Might the flatulence have played a role? The NYT says it might have: not actual flatulence in this case. It certainly didn’t help. The question is what led to the controversial firing of Sasha Suda from the Directorship of Philly’s Art Museum? First, let’s have a look at her. Seeing what she looks like might help us form a shallow, uninformed opinion on the matter.

Sash (as Phil calls her), is 44 and was born in Toronto to parents who immigrated from what was then Czechoslovakia, one of the most difficult countries in the world to spell. (Would it have killed them to immigrate from Poland?) Her detractors are claiming they passed a bad Czech. Unable to get into good schools, Suda earned her degrees at Princeton (BA), Williams (MA), and NYU (PhD). No doubt you are familiar with her doctoral dissertation, “The Making of Girona Martyrology and the Cult of Saints in Late Medieval Bohemia,” published in 2016. Before assuming the position in Philly, she was the Director of Canada’s National Gallery, the youngest individual to obtain that post in a century.
The flatulence issue arose from a rebranding campaign that she undertook without final approval from the trustees. It seemed harmless: she changed the museum’s name from The Philadelphia Museum of Art to the Philadelphia Art Museum. But it started getting called “PhArt!” Oops! (I’m not kidding about this.) It’s a little bit like when McDonalds called its new wrap the McWrap. “I’ll have some of that McCrap please.” I think the boys in marketing may have dropped the ball on that one.
More serious complaints focused on charges that Suda misused Museum funds, her emphasis on DEI (horrors!), and clashes she had with Board members. She was a good fund-raiser, though, and often that’s all that matters.
Suda is suing over her firing in state (PA) court. The suit claims the “final straw” was a dispute over a lobbyist (Heller) whom the Board chair (Caplan) wanted to recruit as a trustee, but who Suda claimed was abrasive. Caplan accused Suda of being the abrasive one. Owl Chatter has obtained an exclusive copy of the transcript of the decisive confrontation:
Suda: Heller is abrasive. She can’t be on the Board.
Caplan: No. You’re the abrasive one.
Suda: You are.
Caplan: No, you are.
Suda: It’s you.
Caplan: No. You.
Suda: You’re being abrasive right now!
Caplan: Am not.
Suda: You are.
Caplan. Am not.
Suda: Yes you are.
Caplan: Shut up.
Suda: You shut up.
Meanwhile, this little sweetie had a blast visiting the PhArt!

Notice anything unusual about yesterday’s puzzle?

Sure you do! By connecting the circled squares (in alphabetical order, btw) you form the outline of a duck, which is the answer at 38D. Or, wait a minute, is it a rabbit (the answer at 66A)? Hmmmmm.
Apparently (pun intended), there is a famous duck/rabbit illusion. Take a look at this better version of it. Facing right it’s a rabbit. Facing left, it’s a duck. (Can you see it?) Either way, pass the ketchup!

In the puzzle, two more theme answers hint at the “drabbit:” At 17A the answer that spanned the grid is OPTICAL ILLUSION, and at 59A, it’s AMBIGUOUS FIGURE. It’s a very ambitious feat of puzzle construction. Bravo, Brad and Nicole Wiegmann. You may have also noticed the “EYE” in the square contained in both 30D and 37A, as a rebus (when more than one letter is smushed into a single square). M[EYE]RS crossing [EYE]MASK.
The rabbit-duck illusion goes all the way back to 1892, when it appeared in a German humor magazine. (Hysterical!) It became famous in the hands of Ludwig Wittgenstein who used it to distinguish between perception and interpretation. I’m far too stupid to go any deeper than that. With apologies to the Wiegmanns, it’s better described as an ambiguous image than an optical illusion. Or maybe we can call it an “optional illusion.”
At 32D yesterday, the clue was “Excuse me,” and the answer was SORRY. This song is by Caitlin Cary. I was glad Son Volt shared it with us. Beautiful voice.
Here’s Caitlin.

I majored in Economics a hundred years ago but had no idea this was the case: At 10D today the clue was “Nobel Prize category, for short,” and the answer was ECON. No big deal, right? But Commenter Trinch posted the following: “Not to nitpick, but there is no such thing as a Nobel prize in economics. There is the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. Despite incorrectly being called a Nobel Prize, it is not. Ok fine. Definitely nitpicking. But I stand by my facts.” [OC Note: Sveriges Riksbank is not a person. It’s Sweden’s central bank.]
Back when Nixon’s presidency was unravelling, the Comedian David Steinberg observed: “The word CROOK could suddenly materialize emblazoned on Nixon’s forehead, and you’d still get some of his supporters going ‘Well, not necessarily . . . . ‘” Let’s keep an eye on Trump’s sexy press sec’y Karoline Leavitt as the delicious Epstein situation unfolds. Yesterday she explained that the emails showing Trump knew about the girls being abused proved his innocence. Okey dokey.

From the Dull Men’s Club (UK). Jane Sutherland posts: So here’s a dilemma – is it ‘which’ or ‘what’? ‘What’ seems to get much more use than ‘which’ nowadays but to me, it’s very often used in the wrong context.
For example, we have to watch Mastermind, which personally I find extremely dull
and I’ve noticed Clive the host often starts his question with ‘what’, as in – ‘what book, what film, what actor’ etc… Surely this should be which not what? It sounds grammatically wrong to me!
Thoughts anyone, or am I just being pedantic?
Tony Ross: They burned so many at Salem, there’s a surfeit of whats about these days.
Ken Irvine: “What” is an open question while “which” would be asking one to choose from a defined group of choices.
Stuart Parr: Which is a selection from a defined list of options, what is a selection from broad criteria.
Andy Spragg: Thank you! Every day is a school day.
Jennifer Brand: Do I get a gold star from Miss Susan if I know the answer?
Stuart: You can have glitter too.
Brad Smith: Here’s another thing. I think this is the most commonly misspelled word in English. Most people incorrectly spell it Dilemna. Never understood why? Is it the 2 ms look like mn?
Mik Shaw: American import.
Avi Liveson: American here. I’ve never seen dilemna. Seems an easy word to spell to me.
Murray Atkinson: Language evolves because people are lazy and poorly educated. The ‘grammar and spelling police’ get laughed at because if the meaning is clear what does it matter? Apparently. Keep fighting!
Avi Liveson: I’m lazy and well-educated.
Jem Giles: Which genre of film does this programme most likely occur? And then, what director would place the actors on set..?
Avi Liveson: What??
At 19D today, the clue was “Things caddies carry,” and the answer was TEAS. (Get it?)
Anony Mouse asked: When do caddies carry teas? I feel like I’m missing something.
SJ responded: A TEA caddy is a box (or other receptacle) to store tea in.
Another Anony Mouse wrote: A “tea caddy” holds teas.
And I posted: Serious golfers often like to take a break during play and enjoy a small muffin or scone with some tea. So their caddies carry a selection of teas and pastries with them.

Just back away slowly, Phil. You must have said something.
See you tomorrow Chatterheads! Thanks for popping in.

































































