IMPORTANT UPDATE: (?)
PLEASE LEAVE THIS DIARY NOW AND GO REC AND COMMENT IN DARCY BURNER'S DIARY ON REP. GRAYSON'S "APOLOGY" (????)
There appears to be a trend here and elsewhere: placing a question mark at the end of a sensational title in a diary. It is a coy means of relieving the diarist of responsibility. It is frequently no more ethical than a Fox News, Drudge, Politico device for smearing an individual or tarring a concept. It is a grammatical device behind which a diarist or drafter of a chryon hides. It is an escape route for incorrect allegations or a vehicle to say: "I told you so."
Often, most often, these types of titles are followed by diaries which have zero solid evidence, zero attributable sources. In the end, if the diarist is wrong, he/she can hold up both hands and say: "I was only asking a question."
I'm sick of reading diaries here based on conjecture or rumor. We have all read 3-4 diaries on the rec list which state: "X is a sell-out!" followed by "X is not a sell-out!!" followed by "Diarist Z is wrong!!!!"
If I were to write a new rule, it would be: "If you can't provide attributable sources for your assertions, don't write a fucking diary." I am not talking about those diarists who are well qualified to write about an issue and are not depending on some dubious 3rd party.
So, if you want to write:
"Did Obama sell us out on Health Care?";
"Are the Progressives in the House caving on Health Care?";
"Is Nancy Pelosi stringing Progressives along?";
"Are Union Presidents Selling Out?";
"Is X a liar?";
"Is Y a liar?";
"Is Z a liar?"
You sure as hell better have verifiable facts to back up your allegations. Being right in the end doesn't compensate for guessing and covering your butt in the beginning.
Am I being an ass? Probably. But it won't be the first or last time. I don't accept the "word" of unnamed sources from TM -- why should I swallow them whole here?
Falme away. I have a wood stove to tend; stray cat who has taken over the wicker chair and a gorgeous view of a lake to relieve stress.