johnsu01 (johnsu01) wrote,
johnsu01
johnsu01

  • Mood:

Eating a little crow, etc.

I'm a faithful reader of The Nation, as you might have noticed.

But nobody's perfect. Last week's issue had this little gem in it:


Contrary to David Graeber's April 19 "Lying in Wait," John Timoney has not been put in charge of security for this summer's Democratic National Convention in Boston.


This was in the Corrections section. At least they corrected the mistake. Unfortunately this was something I made a big deal out of to a lot of people. I even posted about it here. John Timoney has a reputation for draconian treatment of dissenters at the events he has been involved with.

Corrections should come with much more explanation than they do, in all publications. I guess the NYT showcase on Jayson Blair was a bit over the top, but we could use a few more sentences here. How did the mistake happen? What kind of mistake was it? Was the writer misled by a source? Did the source have a motive to mislead the writer? There is potential for drama here. Maybe I'm only interested in it because I've done a bit of work as a copyeditor and enjoyed it.

I probably would watch a TV drama called Spelling & Grammar, a clone of Law & Order where mistakes are discovered, researched and eliminated. Perhaps Jerry Orbach is now headed for a career as a crusty copy editor working for a crusty editor who halfway through each episode yells about not having the right case and how the antecedent could still be anyone or anything based on the available evidence and how he's not going to drag the writer out of bed until they have some more style law to quote.

Anyway, now I am wondering who is in charge of security at the Democratic National Convention.

Unrelated



To me, being Buddhist means being vegetarian. But many Buddhists aren't. Some will eat whatever is given to them. Some will eat meat as long as it was not killed specifically for them.

The Buddha himself is said to have died from eating bad pork. I have always found this somewhat amusing, that my god-like figure died from food poisoning. No glorious crucifixtion here. But, I learned today that there is some debate about the translation of the passage that relates this story. From an interview with Dr. Tony Page, I learned that the word "sukara-mudava" in the Pali scriptures actually means something like "pig's delight", or what pigs would eat. Apparently, this means that the Buddha might have eaten bad truffles rather than bad pork.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic
    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments