Blogito, Ergo Sum
by Gregg Calkins
22 September 2007 a
...after the dogs barked all night long, it seemed. I
think there was a prowling cat, amusing himself by tormenting the dogs who were
unable to get after him. The barks sounded as frustrated as I was.
This is front-page headline news for the New York Times
Candidates are seeking out wealthy Americans overseas, especially in
financial centers like London and Hong Kong.
Back home in the United States they'll take money from
foreigners, Hillary says. And if you get caught, she adds, you only have to
give back as much as they can find. First I gave back only $23,000. That
didn't work, so I upped it to $850,000. Now we wait and see...did they spot it
all, or not? You see, if they never spot it all then you get to keep the
And first you ask the people if they really want
the money back or not. Some don't. Some people we can't even find...it's
uncanny, it's almost like they never even really existed, some Twilight Zone
thing... And in my case, since I didn't receive the money directly from the
donors but from Mr. Hsu-goes-there, he's the guy I have to give it back to. And
if he can't take it...well, I can always give it to my favorite charity...you
know, the one Algore runs...carbon something...
Wow, weren't the
SF Giants classy in the way they told Bonds they didn't need him any more
now that they could put his name in the record books wearing their uniform? The
"sports" writer sniffs:
It is difficult to gauge who might be interested in signing Bonds, who is
43 and has become a defensive liability in left field. If Bonds signs for next
season, it will probably be with an American League team so he can be a
The Los Angeles Angels, the Oakland Athletics and the Texas Rangers are
teams that may consider signing Bonds at a reduced salary from the $15.8
million he made this season. There is always a chance Bonds may not find a job
Oh, I'm reasonably sure the Yankees could fit him in
somewhere. As Bonds notes:
“Although I am disappointed, I’ve always said baseball is a business — and
I respect their decision,”
It's a sensible business decision for the Giants, of
course, but the manner they chose to release him still lacks any sign of class
on their part.
Howard Kurtz says he's surprised at Rather's lawsuit against CBS:
But that the man who succeeded Walter Cronkite, who was the face of CBS
News for 25 years, would turn around and sue, rather than moving on with his
life -- that was one heck of an eye-opener. For Rather is not just taking his
old bosses to court, he is reopening all the wounds from that National Guard
story, which even his friends would tell you was not his finest hour.
His re-run isn't so hot, either. From what little I've
read so far it looks like he's blaming everybody right down to the bat-boy for
his strike-out. Has he indicated even the slightest degree of responsibility
yet? Well, it will make for fun reading and the journalists can keep occupied
with this instead of writing good news stories from Iraq.
The debacle over the National Guard story, which the suit says became known
as "Rathergate," turned on 30-year-old memos said to have been written by
Bush's late squadron commander. Several newspapers, including The Washington
Post, and conservative bloggers gathered evidence that the documents were
unlikely to have been typed on government typewriters of that era.
Well, if you say so, Howie...but I don't remember the
Washington Post leading the charge, somehow. Sounds to me like you are pulling
a Hillary, running around quickly trying to get back in front of the parade.
CBS aired the story on Sept. 8, 2004, at the height of the presidential
campaign, hours after White House official Dan Bartlett did not challenge the
authenticity of the memos when asked about them by CBS. Bartlett said later
that he had no way of knowing on such short notice whether the memos were
Gold, Rather's lawyer, maintained that "nobody's proved the documents were
forgeries. The way we look at it, it's more than likely the documents are
Very amusing, I think. The words on the paper were
produced by a system which did not exist at the date shown on the paper, so how
could the document possibly be authentic? But lawyers think like that. Nobody,
for instance, has proved that Rather is a dinosaur, either.
In the suit, Rather says he "played largely a supervisory role" in
producing and vetting the story because he had been instructed to concentrate
on his anchoring duties and covering a Florida hurricane and the Republican
National Convention in New York.
Fair enough. Except what are a supervisor's
responsibilities? Dan? Dan...
In other non-news...
The cherished dinner hour void of telemarketers is
scheduled to vanish next year for millions of people when phone numbers begin
dropping off the national Do Not Call list.
Having done a little telemarketing,
myself, I wonder why people think that we enjoy disturbing people during their
dinner hour? Since the purpose of our call is to sell you something, why would
we want to start off by annoying you? Your name did not appear on our list of
prospects straight out of Zeus' forehead, after all...it got there essentially
because you put it there. You either asked for some information, dropped your
business card into a bowl trying to win 2 free drinks at a sales convention, or
did something overt which makes us believe that you might be interested in what
we have to sell.
Trust me: we don't like making calls to
people who are not interested. Most of u s work on commission and if we don't
find buyers then we don't make any money. And we aren't likely to find a buyer
at the dinner table. None of us enjoy hearing "no" any more than the other
members of the human race, so we don't go out of our way trying to hear another
Victor Davis Hanson writes about what Osama really wants:
The truth is that bin Laden and al Qaeda want power for
themselves, and use religious grievances and shifting political demands to try
to achieve it.
In their worldview, Islam's chance for a renewed united
Muslim caliphate was shattered into impotent warring nations by sneaky 19th
century European colonists. They now want to reunite modern Arab nations into
an Islamic empire run by the likes of bin Laden and his sidekick, Ayman
al-Zawahri. And they think they can pull it off for a variety of reasons:
(1) Al Qaeda claims its jihadists drove the Soviet Union
out of Afghanistan, leading to the Soviet empire unraveling. It doesn't matter
that al Qaeda's terrorists numbered only a few thousand and played a minor
role in the Afghan warlords' victory. Instead, according to al Qaeda's
propaganda, this tiny Arab legion would become the vanguard of a
world-conquering army that would move next against the United States.
(2) Bin Laden believes we will ultimately prove weak and
suffer the Soviets' fate. That's why he keeps talking about breaking up our
own states on the model of the now-defunct Soviet Union. Past American
hesitation in the face of attacks on our embassies, military assets and
diplomats convinced bin Laden as he plotted September 11 that we would leave
the Middle East to his jihadists. He sees us now squabbling over the costs of
Iraq, our counterterrorism measures and Guantanamo Bay. So he still holds out
hope Americans will soon leave the region in defeat and let down their guard
(3) Oil is now sky-high at $80 a barrel. In bin Laden's
view, the longer he is at war, the higher the price of petroleum climbs. That
impoverishes Western infidels and ensures plenty of Middle East petrodollars
can be siphoned off to madrassas, radical mosques and terrorists. Bin Laden
also sees how the rival Muslim theocracy in Iran has turned its oil profits
into a nuclear-weapons program. He would like to replace the present Gulf
monarchies with self-professed imams and jihadists. Such a single, united
Wahhabi theocracy could dole out oil to subservient importers and use the
profits to acquire enough weapons to unite the Arab world and prepare for the
final war against us.
(1) It doesn't matter if this is true or not as long as
other Arabs think it is. (2) If the Democrats get their way he will be
correct. (3) Well, he's definitely right about that.
Bin Laden's problem then is not really tiny Israel or
global warming or mortgage interest rates, but an all-powerful and free West
led by the United States. It alone has the military and economic power to stop
radical Islamists. Plus, we bring the more powerful message of political
freedom. And American popular culture, with its informality and
egalitarianism, is sweeping the globe, seducing far more adherents than does
rote memorization of the Koran.
So, despite bin Laden's bragging, America remains the big
stumbling block, the stronger horse. The United States alone ensures that bin
Laden stays a sick man babbling in a cave — and not a Muslim caliph in flowing
robes, with billions of dollars in oil under his feet and weapons merchants
lined up at his palace door.
Sound absurd? So once did the notion of a crater in
Manhattan and $80 a barrel oil.
Unfortunately, Hanson is right, too.
Here is a story to brighten your weekend: Early this afternoon we received
an email from one of our most loyal readers. We'll withhold his name, because
our purpose here isn't to make him look silly. Suffice it to say that he
writes us several times a week, his nickname for President Bush is "Chimpy,"
and the following message, which we quote verbatim, is actually quite a bit
more temperate than his usual fare:
"No wonder the entire world sees this fool for the complete moron that
"I now see that his supporters, such as your august self, have truly,
really, fundamentally no shame and no sense of embarrassment. Bush makes us
all look like dopes--after all he was elected twice (ooops, make that stole
the election twice--my bad)"
"If only his idiot gaffs were the worst of it..."
"He is truly worthless as a president and as a man!"
Our correspondent sent us a link to a blog called First Draft, in which
someone styling himself "Holden
Caulfield" says of the president, "Christ, what a dumbass," and links
to the following Reuters
Nelson Mandela is still very much alive despite an embarrassing gaffe by
U.S. President George W. Bush, who alluded to the former South African
leader's death in an attempt to explain sectarian violence in Iraq.
"It's out there. All we can do is reassure people, especially South
Africans, that President Mandela is alive," Achmat Dangor, chief executive
officer of the Nelson Mandela Foundation, said as Bush's comments received
worldwide coverage. . . .
"I heard somebody say, Where's Mandela?' Well, Mandela's dead because
Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas," Bush, who has a reputation for verbal
faux pas, said in a press conference in Washington on Thursday. . . .
References to his death--Mandela is now 89 and increasingly frail--are
seen as insensitive in South Africa.
So, what did President Bush actually say? Here's the quote in context, from
White House transcript:
Part of the reason why there is not this instant democracy in Iraq is
because people are still recovering from Saddam Hussein's brutal rule. I
thought an interesting comment was made when somebody said to me, I heard
somebody say, where's Mandela? Well, Mandela is dead, because Saddam Hussein
killed all the Mandelas. He was a brutal tyrant that divided people up and
split families, and people are recovering from this. So there's a
psychological recovery that is taking place. And it's hard work for them. And
I understand it's hard work for them. Having said that, I'm not going the give
them a pass when it comes to the central government's reconciliation efforts.
In this context, it is clear that the literal meaning of "Where's Mandela?"
is "Where is the Iraqi who will play the role in his country that Mandela
played in postapartheid South Africa?" This was a pithy metaphor, not an
Now, how did Reuters get the story wrong? There are, it seems to us, three
Stupidity. The reporter was so bone-headedly literal-minded that he
simply did not understand the rhetorical device Bush was employing.
Laziness. The reporter wasn't actually at the press conference and
didn't bother to check the context of the quote.
Dishonesty. The reporter knew full well that Bush was speaking
metaphorically and deliberately twisted his meaning in order to fit the
stereotype that Bush "has a reputation for verbal faux pas."
In the case of the particular Reuters dispatch "Caulfield" links to,
laziness is the most likely answer. It's datelined Johannesburg, so the
reporter surely was not at the press conference. But ultimately the
explanation for the "worldwide coverage" this "gaffe" has received is either
stupidity or dishonesty. Some journalist either failed to understand or
deliberately misrepresented Bush's remark. And the joke is on people like our
Bush-hating correspondent, who gullibly eat this stuff up.
But isn't even OpinionJournal missing the point? Let's
try the entire sentence again:
I thought an interesting comment was made when somebody said to me, I heard
somebody say, where's Mandela? Well, Mandela is dead, because Saddam Hussein
killed all the Mandelas.
The first words of Bush's sentence are: "I thought an
interesting comment was made when somebody said to me..."
In other words, Bush didn't even say it
originally, he was quoting another person.
Well, people who call others fools and morons (even
though they themselves are unable to correctly spell 'gaff', although OJ did not
make this point 'sic' out) often aren't careful readers.
Another excerpt from OJ:
Mike Kinsley Human?
The question is prompted by the Slate founder's latest Time magazine column,
in which he accuses critics of MoveOn.org's McCarthyite attack on Gen. David
Petraeus of insincerity:
"... Whatever your interpretation of the ad, all the gasping for air
and waving of scented handkerchiefs among the war's most enthusiastic
supporters is pretty comical."
"It's all phony, of course. The war's backers are obviously delighted to
have this ad from which they can make an issue."
Let's assume Kinsley is right that the ad's critics are "delighted to have
this ad from which they can make an issue." It does not follow from this that
their outrage is phony. To the contrary, it seems far more likely that their
sincere outrage at the ad informed their analytical judgment that MoveOn had
gone too far and thereby hurt its own cause, a realization that in turn
Kinsley is treating emotional reactions as if they were logical
propositions. He thinks he has caught his ideological opponents in a
contradiction by pointing out that they are (or at least have reason to be)
happy about one aspect of a situation, as if that precluded their being
unhappy about another aspect of it.
Clever as he is, Kinsley appears to lack the slightest understanding of how
emotions work. For his wife's sake, we hope he's faking it.
Oooh, Taranto, a wee bit low there, but your point is
made. Of course he's faking it, Kinsley's job is to spin even when the task is
Herculean, as it is in this case. He can't afford to stand up and condemn the
ad because that's not his job, his job is quite the opposite. Of course he
And, frankly, I was delighted with the ad. See, you
cannot really damage Petraeus with this kind of childishness, only yourself...as
well as all others who associate themselves with you, not only before but
especially afterwards. It was delightful to see them scurrying around trying to
avoid the light they were unhappy to find suddenly focused their way.
Another good OJ item:
"A top campaign adviser to Hillary Rodham Clinton says Rudy Giuliani's
stormy personal life will be fair game should he win the Republican nomination
for president," the New York Post reports:
"There's a lot that the rest of the country is going to get to know about
Mayor Giuliani that the folks in New York City know," said Tom Vilsack, former
Iowa governor and a co-chairman of the Clinton campaign.
"I can't even get into the number of marriages and the fact that his
children--the relationship he has with his children--and what kind of
circumstances New York was in before Sept. 11," Vilsack said during an
interview on NY1 last night.
"There are lot of issues involving Mayor Giuliani . . . He's got a very
Giuliani is just lucky Mrs. Clinton doesn't practice the politics of
And, finally, this item:
They met online, where he called himself "Prince of Joy," and she called
herself "Sweetie." Their real names were Sana and Adnan. "The pair [each]
thought they had found a soulmate with whom to spend the rest of their lives,"
[They] poured their hearts out to each other over their marriage troubles.
. . . Sana, 27, said: "I was suddenly in love. It was amazing, we seemed to be
stuck in the same kind of miserable marriages. How right that turned out to
Finally they decided to meet in person, and they discovered that they were
married to each other:
When it dawned on her what had happened, she said: "I felt so betrayed."
Adnan, 32, said: "I still find it hard to believe that Sweetie, who wrote
such wonderful things, is actually the same woman I married and who has not
said a nice word to me for years."
Too bad they didn't like
Taranto also reminded me to look at this item
again...I'd missed the last line the first time I read it.
Here you go with a headline example...from the
New York Times, who else?
Scientists Report Severe Retreat of Arctic Ice
And in the text...
Mark Serreze, a senior researcher at the snow and ice center, said it
was increasingly clear that climate change from the buildup of greenhouse
gases was playing a role in the Arctic warming, which is seen not only
in the floating ice but also in melting terrestrial ice sheets, thawing tundra
and warming seawater. (My emphasis added)
“We understand the physics behind what’s going on,” Dr. Serreze said. “You
can always find some aspect of natural variability that can explain some
things. ... You can’t dismiss this as natural variability,” he said. “We’re
starting to see the system respond to global warming.”
So far so good. Oh, wait...there's one final line at
the very end...yes, I know, that's where final lines typically appear...
Sea ice around Antarctica has seen unusual winter expansions recently, and
this week is near a record high. (Again, my emphasis added)
Tell me, Scientist Serreze, how do you explain
Antarctica if it is "increasingly clear that climate change from a buildup of
green house gases was playing a role in the Artic warming"?
...he and other scientists acknowledged that both poles were
extraordinarily complicated systems of ice, water and land, and that the mix
of human and natural influences was not easy to clarify. (EA yet again)
Hey, he pouts, I've figured out global warming at the
north pole, what more do you expect me to do, explain everything else, too?
Here's an interesting item for you!
My real age is 72 but my biological age is 59.4, which
would be in keeping with the way I feel. And, yes, I put down the true answer
about drinking alcohol, thanks for asking. Interestingly, my life expectancy is
95.6, which would put me about on a par with Dad.
Cliff May presents some encouraging poll numbers in support of
thesis that the left's "Iraq summer" has failed to create
momentum in favor of accepting defeat and that, in fact, the left is further
from accomplishing this goal than it was in the spring.
A Gallup poll reports that 61 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion
of General Petraeus, up 9 percent in just one week.
Fifty-four percent of those surveyed said they believe Petraeus' plan for
removing troops is the right pace or too quick. By contrast, only 33 percent
view the withdrawal as moving too slowly.
Pew reports that nationally “57 percent of Americans who read or heard about
Petraeus' testimony approved of his recommendations for Iraq, while only 28
percent of respondents said they disapprove.
US News & World Report’s “Political Bulletin” highlighted polling that
found when “[a]sked, ‘If General Petraeus asks for the troop level to remain
in place for another nine months, would you approve or disapprove this
proposal,’ 54% approve it; 43% disapprove. Independents track the overall
response, with 53% approving the proposal and 43% disapproving it. 80% of
Republicans back the idea while 67% of Democrats oppose it.”
You would think that Reid would be embarrassed at this
other Power Line item:
"We're not changing our strategy," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said
shortly before the vote, adding that the tactic succeeded in making Senate
Republicans claim responsibility for the war.
"We are united," the Nevada Democrat said. "We vote together all the time.
And the Republicans vote together all the time, with rare exception. And as a
result of that, it's very clear to the American people who supports President
But wait! Twenty Democrats voted against the amendment, compared with 28
who voted for it. So the Dems aren't exactly "together all the time."
You can see how a moron like Bush can fool him, right?
Important post from Captain's Quarters:
Diyala Tribes Begin Their Own Awakening
Most of the major tribes in the Iraqi province of Diyala have signed
support US and Iraqi forces against extremists, a development that has
already resulted in a sharp improvement in intelligence flowing to security
forces in the region. Just as in Anbar, the surge in the key province has
resulted in a significant shift in allegiances. Unlike Anbar, however, it
doesn't just involve Sunnis:
"Most of the major tribes in a strategic province northeast of Baghdad
have signed agreements to support U.S. and Iraqi forces, a sign the
alliance-building initiative that started in Anbar province is spreading.
"In Diyala province, tribal leaders representing 20 of the province's 25
major tribes have signed agreements brokered by the local government, said
Army Col. David Sutherland, a brigade commander there.
"The shift has led to more tips from citizens and a reduction in
violence, the U.S. military says. Weekly attacks in Diyala province have
declined from an average of 125 three months ago to 70 last week."
Diyala, as some might recall, became the center of the new al-Qaeda in Iraq
caliphate after the surge displaced AQI from Ramadi and Fallujah. When they
ran out of Anbar, they headed for Diyala and Baqubah, closer to the Iranian
border where they could keep their lines of communication open with the
mullahcracy in Teheran that supplies them with weapons. The surge forces only
recently shifted their attention to this key province, and violence has
dropped as AQI looks for another caliphate center.
This province has more strategic value to the US and Iraqi forces than
Anbar. The mix of Sunnis, Shi'a, and Kurds makes it more of a challenge to
unite against the extremists. AQI exploited sectarian divisions there and
prompted a Shi'ite extremist reaction. The new agreement with the tribes
applies to extremists in both directions and acknowledges the Iraqi army and
government forces as the ultimate authority, a rather significant step for
The success with the agreements, made within local government structures,
shows yet another success from the new, aggressive American policy in Iraq.
While the space it has given Iraq's central government has not yet produced
the reforms we demanded, it has allowed the local tribes some room to see that
they do not have to live in fear of violence, as they did in these areas while
the extremists attempted to spark a civil war. The "ground-up" strategy of
working with tribes to gain unity on security issues will create a more
permanent stability, within which the people of Iraq can demand those kinds of
reforms through a normal political process.
It's good news that we have made allies in Diyala. It could mean more
effectiveness at curtailing Iranian infiltration and influence, which will
lead to less violence and death. The Diyala "awakening" would create an even
better model than Anbar, if it holds.
If it holds. I note there wasn't a lot about Iraq on
the front pages today. Which provoked
this complaint from Dan Gerstein in Politico:
For many in Washington, the biggest unanswered question from Army. Gen.
David Petraeus’ high-profile, low-satisfaction testimony last week was not
about military strategy but about political tactics. Why has the anti-war
movement been unable to translate the clear public mandate they claim into any
clear change in our government’s Iraq policy? ...
They may not say it publicly, for fear of arousing the grass roots’ wrath,
but the realist wing of the party seems to think the Democrats’ biggest
problem on Iraq these days is not that there’s too much Bush Lite but that
there’s too much Bush Left.
Under this view, too many anti-war activists, not satisfied with berating
the president, have too often wound up behaving like him. They have gone
beyond fighting back and holding the Decider accountable to adopting the same
divisive, dogmatic and ultimately destructive style of politics that Democrats
have been decrying for the past seven years, with the same counterproductive
The anti-war movement has rightly castigated Bush for his reflexive
inflexibility and, specifically, his maddening decision to stick with the same
failed strategy in Iraq.
So what did AAEI and its allies do once it became apparent their pressure
campaign was not succeeding in peeling off moderate Republicans? Just like the
president — and just as some modest signs of success were emerging from Iraq —
they doubled down on their bet and countered with an escalation of their own.
The problem is that he's fallen for his own talking
points and thus can't see what happened. Bush did NOT stick with the same
failed strategy, he shifted gears remarkably.
Specifically, Petraeus changed the entire strategy from
what it had been. He wrote the book on counter-insurgency and now he's reading
it back. Democrats who failed to recognize this shift for what it was are
unable, as a result, to understand what is happening. Both in Iraq and to them.
When your talking points don't work then the thing to do
is examine YOUR points, not continue to unthinkingly grump about your opponent's
And no matter how you want to talk down the other side's
achievements, calling something only "modest signs of success" does not make it
so. Regardless, the time to double-down is when you are winning, not losing.
It's the common mistake of losing gamblers, not recognizing that.
You talk about not being able to recognize things,
though, try this:
...the short-term goal for Democrats, as MoveOn’s own Washington director
says, continues to be to separate moderate Republicans from Bush.
MoveOn could not possibly, on its best day, attract a
moderate anybody, let alone a moderate Republican! I'm closer to a moderate
Republican than I am anything else and I consider MoveOn to be a group of
irresponsible children. If they were on the far right fringe instead of the far
left fringe I'd still be turned off by them.
Well, then I got to this laugher!
The fact is, the swing Republicans whom Democrats need are even less
inclined to support a hard deadline post-Petraeus, and they are never going to
vote to cut off funding. But they will be hard-pressed to reject the political
lifeline that Reid wants to offer them...
Oh, YEAH! Reid wants to offer them a political
lifeline! Why, so more of them can get reelected? Ahahahahaha... Come on,
Dan, Reid is not in business to offer lifelines to Republicans and most of us
know that. My goodness, no wonder you don't understand what's happening to you.
It’s panic time in Republican circles. The G.O.P. could go into next year’s
election burdened by the twin demons of an unpopular war and an economic
downturn. The party that took the White House in 2000 while losing the popular
vote figures it may have to do it again.
Three problems, Bob.
One: the unpopular war will suddenly turn popular once
more signs of victory appear. After all, the goal--a pro-American democracy in
Iraq--is not exactly something most Americans don't want to see. Right now the
entire anti-war goal is to produce the idea that victory is impossible, the war
cannot be won. But if this is no longer perceived to be the case...you lose. I
think it's more likely that the Democrats are the ones in panic here.
Two: there may be no economic downturn by election day.
In which case, Democrats panic again.
Three: the Republicans won the popular vote by
significant numbers in 2004, regardless of what happened in 2000. In fact, the
trend wasn't good for Democrats. They hope to reverse this, but who knows if
they will be successful yet?
Quite a lot has been made out of this comment by
Sen. John Warner (R., Va.): Are you able to say at this time if we
continue what you have laid before the Congress here as a strategy, do you
feel that that is making America safer?
Petraeus: Sir, I believe that this is indeed the best course of
action to achieve our objectives in Iraq.
Warner: Does that make America safer?
Petraeus: Sir, I don't know, actually.
But very little has been printed about what he said
after that cut-off point.
Petraeus: ... I have not sat down and sorted out in my own mind. ...
Candidly, I have been so focused on Iraq that drawing all the way out was
something that for a moment there was a bit of a surprise. But I think that we
have very, very clear and very serious national interests in Iraq. Trying to
achieve those interests--achieving those interests has very serious
implications for our safety and for our security. . . .
So I think the answer really, to come back to it, is yes.
However, the second half of this response comes form a
later question by Senator Bayh, in which he reprises Warner's question expecting
to get the same answer.
As Petraeus puts it:
Petraeus: Well, I thank you, actually, Senator, for an opportunity
to address that, frankly.
Bayh wished he had kept his mouth shut, but it didn't
matter...the media already had the part of the quote that they wanted and the
rest was superfluous.
Well, so far it looks like they made a big mistake
trying to nail Petraeus to the cross. Big time mistake.
In our local news, here in Costa Rica:
Many Costa Ricans and expats are not aware that there are four floors of
museums under the well-known Plaza de la Cultura. And few who were not here
then know that the whole arrangement is only 25 years old.
This is true. I knew there was one, I had no idea there
were three more. In fact, I have a really hard time believing this item. We're
a seismic country and four basement floors from 25 years ago seems out of the
I liked this OpinionJournal item:
A very entertaining
Washington Monthly story on New York Times columnist Bob Herbert brings
this comment from Andrew Sullivan:
"My two cents: once I know the topic of a Herbert column, I can predict
every single self-satisfied, self-righteous platitude that is about to come.
He's also a terrible writer--there's no character to his prose, never a
felicitous turn of phrase. He's the kind of columnist who gets journalism
awards. Even when he's right he's so insufferably self-righteous and humorless
it's a pain to read him. So I don't."
Aside from the bit about journalism awards, has there ever been a better
example of the pot denigrating the kettle?
Nonsense, says Sullivan...you never can predict which
way I'm going to jump. I don't even know, myself, until the last second.
Blogito, Ergo Sum - HOME
Blogito, Ergo Sum - ARCHIVES