Althouse

"I think he's crude, I think he's medieval, and I don't want an elderly gentleman from Vienna with an umbrella inflicting his dreams upon me."

noreply@blogger.com (Ann Althouse) — Sat, 18 May 2013 14:49:00 +0000

"I don't have the dreams that he discusses in his books. I don't see umbrellas in my dreams. Or balloons."

So said Vladimir Nabokov, in 1966, answering the question "Mr. Nabokov, would you tell us why it is that you detest Dr. Freud?" I'm reading this now after writing the last post, about the symbolism of Obama and the Marine-held umbrella. The post ends:

If umbrella-holding conveys a message of unmanliness, it is a vivid image of impotence. It's a symbol.

Umbrellas are a famously Freudian symbol, and I was going to embellish that last post with some stray erudition. But the post was already too long. (Too long!!) And here was Nabokov, taking a swipe at the elderly gentleman from Vienna way back in 1966.

Interestingly, Nabokov is also talking about something else that was a topic in the Obama-and-the-umbrella post:

I'm not a good speaker, you see. When I start to speak, I have immediately four or five lines of thought — sort of roads, you know, trails going various ways. And I have to decide which trail I'm going to follow, and while I decide this, hawing and hemming begins, and it may be very upsetting because I hear it myself. I can never understand those limpid, fluid speakers, as my father was, who just deliver perfect phrases, beautifully built, with an aphorism here, you know, and a metaphor there. I can't do it. I have to think it out; I have to take a pencil; I have to write it down laboriously; have it before me. I do things like that. It's probably psychological. I can imagine what old Freud would have said, whom I heartily detest, as my readers know by now.

Ah! What would Freud have said about Obama's endless uh-ing?

Nevertheless, I am downloading Freud's "Interpretation of Dreams." I want it in my Kindle, alongside, among other things, Obama's — ahem — "Dreams From My Father."

"It was a lighthearted moment in the midst of a grim few days for the White House..."

noreply@blogger.com (Ann Althouse) — Sat, 18 May 2013 14:22:00 +0000

But Obama's comical stylings didn't play as well this week as they have in the past. I'm reading "Obama puts Marines on umbrella duty, irking conservatives" only because I'm interested in figuring out why it's #1 on the "most popular" list in the sidebar at The Washington Post. Something cute about the headline, I thought. But reading it — and looking at that photograph of Obama intentionally clowning with the white-gloved Marine — I'm seeing something tragic. The old ways — that made us love him — don't work anymore. The gentle, slow-talking, stalling with "uhs" for Woody Allen-like timing:

"Uh I am going to go ahead and ask, folks, why don’t we get a couple of Marines — they’re going to look good next to us — just 'cause uh uh — I wanna — I’ve got a change of suits but I don’t know about uh uh uh our prime uh our prime minister. Uh there we go. That’s good. [To the reporters:] You guys, I’m sorry about but but let let let uh uh mmm uh let me uh uh uuuuhhh make sure that I answer a specific question...."

We see the rain failing on his dark suit, and maybe we think about how, yes, that's the White House in back of him and he does have his closets in there, full of suits... empty suits... skeletons in the uh uh uh... But he cares about Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who came all the way from Turkey, probably not to hear Obama grilled with uh uh uh specific questions. He's probably got another suit or 2 in his uh uh suitcase. Heh ha... suitcase... suits in suitcases... it's like gloves in the glove compartment... do you put gloves in the glove compartment... heh heh... Who puts gloves in the glove compartment? I mean... really... Gloves in the glove compartment! What an idea, am I right? Come on! That's funny, people, come on, but but let let let uh uh mmm uh let me uh uh uuuuhhh make sure that I answer a specific question....

There's something so sad about that picture. The gloved Marine answering the call of duty from the Commander in Chief, performing the duty with crisp precision, even as Obama's outstretched hand adjusted his elbow position, even as he knows it violates Marine Corps uniform regulation for a male Marine to carry an umbrella. I know that regulation from reading the WaPo's #1 most popular article. The same rule applies in all branches of the military, and always only for males, not for females:

An attempt to change the policy in the 1990s failed, with some suggesting that there was something effeminate about umbrellas.

“They seem to be very nervous what constitutes unmanly behavior,” said Cynthia Enloe, a professor at Clark University who researched military uniform codes in the book “Maneuvers: The International Politics of Militarizing Women’s Lives.”

Isn't it unmanly to be very nervous, especially about being unmanly? But who were these "some" who suggested carrying an umbrella is "effeminate"? And who were these "irked conservatives"? WaPo only cites an email from the conservative Move America Forward PAC, but that's not so much expressing irritation at misuse of the Marines for umbrella duty as it is using that umbrella-holding duty as a symbol of the failure to act during the Benghazi attack. The email read — we're told — "Rain: 'Hold My Umbrella.' Benghazi: 'Stand Down.'"

If umbrella-holding conveys a message of unmanliness, it is a vivid image of impotence. It's a symbol.

"Harvard law student hopes to buy a Segway after his $1M ‘Survivor’ win."

noreply@blogger.com (Ann Althouse) — Sat, 18 May 2013 13:16:00 +0000

ABA Journal covers John Cochran's win:

He told the Hollywood Reporter he would like to spend some of the prize money on a Segway, a new apartment, investments and "a lot of wireless gizmos and stuff."

On the finale, Cochran said he would like to become a writer rather than a lawyer. Asked about his paper about Survivor, Cochran told the Hollywood Reporter it was “basically Survivor for Dummies” and wasn’t that great....

“It wasn't showing any great insight into how to manage the Survivor jury,” Cochran said. “It gave maybe a brief overview of maybe what sort of strategies work and what don't, but it's not especially insightful. That's why I haven't released it. It's just gonna shatter everyone's illusions that I've written some sort of brilliant thing. It's not brilliant at all. It's embarrassing, so I'm gonna keep it a mystery."

Ha ha. Is the new book going to be insight into Survivor or insight into modesty? Or... may I recommend... a memoir of traveling around America on a Segway? If so, scoot through Madison, Wisconsin, because we love those things around here.

The NYT changes the headline that produced the dramatic Drudge link "They Knew."

noreply@blogger.com (Ann Althouse) — Sat, 18 May 2013 12:33:00 +0000

As I blogged here yesterday, Drudge had this dramatic graphic depiction...

... linking to a NYT article with the headline: "Treasury Knew of I.R.S. Inquiry in 2012, Official Says." Key text on that point:

The inspector general... divulged that he informed the Treasury’s general counsel he was auditing the I.R.S.’s screening of politically active groups seeking tax exemptions on June 4, 2012. He told Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin “shortly after,” he said. That meant Obama administration officials were aware of the matter during the presidential campaign year.

This morning, the headline at the link is: "Republicans Expand I.R.S. Inquiry, With Eye on White House."

It's all about the Republicans' political ambitions. That's the spin. That's what they have. We're supposed to look ahead to 2014 (and 2016), not back to 2012, when voters were deprived of information we could have used.

But we're not supposed to look backward. Only "Forward" — which was, you may remember, Obama's official slogan in the campaign. It fits nicely with the unofficial slogan "What difference, at this point, does it make?"

In that view, the NYT's new headline makes sense. Look always to the future. The past only matters to the extent that it influences what we do going forward. In that view, the scandal investigations are to be understood in terms of the next election. Naturally. What else is there?

At the Evergreen Café...

noreply@blogger.com (Ann Althouse) — Sat, 18 May 2013 01:58:00 +0000

... it's getting late, but please linger.

"Please detail the content of the members of your organization’s prayers."

noreply@blogger.com (Ann Althouse) — Sat, 18 May 2013 00:59:00 +0000

Information the IRS demanded from the Coalition for Life of Iowa. Asked if that's an appropriate question to a 501(c)(3) applicant, IRS commissioner Steven Miller says he's pained at his inability to answer.

What an awful witness! (And I say that after watching much of today's testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee.)

ADDED: To help you think about what might be an appropriate question read this ("Exemption requirements") and this ("Exempt purposes"). Miller seemed to actively resist giving us any idea how the requested details might have been anything but harassment, even as he squirmed away from a simple denouncement of the request.

"How Twitter Is Messing With Al-Qaeda's Careful PR Machine."

noreply@blogger.com (Ann Althouse) — Sat, 18 May 2013 00:42:00 +0000

"Individual jihadis are increasingly taking to social media with their own opinions, sparking disputes within the terrorist organization."

It's a marketplace of ideas. As Justice Holmes famously said:

If you have no doubt of your premises or your power, and want a certain result with all your heart, you naturally express your wishes in law, and sweep away all opposition.... But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas — that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out.

Good luck shopping.

When the lawyer testifies against his client...

noreply@blogger.com (Ann Althouse) — Sat, 18 May 2013 00:27:00 +0000

... and the client is O.J. Simpson.

[Yale] Galanter hesitated and spoke only after he paused, breathed deeply and was reminded that Simpson had waived attorney-client privilege.

"I'm very uncomfortable doing this," Galanter said.

Via TalkLeft, who says "Things aren't looking good for O.J., even though other lawyers involved in the case have supported O.J.'s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel...").

"It's as if Stephen Harper were the CEO of Canada the corporation and we were his employees and we were not allowed to step out of line..."

noreply@blogger.com (Ann Althouse) — Sat, 18 May 2013 00:11:00 +0000

"... or say what we believe is right or true because that would upset the company's brand. This fanatical obsession with message control to me is very much what you have in a company but in a democracy that shouldn't be the case."

Says Franke James, who tells her story in "Banned on the Hill: A True Story about Dirty Oil and Government."

The Althouse Amazon portal: your gateway to truth, justice, and the American way.

noreply@blogger.com (Meade) — Fri, 17 May 2013 22:20:00 +0000

By using the Althouse portal, you can buy things you want and – while paying nothing extra – make a contribution to this blog. We notice. We appreciate it. And only if you voluntarily testify under oath will we know it's you.

Available through the Althouse Amazon Portal:

"Mutterings" [Kindle Edition]
Clark Sutton (Author)

If it were possible to gay marry Ronald Reagan, Clint Eastwood, and my own late father, Clark Sutton would be the fruit of that union. Of course Ronald Reagan, Clint Eastwood, and Dad are probably the last three guys who would ever gay marry. Next best thing: "Mutterings," by Clark Eugene Sutton.

Drudge: "They Knew."

noreply@blogger.com (Ann Althouse) — Fri, 17 May 2013 21:29:00 +0000

A very dramatic graphic depiction by Drudge now. The link goes to the NYT "Treasury Knew of I.R.S. Inquiry in 2012, Official Says."

UPDATE: The NYT has changed its headline to: "Republicans Expand I.R.S. Inquiry, With Eye on White House."

"We've had bras hanging here for 45 years. It's been a charm of the place. So here comes this gal..."

noreply@blogger.com (Ann Althouse) — Fri, 17 May 2013 21:18:00 +0000

"... and she's walking in here like Lady Astor's pet horse, you know, and she says she wants those bras down because they're a fire hazard. Now how can a bra be a fire hazard unless someone is wearing it? Honest to God."

The official ceremony to open the dog park... as seen from the dogs' point of view.

noreply@blogger.com (Ann Althouse) — Fri, 17 May 2013 20:49:00 +0000

Today was the official opening ceremony for Dane County's 7th dog park — the same dog park you've seen pictured on this blog many times. It's not like it's been closed. It's just that today they had some officials making speeches and some TV cameras. When the speeches were over, it was time to release the dogs, who were supposed to go romping out into the park for some nice TV footage.

Meade was there, getting some blog-style video, which I edited into this 27-second show, stressing the experience for the dogs, who had no idea what these government officials have done for them or what all the talking was about:

Why do 58% of public swimming pools in the U.S. contain fecal matter?

noreply@blogger.com (Ann Althouse) — Fri, 17 May 2013 20:37:00 +0000

"Finding a high percentage of E. coli-positive filters indicates swimmers frequently contaminate pool water when they have a fecal incident in the water or when feces rinse off of their bodies because they do not shower thoroughly before getting into the water," according to a statement by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Fecal incident....

"The City of Philadelphia shut down a career fair for ex-offenders today..."

noreply@blogger.com (Ann Althouse) — Fri, 17 May 2013 19:19:00 +0000

"... after an unexpected crowd of thousands showed up, résumés in hand."

There was no yelling, no shoving — just 3,000 people all trying to get into the job fair at once.

"It is absolutely not illegal" says IRS Commissioner Steven Miller, testifying today about the targeting of conservatives.

noreply@blogger.com (Ann Althouse) — Fri, 17 May 2013 18:57:00 +0000

Transcript here.

"Officials in the State Department and Clinton circles seem especially sensitive about the arrangement, and no one would speak about it on the record."

noreply@blogger.com (Ann Althouse) — Fri, 17 May 2013 18:42:00 +0000

Says the New York Times, about Huma Abedin and her work for private clients while serving in the State Department in her longtime role as Hillary Clinton's confidante.

Ms. Abedin reached her new working arrangement in June 2012, when she returned from maternity leave, quietly leaving her position as deputy chief of staff and becoming a special government employee, which is essentially a consultant. A State Department official said that change freed her from the requirement that she disclose her private earnings for the rest of the year on her financial disclosure forms. Still, during that period, she continued to be identified publicly in news reports as Mrs. Clinton’s deputy chief of staff.

Earlier this month, Mr. Weiner released a copy of the couple’s 2012 tax return showing that they had income of more than $490,000.

I was just asking where all their money came from — last month, when the NYT had an article showing off the Weiner/Abedin lifestyle.

From today's NYT article, we hear that the post-maternity leave "arrangement allowed her to work from her home in New York, rather than at the State Department’s headquarters in Washington."

She earned approximately $135,000 from the department during 2012. It is not clear how much Ms. Abedin was paid by Mrs. Clinton privately, or from the Clinton Foundation and Teneo. The Clintons have described Ms. Abedin as a surrogate daughter to them.

ADDED: What work did she do? Did the Clintons just funnel money to her and Weiner?

A Madison, WI proposal to authorize community street painting projects to "bring people together."

noreply@blogger.com (Ann Althouse) — Fri, 17 May 2013 16:23:00 +0000

We're not talking about water soluble paint, but permanent paint jobs, the equivalent of murals, but on the horizontal surface that cars drive on. The alderwoman who proposes the new ordinance — Marsha Rummel — got the idea from Portland, Oregon, "where community members paint an intersection to give it a sense of place and create a public square."

There would be a permit process, including a petition "indicating approval from at least 60 percent residents, businesses and non-residential properties within a 200-foot radius of the proposed location" and "assurances for the city that hold the design's applicant responsible for maintenance of the painting and requires them to have insurance." (I'm quoting the Cap Times article, not the ordinance, so I don't know whom to blame for the irritating ambiguity.)

"You can't just say you want to come in and do this. It needs to be maintained over time. Paint fades. It needs to be repainted from time to time, just as we go and repaint traffic lines," said Arthur Ross, the city's pedestrian-bicycle coordinator.

Which is why it's obviously a terrible idea.

"What it really is is a community building activity. It gets people out of their houses and working on something together," Ross said.

And what about when it breaks them apart because it's ugly, it makes the neighborhood look trashy, and it's not properly maintained. I loathe these government dreams of bringing people together. Leave us alone! I know it's Madison, but people have their own private ways of getting together.

Here's Wisconsin State Journal columnist Chris Rickert mocking the proposal by stressing the provision that forbids "text, numerals, symbols, overt messages or any images designed to convey a message of any kind." Obviously, this provision is needed to avoid making street painting a public forum incurring First Amendment protection from viewpoint discrimination. Rickert jokes that in his neighborhood pretty much everyone hates Governor Scott Walker: "In my ’hood, liberal politics are a building block of community, a distaste for Walker one of the glues that hold residents together," so the things his neighbors would get enthused about painting on the street will be rejected. What if Madison risked permitting messages and accepted the legal proscription on viewpoint discrimination?

Residents could get their Wisconsin-shaped fists and [Obama] “Hope” images, for example, but would have to accept the risk — albeit a small one — of getting portraits of the governor and Ronald Reagan, too.

No doubt the latter would play havoc with traffic in my neighborhood, where drivers would surely wonder just where they made a wrong turn and how they got so horribly lost.

Long-time Madison politico Stu Levitan — in a thread on the Isthmus forum titled "Why does Rickert even bother?" — acts like no one can tell what Rickert actually thinks and accuses Rickert of not even knowing what he thinks. Here's what I think: If you want to make fun of lefties and actually hurt their feelings, you have to use your sledgehammer!

***

Meade frequently comments over at the Isthmus, and I can't tell you how many times the cocooned lefties there simply cannot understand his gentle verbal comedy. For example, here's a blog post written by former Madison mayor Dave Cieslewicz, who's writing about bicycling without coming to a full stop at stop signs:

To be clear I wasn't promoting the flauting of the law. I was being honest about what most bikers do at a quiet intersection. Let those drivers who have never exceeded the speed limit cast the first stone.

Meade comments:

I see Dave has now become Jesus on a Bicycle.

Then, noticing the misuse of "flauting" for "flouting," adds:

Jesus on a Bicycle, tooting his legal flute. (Although he doesn't promote it.)

Dave, instead of laughing, gripes:

See, now this is why I usually don't read the comments.

This is the first time Dave responded to Meade in the comments. Indeed, just a few days ago, Dave was blogging about how he doesn't usually read comments on his blog (which he said was "not a blog") and how he has a special problem with Meade. (I blogged about that here, noting that Dave accused Meade of repeatedly calling him "a liberal idiot," which is not a fair description of Meade's comments.) Meade responds:

I'm trying to help you, Dave. With word usage, spelling, etc. (Do I need to use a sledgehammer? Compare flaut with flout.)

But your sense of humor could also use some tweaking, Dave. Why the thin-skinned Mom, Laurence is being mean to me! My advice: roll with it! Ride right through those stop signs if need be. Laugh at yourself more. Who knows? - it might even help you get your old job back.

By the way, you still owe me a correction, Dave: I've never called you "liberal", "idiot", or even "liberal idiot". Check - as President Obama might say - the transcripts. Although I will admit - some of what you say on your blog is amply dumb.

Hey, thanks for the reply!

Again, Dave responded:

I don't want my old job back, Laurence. I'm happy misspelling stuff and using poor grammar as a non-blogger.

And as for the liberal idiot stuff, while you may never have used the exact words, that's the gist of much of it. I'm not offended. I've never denied that I'm either liberal or an idiot. I am who I am.

And so it goes, in Madison, Wisconsin, where one can have a hell of a time looking for witty conversation. You may wonder why Meade puts his writing over there instead of hanging out in the comments here where people adore him. But that's Meade. You may similarly wonder why we live here in Madison, Wisconsin!

People have their own private ways of getting together.

Former acting IRS commissioner Steve Miller testifies in Congress: "I do not believe that partisanship motivated the people..."

noreply@blogger.com (Ann Althouse) — Fri, 17 May 2013 15:16:00 +0000

"... who engaged in the practices described in the inspector general’s report." He apologized for "the mistakes that we made and poor service we provided," and opined that "partisanship ... has no place at the IRS."

Miller said that “foolish mistakes” were made by IRS employees who were trying to be “more efficient” in carrying out their duties. Now, he said, “the agency is moving forward.”...

Under sharper questioning by Rep. Charles W. Boustany Jr. (R-La.), Miller denied that the IRS engaged in “targeting” conservative groups, saying that was a “pejorative term” and that the employees had centralized a “list” of applications in a “troublesome” manner....

Miller said later in response to tough questions from Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Tex.) that he did not believe any IRS information on the conservative groups was shared outside the agency. “That would be a violation of law,” he said. “I would be shocked if that happened.”

Is that shocked as in shocked or shocked as in shocked shocked?

"A List Of Recurring Fred Armisen, Bill Hader, And Jason Sudeikis Characters..."

noreply@blogger.com (Ann Althouse) — Fri, 17 May 2013 15:02:00 +0000

"... Ranked In Descending Order Of How Much This Commentator Will Miss Them."

Via Throwing Things, where they're going to miss Fred Amisen's Prince:

"A Self is interesting to oneself and others, it acts as a sort of rudder in all the vicissitudes of life..."

noreply@blogger.com (Ann Althouse) — Fri, 17 May 2013 14:43:00 +0000

"... and it thereby defines what used to be known as a career," wrote Jacques Barzun to his grandson, the lawprof, Charles Barzun, quoted by my son Jaltcoh here. The grandson had asked for help with what he called "a genuine crisis of identity... "brought on by the events of 9/11 and partly by my own discovery that I could not have cared less about my job." The grandfather assured him that he would find his way, which would look "like a path marked on a map" and "you will have made a Self, which is indeed a desirable possession."

The elder Barzun likens identity to a path and then to a rudder. Life is a journey. That's a very widely used metaphor. All these people who think of life as a journey: What are they picturing? Do they see a wilderness where you can find — or break — a path? Or do they see a map where you can mark a path? Or is it a journey over the ocean, in which your body is a ship, and what you want is a rudder?

The seafaring image implicit in Barzun's "rudder" made me think of that popular old poem that ends "I am the master of my fate/I am the captain of my soul." I haven't heard that poem — "Invictus" — quoted in a long time, perhaps because it was overquoted to the point of triteness and nowadays people don't read poetry — other than in children's books. They'll listen to poetry, including the endless doggerel of rap (which is, perhaps, inspired by many childhood readings of Dr. Seuss books). But there was a time when lots of ordinary people knew the last verse of "Invictus" by heart.

I'm reading the Wikipedia page for "Invictus," scanning the long list of items under the heading "Influence." It begins with "Casablanca" (where "I am the master of my fate" is used ironically). The next item features Ronald Reagan:

In the 1945 film Kings Row, Parris Mitchell, a psychiatrist played by Robert Cummings, recites the first two stanzas of "Invictus" to his friend Drake McHugh, played by Ronald Reagan, before revealing to Drake that his legs were unnecessarily amputated by a cruel doctor.

Next, another President, FDR, at least the FDR of the 1958 play Sunrise at Campobello. Further down we encounter Nelson Mandela, who recited the poem to hearten his fellow prisoners. There's also Aung San Suu Kyi. And then... it's chilling to encounter this after beginning this post with the crisis of identity brought on by 9/11:

The Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh quoted the poem in its entirety as his final (written) statement.

The terrorists are out and about on their own ships in the seafaring journey of life, and they've got their rudders. Emergency inspiration available here.

"Even the singers' hair was identical and when it came to hitting the highest notes at the top of the song, Jennifer clearly couldn't help but show off her skills."

noreply@blogger.com (Ann Althouse) — Fri, 17 May 2013 13:24:00 +0000

"It wasn't massively appropriate, and Candice looked bewildered and nervous at times so it's to her utter credit that she still took the title home. Perhaps realising her mistake, and possibly performing on autopilot, Hudson tried to chivvy the younger singer along at the song's close."

The Daily Mail covers last night's "American Idol" finale. (Hence the incomprehensible-to-Americans "chivvy.") The other DM article is "Must be female intuition! Aretha Franklin predicts Candice Glover's win as she duets with final five American Idol ladies via video." Ha ha.

It's kind of true. "AI" brought in 2 gigantic soul-singing divas as if to launch their new counterpart, Candice (whom I'm sure the producers knew would win) and those 2, each in her own way, stepped on Candice's moment.

It was a funny season of "Idol." It turned out to be a singing contest in which the best singer won. She didn't play to the cameras and beg for our love. She tried to win on the merits, and did. But — isn't it the way things always go? — the show is in steep decline. Where's the audience? Maybe the people who are left really just like great singing and not the attendant hammy bullshit. That makes no sense. That's an utterly irrational way to go looking for great singing.

"Dzhokhar Tsarnaev note found in boat points to mystifying motive we may never truly understand."

noreply@blogger.com (Ann Althouse) — Fri, 17 May 2013 13:03:00 +0000

"... So, probably just teen alienation then."

Yes, of course! Just look at his face!

"WH Benghazi emails have different quotes than earlier reported."

noreply@blogger.com (Ann Althouse) — Fri, 17 May 2013 12:53:00 +0000

CBS reports:

On Friday, Republicans leaked what they said was a quote from Rhodes: "We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don't want to undermine the FBI investigation."

But it turns out that in the actual email, Rhodes did not mention the State Department.

It read: "We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation."

So the Republicans inserted fake language? Or is the "actual email" not the actual email?

Republicans also provided what they said was a quote from an email written by State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland.... "The penultimate point is a paragraph talking about all the previous warnings provided by the Agency (CIA) about al-Qaeda's presence and activities of al-Qaeda."

The actual email from Nuland says: "The penultimate point could be abused by members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings."

So the version of the email we're now seeing refers to "The penultimate point" but is missing a sentence saying what "The penultimate point is..."? I'm skeptical!

At the Windswept Café...

noreply@blogger.com (Ann Althouse) — Thu, 16 May 2013 23:14:00 +0000

... find a place in the shadows.