« Out on the land |
| Carter's latest victims »
- Someone at The New York Times put a deep dent in his expense account and paid a visit to Nunavut (registration required). He proceeds to call the Inuit 'Eskimos' and wave around a few tidbits of anecdotal info to try to convince you that mankind is doomed.
- I can't believe I'm agreeing with something written by odious cartoonist Ted Rall over James Lileks. Rall rips apart the overrated Art Spiegelman and calls him a posturing, self-promoting phoney. Lileks said yesterday that Spiegelman is "brilliant" (though politically stupid -- which is true). Lileks is wrong; the only decent thing he's done is Maus, and that was only good because his father's story that it was based on was so powerful. But I've read much of his other work -- and it's pretentious, self obsessed drivel.
- I didn't bring my dictionary up here so my spelling would probably be terrible if it wasn't for the presence of my wife watching bad TV as I write. She can spell anything -- and never makes mistakes. Thanks, Sweety.
- I posted some photos of Iqaluit last week that showed it to be a terrible mess. This weekend there were a number of Inuit women out working to clean it up. It looks a lot better now, at least down on this side of town.
- The last Economist had an article by a woman from the Carter Center justifying their endorsement of Chavez's win. Aside from some of the weasel-words used (the government "largely" agreed to their demands), she also claims that they statistically analysed the many coincidences in the voting patterns and found them to be within the expected range. However, the professor who she quotes on this now tells a different story. Many more questions on the validity of the election are raised at the Devil's Excrement. I can't understand why there's no real media scrutiny of this story.
TrackBack URL for this entry: