Dear Maureen Dowd
I sent the following email to Maureen Dowd of the NYTimes about her appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press”. It had to do with her comment on the Camelot legend which I have written about and is linked below and particularly the sword-in-the-stone portion of the legend. We must await her reply.
Dear Ms. Dowd,
Love your column, and you looked absolutely marvelous on pumpkin head’s show Sunday morning. However, in your reference to the Camelot legend, you said Caroline Kennedy’s endorsement of Obama was like Galahad drawing the sword from the stone.
Galahad did not draw the sword from the stone. Arthur did. That’s how the people knew he was supposed to the successor to Uther Pendragon who had put it there in the first place – allegedly.
Jack Kennedy and his administration being likened to the myth of Camelot is something I wrote about when I first started blogging. Where is the sword in the stone so that I might know of Camelot’s return when and if Jack’s successor draws it from the stone?
I ask it here: Sword in the Stone
Since I know you might not want to visit some unknown site, I’ll give you the condensed version here. I didn’t hyper-link the site in this email for the reason that it might not get through if I did. (In the note I sent MoDo, I didn’t hyper link it like I did here. I've also edited my copy since then – scout29c.)
Arthur who did not know he was Uther Pendragon’s son drew the sword from the stone because he had the divine right to do so. Where is the modern day version of the sword in the stone so that we might know who Jack’s successor is when they draw it from the stone?
I think the sword in the stone is the “unconscious endorsement” of the press – or MSM in the more modern expression. The term “unconscious endorsement” is within quotes because of its significance. Professional journalists try to hold themselves above the political fray so as to not compromise their professionalism – and rightfully so, however what happens when as a collective groups they just plain like and admire a certain candidate.
Having a large number of pundits, reporters, and those dastardly bloggers liking a candidate – or President, for that matter – would be one powerful weapon. That’s my guess as to where the sword in the stone is, and I’m watching to see if Obama can draw it out.
Oh, and I’ll keep reading your column and looking for your bad self on TV.
Dear Ms. Dowd,
Love your column, and you looked absolutely marvelous on pumpkin head’s show Sunday morning. However, in your reference to the Camelot legend, you said Caroline Kennedy’s endorsement of Obama was like Galahad drawing the sword from the stone.
Galahad did not draw the sword from the stone. Arthur did. That’s how the people knew he was supposed to the successor to Uther Pendragon who had put it there in the first place – allegedly.
Jack Kennedy and his administration being likened to the myth of Camelot is something I wrote about when I first started blogging. Where is the sword in the stone so that I might know of Camelot’s return when and if Jack’s successor draws it from the stone?
I ask it here: Sword in the Stone
Since I know you might not want to visit some unknown site, I’ll give you the condensed version here. I didn’t hyper-link the site in this email for the reason that it might not get through if I did. (In the note I sent MoDo, I didn’t hyper link it like I did here. I've also edited my copy since then – scout29c.)
Arthur who did not know he was Uther Pendragon’s son drew the sword from the stone because he had the divine right to do so. Where is the modern day version of the sword in the stone so that we might know who Jack’s successor is when they draw it from the stone?
I think the sword in the stone is the “unconscious endorsement” of the press – or MSM in the more modern expression. The term “unconscious endorsement” is within quotes because of its significance. Professional journalists try to hold themselves above the political fray so as to not compromise their professionalism – and rightfully so, however what happens when as a collective groups they just plain like and admire a certain candidate.
Having a large number of pundits, reporters, and those dastardly bloggers liking a candidate – or President, for that matter – would be one powerful weapon. That’s my guess as to where the sword in the stone is, and I’m watching to see if Obama can draw it out.
Oh, and I’ll keep reading your column and looking for your bad self on TV.
posted by scout29c at 12:10 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home