![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Everyone's talking about Ron Suskind's Times Magazine article on Bush's faith-based/reality-challenged presidency. I haven't read it yet. I did read the paper's Kerry endorsement, and Frank Rich's roundup of the administration's "pattern of media intimidation".
Also a confusing article on a poll of American military personnel. They and their families approve of the Iraq war and Bush's handling of it, although they think his administration underestimated the required troop strength, relied too much on reservists, and failed to train and equip the reservists properly.
The Times underwent some redesign while I was gone, and I can't say I like it. The Arts and Leisure section is sporting too many fonts, or something, and the impenetrable just-the-facts panoply of everything going on this week has been replaced by a critics'-picks calendar that is probably more useful but makes the Times look like every other paper in America. And the Book Review now includes head shots of every author (who cares?), and the "about the reviewer" notes, invaluable in gauging bias, have been moved from their useful location (each reviewer is described at the bottom of the review) to a separate "contributors" page near the masthead. These are not important things but I am still dismayed.
Also a confusing article on a poll of American military personnel. They and their families approve of the Iraq war and Bush's handling of it, although they think his administration underestimated the required troop strength, relied too much on reservists, and failed to train and equip the reservists properly.
The Times underwent some redesign while I was gone, and I can't say I like it. The Arts and Leisure section is sporting too many fonts, or something, and the impenetrable just-the-facts panoply of everything going on this week has been replaced by a critics'-picks calendar that is probably more useful but makes the Times look like every other paper in America. And the Book Review now includes head shots of every author (who cares?), and the "about the reviewer" notes, invaluable in gauging bias, have been moved from their useful location (each reviewer is described at the bottom of the review) to a separate "contributors" page near the masthead. These are not important things but I am still dismayed.