> To call it "journalistic drivel"—or "journalistic" at all—is unjustified. You're right, and in retrospect I'm surprised that I used that word. These days I

> To call it "journalistic drivel"—or "journalistic" at all—is unjustified. You're right, and in retrospect I'm surprised that I used that word. These days I expect this sort of inane rant from someone's blog that I will ignore in the future, not "nytimes.com". Maybe blogs have made opinion columns irrelevant? I can see how papers might have been boring in the past, but today we have an infinite tap of ranting idiots... maybe the papers should stick to journalism?