Instapundit and LGF under atttack

Sunday, December 04, 2005
There was a noteworthy post and comment at Belmont Club the other day; I hope it bears repeating, as an invitation to discuss our ambitions for the blogosphere.

Wretchard is frustrated that a proper understanding, in his view, of the reality on the ground in Iraq - i.e. that the US is making sure military advances and that reasons for hope remain - is being undermined by an MSM narrative that seeks to make Iraq fit the mold of the narrative that the left created out of Vietnam. Wretchard writes:

Blackfive says that the results of fighting on the ground are foregone: what remains is the 'battle of the narrative'. But how do you win a 'battle of the narrative' except with words? Ironically the sheer success of the US Armed Forces in keeping the [US] civilian population from a direct experience of war ensures they will only learn about it through vicarious means: network news, the major newspapers and magazines. Movies. And in that department the OPFOR has Blue radically outnumbered. Any rational observer calculating the correlation of words would have to say that in that battle, Blackfive's narrative hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell. The side with the most power over words has determined that Iraq is a defeat. And yet...

The problem with using words to trump reality is that it wagers everything on a monumental bluff. The mesmerist must carry all before him or be humiliated. A King must be obeyed or lose the throne. There is no middle ground. Personally I think the repeated conjury of the master-spell of 'Vietnam' and the endless repetition of "we have been defeated" is a strained attempt to achieve what used to be accomplished effortlessly; almost as a background process. Now the spell is being used altogether too often to be convincing, like a lion-tamer who must repeatedly shout at the mountain of snarling flesh before him to sit down. One of the characteristics of the collapse of an illusion is the suddenness with which it comes. The Soviet Union; the EU superstate; the notion of an advanced, enlightened and progressive France, were like Atlantis separated from glory and oblivion by a single night and day. I would be careful about Vietnam because the '60s, like Vaudeville, may never come again.

In response, "Voltimand" writes:

As a retired and aging literary critic and theorist my inclination is to say war is always "narrative," even in the making. None of which belies the fact that human flesh and humanly-constructed implements of war confront real death, evaded at any given moment, or not.

What any commander does at any given moment must be relayed through a complex series of filters, all of which are composed of words or other encoded signs plus the rules of their placement in texts. How you react to the bomb down the street is determined by the particular "narrative" you place that bomb within so as to give it intelligibility.

One could call this a "post-modern" viewpoint, and go on to say that the MSM has tacitly taken it over, and is in the business of using it to do what it does best--spinning out verbal narratives--as a way of thumbing its nose at the US military, Bush, and Al-Quaeda, all at the same time.

And this would be true. The argument of the present post holds--correctly, of course--to the notion that when the shrapnel hits the flesh, it's a "trans-verbal" injury that occurs.

How you get the inside curve on a narrative you disagree with is with another narrative. And here, I submit that the only force on this planet that can do this or is doing this with success is the blogosphere. At its best it has the intelligence, it has the freedom from constraining threats, and perhaps most important, it has the will to go for the jugular.

The Mapes fiasco shows that the MSM and the liberals fear what the blogs say about them. And frankly, in a world where, as W. has pointed out before, leftist writers enjoy the freedom to write against their defenders only as long as the defenders do what the leftists criticize them for, namely defend them and do is successfully, the real fear is of the written word used sharply, incisively against them.

It is time, I think, for the blogs and their aiders and abettors, among whom I count myself, to move from a defensive posture, and start calculatedly constructing narratives that deliberately challenge world lefistism where it hurts. That means no more complaints about their moral deliquency. What we need is serious attacks on their intelligence and their ignorance.

E. G., it seems to me time to start pointing out that they talk about Vietnam because that's the only war they know anything about, and that knowledge is quite slim. In brief, they are completely--and vulnerably--ignorant of military history. The essence of true ignorance is ignorance of that ignorance, and this fact needs to be iterated with numbing and absolutely destructive purpose and intent.

In the U. S., there is the general grumble among those who, like myself, have voted Democratic all their lives until the 1990s, that Republicans don't know how to slit throats, verbally speaking. That's because Republicans are finally not interested in politics, because they're not interested in government save as something to be controlled.
IOW, they're entirely too nice.

What the people W. cites at the beginning of this post can't possibly stand up to is a direct, elaborated, and detailed attack on their every word.

This is indeed a propaganda war, with the continued existence of western culture at stake. I believe that the blogosphere needs to take a deep breath and recognize that it is only it that is going to reduce the MSM spinmeisters to silence.

For this reason I think we ought (1) ditch Instapundit and its ilk, who as a law professor still thinks we live in a world where polite debate means anything; (2) say "thanks, but no thanks to the type of blog represented by "Little Green Footballs," that specializes in "just one outrage after another," since it doesn't verbalize a serious critique, plus generating a lot of name-calling. No more name-calling.

And we need to get serious political and military thinkers out in front, those who sniff the blood in the wind, and who have a taste for the jugular. In place of name-calling, I envision--I've done it myself personally as the occasion warrants and earned lasting enmity from my victims, which shows that it works--relentless, pulverizing refutation and destruction of every argument, every verbal fast shuffle, every ignorance. It requires work, it requires the bloggers to get out of their pajamas and put their work-clothes on, because this sort of thing requires research--Wretchard is a prime example in a blogosphere where way too many shoot from the hip--and expenditure of time and care.

I can, e.g., imagine a blog which does nothing but go after the New York Times, every day of the week. Better, a series of blogs that sub-divide the task. The result would be a Times staff that knows every time anyone puts a word down that goes to press, they're going to suffer. And the suffering of our enemies in this war is what we should be after.



MeaninglessHotAir said...

He's absolutely right.

terrye said...

Roger Simon is kind of like what he is talking about [I think].

I will say one thing for Charles at LGF, he brought down Mapes.

But his comment section is a bit much for me.

Polipundit can be good at this, but often as not they are attacking their own.

I would add that the right and center right need to stop going ballistic over everything little thing and concentrate on winning the war.

This nonsense of aiding the Democrats in bringing down the president who got 62 million votes because he has not laid land mines on the Mexican border or because he dares to nominate someone for the Supreme Court that is not on your special list is self defeating and stupid.

David Thomson said...

“What we need is serious attacks on their intelligence and their ignorance.”

That’s what I’ve been doing for a very long time. I prefer staying away from judging the morality of their actions---and focus almost exclusively on their outrageous stupidity. Should we ditch Instapundit and Little Green Footballs? Oh heaven’s no, we should simply realize that they do not offer the complete package. As matter of fact, I never deluded myself to the contrary. I will most definitely continuing visiting these two important blogs. Moreover, Glenn Reynolds has consistently urged his loyal followers to visit other blogs.

The majority of professional journalists are dummies. They have not been pressured to increase their knowledge. It is my guess that the typical news reporter doesn't read more than an hour a day. This is why the front page of the New York Times is so influential---it’s about the only thing these fools ever read! Going through the motions and remaining loyal to the “moderate” liberal line is essentially all that’s required. This has been more than sufficient to guarantee them an income above the national average. Only recently have journalists worried about job security. Most of them previously had quasi-tenured positions.

Skookumchuk said...

It requires work, it requires the bloggers to get out of their pajamas and put their work-clothes on, because this sort of thing requires research . . .

And put their work clothes on. Yes, absolutely. The question is how. Precisely how do we research and collaborate? How do we devote the time?

Doug said...

Comment at Roggio's Site:

I just got off the phone with some people at the AP. Long talk that went better than I had hoped. They are interested in reviewing your site and some other milblos, or so they say.

They may need someone in the editorial process with a military background (big surprise right?) after I conveyed that this was a fairly widespread view from those who criticize them.

I wasn't expecting a positive response from them at all but ( and maybe I was just told what they wanted me to hear) but the problem of taking the word of "insurgents" and printing it before confirming was something they didn't even seem to view as a problem but will now be addressed. Anyway, stay safe Bill and God Bless

Feedback by: Mark Eichenlaub | December 3, 2005 12:19 PM

Seneca the Younger said...


Pastorius said...

I think the guy makes a great point, but one must understand that LGF is a catalyst. It is a great initiator into the blogosphere, and it is a great place for people who do not have time for sustained attention. Also, it is a hub for information. In fact, the bloggers who Voltimand is talking about (the bloggers of the future, the Superbloggers :) can use LGF as their springboard.

Do not think lightly of LGF. Charles Johnson, likely, has the intelligence to slice and dice Voltimand. But, he is the one who is busy feeding the pipeline.

Knucklehead said...


This nonsense of aiding the Democrats in bringing down the president who got 62 million votes because he has not laid land mines on the Mexican border

You misunderestimate them. They want machine gun bunkers with cleared lanes of fire every couple hundred meters to go along with the mines. And, BTW, 62 million is the quarterly installation goal, not the total demand. They want nothing short of what the Soviets built and then some.

Rick Ballard said...

Preparing detailed rebuttals to every NYT or WaPo meme point awards them a distinction that they do not deserve. Why should we accept their narrative frame?

We must rebut every point or they will... what? Lose another election? They buy polls that are designed to support their narrative frame but the only polls that count are taken in voting booths every two years.

I do favor destroying particular memes - I'm working on the Niger forgeries right now. I don't favor granting the site of battle to the Dems propaganda organs. I don't favor going after the WaPo or NYT as institutions - I favor going after individual reporters and editors who consistently engage in propaganda.

I've been following Tom Maguire on the Plame matter for a bit and what he is doing regarding the "name" players at the Demsm outlets is rather impressive.

I would rather establish a different, positive narrative frame and then from that frame go after the negative propaganda than simply rebut from within the oppositions narrative frame.

Right now, stories on the economy would be a decent place to start. The BLS and other government agencies are chock full of statistics that can be used to describe what is a vibrant economy - from that point ridiculing the caricatures developed by the MSM idiots is easy. I would argue that going open source - without referral to any crap published by the MSM - and then using those open source facts to redicule specific MSM reporters is the most effective path.

Peter UK said...

Landmines along the Mexican Border...Que?!! Give a jihadi a season ticket to a lap dancing club and all hell lets loose,is this some kind of racism? Why not put the landmines on the Syrian and Iranian borders,too brutal?

If you don't mind me observing,rather than Iraq affecting American domestic politics,American domestic politics are splashing all over other issues.

Watching the Democrats live out their Gotterdamerung pyschosis is unedifying and embarrassing,what is clear is that the democratic concensus is being destroyed in a most iniquitous way.

If oppositional politics descends into outright sedition in the country bringing democracy to Iraq,what kind of message does that send to the world.
No doubt the Sunnis are thinking,"We can be for it,then we can be gainst it"

What might be rhetoric in the US will be regarded as gospel in totalitarian Bush Hitler,why should the President of Iran think differently?

At one time there was a very delicate protocol observed,nations could judge each others intentions,but with this generation of "let it all hang out" loop the loops,we are skating on thin ice.

A sense of proportion is called for

terrye said...


The same thought occured to me. Maybe the Iraqis will look at us and think, thanks but no thinks.

Morgan said...

First, what a remarkable comment.

I think that somewhere in the 'sphere, someone with knowledge does exactly what Voltimand calls for with regard to every distortion the media spins out. tries to do it all alone. They don't link bloggers who have already addressed these issues. You're telling me there's no blogger anywhere who has penned a destruction of the idea that planting stories in time of war is wrong? Or that reporting on the economy is wildly pessimistic? Or that gun control laws are a viable way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals? (Rhetorical questions, of course - you aren't telling me any of those things).

If you want a sustained attack on a set of talking points, first you need to collect the talking points. Then you need to find experts who have attacked those points, or who are willing to attack them. Then you need to create centralized access to those attacks.

Buddy Larsen said...

I believe that was the message in the Cindy Sheehan message. If enough people believe "this country isn't worth fighting for", then, by God, it AIN'T worth fighting for.

Buddy Larsen said...

Somewhere there must be a secret DNC memo, something like:

"Comrades, do not be ashamed of shamelessness--be so distasteful and vile that no country with you in it will be worth fighting for. Then, keep it up until the election, where we will make it clear that the only way to shut off our flooding bile, is to put us back in control."

Buddy Larsen said...

I'm sorry, Morgan--I was referring to Terrye's comment.

terrye said...


The Democrats have a quandry, if they succeed their followers will either want someone to run the country who is completely unacceptable to everyone else...or they will become cynical and parasitic and refuse to even participate.

Buddy Larsen said...

Ha! Groucho Marx:
"I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member."

Rick Ballard said...

"or they will become cynical and parasitic and refuse to even participate."


Buddy Larsen said...

Donald Luskin, Morgan, also does yeoman work on the conspiracy to keep us poor and stupid. With gleeful wit, he esp. rags the incredibly destructive bizarro-theories of the house economist @ NYTimes, ex-Enron consultant Paul Krugman.

Buddy Larsen said...

There's also the DisAssociated Press and Accuracy in Media.

Buddy Larsen said...

(sorry--busted links above, use these please)

terrye said...

Steyn has a good one up on the Defeaticrats in the suntimes opeds.

Morgan said...


Thanks for links. I'll check 'em out.

What I'm thinking is that there should be a clearinghouse for this stuff.

Fresh Air said...

I can agree up to a point. Yes, Glenn Reynolds is increasingly less important. I don't think he would argue that point. And LGF, though it serves a valuable purpose IMHO, does not advance the debate very far given the puerility of its commenters.

The Belmont Club is the closest thing we have to a deep-thinking MSM-killer.

No I'm afraid only the administration and the twee handful of right-thinking political commenters with credibility can do this work. They need a blog, frankly, one that will deconstruct and debunk every single false narrative coming out of the Iraq theatre.

Call it a cyber war room.

truepeers said...

I have written the person I think is "Voltimand", and hope he will reply to your comments.

Clearly the problem is one of time and organization. IN
the earlier Baron B. post there was also some talk of how we should move into investigative, fact-based journalism.

We are drowning in opinions and links, but surely each of us is capable of putting a little time each week into pet research projects and slowly build up a serious knowledge base in one area or another. We don't have to be all opinions all the time. Why shouldn't YARGB evolve on a basis of specialization, like pretty much every other institution does? Why not make this explicit in the ongoing design of the blog? Why shouldn't we each become committed to developing a special niche, not simply in terms of providing links, but working as agents synthesizing the materials that are out there, and that others will feed to us as our specialisms become known, as happens with Wretchard?

At YARGB we are perhaps under some pressure, however pleasant, to fill the blank page each morning. BUt this creates a bit of an endless stream of information without yet a lot of synthesizing power. Do others see this as a problem we should address?

truepeers said...

Don't forget, the appeal of Instapundit is that it is a central clearing house that many people pay attention to. It appeals to the desire to know what is going on, what is cool in matters blog. This appeal is also the basis of its weakness, of course, because we come to ask the question who is Reynolds that he should have this position, and is he doing a good job with it?

NOnetheless, in building YARGB, we need - if we want many readers - to think about how to make it into a center worth coming to for those in desire of a sense of centrality.

Barry Dauphin said...

I suspect that some kind of investigative work will develop on the blogosphere. Yet, I think that the linking and opinion aspects of the blogosphere are what makes it unique. Like everythinng else, it is subject to abuse. Some of the commenters in lgf are out there, but at least they have a place to be.

Instapundit remains important for me because the Professor is an very smart linker. He also expresses himself well in very few words. I think that the blogosphere functions as a collective process with ongoing feedback enabling certain issues to be raised and pushed in a thoughtful way (by that I mean the potential for self correction or perhaps not "self" because there is not exactly a "self" of the blogosphere). I feel that I think things through more clearly when I can delve into the links and various opinions. The interesting paradox about the blogosphere is that there is a collectivity to it, but there is plenty of room for individuality and a lack of homogenization. I think one thing that is important is being able to go to places where you have some certainty of encountering something interesting and/or smart. Because there is so much out there and many people don't have endless amounts of time to surf the web, many people need something that is reliable and not simply "new". Credibility tends to develop relatively slowly because of consistently high quality work. Resisting the temptation to be simply snarky seems important, as it might produce buzz in the short term, but the kinds of things people write about on YARGB, for example, generally have more depth than being sensational.

Ed onWestSlope said...

I have been wondering where I can actually observe the 'Knights going forth with drawn swords'.

I look to the previous post on YARGB and see --Jeff Goldstein on the US placing pro-US stories in Iraq--

Jeff seems to be doing part of the job, when he is not commenting on 'Ying/Yang'. How can you all get together?

Syl said...

It doesn't matter what the MSM says about Iraq.

They will be the FIRST to admit they never go out of the Green Zone and that (as Isikoff said on Hardball the other day) they don't do school openings.

Nobody has reached the logical conclusion that the MSM simply does NOT know what's going on.

Really, that's all that has to be shown.

terrye said...


I figured that out years ago. They just regurgitate information and often as not they lack the knowledge to know if they are right or not.

No doubt there are exceptions, there always are...but in the area of politics and anything to do with the military they are hopeless.

When I was farming I used to see reports that were so ridiculous I had to laugh.

Peter UK said...

This has been posted before,but some years ago I conducted a poll amongst a large group of friends and aquaintances,their occupations were enormously diverse,the one question asked was,"How wrong does the media get facts about your area of expertise wrong?"
The answer was always,"Very wrong".This leads to the logical question,"What are they getting wrong about which we know nothing?"
The conclusion is not reassuring,the media are like the shamans of old,say something is or isn't so confidently enough and rely on ignorance to do the rest.
The role of the media has to be deconsructed and de-mystified,that its practitioners write words which do not necessarily have substance.

Luther McLeod said...

I was under the impression that PJM would be attempting to do something along the lines of what is being discussed here. As that is a work in progress I shall just have to wait and see.

I can certainly agree with 'Voltimand's' thesis, but I don't think throwing out the baby with the dishwater is such a good idea.

Others above have identified the value Glenn, Charles and Roger bring to the dance. They have been my top three, must read everyday, favorites for several years, based on the range of information I can get from them and their commenter's. You esteemed folks are now number four, which previously was a rotating spot shared by many. By the time I finish reading and link following through my top four, I don't have very much time left.

So my point is, is that I cannot be alone in having only so much time for reading blogs. So please....whatever you come up with, make it salient, incisive and cut to the quick deadly to the MSM purveyors of propaganda.

One thing I would like to see is a "Wikpedia" of leftist talking points with (of course) fact based rebuttal. Link rich, with considered opinion as required.

I'm unsure about the ethics of this but I would also appreciate a 'reporter's database, a detailing of education, assignments, previous writings and any other info that would allow me to ascertain their credibility, if any. In that vein, I am so tired of generic bylines, I'd like to see some names under those headlines.

I think trupeers is on to something, and I think that the assemblage here would be a good crew to attempt something different and more to the point, spine chilling to the chattering classes.

clarice said...

I'm with Rick--ridicule them. They cannot stand to be laughed at and they deserve to be. Their authority depends on their being taken seriously and they do not deserve to be.

And, yes, I think along with that we have to do more on researching and simplifying what we find so that normal people with real lives can see what these issues are about.

Finally, I also agree that Tom Maguire has put individual journos on the hot seat better than anyone else has.

Barry Dauphin said...

Tom Maquire seems to have revealed that many reporters don't read a lot about what has been written on their subjects. He has doggedly attempted to put together every scrap he can find on the Plame thing and interject his own analysis (which is clearly his own and he does not disguise that nor does he wish to).

Doug said...

___Here's an interesting site. Found it while reading AJ Strata, who said Dr. Sanity linked to him there.
Didn't see her name, but I guess she contributes.

AJ is very prolific, a good linker, has valuable contacts, and a no prisoners approach.
Check out Plame II, The Second Coming

Typical intro to another piece:
"A dear friend of mine dropped by this last fall to catch up after many years. We had worked together six years prior on an Italian program that required long negotiations and meetings in the UK and Rome. We were a team of three between us two and the UK Manager of the Italian program.

So Vito drops by and we start catching up with each other. He was a much more successful musician than I ever was, playing for some well known bands in his day. We both ended up in the aerospace, space, military market working in the US and Europe, and we met each other on the Italian program.

Doug said...

I must be one of the few regular readers of blogs that's never read Glenn!
...keep thinking I should, but haven't yet. Have only seen LGF a couple of times.
One thing to keep in mind is the amazing learning curve for new arrivals to a link rich site.
After 9-11, I was amazed that within 3 months of reading a great local site we had in Honolulu, I learned details that only made it into the "real" news over the next four years, if at all. Sites I had never seen were eye-opening at the time, as was the contrast between straight dope and massaged MSM Blather.

I think the number of military posters and the proximity to SE Asia was a factor.
A certain chemistry will no doubt develop here if you all are stimulating each other to find new venues while informing the world.

Buddy Larsen said...

Luther and Doug--very good posts--worth a re-read, which I shall perform perforce purty soon.

Voltimand said...

I appreciate the invitation to respond to the comments on my own Belmont "give 'em hell" comment.

The present comments are, in the aggregate, just the kind of thing I was hoping for. I'm not a blog hound and so regularly click to only a handful of blogs, with Power Line and Belmont Club leading the list, including FrontPageMagazine, which belongs to a different "genre." And these responses have collectively articulated what the blogosphere is and also isn't doing by way of critiquing MSM terrorism news stories.

The basis of my rather over-the-top rant was my frustration with the capacity of MSM--recently put on display once again in response to the Bush administration's renewed effort to "explain" to the nation what Iraq is all about--to simply write and write and doggedly ignore what Bush and his people have been saying. If you don't listen to the statements of policy and planning, and take them seriously, then your complaints that the administration doesn't explain need to be trashed in the most visible and flamboyant manner possible.

I suppose that the main problem with the MSM is not what they say but what they don't say. I envision something on the order of a permanent bracketing and "putting out of the game" of the MSM, at least with a sizable voting portion of the country, so that its blatant agenda of manipulating the vote is is significant damaged. You don't have to silence someone--all you have to do is make sure that enough people ignore him.

That various blogs have been doing this--David Horowitz' FrontPageMagazine comes closet to what I'm after on a daily basis--but I'm calling for a recognition that political realities always are sieved through language and verbal discourse, and that this fundamental fact of the case plays strikingly to the blogsphere's strength and capabilities.

I'm under no illusion that I'm saying something wholly original. I think I was simply trying to shout a little louder than some in order to get a fundamental strategic point gelled and pointed in the right direction.


truepeers said...

political realities always are sieved through language and verbal discourse

-thanks for your reply Voltimand. You are too modest.

And I think you would agree, furthemore, that however important the sieve, writers cannot make up realities, holus bolus, as some postmodern interpretations of language and discourse suggest.

In other words, our language emerges from real events and must bear some contingent relationship to them. If we demonstrate a desire to stray too far from reality we will get called on it, sooner or later, even if our work is avowedly fictional.

So I think we need to call the MSM both on facts, as well as on the interpretations that people try to impose on events when they are not sufficiently original to develop new narratives from new events.

RogerA said...

Very interesting points being made here--As a general rule I really enjoy ridicule as the appropriate response to MSM garbage: There were several great threads on MoDo's recent complaint about "feminism." Of course, she claims not to read blogs, but given her massive ego, one does wonder. Luskin's unrelenting attacks on Krugman's idiocies are also worth reading and we know that Krugman responds.

I dont know how, in all honesty, to create a counterweight to MSM vapidity except as a whole blogosphere response. Even individual blogs dont have the visibility--there are exceptions, I am sure, but still no one blog really can work in total isolation.

In my judgment, the "neo-con" blogs are pretty much singing off the same sheet of music with respect to the war on terror; but you still see the same tired, lying memes trotted out: "no immenent threat....16 words....etc etc."

Inasmuch as the NYT recently discovered suppy and demand theory, perhaps the best strategy is to go after the advertisers--that is certainly a local option as well as an option that can be aimed at larger, nation-wide advertisers. How that is done, however, escapes me.

Knucklehead said...


perhaps the best strategy is to go after the advertisers--that is certainly a local option as well as an option that can be aimed at larger, nation-wide advertisers. How that is done, however, escapes me.

If and when blogs catch on as a legit source of information for a large portion of the populace (what that is Idunno, 35-55% perhaps), advertising dollars will flow toward blogdom. By and large I do not believe those who advertise will want to raise their ad budgets to capture the new medium but, rather, adjust their spending to reflect the importance of the new medium.

Think about it. It really isn't the eyeballs that the MSM is concerned about losing. If the ad revenue kept coming in they wouldn't care if nobody every saw their product. If the attacks are intensifying that means they are being hit in the accounts receivables. Ad revenue is, IIRC, the Big Kahuna among MSM receivables. The more they attack the more we may be sure they are being hurt where it matters.

Doug said...

Rogera writes,
"There were several great threads on MoDo's recent complaint about "feminism. "
On Friday, Laura Ingraham had some great MoDumb soundbytes.
Suddenly she and the boys realized that that grating voice is none other than Lily Tomlin's

She also was reading some Maya Angelou "poetry" from the Christmas Lighting Ceremony.
(how/WHY did SHE get there?)
Did a great job duplicating Maya's talents for 'sounding' profound while reading her banal dribble.
I have searched the Web for text of these inanities, but have not found: Anybody know where Laura might have gotten it?