Lee Bockhorn explains why Bill Clinton remains in the news, and on the cover of Newsweek. (Hint–it isn’t because the so-called “Clinton-haters” can’t let go…).

I myself was appalled by the Newsweek piece.

First, because they let Jonathan Alter do it. How did the editors think that he could even remove his proboscis from Bill’s derriere long enough to write a credible piece?

And second, at his continuing self absorption (though I guess at this late date, I’d be stupid to be surprised). It’s always about him.

He doesn’t regret pardoning Marc Rich because it was wrong. He regrets it because it damaged his “reputation.” Methinks he misspelled “notoriety.” As usual, his only real regret is that he got caught, and actually suffered some consequences for it. Perhaps if this had happened earlier (like when he raped a woman in Arkansas as Attorney General) the country would have been spared a great deal of trauma.

Somehow, I find nothing more hilarious than European posturing on what they’re going to do to that naughty state of Israel if they continue to oppress poor, benighted Nobel-Prize-winner Arafat.

The same thing they’ve done to Robert Mugabe? Frown them into submission?

Somehow, I find nothing more hilarious than European posturing on what they’re going to do to that naughty state of Israel if they continue to oppress poor, benighted Nobel-Prize-winner Arafat.

The same thing they’ve done to Robert Mugabe? Frown them into submission?

Somehow, I find nothing more hilarious than European posturing on what they’re going to do to that naughty state of Israel if they continue to oppress poor, benighted Nobel-Prize-winner Arafat.

The same thing they’ve done to Robert Mugabe? Frown them into submission?

David Warren, one of our friends in the Great White North, points out that, as a result of the Israeli raid of Ramallah, Arafat’s game is up. The evidence of his perfidy is abundant to any who are interested.

A disturbing sidenote to the article is a twenty-three-year-old Canadian peacenik airhead who found Yasser “charismatic, and ‘good-hearted.'”

I was as amused as any by Bjorn Staerk’s little April Foolery, and unlike certain clueless Globe columnists, wasn’t fooled for a nanosecond (but only because the top of the post had the date displayed prominently). But if it had occurred on some other day, I might have (seriously) asked the same question that Charles Johnson did.

“What has happened to Bjorn”?

Because weblogs are a much more personal medium than Op Ed pieces, we tend to develop opinions about the blogger’s general attitudes, state of mind, and general mental health much more than we would for a newspaper columnist, and when these things change, it’s often apparent to regular readers, even if the blogger says nothing explicit. Bjorn’s post was disturbing (or would have been if it hadn’t been an obvious prank to those of us who’ve been reading his stuff for months) because it seemed as though he’d overnight repudiated everything he believed. Such a thing could only be caused by some traumatic personal event, or some sudden change in brain chemistry.

On one of the Usenet groups that I frequent, there’s one individual who sometimes posts there who seems to be bipolar (I am only surmising this, because he’s never discussed it). He will be making posts that are reasonably lucid (with which I often disagree, but no more so than many other posters), and they will start to get weirder and weirder, often to the point of total incoherence. At that point, he posts no more for a while, often weeks or months.

So, it just made me wonder. If one of our fellow bloggers actually does go around the bend, will we know?

I was as amused as any by Bjorn Staerk’s little April Foolery, and unlike certain clueless Globe columnists, wasn’t fooled for a nanosecond (but only because the top of the post had the date displayed prominently). But if it had occurred on some other day, I might have (seriously) asked the same question that Charles Johnson did.

“What has happened to Bjorn”?

Because weblogs are a much more personal medium than Op Ed pieces, we tend to develop opinions about the blogger’s general attitudes, state of mind, and general mental health much more than we would for a newspaper columnist, and when these things change, it’s often apparent to regular readers, even if the blogger says nothing explicit. Bjorn’s post was disturbing (or would have been if it hadn’t been an obvious prank to those of us who’ve been reading his stuff for months) because it seemed as though he’d overnight repudiated everything he believed. Such a thing could only be caused by some traumatic personal event, or some sudden change in brain chemistry.

On one of the Usenet groups that I frequent, there’s one individual who sometimes posts there who seems to be bipolar (I am only surmising this, because he’s never discussed it). He will be making posts that are reasonably lucid (with which I often disagree, but no more so than many other posters), and they will start to get weirder and weirder, often to the point of total incoherence. At that point, he posts no more for a while, often weeks or months.

So, it just made me wonder. If one of our fellow bloggers actually does go around the bend, will we know?

I was as amused as any by Bjorn Staerk’s little April Foolery, and unlike certain clueless Globe columnists, wasn’t fooled for a nanosecond (but only because the top of the post had the date displayed prominently). But if it had occurred on some other day, I might have (seriously) asked the same question that Charles Johnson did.

“What has happened to Bjorn”?

Because weblogs are a much more personal medium than Op Ed pieces, we tend to develop opinions about the blogger’s general attitudes, state of mind, and general mental health much more than we would for a newspaper columnist, and when these things change, it’s often apparent to regular readers, even if the blogger says nothing explicit. Bjorn’s post was disturbing (or would have been if it hadn’t been an obvious prank to those of us who’ve been reading his stuff for months) because it seemed as though he’d overnight repudiated everything he believed. Such a thing could only be caused by some traumatic personal event, or some sudden change in brain chemistry.

On one of the Usenet groups that I frequent, there’s one individual who sometimes posts there who seems to be bipolar (I am only surmising this, because he’s never discussed it). He will be making posts that are reasonably lucid (with which I often disagree, but no more so than many other posters), and they will start to get weirder and weirder, often to the point of total incoherence. At that point, he posts no more for a while, often weeks or months.

So, it just made me wonder. If one of our fellow bloggers actually does go around the bend, will we know?

Just in case you weren’t already sufficiently disgusted with Gray Davis, Dan Walters has an article in the Bee that he’s taken a page from Bill Clinton’s book. I’m tempted to say that this indicates that he’s really worried about Simon, but I suspect he’d be doing it all regardless of who his opponent is.