Don’t Click Here

MARKET SCHEDULES

Jim: ‘Here’s where to look to see when the market’s closed.’

☞ You’re right – it is open on Wednesdays!

Stephen Gilbert: ‘I’m sure others have already done this, but just to be safe: THE MARKET WILL BE OPEN TOMORROW, AS WELL AS THURSDAY AND FRIDAY OF THIS WEEK.’

☞ Perhaps. But not Thursday of next week, I venture. And only half open Wednesday and Friday – expect even more half-witted columns.

REPUBLICANS: DO NOT CLICK HERE

Seriously. I don’t want to annoy any of my loyal Republican readers. Democrats: even after the animation ends, hang on – there’s a little more. (Thanks to the very estimable Paul Lerman for this link.)

NO ONE SHOULD CLICK HERE . . .

Unless he or she is truly not offended by four-letter words. Because there are a lot of them in this thing. Seriously. (Mom: do not click.)

SPEAKING OF REPUBLICANS

President Bush told Diane Sawyer yesterday that he’d be okay with amending the United States Constitution to protect the sanctity of marriage by prohibiting divorcees to remarry. It sounds a little nutty, but the idea is to make sure people take the institution of marriage really, really seriously – as they should.

Wait, no, that’s not what he said he’d support. He said he’d prohibit any marriage where procreation is not possible or not intended.

No. He said he’d support an amendment to reinstate the long-held ban on inter-racial marriage. (If God had intended the races to intermarry, he would not have put them on separate continents, as the argument went in Virginia, until finally struck down by the Supreme Court in 1967. But the Court can’t strike down an amendment to the Constitution as unConstitutional, so this would be a way to restore Virginia’s authority to have such a law.)

No (well, I know you know where this is heading, but in for a penny, in for a pound), he said he’d support an amendment to bar fourth and fifth marriages – vaguely patterned after ‘three strikes and you’re out.’

No, he said he’d support an amendment overturning the law of any state that tried to grant state marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

That’s it!

So this seems like a good time to post several of the many thoughtful reactions many of you offered on this topic in response to last month’s column. Look for them tomorrow. (I’m hoping – don’t gasp – to do touch on a financial topic Monday.)