Young hippopotamuses should stay on their hippocampuses until their educated.

I've been quick-reading Sherwood Anderson's 'Winesburg, Ohio' and often a book or a special person (many here), sorta fall into 'our' lap.

Hemingway, Faulkner, Wolfe, Steinbach, etc., were influenced by Sherwood Anderson. The writer struggled throughout his life.

There is virtue and 'rich' insight to embrace. Embrace our personal pain and acknowledged the personal suffering. He never viewed himself as a quality writer/thinker. His writing are timeless.

He wrote, 'Soldier's Pay' and he had some nasty depots-like critics.

He wrote 'Dark Laughter' and I thought of bystander when I read this: He said he wrote as if he was running to catch a fast moving train, but once, it was caught he could settle back and let himself be carried-- and often he worried he went (doubt) in the wrong direction.

Others said he helped unblock pent emotions and past childhood wounds. He wrote 'Death in the woods' and TIME was a logical expressions of personal events revealed to him in incremental insight.

He entered his subconscious where the dark foreboding takes place. He got his verb tenses confused. He was poor at punctuating. His instinct was to keep at it, as in a dream unfolding.

He spoke of half-dream, and he worked intensely.

He said, "Often I can't rest or sleep very well."

A smile on a face may snap something for him into place.

Walt Whitman, Turgenev, Mark Twain, and Gertrude Stein, D.L. Lawrence was an influence- we all influence (cultivate) each other- His stories were first told in Saloons.

He was a 'scribbler' and scribbled ideas like a drunk likes to drink. He loved the smell of ink, and to scowl a thought down wherever he was was his delight.

He gladdened others...etc., Yow.

exhausted, and then comes relaxation...

A light had shone from his depths, he said.

I like this: Sometimes a person spoke to him.

The impression he got was in a moment a whole Life was revealed to him.

Instead of pretending he was a little crazy, he kept working feverishly as if he loved the life giving trance.

Was that a doctor joke with hippopotami? And it's all my fault, really it is. Duly chastened, I remind myself that the topic is media corruption, as exemplified by Joe Klein's cavalier attitude toward the facts and toward his audience.

Well, on that score, shooter, for all his wriggling, has hit upon something worth noting. Once you've decided that universal surveillance is the cure for this or that threat, it becomes awfully difficult to allow any exceptions. No matter what the Constitution says, everything begins to look like a plausible threat. I mean, how far to you have to extend a metaphor, or indulge your paranoia, before the election of Democrats begins to look like a genuine threat to the Republic?

Wow, I hope Glenn gets a better response from the Time editor Priscilla Painton than Jane got. Circling the wagons, indeed.

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/11/27/time-magazine-circles-the-wagons-around-joe-klein/#comments

Just as Klein's mendacity now is the standard for "journalism", our buddy Boylan's craftsmanship with the keyboard is the standard for "spokesman":

That is the ultimate stated end goal that this is to move to.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/26/asia/iraq.php?WT.mc_id=rssafrica#end_main

I still Google him every few days to see if he continues to work his magic with the language.

My Christmas list is short: Klein and Boylan joining in early retirement.

Between the lines I read here, and elsewhere in books, blogs, and paper prints-That:

Those who read Salon and enter the larger blogosphere world, the rare mythical experience is IF: A partner spouse would want to dare live in the same messy, cluttered, homeplace with any Saloonist or Hippo typist...It be a miracle!

You bet that is a true given? I damb sure believe it.

Can you at least admit then Klein either should have written about a topic he does fully grasp (back to the typical horse race stuff he likes) or a topic that he could research and then fully grasp?

He did actually. This entire brou-ha-ha is about one portion of the original article which describes how Democrats shoot themselves in the foot with political correctness...

If the Democrats want to win in 2008, they can't be mealymouthed on issues of national security. That doesn't mean they need to be witlessly hawkish. It doesn't mean they have to join the neoconservative frenzy for war with Iran. It means they have to make the arguments against folly with clarity, toughness and a heavy dose of Realpolitik. It means they will have to convince the public that they will be more effective and realistic overseas than the Republicans have been. No more "Freedom Agendas." No more quagmires. A renewed emphasis on cleaning out al-Qaeda, even if it means special operations against the terrorist camps in Pakistan (as Obama has suggested). It also means that in each and every debate, the Dems should acknowledge the progress being made in Iraq and ask the question, So why can't we start bringing home the troops now?

To me as a conservative, this makes perfect sense. Yet here is the liberal blogosphere roasting Klein over a point which has room for disagreement, yet the liberal Inquisition is declaring Klein a heretic, even while he is obviously trying to help.

Politics is the "art of the possible" and Klein is just illustrating how irrational insistence on ideology to the detriment of incremental change in the liberal direction is a mistake. The House is 0 for 40 or so in trying to pass legislation ending the war. Maybe they should listen to Klein rather than filet him with the knife of absolutist orthodoxy.
But hey, if you folks want to submarine your agenda's progress by savaging your most visible proponents, be my guest. As I often say....keep up the good work.

Over at Firedoglake this morning they were discussing this topic and one poster jayackroyd I though put it very nicely.

"What dooms Joe to continue making this kind of mistake is he starts from the premise that everything is partisan; he’s bought into the republican meme that there are no facts, only politics. So he thinks his job is to listen to the spin of operatives on both sides, weigh them carefully, and then decide which side’s spin is more accurate."

I only disagree that Joe carefully weighs the argument, he listens to the Repub's spin on the topic and weighs it against the Republican spin of the Dem's position.

Thanks, but I think Paul Dirks is closer to the mark when he says that he figures out the element of the story line first (in this case, "Democrats tone-deaf on national security") and then seeks corroborating evidence.

While it should be obvious that this isn't the best way to go about things, it is pretty typical ("Paging David Brooks"). The trouble is that if you use off the record and anonymous sources for corroboration, you're hung out, all by yourself, to dry. I strongly doubt that his "intelligence" source would have said, on the record, that the bill would mean the end of foreign surveillance. But if he can get Klein to say that for him, well that's pretty good. (Others have noted that this intelligence source must be a republican. That's not necessarily so; these guys want as much latitude as possible regardless of ideological position.)

Now, mind you, this is better than Brooks, who crafts his story line, then asks himself the introspective question "Do most regular Americans feel this way?" Self answers "Yes." And he's good to go.