Monday night roundup

It's annoying and interesting that the Post organizes its columns by 'left wing' and 'right wing,' because I don't normally go searching for one or the other, and what does it mean that the Post expects people to? I agree and disagree with writers of both persuasions. I think Jennifer Rubin is an angry, disingenuous waste of space, not necessarily because I disagree with her but because she's blatantly selective with her facts. I find that Kathleen Parker makes at least as many good points as bad ones, and I rarely if ever find fault with Anne Applebaum. Below, I praise David Frum. From the other side, Richard Cohen has been bothering me a lot lately. Starting with when he wrote about 'leading from behind' being an 'indictable offense.' Please. What would you do with Syria? Realistically. What. Would. You. Do. If you were actually responsible for military forces and intelligence assets and funds, and their consequences, i.e., if your job weren't just waxing idealistic about other people's foreign policy decisions.

More recently, or just now, this piece just irked the hell out of me. Like I said/implied, I don't have a problem with legitimate policy disagreements or critiques, but I can't help but find that Cohen is using his column to air his personal dislike of the President, which is largely based on the President's being an introvert. I don't care what Richard Cohen personally thinks of anyone, and I'm not surprised Nora Ephron hated him when she first met him (by his own admission). More importantly, I don't understand why the Post pays Richard Cohen to air his personal dislikes. If I wanted to hear someone's unsubstantiated personal opinion, I'd call my mother. I gave Cohen a pass when he took cheap shots after Amb. Holbrooke's funeral, because Cohen himself was in mourning, but where does it stop? Just because someone doesn't handle a situation with the same outward effusiveness that you would, it doesn't mean he or she doesn't care. This isn't a political argument. If anything, it's personal; as someone who's had to contend with others' (my mother, RM) accusing me of heartlessness for not showing affection or emotion the same way they do (or in the way to which they for some reason feel entitled), I just don't think it's fair.

Look, the internet is a big series of tubes where people can express themselves, without an editor or publisher determining whether those expressions are worthy of publication. I appreciate that, especially as a blogger. But at what point does it threaten the Post as an institution when its columnists take to its albeit-online pages to administer petty personal critiques?

***
This starts out as the best response to the Mourdock comments yet.

Best collection of dating advice, ever.

***
Did I tell you that mom's talking to me again? And in the few Skype video calls since, including tonight (I've been staying off the cell during the storm in case I lose power), she asked me what was wrong with my hair. Twice. I'm not sure how anyone would answer that question, unless the 'wrong' pertained to a style formed by voltage. So she asked me whether I 'always' wear it 'like that.' I said no, not always. Apparently, like the busybody at the party the other day, mom thinks I need to invest in a beauty day.ocxz