(no subject)
It's two in the morning! Time to share your writing assignment with the Live Journal!
Write three letters to the editor on articles from the New York Times:
Author's note: It was late, and I was tired.
I could hardly read Sarah Lyall's survey of the latest and greatest from the Princess Di circus, (After 10 Years, Fascination With Diana Hardly Fades, August 30) because of the gigantic elephant around which the article tiptoed. It astonishes me that the New York Times would, in effect, embrace every scrap of tabloid fantasy, every snippet of obscure Lady Di trivia, yet ignore the single most important and obvious fact relating to the tragic event of ten years ago: Diana isn't dead! It is common knowledge in certain circles that after suffering disfiguring injury in the infamous crash, she was kidnapped by agents of the reclusive Prince Bandari of Kuwait, who now holds her as a white slave. Her recovery being one of the highest priorities of the Downing Street inner circle, British involvement in the invasion of Iraq becomes much less bewildering, as does their recent withdrawal after Bandari's rumored relocation to a private space station in low earth orbit. My own opinion is that media coverage of media coverage is the 8th deadly sin, and I can only hope that Ms. Lyall's future efforts in Princess Di journalism focus more on the woman herself and less on the hype and misinformation surrounding her.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/30/world/europe/30diana.html?ref=world
After reading Warren Leary's piece on a recent NASA report finding no evidence of drunken astronauts, (No Evidence of Drunken Astronauts, NASA Says, August 30) I find that my long-held belief in the existence of drunken astronauts has been badly shaken. One of my earliest memories is of sitting in front of the TV watching live news coverage of the Challenger disaster. When I asked my Dad what happened, he said (with a chuckle) that the astronauts were probably drunk. This was a life-shaping conversation for me. I have always found comfort in the idea that somewhere out there (probably in Florida) there were always some number of intoxicated men and women about to be shot into space. But evidence to the contrary is now here in black and white, and who am I to argue with someone who interviewed 90 (apparently sober) astronauts and reviewed 40,000 mission documents? I might have balked at 39,000 or so, but 40,000? I'm convinced. Thank you, sir, for opening my eyes to the truth.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/30/us/30nasa.html?ref=us
In her August 29 column "Bush's Chances of Uniting the Divide Seem Slim," Robin Toner makes the argument that while previous presidents have been able bounce back from scandals and unpopular policies to build bipartisan bridges and ultimately make progress with their agendas at the end of their terms, it is unlikely the current flightsuit-in-chief (thanks, Doonesbury) will be able to this. I have a response to this claim: No shit, Sherlock. Do you need a doctorate in US politics to come up with this stuff, or is a University of Phoenix online certificate in applied proctology sufficient? Calling this president unpopular isn't opining. Recalling foreign policy blunder after divisive act of cronyism isn't informing. So what exactly is it that you would say you do there down at the Times? I would encourage anyone reading this to catch Ms. Toner's next piece on the likelihood of bears shitting in the woods.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/29/us/politics/30tonerweb.html
Write three letters to the editor on articles from the New York Times:
Author's note: It was late, and I was tired.
I could hardly read Sarah Lyall's survey of the latest and greatest from the Princess Di circus, (After 10 Years, Fascination With Diana Hardly Fades, August 30) because of the gigantic elephant around which the article tiptoed. It astonishes me that the New York Times would, in effect, embrace every scrap of tabloid fantasy, every snippet of obscure Lady Di trivia, yet ignore the single most important and obvious fact relating to the tragic event of ten years ago: Diana isn't dead! It is common knowledge in certain circles that after suffering disfiguring injury in the infamous crash, she was kidnapped by agents of the reclusive Prince Bandari of Kuwait, who now holds her as a white slave. Her recovery being one of the highest priorities of the Downing Street inner circle, British involvement in the invasion of Iraq becomes much less bewildering, as does their recent withdrawal after Bandari's rumored relocation to a private space station in low earth orbit. My own opinion is that media coverage of media coverage is the 8th deadly sin, and I can only hope that Ms. Lyall's future efforts in Princess Di journalism focus more on the woman herself and less on the hype and misinformation surrounding her.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/30/world/europe/30diana.html?ref=world
After reading Warren Leary's piece on a recent NASA report finding no evidence of drunken astronauts, (No Evidence of Drunken Astronauts, NASA Says, August 30) I find that my long-held belief in the existence of drunken astronauts has been badly shaken. One of my earliest memories is of sitting in front of the TV watching live news coverage of the Challenger disaster. When I asked my Dad what happened, he said (with a chuckle) that the astronauts were probably drunk. This was a life-shaping conversation for me. I have always found comfort in the idea that somewhere out there (probably in Florida) there were always some number of intoxicated men and women about to be shot into space. But evidence to the contrary is now here in black and white, and who am I to argue with someone who interviewed 90 (apparently sober) astronauts and reviewed 40,000 mission documents? I might have balked at 39,000 or so, but 40,000? I'm convinced. Thank you, sir, for opening my eyes to the truth.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/30/us/30nasa.html?ref=us
In her August 29 column "Bush's Chances of Uniting the Divide Seem Slim," Robin Toner makes the argument that while previous presidents have been able bounce back from scandals and unpopular policies to build bipartisan bridges and ultimately make progress with their agendas at the end of their terms, it is unlikely the current flightsuit-in-chief (thanks, Doonesbury) will be able to this. I have a response to this claim: No shit, Sherlock. Do you need a doctorate in US politics to come up with this stuff, or is a University of Phoenix online certificate in applied proctology sufficient? Calling this president unpopular isn't opining. Recalling foreign policy blunder after divisive act of cronyism isn't informing. So what exactly is it that you would say you do there down at the Times? I would encourage anyone reading this to catch Ms. Toner's next piece on the likelihood of bears shitting in the woods.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/29/us/politics/30tonerweb.html