The Long Road of Silence

I feel it appropriate to at least check in with a post, although I cannot guarantee that what follows will rise to the level of greatness that my legion of readers have come to expect.

The near-irrelevance of my last post to our current posture in this here Americanish place requires that this post either:

1) delve to the heart of everything that's happened in sport, politics, our legal landscape, and the world of fine draperies over the past six months or so, or
2) shoddily skim the tops of any or all of these great sequoia-like topics in such a cursory fashion that good taste is entirely tossed out the window.

Uhhh ... so I choose #2

One - Red Sox - Aww Yeah!



Two - Patriots - That's right! No Quarter!

Three -- Bill Richardson - shucks



Four -- Al Gore -- Anybody … Bueller???

Five -- Clarence Thomas -- guffaw!

Six -- Rudy Guiliani -- actually, no opinion, but I love this photo - symbolic of his New Hampshire campaign:



Seven -- The new Law & Order --- jury is still out

Seven and a Half -- -- The new Asst. D.A. on Law & Order - Yes please

Seven & some fraction bigger than one-half -- The old Law and Order - Whoomp there it is!

Eight -- Eight? I forgot what Eight Was For .... ohh yeah ... takin' a wide stance

Nine -- Ted Leo & The Pharmacists -- Listen Up!

Ten -- Time -- ... of the essence. Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was.


That's all for now. Hopefully, more substance will follow ... But don't hold your breathe

Same as it ever was.


Cheer up, son!

Limited Thought Update-Variety Post

I feel the need to post something, despite my apparent blogging paralysis, so here is an article that fits within my ongoing Gore-a-phobic series.

It ran in the August issue of Vanity Fair and chronicles the lasting impact of the political media's coverage of Al Gore's 2000 Presidential run. Here's the nut, as it were:

Eight years ago, in the bastions of the "liberal media" that were supposed to love Gore — The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, CNN — he was variously described as "repellent," "delusional," a vote-rigger, a man who "lies like a rug," "Pinocchio." Eric Pooley, who covered him for Time magazine, says, "He brought out the creative-writing student in so many reporters.… Everybody kind of let loose on the guy."

How did this happen? Was the right-wing attack machine so effective that it overwhelmed all competing messages? Was Gore's communications team outrageously inept? Were the liberal elite bending over backward to prove they weren't so liberal?

Eight years later, journalists, at the prompting of Vanity Fair, are engaging in some self-examination over how they treated Gore. As for Gore himself, for the first time, in this article, he talks about the 2000 campaign and the effect the press had on him and the election. (In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that my father, Martin Peretz, was his teacher at Harvard and is an ardent, vocal Gore backer. I contributed to his campaign in February 1999. Before reporting this article, however, I'd had maybe two passing exchanges with Gore in my life.) Gore wasn't eager to talk about this. He doesn't blame the media for his loss in 2000. Yet he does believe that his words were distorted and that certain major reporters and outlets were often unfair.

A little late, I'd say ... but if this analysis keeps the Gore in 2008 fires burning, then I'll nod in approval.

If nothing else, it's also worth linking to this piece because it provides a nice sidebar link to a photo spread featuring the caratin-deficient, yet ever-lovely Nicole Kidman.


Ever-lovely, despite paleness