So I'm boasting here, but trying to hide it in corrections.
I put a post in the Opinionator in the Times yesterday (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/?hp). Well, it is their most interactive section, and they had a post about how a former British Press secretary thinks a British policeman is doing, in terms of how he looks to the terrorists. This is just as silly as it sounds. I started with a John Foster Dulles anecdote about how he kept a copy of Das Kapital on his desk to try to understand the Soviets.
I don’t remember whether it was Kapital or some book by Lenin on Theory and Practice, or what. I read it some place probably twenty years ago. The point is, Dulles thought the Soviets were guided by communist principles, when really the most that would be true is that they framed their decisions in communist language.
I hope no one gets hung up on Kapital, if that turns out to be wrong. I refuse to Google it.
An editor from the PG editorial board called me last night. I had wasted no time in composing a quarterly letter (PG letter writing policy, no letter less than three months apart: my quarterly letter). If I had waited, I could have said something clever about terrorists. But I went after a letter written by a Ken Boyer (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06220/711838-110.stm). He was part of a chain of letters on SUV’s, where he preemptively accused environmentalists of attacking his need for an SUV. His letter mentioned (and I paraphrase) god's gift of five children so far. My wife was disgruntled that I had written yet another letter to the PG, but when she read Mr Boyer’s letter, she was ready to say something herself. My letter ran long, because I wanted to establish the connection between the sacred and environmentalism. If my letter gets published but edited, I will post the original here. Really, I think that even an existentialist, with their high bar for morality, might accept that.