seen the last of Suzanne - -I think she may pop up to spoil the new-found peace between Don and Betty. It's also possible that the last 2 eps will focus more on other characters' arcs, which people have been wishing for.
Lisa, I think it's great you admit that! I think women have very mixed feelings about men acting vulnerable. I've heard many men say that women tell them they want that, but if a guy gets vulnerable, and esp if he cries, they actually hate it. I have to say, Betty seemed to like it (not that she'd want him weeping all the time, but...). And that says a lot for a woman of her generation and repressed nature. So it bodes well for her growing as a person. And I get what you are saying about Suzanne being the good girl who would never insert herself (except, uh, in having an affair with the married father of one of her students) -- it was more thinking that she wouldn't realize Betty was home and walk in wondering what's taking Don so long. But I also think Suzanne may end up being more intrusive than expected.
Too.true -- well put. Betty does finally seem like an adult here, after being so childish for so long. And it's an interesting question you raise. When one partner changes, even for the better, it can be the demise of a relationship. Don will also have to change.
Dorinda, thanks!
Doug, I can only imagine what you've missed.
Lea, you're always so kind! thank you. Yes, I think it's a great way to work Vietnam into the show....which suggests Joan will stay married, doesn't it? I hate to see her stuck with Greg but if he's off at war, it won't seem so bad....
NoisyNora, I also think Hamm has a very expressive face. Which is funny since he plays a man who wears a mask. Agree he seems very different when he goes into, um, Dick mode. He's a lot more appealing to me.
Yak, I hadn't thought about the blackmail angle. I don't see Betty going that way (agree with person who said it actually makes her collude with Don) but I also think it does give her a feeling of security that she has that information to fall back on. And Betty's all about the security.
Scarlet, ha! Wish I'd thought of that connection.
Harry, we've already heard several characters refer to Vietnam but then they are better informed (including courting military contractors as clients). I think it's on the radar but yes, most Americans think about it as Greg does - a distant problem that will soon go away, not the defining issue of a generation as we know it will be.
Jeanette, ha! I also love Bert so part of me always wants more of him. But I'm sure a little goes a long way - he's like the spicy mustard on the sandwich. I hope the last 2 episodes focus on the office, too. I was thinking last nite that this season of MM is like that season on The Sopranos that was mostly about Tony and Carmela's relationship and ended with the big fight where he almost hits her. Instead of violence, in MM's climactic episode, Don and Betty make peace. Well, I guess that's the difference between the ad business and the Mafia!
Gwool and VR, thanks!
Highland, great insight about the cash. I hadn't thought of that and it makes complete sense. I confess I was really surprised that Betty was so nonchalant about it. Even though she was looking for much more than that, I thought she'd hesitate over it.
DB, high praise! thanks so much.
I agree with one of the comments above that your Mad Men work beats anything on Salon, or Slate, or anywhere else on the internet.
It was great to see Joan and Roger again. Christina Hendricks and John Slattery are such good actors that their presence really amps up MM.
Hard to imagine what the last 2 episodes -- and next season-- hold for Don and Betty. For all the shared intimacy of this episode, it seems unlikely that Betty will become a warm whole person or that Don will give up his old ways so easily.
Did I miss something in Don's answer to Betty about why he kept the box "in her house'? It seemed vague, unclear--but was that supposed to be because Don was so caught off guard and "disarmed" in an older sense of the word?
I agree that Suzanne (who continues to annoy) In the Car was distracting--surely, I thought, she won't ring the bell and add fuel to the conflagration. But maybe we are to see Don's forgetting her out there as significant. Just as he was about to do a more domestic version of bolting with Midge, he was challenged about his very identity and having to deal with the woman he has had, after all, 3 kids with. Makes the playing house thing with Suzanne seem all the more sordid/silly (by my lights). Anyway, the easy, smooth philandering and getting away with it Don was thrown off his balance by a fierce Betty and Suzanne all but forgotten--now that his mask has been torn away, can he still cheat with such a clear conscience? Seems that fluid identity thing allowed him to do that with nary a qualm--now?
Might the "gypsy" in the title refer to someone other than Don? Our Joan, who has yet to find a place in which her light can shine with full force. We don't know too much about her background, do we? And remember that sad song with the accordian--that sure hinted at a sad "gypsy" past. Since all the men seem to think of her in terms of cup size (Joan knows men, alright), I'd like to see her get to use her brain size. I like to think Dr. McRape will be off in Vietnam and Joan, bored, will go on to found a women's center with her old gay roommate and now lover --giving career advice maybe? I can dream, can't I? ...
I can't take credit for it, but saw on another site a great comment--Looks like Vietnam will be getting its Dr. Frank Burns.
I felt there was something odd going on in the first twenty minutes or so, particularly in the first scene in Bert Cooper's office. Everyone's timing seemed off. But (falling in with your line of analysis) perhaps that was foreshadowing of that whole plotline, having to do with the messed-up timing of the love affair between Annabelle and Roger.
I find the hulking actor who plays Joan's husband very menacing, and not just because the first time he appeared in the show he raped her. His squarish, ex-fullback build seems to fill the frame every time he appears. In one shot he comes up behind her when she's seated; I thought for a second his next move would be to strangle her.
I just wanted to add one thing. My impression during the great confrontation between Don and Betty was that by having his past presented to him, Don temporarily reverted to Dick. The scared, pained look on his face reminded me immediately of the scared look on Dick Whitman's face when he was in Korea. And Betty responded to that by recognizing, maybe for the first time, Don / Dick's humanity. Very cathartic.
Joan will land on her feet.
With three episodes to go it's obvious that the season will end with the endof Sterling Cooper. Next season will deal with the Great Diaspora. Who will survive -- and what will be left of them?
Adele, "proto flower child" is a perfect way to describe Suzanne, mixed with that 1950's good girl thing. But I still think she may have a trick (vs a treat) up her sleeve yet, and cause some trouble. I agree about Hendricks and Slattery being absolutely delicious together. Their scenes always leave me wanting more. I don't know if it would be as good if there really were a lot more, but it's fun to wonder. I started out finding Joan a bitch -- and I think she's presented that way in the early episodes and has been softened since -- but she's completely won me over. Slattery's character is despicable but he has so much fun playing him that it makes him a joy to watch. (similar to Kartheiser with Pete, who's a pathetic character played to hilarious perfection)
MaryCal, thanks! No, I don't think Don answered the question about why keep the shoebox in the house. Recall, though, that it came to his office, Pete found it on his desk, stole it for a while and tried to blackmail him with it. So that may have left him feeling the office wasn't too safe. And he clearly understood that Betty was too much of a good girl to break into his desk. Whether he unconsciously led her to the key is an unanswered question.
I like your analysis of Don "playing house" with Suzanne and it seeming silly. I hadn't put that together in my head, but I was bugged about it in the same way without knowing why. I confess it may have struck a nerve for me as a long single woman who lived alone for many years -- in that situation, you can get a little weird when you have a lover and want to "play house". So both her behavior and Don's impatience with it (given he already has a wifey at home) rang very true to me.
I'm not quite seeing Joan as a Gypsy. I think it's just another way to describe Don. The Frank Burns comment is priceless. I had a similar thought last nite watching the ep and forgot to work it into my recap -- altho I was going to be a bit more charitable and comment that maybe he'd learn at least meatball surgery as they did in MASH.
Fran, I'm the same age and my childhood was very similar (as I've written here), and yes, Betty rings true to me to how mothers commonly behaved in those days. They were really pretty "cool" with their kids, at best.
Mark, I find Greg menacing, too, and when he came home with the flowers, and had his hands behind his back, before I saw what they were, I really worried that he had a gun and was going to threaten to kill her or kill himself in front of her!
DDD, I agree with you (and others) who saw Don "regress" to Dick, and to a younger more vulnerable age. I think we also saw what lurks beneath that slick "Don Draper" exterior much of the time -- a very frightened man.
Sao Kay and Tiger, thanks!
David, I don't think they'll break up the agency yet. Too many seasons to go, and trying to follow people in different work places would be too scattered. But it's heading towards extinction, as Matthew Weiner has said.
My other disagreement was about her "You don't know anything about money comment". Great insight by others with regard to cash at this time, but I doubt that Gene got where he was by being without business acumen or risk aversion. I think, as demonstrated by her holding court at Gene's desk, that Bets is a lot more capable than we've yet seen (as in her mastery of Italian), and this will extend to business for her - does she long to be more of a true "partner" with Don (to the point of some of her frustration), and is this where she'll make her mark?
Jane: vapid, but sexy hot ... I think this is what works for Roger. I don't see him with Joan, but because of her and not him. He is, and will forever be, demeaning toward her. She won't make the same marriage mistake twice.
Dr. Greg - totally agree with the comment on "Nam's Dr. Frank Burns" ... I think he goes away a la Scarlett O'Hara's first hubby - one of the first casualties of the war. Too bad it won't be til 1965 .... but maybe he is killed by friendly fire in a boot camp "accident" ....
Thanks to one and all for your great insights
I took Betty's comment that "you don't understand money," more at face value. It was said with such casual disdain that I took it just to mean that she recognized he wasn't middle class and didn't understand basic stuff like household management, or respect for the rituals of financial transactions within a marriage, like: when your wife is leaving on a trip and tells you she only has $40, you hand over the cash you have. You don't look at her like she's an idiot for not thinking about stopping at the bank. And the fact that he says "there must be $200 in there" shows that they don't exactly sit down and talk about the household finances very often.
I don't like Betty, but I think Don Draper probably projects far more on to money than she does. Do you really believe money is just money to him? This is somebody who hoards large sums of cash into a shoe box in his desk, just in case he has to take off suddenly. He's got some money issues.
I think this was an amazing episode. So well acted. But also the best writing we've seen on the show yet. And the character development is fascinating. We see Don vulnerable, and exposed. On one level so much more authentic that he's ever been. But all the while becoming an even more a self absorbed, complex phony. His sweet mistress is sitting out in the car, the ENTIRE time he's coming clean. Meanwhile, Betty, who I've always detested, shows the first glimmers of real character.
She's a self-absorbed, refrigerator narcissist. Which is why Don married her. He could depend on her not to care enough to ask any deep questions. But she's risking something in confronting him this way. As her lawyer pointed out, she very vulnerable in this situation, financially and socially. So for her to be this authentic is a pretty huge leap in maturity. One Don obviously was never expecting. And neither were we.
This is a man who has lied about his identity once, and hoards secret cash. She could have woken up the next morning to an empty bed and an empty bank account. So there is something a bit touching about this courage.
I also found the whole theme of psychiatry and confessionals, in this age where the "talking cure" is still kind of in its infancy, beautifully interwoven. Especially in the ways that the truth is such a double edged sword. The truth is out between them. But this was a marriage built on lies. Can it really survive honesty? Betty's no longer fulfilling her function for Don as the partner who doesn't care enough to ask. I don't think there's any happily ever after here.
As for Roger, I don't understand why people are wasting their time trying to figure out which woman is "the one." First of all, the only one for Roger is Roger. That line was pure infantile revenge. But it was pretty entertaining revenge. And second, she deserved it. When she compares herself to Ingrid Bergman? and he retorts "that woman got on a plane with a man who was going to end WW2, not run her father's dog food company." Ha!
As for her mature sexiness? Here she is reminiscing fondly about their time in Paris "People were jumping out of windows and we were on vacation!" That woman is the definition of vapid. She's just Jane with money and 20 years. Roger merely sees past her glamor and bullshit. She's simply not "the one." That doesn't mean there is a "one."
And then there's the final nail in coffin. That of all the men in the world, the "one" is Roger? Even Roger's not idiot enough to fall for that line.
And finally, I really loved the closing theme music from Oliver! That over the top orphan sentimentality, so wonderfully undercut any possibility that Don Draper is on the road to authenticity. I feel for him. But I don't think true love or happiness is ever in the cards for him. That line at the end "and who are you supposed to be" was a thud. But it was thud that simply arrived sooner, rather than later.
The only thing for sure to come out of this episode is that Jon Hamm has one hell of a movie career ahead of him. Because that was some pretty awesome acting.
So I'm not entirely cynical!
UD, I agree it can't really be over for Don -- otherwise the show would be over. I think you and several other people have brought up a good point of what will Don do if Betty starts getting really empowered? The dynamic of their relationship is already changing and will continue to do so. That's where the drama will come in, I think. As for the money thing, I understand what you are saying but I still see Betty's comment the way I described. As for Jane, OK...I can see it. I just really dislike that "girl" as Roger aptly terms her. Her laughing at the blackface just sealed the deal for me. Being a big fan of GWTW, I laughed at your predicting that Greg will be like Scarlett's first husband. I actually love the idea of Joan as a war widow. She'd rock those black dresses.
Owl and Syd, thanks!
Matty, yes, in one of the first recaps I did this season, I noted that we find out Roger's daughter's wedding is scheduled for the day after JFK will be assassinated so we will get some reaction from the characters about it, I think. But Matthew Weiner has said he doesn't want to do the usual kind of thing around that event, so we'll see what he comes up with.
Juliet, also welcome your disagreements! As I said above, though, I'm sticking to how I see the money thing. It's not that money isn't important to Don -- I've said a few times that what I think is the difference is that for people like Roger and Betty, it's a social signifier and defines who you are, whereas for Don, it's a tool. So yes, he keeps a stash in his drawer - - because that would enable him to flee, as you say. If it was a status thing, he'd spend it, including on things that are visible to other people (recall his initial reluctance to buy a Caddy after he got the SC buy out money, despite Roger's urging). For Don, money = freedom, including to say Fuck You to his job or anyone. For Roger and Betty, money defines their position in life, and it tells them that they are better than people who have less, or who don't know how to act with their riches (like Syd Barrett). There's a difference.
I agree Don married Betty precisely for who she is -- and that means she did the same with him. What will it be like as they change? this continues to be the question, for all the characters, in a series about a decade of enormous change, which did rend many relationships of all kinds.
I love your take on Roger! yeah, Roger and his Stoli. Those are really his only 2 true loves. But I still think he has feelings for Joan and vice versa. He's not immune to sentimentality at the least. And Joan is capable of real love, just very very cautious about it, I think.
I didn't know the theme music at end so thanks for saying what it was. Is it from the movie, cuz I saw it but don't recall that song (or maybe just a different recording, from the stage version)? I think you're dead-on about the orphan thing.
Steven, thanks! Yes, as I've said, to me, this show is like a novel, and that's why it unfurls more slowly than most TV but also why it's so rich and complex.
I don't think that Don forgot that Suzanne was in the car. He tried to go out to shoo her off but when stopped by Betty, he played his hand thereon the only way he cold. He'd be caught out had he made another attempt to "get his hat" so he was forced into hoping that Suzanne wouldn't knock on the door to see what was keeping him. I'm not sure why she just took off. Was there evidence that Betty was back home or was it more on general principles that she wouldn't pursue to that extent? But someone in her situation might have wondered if Don had slipped on the stairs or something, especially as she cares for him that much.
I'm a little surprised about some folks' negative views about Betty. She's always seemed to me to be one of those bright women who took the traditional route of marrying a good-looking good provider and has since gradually realized that being a typical mother and supportive wife for her husband wasn't all she might have hoped for. Especially when he's been unfaithful.
And as for Dr. Cut-up, he'll go to Vietnam and stay there till the writers need to get rid of him. It's really open-ended.
If this past episode wasn't the best yet, it's right up there. I'm really looking forward to how they treat the Kennedy assassination. Next season brings us The Beatles and soon thereafter the whole 60s tumult.
I enjoyed seeing Betty find a strength and not give Don any wiggle room, not letting him off the hook. He tried his usual bombast to push her back in her corner and she was having none of it I liked the way her soft, pampered girl look was gone and she assumed the air of a woman clear about her position. Conversely it was interesting to see how quickly Don crumpled. you could see him literally physically diminish it seemed. I attribute both of these very believably physical metamorphises to the acting chops of each - as you pointed out once before - it's easy to underestimate how well January Jones gets her character, Betty.
I would disagree that it was a writing mistake not to have Suzanne burst in on them, although I half expected it also, but I do think that it stood better for Betty and Don to have their moment of truth alone.
I loved the way Joan slammed the vase into Carl's head - possibly a foreshadowing of the road the women are going to take in the future?
And Roger just simply surprised me. It's almost like there was an underlying theme of integrity at work.
I would say that he needs a lawyer and maybe the statute of limitations has already run its course.
So, what if no one cares? I dunno -- another reason to stay tuned.
I agree completely that having Suzanne cooling her heels in the car undermined the focus on Betty's confrontation with Don. I wish it hadn't been done that way. I am relieved to have it over with though.
It's too bad there are only two episodes left of the season because it's too late now for some of other characters to have have full storylines. This season has been all Don and Betty with crumbs for the rest. I'm mostly sympathetic to Don, in spite of his many flaws, but I really don't find Betty that interesting. She's gorgeous and it's great to see her done up in the prettiest fashions of the day, but that's about it.
Someone comments about Betty's "I only have forty dollars" . . . I think Betty was thinking about the ton of cash in Don's locked desk drawer. What's in there, thirty thousand? His last packet of money that he put in there was his five thousand dollar bonus, in fifty dollar bills . . . and there were several similarly-sized bundles of fifties . .
I think Betty was thinking 'gee, I have forty dollars in cash, I'm gong away for a week and there is a boatload of cash in that drawer, I want to see how he will react when I mention needing some cash?"
And his response, that she has two hundred dollars in her checking account shows that he is very aware of how much cash Betty has . . . and he does not give her any bundles of five grand. .
I bet Betty does not know Don cleared over half a million when PPL bought SC. In the sixties, many wives had absolutely no idea what kind of assets their husband had.
Betty must have had a million reactive thoughts about everything she discovered in that drawer. And she is plenty smart, we know that. She had to be thinking 'gee, he socks away a ton of cash without telling me he has this money and he gives me two hundred dollars? What's up with that? (well, put that in a sixties vernacular). . .
Also, I think Betty was trying on confronting Don when she said "I have forty dollars" , wanted to closely watch his reaction, now that she knows he is deeply dis honest with her. She'd have to be wondering . .. what all has this guy lied about? It is very reasonable to assume there are many more lies than the ones revealed in the desk drawer.
Teresa, I didn't post it, but in my notes I was writing stuff about Don's reactions. He really does crumple and show more emotion than we've ever seen, including fear (I thought he looked terrified at a couple points). I think Jon Hamm was terrific in breaking "Don" open at that point. As for Suzanne, the writing mistake to me was not that she should have burst in -- quite the opposite! I thought the fear she would do that undermined the drama of B&D's scene. I would have liked an earlier inset of the shot where we see her get out of the car and go home, so we could know she's out of the picture and focus just on B&D. I thought they waited way too long to put that shot in, which leads me to believe they wanted that tension for the viewers. And I think that was a mistake. There was plenty of tension and drama without that!
Suz, I agree the other characters have gotten very short shrift this season. Earlier I compared it to the Sopranos season that was a lot about Tony and Carmela's marriage, so maybe Weiner's training on that series is showing! I think it was wrong not to balance it more, but ah well. Nitpicking on such a fine series.
Tizzie, I saw Betty asking for money the same as I think you did -- I thought Betty was testing Don to see if he'd admit to having more cash around. Yet how could he? He wouldn't open that drawer with her around. I suppose he could have closed his office door, got some cash out and then given it to her. But it seemed a sort of fruitless attempt. Still, when she says, "So you don't have any more money around?" it seems clear she's trying to dig at that secret, perhaps just to confirm how much he lies to her.
Juliet, see above. I agree he must carry a fair bit of cash (although Diner's Club cards existed then - they were the first credit cards and businessmen did use them for entertaining, which was one big reason they were invented). But I'm guessing they had a system like my parents did in that era -- my mother got an "allowance" every week of a budgeted amount of money for groceries, household expenses and her own needs. You lived within that. It's not like most people do now, where they just keep drawing more money out of the ATM. It's the reason that our parents -- or perhaps your grandparents -- managed to save so much money even while earning less. They lived on strict budgets for the most part and of course didn't use credit like we do.
Sandra, thanks! I'm amazed you read such a long piece about a show you don't even watch!
Steven, I'm overwhelmed by that compliment - thank you so much.
UD, yes those gender splits are interesting. I've encountered that many times in reverse -- where men enlightened me about why a guy would or would not do something that I completely did not get.
I like the suggestion she is like a modern Hester Prynne.
Maybe Suzanne is from another part of NY or, even, MA -- since she 'got' her brother a job in Bedford MA -- she must know someone in Bedford? Maybe she has come to Ossining fleeing scandal in another school/town?
Gee, I never would have thought her job at risk .. but clearly she does, which makes her behavior all the more puzzling. She is a beautiful woman. Even flakes can attract committed partners if they want one . . women who has serial affairs with married men, as Suzanne seems to have a proclivity for . . . doesn't that seem to be asking for trouble? It's like she has an echo of her brother's epilepsy, a 'disability' . . .she is self-destructive, only choosing unavailable men, causing unnecessary entanglements.
I totally don't get the Suzanne character. She clearly loves children. Why not marry and have some of her own? In her late twenties (her brother says he is 25, she is older than him), with a teaching license, she would be a great catch to plenty of available husband candidates.
As far as the writers keeping Suzanne out in the car, I agree that they could have shown her slinking off sooner than they showed us . . but maybe the fact that Suzanne appeared to have waited many hours, seeming to slink away only when the whole neighborhood was sleep -- this would diminish the likelihood of her being seen leaving Don's car with the suitcase.. but waiting so long tugs at the heart. I don't like Suzanne, I feel like she made her own bed with Don (knowing he was married) and she freely chose her poison, chose the heartache of knowing his first priority was his wife . . . still, I feel sorry when she is in pain.
I guess there are women like that, women who don't quite believe they deserve to be cared for and taken care of so they repeatedly choose unavailable men. And predatory men always seem to be able to sniff the Suzanne's of the world out, eh?
I bet Suzanne figured out pretty quickly that Betty was still home. It was barely dusk when Don got out of that car. . it is late October, getting dark earlier. As soon as it was really dark outside, like by the time the street lamps turned on, Suzanne would have seen lights going on all over the house. Maybe she could even see the television glow, see movement in the house. Betty sent the kids upstairs -- so if Suzanne was closely watching the house, she would have seen human activity upstairs and down and quickly concluded Don had found something he had not expected in that house. And Suzanne would have immediately, and correctly, surmised that Don found his family.
She probably waited in the car too long because against reason, she kept on hoping Don would come out and live out the fantasy of going away together. She had nothing better to do with her evening other than to cling to hope. . . so she did. I think I get that behavior.
And, with my above interpretation, this means that the writers got it right. Loopy, romantic, low self esteem Suzanne would have waited too long in the car.
I also like the idea of her as Hester Prynne. Yup. (except hopefully not prengnant.) Tizzie, teachers indeed would be fired for what she'd done in that era...and for some years after. Especially female teachers.
"Milton seems unfazed by this news (leaving me to wonder…isn't there something called matrimonial fraud, and if so, wouldn't this qualify?) and instead paints Betty a grim picture of New York divorce law – she won't get any money and Don could even get the kids. True to the time, he asks her the two key questions women in her situation were always asked: Does Don hurt her? (Although in the upper middle class manner, he delicately phrases it as whether he 'scares' her.) And: Is he a good provider? Hearing her answers, he advises her to go home and work things out with the father of her three children."
The history of family law in New York is far from my specialty, but I can give some of these points a shot.
(1) In circumstances that you have characterized as "matrimonial fraud," many jurisdictions probably have the remedy of annulment. That's different from a divorce. An annulment establishes that, legally, a marriage was void from its inception. ("An 'annulment' differs from a divorce in that a divorce terminates a legal status, whereas an annulment establishes that a marital status never existed." Black's Law Dictionary p. 59 (abridged 6th ed., 1991).)
It's far from clear that an annulment of the marriage would be an attractive option for Betty. Depending on the controlling statute and relevant case law, an annulment might, in some jurisdictions, threaten the legitimacy of the children. It might leave Betty with no claim to Don's property. I have no idea how those issues might have been resolved under New York law in 1963, but she'd want some clear answers before charging off in that direction!
(2) You state that attorney Lowell tells her "she won't get any money and Don could even get the kids." Listen carefully to Lowell's actual advice. When he tells her that —
"you're not gonna get anything; you won't even be able to buy William out of the house — you'll have to sell it. And, he can take the children,"
— that's what she'll face *if* she can't surmount the difficult challenge of proving his adultery, in court, and thus can get a divorce only "if *he* wants out," too. In those circumstances, she won't have the bargaining leverage to demand alimony from him, or demand custody. But if she *can* prove adultery, then, presumably, it would be a different story.
(3) You characterize as "True to the time," Lowell's posing to Betty of two "key questions [asked of] women in her situation." Presented "in the upper middle class manner," Lowell "delicately phrases" the first question "as whether [Don] 'scares' her." The second question is, whether Don is a good provider.
I would say that the second is more a question "of the time." Today, even if a husband is a "good provider," it doesn't constitute an especially compelling reason to refrain from divorcing him, because it's much easier for the wife to get alimony, or to enter the workplace (if she's not in it already) and earn a good living on her own. But Lowell's question would indeed have been a highly pertinent one at a time when the law made it hard to secure alimony, and when society was not a favorable environment for a woman's economic independence.
In contrast, Lowell's first question, "Are you afraid of him?" (not, whether he "scares" her), is not at all a quaintly dated query. To the contrary, it's (alas) timeless — and it's the sort of basic, cut-to-the-chase essential question that legal counsel *should* ask. And it's the sort that a lot of lawyers neglect to ask, even today, because it seems too simple, or because they assume that, if it were true, the client would tell the attorney of her own accord. (Ask the question; you'll be astonished at what people tell you.) An attorney has no more urgently relevant concern than his client's safety, and Lowell deserves credit for thinking of Betty's.
(4) "Milton seems unfazed by this news . . . ." Lowell's even-keeled response strikes me as professional, lawyerly. As an attorney, you hear a lot of amazing things. You don't want to show an emotional, unsettled reaction, even to pretty disturbing statements; doing so will likely spook your client (or a witness), and discourage candor.
Which makes it a little odd that Roger divorces easily even at great cost (he sells the agency in large part to finance his divorce from Mona). Yes, he bought Mona off, but she could still have refused and kept him tied up in the marriage forever. Not uncommon in that era, in any socioeconomic status -- that one spouse refused to divorce.
Your explanation brings up that point, which I had in the back of my mind but forgot that some folks might not known -- that at that time, you had to prove fault (usually adultery) or both had to consent.
I think what renders this moot is that the lawyer and Betty seem to be working with the assumption that Don won't want to divorce. But we know he probably would want to (at that time, at least). I also think he'd actually be reasonably generous with Betty and the kids despite his money hiding -- he hasn't shown any signs of not being so far in the way they live, etc. I also doubt he'd want custody - -and it was very rare in those days for divorced men to have it. So the conversation seemed a bit generic to me rather than about the person in question.
This has made me think of my father's attire. He was a civil engineer, and entered the workforce in 1961, with Los Angeles County Flood Control. I've seen many photos of him and his work colleagues from the early '60s. They had the Mad Men look: dark suits with narrow lapels, white shirts, and thin dark ties (less expensive tailoring, I'm sure, but definitely the same look). But even then *they* didn't wear hats — at least not the young guys. I can't recall that my dad ever work a hat to work; I'm sure he never owned a fedora.
Perhaps the west coast, maybe Los Angeles in particular, was the leading edge in this trend away from hats, but it was complete, nationally, in a remarkably brief span of time. And I remember that when I was a kid I observed and knew — without ever actually reflecting on the matter — that hats were something *older* men wore. My *grandfathers* wore hats; that was important in my unconscious absorption of that age distinction.
seriously, I noticed that, too, and should have commented on it. very Freudian, eh?
Brian, really, the hats should be disappearing by now, I think. The turning point, as I understand it was when JFK was inaugurated in Jan 1961 without wearing a hat (even though it was bitter cold). That was considered shocking. He was either the first Prez ever inaugurated without wearing a hat or the first in a hundred years or more (I think the first ever). I thought after that, hats started disappearing as he (as Jackie was for women) was such a trendsetter.
As a side note, I have my Dad's fedora. I grew up watching him wear it to work on the East Coast. I don't think he stopped until the mid-60's but he was a conservative guy in a conservative profession.
Three years ago, when "Mad Men" started, one of the most shocking things was the cigarette smoking. It was perpetual, constant, and everywhere. Indeed, the creators of the show seemed to want to slap us in the face with it in the very first episode, being as it was about cigarettes and cancer.
But it was interesting to me, coming of age as I did in the "anti-smoking" era, to see that it wasn't just a nasty, addictive habit that could kill you. It was social. Men offered cigarettes to woman to be polite, and would light them to be gallant. But even more, cigarettes could be used to be intimate; to create a distance; to provide a pregnant pause in the conversation; to make a friendly gesture. It was a social thing as much as a habit. And that view has been reinforced for 3 years.
Don, in his dealings with people, is smooth. His hair is always flawlessly combed and brylcreamed; his pocket hankerchief folded sharp as a knife and exactly parallel to the pocket; shoes always shined; face always clean-shaven. He is suave, controlled, composed, and laconic to an almost absurd degree.
Don uses cigarettes for all the above reasons, and more. He uses cigarettes to create a pause in conversation; to intimidate; to draw in; to dismiss; as an aid to thought. He is never short of one, and never needs a light. Like his suit or his hair or his shoes, his cigarettes are a prop to help him control the world, and how the world sees it.
Silkstone points out that sometimes a cigarette is just a cigarette, and of course she's right. But after all this time, after seeing Don under pressure in innumerable situations, after seeing him lie, constantly and well, to clients, family, friends, Betty, and everyone else, it struck me as significant that, when uncovered at last, Don's hands don't shake as he lights his cigarette--he drops it, completely. Just like, later, he drops all pretense with Betty, telling her the pain of Adams suicide, the shameful truth of his birth. Yes, even then, he shades the truth--but he does it as we all do: just trying to make it a bit better, a bit less painful, a bit less horrific.
Don has dropped his cigarette with Betty. What this portends long-term, who knows? But his facade is dropped now; he can't go back. (And I think him leaving Suzanne in the car was a deliberate choice by the writers. After all his professions of love to her, he stays and faces the music with Betty, no matter what the pain. "I'm not going anywhere," he says, and I believe him. He chose truth and Betty rather than a fantasy and Suzanne.)
Sometimes, a cigarette is much more than a cigarette.
Still, it is true that both brothers were known for going hatless, and this caused considerable anxiety in the United Hatters, Cap and Millinery Workers International, which was among the labor unions that had been strongly supportive of JFK's campaign for president. Theodore White's "In Search of History" recounts how hat-making interests, worried that both men would forgo headgear at the inauguration, pressed hard with highly-placed advisors in the incoming administration to make sure they didn't go bare-headed. The Kennedy people agreed, but it took some scrambling to get suitable hats, as both brothers wore large sizes.
The Wikipedia entry for "fedora" states, "Like the bowler hat, the fedora was popular from the early 1920s to the mid 1960s on the east coast. In the late 1950s the hat began to lose favor on the west coast of the United States, which is known for its more casual clothing." The entry cites no authority for this summary. (I can't tell whether the hats we see in Mad Men are fedoras, or trilbies, but that distinction doesn't matter for this historical question.) So Don and Roger may hang onto their hats for a little bit more, but not much longer!
Brian, thanks for the chapeau lesson. Now that you write that, I recall film of JFK on his way to or from the inauguration doffing his top hat to his father who was in a reviewing stand. So I can picture him in it. I didn't realize the Presidents usually took their hats off for their speech, either.


text:
DeepDyve participates in industry events throughout the year. Check back frequently to see where we will appear next.
January 7-11, 2011
San Diego Convention Center
San Diego, CA
Bill Park, CEO DeepDyve will be presenting on a panel in Room 02 on Sunday, January 9th from 4:00-5:30 p.m.
December 10, 2010
National Press Club
Washington, D.C.
Bill Park, CEO DeepDyve will be presenting on December 10th at 10:50 a.m. - Capturing the iUser: Web 2.0 "Freemium" Business Models
October 28, 2010
Hyatt Regency Washington on Capitol Hill
Washington, D.C.
Bill Park, CEO DeepDyve will be presenting on October 28th at 10:45 a.m. - Capturing the iUser: Web 2.0 "Freemium" Business Models
October 5-6, 2010
Yjr Westin Grand Frankfurt
Konrad Adenauer Strasse 7
Frankfurt, Germany
Bill Park, CEO DeepDyve will be presenting on October 5th at 11:15am - Capturing the iUser: Web 2.0 "Freemium" Business Models
Watch the presentation
To capture so-called iUsers, many of whom are unaffiliated with an institution and lack subscription access, publishers can learn from the experiences of many web 2.0 companies who attract customers with free but limited benefits, then upsell additional products and services. See how Zynga, an online gaming company, has grown to over 100M users and $500M in sales in just 2 & 1/2 years – all this from games which are free to use initially. Mr. Park will discuss how STM publishers could offer lower-cost, perhaps even free, access to their offerings and still make money without disrupting their core subscription business model.
June 2-4, 2010
Hilton Hotel
San Francisco, CA
DeepDyve will be exhibiting at this meeting. Stop by and visit us at Booth 103.
Users, customers, practitioners & librarians talk - Publishers are you listening?
April 27-29, 2010
Le Meridien
Cambridge, MA
Bill Park, CEO DeepDyve will be presenting on April 28 at 12:00 — The World is Open, Not Flat.
Watch the presentation
Historically, academic and scholarly publishing has exhibited many characteristics of so-called 'closed' industries where customers/end-users had limited or unfriendly tools to get what they want; long waiting periods for production and fulfillment; and expensive prices to boot. These dynamics have led to a call for more 'openness', such as the NIH ruling and the open access movement, and drawn the interest of technology companies who would like to capitalize on these inefficiencies. While moving to openness can bear risk, it can also bear opportunity. In the realm of 'unintended consequences', creating better, faster, cheaper products also creates new markets and new customers previously unimagined.
April 8, 2010
Capital Hilton
Washington, DC
Event pictures
Bill Park, CEO DeepDyve will take part in a panel discussion on Transformers: Scholarly Content Takes on Many Formats.
May 27-29, 2009
Marriott Baltimore Waterfront
Baltimore, MD
DeepDyve will be exhibiting at this premier industry event. Please stop by and see us at Booth 230.
Jan 23-28, 2009
Denver, CO
Over 5,000 librarians and information professionals attended. Bill Park and Bert Carelli strolled the exhibits and met with publisher partners.
February 4th-6th, 2009
Washington, DC
DeepDyve was an exhibitor for this premier meeting of publishing professionals serving the needs of scholarly researchers.
February 9-11, 2009
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Bert Carelli, DeepDyve Director of Business Development, spoke on the pros and cons of Rule-based Taxonomies versus Algorithmic Concept Extraction.
November 12-13, 2008
Park Hyatt Hotel
Philadelphia, PA
September 7-9, 2008
Sheraton San Diego Hotel & Marina
San Diego, CA

subset: commoncrawl


text:
I am selling a copy of this round "Norman" helmet in original size. This style of helmet was used when the Normans conquered England. It is historically correct as the Norman troops shown on the Bayeux Tapestry wear this type of helmet.
It has a nose guard with a central ridge.
It fits even "big heads" quite well (hat size 7.3/4) (64 cms.), it has an adjustable leather liner inside and there is room for the necessary padding.
It was made from 18 gauge steel and weighs abt. 1 kg ( 2.2 lbs.).
Height is 23 cm / 9".
Norman Helmet or Viking Helmet w. nose guard
Show larger and alternate views
Price: £75.00
(incl. 19% VAT)
Show larger and alternate views
Shipping to
United Kingdom (DHL): £12.90
Delivery time approximately 4-6 working days after receipt of payment.
Delivery time approximately 4-6 working days after receipt of payment.


text:
Price: Rs. 878500 (Ex-showroom Delhi)
City SV MT On Road Price will Additionally include RTO, Dealer Handling^ and Insurance Premium*
Honda City - the epitome of Mid Sedan segment, a style statement backed with powerful Japanese I-Vtec Technology has been known for exceptional performance for over 10 years in India.
Here comes all New Honda City 2014 in both Petrol and Diesel Fuel in India, in Manual and Automatic Transmission. Launch Date with Pricing is 7th January 2014, however the Key Highlight and buzzing factor is 1.5 Lit I-Dtec Diesel Engine and Improved List of Features and Cabin Space in the car.
In terms of Specs - the Length has Increased marginally, but substantial improvement in Legroom and kneeroom makes it an Ideal Chauffeur Driven Comfortable car too. The Looks of the car though inspired from previous model, but Chrome Strip in Front along with Major Refinements in Interiors with New Features makes it a Top Pick of the Segment.
Color Options in Honda City SV MT
New Honda City 2014 to come in 6 color options - Pearl Red, Golden Brown, Tafeta White, Alabaster Silver, Crystal Black and Urban Titanium.
Engine and Performance
Backed by powerful 1.5 Litre I-Vtec Engine in 5 Speed Manual Transmission, Honda City delivers peak power of 117 BHP with peak torque of 146 NM
Key Features in New Honda City
Honda City SV MT - Additional Features/changes : Automatic Climate Control with Touch Panels, Rear Seat AC Vents, Dual Front Airbags, Center Seat Armrest in Front & Rear, Shark Fin Antenna, Chrome Finish on Front Grill, Advanced Multi Information Display Speed o Meter with Chrome Accent, Dual Tripmeter, Silver Finish in Steering Wheel, Hands Free Telephone Control on Steering Wheel, Premium Fabric Seat Upholstery, Speed Sensing Door Lock
Standard Features in Honda City SMT : AC with Heater, ABS with EBD, Driver Side Airbag, Power Steering with Tilt Steering, All 4 Door Power Window, Remote Central Lock, Dual Tone Interior, Height Adjustable Driver Seat, Rear Defogger, 2 Din CD Player Music System with USB, Aux, Bluetooth and 4 Speakers, Steering Mounted Audio Control, 15 Inch Steel Wheel, Driver Seat Belt Reminder, Body Colored ORVM and Door Handles, Silver Finish on Center Console and AC Vents
Engine Capacity cc - 1497
Power bhp - 117
Fuel Type - Petrol
Honda City SV MT Insurance Premium*Comprehensive Insurance - Rs. 25380
Zero Dep Insurance - Rs. 30027
EMI - 5 yr Tenure - Rs. 16174
EMI - 3 yr Tenure - Rs. 24224
EMI - 7 yr Tenure @ 85% Loan - Rs. 12567
Honda City SV MT Mileage - 17.8 Kmpl
SpecificationsLength mm - 4440
Width mm - 1695
Height mm - 1495
Ground Clearance mm - 165
Fuel Tank lit - 42
Boot Space lit - 510
Safety Features
Want to Know More on Performance, Reviews, Features, Dealers of Honda City Car.
Join in Online Community Forum . Get Answers for your Queries and Participate as Expert whether you from - Ahmedabad, Amritsar, Bangalore, Patna, Bhopal, Chandigarh, Chennai, Coimbatore, Delhi, Faridabad, Ghaziabad, Goa, Gurgaon, Indore, Jaipur, Jalandhar, Kochi, Kolkatta, Lucknow, Ludhiana, Kanpur, Mumbai, Nagpur, Navi Mumbai, Noida, Pune, Salem, Surat, Vadodara, Vijaywada and any City, Town, District in India.
Check your Maximum Loan Eligibility basis Salary and EMI - Advanced Calculator


text:
Looks like we have limited ratings for Morgan Drexen right now. By any chance, have you worked for Morgan Drexen? If so, please let the CareerBliss community know what it was like by writing an anonymous review. Follow Morgan Drexen and get updates on Morgan Drexen's latest salaries, reviews, jobs and more!
What do you like about working at Morgan Drexen?
"When I worked for Morgan Drexen, one of my favorite things was to make a positive difference in the client's life no matter how small or big, it was a difference they truly appreciated."
What suggestions do you have for management?
"To consistently follow up on employees work performances and acknowledge the employees for their hard work and dedication, not only to the clients, but also the company itself."
What don't you like about working at Morgan Drexen?
"Entrepreneurial, one man band style of management and lots of 'friends as employees make for an unprofessional, uncreative company. New managers were excellent but then drew the jealous wrath of 'original' management so the company was split in two."
What suggestions do you have for management?
"Current management: Hire professionals to manage the company and then let them do their jobs without interference."
Update your browser to have a more positive job search experience.
Upgrade My Browser


text:
HOPE Riders is the name of our full-fledged biker ministry. The ride group is comprised of all bikers, all kinds of bikes, bikers from our church, other churches, and some who do not go to church. HOPE Riders ride every Sunday after the Bikers' Service if the weather is above 50 degrees and no rain.
Biker Fellowship Service:
Sundays 9:30 am – located at Appleton's Harley Davidson in the Rider's Edge Classroom
Biker Sunday School Class:
Saturdays at Pastor Ron's and Pansy's home,
1140 Gratton Road,
150 Richview Rd. Clarksville, TN. 37043
Office Hours: Mon – Fri 8:00 to 4:30
You Should Also Check Out This Post:
- Roadhouse Biker Church in San Bernardino, California
- Northeast Texas Bikers Church in Mt Pleasant, Texas
- The Weirs Biker Church in Franklin, NH
- Servants of Jesus Motocycle Church in El Paso, TX
- Biker Cell Church in Stratford, N.H.


text:
Part of the AW12 "You Are My Sunshine" collection, this shirt is typical of the workwear influences that we have seen in recent WTAPS collections, with two button down chest pockets, branded metal buttons and adjustable buckle cinches at the rear of the hem. This jacket is made from a raw indigo denim and is finished with the all usual subtle WTAPS branding.
Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest information on product releases, competitions and special offers.


text:
This is skilled work operating the more complex types of automotive equipment. Employees in this class operate single chassis automotive equipment with accessories that require the manipulation of several controls which govern a limited range of possible movements non-simultaneously with the operation of the basic vehicle, special purpose automotive equipment typically designed and built to accomplish a single purpose that requires the manipulation of a limited number of controls which govern a limited range of possible movements simultaneously with the operation of any combination of truck or tractor and semi or full trailer over 15 feet long. Work may include light or heavy physical labor when not operating equipment and driving equipment to, and its operation at the worksite.
Work is performed under the close supervision of a Crew Chief or Group Leader. Work assignments are stable in nature and are carried out in accordance with instructions and established routines. Employees in this class are responsible for the safe and efficient operation of equipment to provide a variety of services. Work involves conditions which can only be partially controlled.


text:
Very rare 1963 Ramber 770 cross country wagon. all original unmolested car that is one of a kind. only a handful known to exist.... More
Seldom seen Fastback AMC Rambler Marlin. Great condition with a smooth running 6 cylinder and a 3 speed manual transmission on the column. Needs... More
1957 AMC Rambler customStraight 6 Engine just 40 ks all original and what a stunning classic.she run's and drives just like it looks must... More
Up for consideration is this 1964 AMC Rambler Classic 770 Sedan. The 770 series was the upscale version of the Rambler Classic and featured... More
1965 RAMBLER MARLIN VIN 4103041 ANTIQUA RED / BLACK EXTERIOR BLACK CLOTH / VINYL BUCKET SEATS 327 CID V-8 270HP FLASH-O-MATIC TRANSMISSION POWER STEERING... More
1963 American Rambler "440" 2-Door Convertible, Restoration Completed 10/10/14. "Stunning" Bright "Real Red" White New Power Convertible Top, New Red Vinyl Bucket Seat Interior... More
1969 AMC Hurst SCRamblerFully restored to concourse condition including undercarriageComplete rotisserie restorationOne of 1512 BuiltOne of 322 known to existOne of 249 with door... More
1962 Rambler 400 Convertible -- 54,957 Original Miles – one repaint AT. PS. PB. Power Top, Copper Exterior, Tan Interior, New Carpets, New Back... More
1959 Rambler American Super two door coupe. Runs great with newly rebuilt generator. New radial tires with correct wide whites installed May 2014. Exceptionally... More


text:
Peter Linberger
Professor of Bibliography
Position: Collection Management Officer
Description: The Collection Management Officer is responsible for coordinating the work of the subject librarians in both Bierce Library and the Science & Technology Library, and also serves as the UL's representative to OhioLINK's Cooperative Information Resources Committee (CIRM). Mr. Linberger's subject specialty is in the area of geography. Assistance with geography-related resources, including maps and GIS software, should be directed to Mr. Linberger.
Office: Bierce 179B
Tel: 330-972-8230
Fax: 330-972-2317
Email: email@example.com


text:
Ward 4 is a beautiful and diverse collection of communities from the northeast neighborhoods of Lamond-Riggs to portions of Chevy Chase west of Rock Creek Park.
Muriel Bowser, Councilmember, Ward 4 Council of the District of Columbia
Muriel Bowser brings a pragmatic, hands-on approach to leadership, legislation, oversight, and policy‐making in the District of Columbia. She was first elected Ward 4 Councilmember in a special election in 2007 and re-elected in 2008, and again in 2012. Each time, voters endorsed Muriel's ambitious agenda focused on an open and ethical government, rebuilding quality neighborhoods, and transforming our schools and commercial corridors.
During Councilmember Bowser's tenure, Ward 4's population has grown, quality school choices and public spaces have increased, and hundreds of units of housing have been created. Dozens of new stores, restaurants, and small businesses have opened and violent crime has plummeted. Construction has begun on a long-promised grocery store in Petworth and a plan to transform the Walter Reed Army base into a 70 acre mixed use neighborhood center is taking shape. Positive and sustainable change is visible on every corner of Ward 4.
Councilmember Bowser has also focused her attention to better the lives of residents District-wide. She was selected by her colleagues as Chairwoman of the Committee on Economic Development in January. Previously, as Chairwoman of the Committee on Government Operations, Muriel worked with her colleagues to pass comprehensive Ethics Reform in the District of Columbia, improved the safety and efficiency of the Metro system, and increased transparency in government contracting. As Chair of the Committee on Libraries, Parks and Recreation and the Committee on Public Services and Consumer Affairs, Muriel championed the causes of increasing the revenue generating potential of our public spaces, curbed bullying in our schools and recreation centers, and created consumer protections for homeowners facing foreclosure. Besides representing the District on the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Muriel also served as Chair of the regional Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments' Transportation Planning Board.
Muriel's fierce advocacy for Ward 4 and efforts to improve the District at-large won her the endorsement of the Washington Post editorial board which wrote: "Smart, hardworking and independent-minded, Ms. Bowser has shown herself to be an effective advocate for the interests of her demanding ward and a leading voice for education reform and good government." She was also honored by City Year as Washington's Idealist of the Year in 2011, was awarded the Democratic State Committee's Legislator of the Year Award (2012), the Phyllis Campbell Newsome Public Policy Leadership Award (2012), and the NoMa Business Improvement District Public Sector Award (2012). Her greatest honor though is the repeated confidence shown by the voters of Ward 4 who have returned her to office with enthusiastic support.
Councilmember Bowser, a native Washingtonian, earned a Bachelor of Arts in History from Chatham College and a Master's degree in Public Policy from American University. Muriel began her service in DC elective office as an Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner for her Riggs Park neighborhood, and continues to be an active member of Lamond Riggs Citizens Association.
More information on Ward 4 Councilmember Muriel Bowser: Official Photo | Long Bio | Short Bio
Click the button below to sign up for the Focus on 4 e-newsletter.


text:
My Genealogy Home PageUpdated October 11, 2005 | |
Little did my husband know what he was letting himself in for when he bought me the family tree maker for my last birthday. it's given me an obsorbing hobby and and a new interest. I't no easy task with ancestors spread over several countries. At present I am researching the Reeves family, the McKie family from scotland, Mercieca / Camilleri from malta / Gozo, the malta side is proving difficult I'd be greatful for any hints and tips to help me get started. So far I have got back to 1728 on the McKie side, and met some new relatives! and 1784 on the Reeves side, not bad in 7 months! |
katherine May Tuman firstname.lastname@example.com |
Edit Your Page |
My Family History |
The content shown on this page has been submitted by a Genealogy.com customer, and is not subject to verification by Genealogy.com. Neither Genealogy.com nor its affiliates are responsible for the accuracy of any information contained on this page. The opinions expressed on this page are the author's alone and not the opinions of Genealogy.com.
© 2009 Ancestry.com |


text:
The long, slow cooking time in the oven renders the brisket so tender and flavorful, you'll swear it came straight from heaven.
What to buy: If you're having a hard time finding brisket, just ask your butcher. This tough cut is a classic for slow, low, long cooking. Either the first or second cut of the brisket will work for this recipe.
Look for fresh epazote in Mexican groceries in Texas, California, or other warm states. Look for dried epazote in the spice section of Latin supermarkets or online.
- 1Heat the oven to 350°F and arrange the rack in the middle.
- 2Heat olive oil in a Dutch oven or a large, heavy-bottomed pot with a tightfitting lid over medium-high heat. Pat brisket dry with paper towels and season with salt and freshly ground black pepper. When oil shimmers, add meat and brown thoroughly on all sides. Transfer brisket to a plate and set aside to rest.
- 3Reduce heat to medium, stir in onions and carrots, and season with salt and pepper. Cook until onions are soft, about 5 minutes. Stir in chiles and garlic and cook until chiles soften, about 5 minutes more. Add tomatoes and cook, stirring occasionally, until most of the excess liquid has evaporated.
- 4Add wine, stir, and scrape up any browned bits on the bottom of the pan; let mixture simmer until it is reduced by half. Add beef broth and bring to a slow boil. Return brisket to the pot, submerging meat in the liquid. Cover the pot and place in the oven to braise for 2 hours.
- 5After 2 hours, remove the pot from the oven and stir in beans, oregano, cumin, coriander, paprika, and epazote. If the pot looks a little dry, the sauce may have overreduced. To fix this, add more broth or water until it has a soupy consistency again. Cover and return the pot to the oven for 1 more hour.
- 6Remove the pot from the oven and place beef on a plate to rest. Taste beans, and if necessary, add salt and pepper. Slice brisket across the grain into 1/2-inch-thick pieces. To serve, ladle beans into a bowl, top with sliced brisket, and garnish with fresh cilantro and sour cream.
Beverage pairing: The key to remember here is spice and complexity. Dishes like this brisket, which contains both chiles and cumin, require a straightforward wine that will not detract from their nuances. A deeply colored rosé will provide enough fruit to stand up to the beef, while complementing the subtle flavors in the dish. Try the 2005 Vin de Pays du Gard Rosé Mas de Guiot.


text:
City of Las Vegas Leisure Guide
Mar 27, 2015
The quarterly Leisure Guide from the City of Las Vegas has listings of regularly scheduled activities and special events for adults, children, families and seniors. These include sports, aquatics, adaptive recreation, crafts, art, music, dance, Safekey, and much more.
You can find it here.
Submit your community event to Jay Bartos.
Subscribe to an RSS feed of upcoming events.
Return to list of events.


text:
Thank you :-) |
Click this Pressed Penny Book image to view the pressed penny book collection guide at ParkPennies.com Pressed Penny Books and AlbumsIs this a cool pressed penny collecting book or what? Although this book did not have an elongated coin in the cover, it is often on the list of Disney pressed penny collectors. Offered only for the 50th, many collectors used this book to hold and display the 51 Magical Milestones pressed pennies they collected at the park. All too often, the thought of purchasing the book occurred after the penny collector books were sold out. The price at Disneyland was $6.00, shocking to some at the time, but, a real deal if you can find one today. Pressed Penny Storage Books for Large Collections Most often collectors use a standard three ring binder with plastic 20 pocket pages that hold the 2x2 cardboard flips used to protect individual elongated coins. Pressed penny supply sources listed here at PressedPennies.com as well as neighborhood coin shops, eBay etc. offer these pages and holders for sale in various quantities. For long term storage of pressed penny collections, this easy, economical method is often the preferred way to go. |


text:
Premium Pack - Black
$35.00 -
Premium Pack - White
These one-of-a-kind electronic cigarette packs offer more than just a convenient place to hold and carry up to five e-cigarette cartridges. Doubling as a battery charger, our Premium Packs will charge your batteries while you are on the go, meaning you never have to worry about a fresh battery. Light weight and available in a black or white matte finish, these durable e-cig packs are designed to protect your e-cig cartridges from accidental damage.


text:
Credits & Info
- Uploaded
- Jun 19, 2012 | 8:02 AM EDT
If you liked this, check these out!
Zelda: UO Epis:7 by ScootLumpDude
- Movie
- Rated T
- 219,969 Views
One Man Show by Old-Voycoon-Studios
- Movie
- Rated E
- 11,948 Views
Public Svc. Announcement by ZellsBells
- Movie
- Rated E
- 12,771 Views
In Memory of 911 by Meany8888
- Movie
- Rated E
- 155,099 Views
On the wrong track by Tates79
- Movie
- Rated T
- 3,192 Views
Dark Times by maxthefax
- Movie
- Rated T
- 3,081 Views
Author Comments
Hello, everyone! This is a project I made for my mom on Mother's Day 2011. I'm sorry for the fact it's Korean, but if you want me to I can change it to English.
Rated 3 / 5 stars
I see you improved, well, still, the characters need more movement, they look a bit stiff!
The animation was supposed to be simple. Oh, well.
Rated 5 / 5 stars
Could you change it from korean to english please?
Rated 3 / 5 stars
Animation and style was good, but the comic was in mandarin chinese (I think) and I couldn't understand it.
Mandarin Chinese? What the crap are you talking about? Did you even read the description?
Rated 1 / 5 stars
Your graphics and animations were better than some, but considering this is a mostly english-speaking site, I'm guessing most people would indeed want it to be in english. I had no idea what was going on, but your characters' faces were kinda cute. :p Redo it in english, make it a little longer, and maybe make the animation a little more... animated, and you'll have a much better flash. :)
Nikoli- inspired by Phil Eggtree
Ken- inspired by super-saiyen Goku and got his name from "KAIO-KEN!," the saying a person says before he/she goes super-saiyen
Sorry I wasn't able to make it longer cause it was past 12 and I was tired.
I had to NOT make it more animated 'cause I had to get it done as fast as I can. Thanks for the comment.


text: Phoenix Coyotes: Moving on from Whitney Mitchell Brandner August 6, 2012 Commentary, Phoenix Coyotes The Phoenix Coyotes will be forced to move on without the services of Ray Whitney. (Matt Kartozian-US PRESSWIRE) By Mitch Brandner, Staff Writer | Follow him on Twitter If the Phoenix Coyotes want to repeat their success from last season, they need to find a way to replace winger Ray Whitney. Whitney put up a whopping 77 points as a 40-year old, and replacing those numbers will be no easy task for the Coyotes. Barring a trade for an offensive star, that production will have to come from within the organization. Having lost a lot of offense already prior to Doan's decision, it's clear that a few young players will need to have big seasons for the Coyotes to return to the playoffs. One player that could help fill the gap left by Whitney is Mikkel Boedker. The Denmark native put up four goals in last year's postseason — two of them being overtime winners — and was arguably more effective than Whitney (the line of Doan-Vermette-Boedker was the Coyotes' best line in the playoffs at both ends of the ice). Boedker's speed is his deadliest weapon, and he seems to have a knack for finding open ice. The only thing he lacked at times during the season was the ability to finish. At the young age of 22, he still has a lot of room to grow and has the potential to evolve into an All-Star caliber forward. If he can find a way to put it all together, the Coyotes will not miss Whitney quite so much in 2012-13. Antoine Vermette is another player who could potentially step up in Whitney's absence. Although he took a few games to get going, he eventually put up 10 points after his trade to the Coyotes. He then matched that output in six less games in the playoffs, further acclimating himself to the organization and Coach Tippett's system. Vermette played with Boedker most of the playoffs, and together their speed is jaw-dropping. If they can build chemistry and find a way to continue their success from the playoffs, and hopefully build on it, they could be a perfect compliment to the Hanzal-Vrbata duo. Additionally, Radim Vrbata will have to find a way to put up similar numbers as 2011-12 without having Whitney on his line. Hanzal is great at creating space for his line mates and keeping possession of the puck, but he does not have the playmaking abilities that Whitney does. Vrbata will need to create his own chances, and use his deadly wrist shot as often as possible in order to match his goal total from last year. He did put up 24 goals in 2009-10 without Whitney, but if the Coyotes are going to be successful, Vrbata will likely have to put up closer to 30. Phoenix has a tremendous defense core, there is no doubt about that, but up front they are quite thin. Another piece is needed before the start of the season. The hole left by Ray Whitney is looking more like a crater and a lot of things will have to go right in order for the Coyotes to have success once again. It seems like it will take a miracle just for the Coyotes to sneak in to the playoffs, because on paper this team just is not strong enough to get the job done. Is any of this sounding familiar?


text:
So today was the first time I left the couch since I got back from the surgery. I was a bit nervous to get in the car to go see the physio, but I felt pretty good in the passenger seat of the RS6 with Janni behind the steering wheel, but after 30 mins of check up at the clinic I felt about 100 times better!
As I have mentioned, I have have been pretty worried about everything and when I saw the swollen and blody knee I was about as stressed and scared as I have ever been (I was so stressed that I could hardly handle the phone to call the clinic)(I know, I am a really tough guy! haha) But when we started to go though all the tests on the knee today to check how the movement and muscle control was I got the feed back that I was doing fantastic! I have full range of motion when extending the leg, very good muscle control over the knee, I can lift my leg up in all different angles etc. I had no idea if that was fully normal of if it was bad that I was not better, but my physio and surgeon was super happy with my results. So that was about the nicest news I could have gotten on a Friday like this!
So I can really say that the last few days have had its ups and downs, but I guess thats part of the game so I better get used to it! Time for me and Bakke to work on the 2014 Gumball car designs so that should make the afternoon go by quickly!
Hi Jon. Why did you decide to take new ACL from patella? Did Jens also had it taken from patella? is it common in sweden? why not from hamstring? taking it from patella makes your knee weaker? thats what i have been told.
Poles????????????? Get well soon Jon.
How many poles was it?
Another one of your Gallardo
Ypu can use this too if you wish.
Sweet! Kör hårt(men lugnt)!!