Two pieces during a recent gander at the NY Times propelled a neon sign flashing Vacant. The first a lengthy piece, opinion, profiling for the most part a man, who spends his time giving opinions, on the topic he gives opinions on. Hello? Anyone familiar with this fella’s name would immediate know his position on the topic from reading just about every word he’s written in his syndicated column.

The second, a book review, again, staggeringly devoid of any content, except this book makes me happy, and again this time before we even began reading the piece, if we were familiar, as I am with the woman’s work, we’d know in advance the book was likely to illicit the precise opinion it did. That said, this review bothers me less than the opinion piece profiling a man whose opinions I am already fluent in.

I don’t know where the NY Times editors sit down each day or which bus they travel on, but each time I turn a corner or sit next to someone, in our distant outpost here, I bump into people with much more to say than any of the above mentioned four flitterers clogging up column space in the NY Times.  Get off the park bench or Get on the park bench? One of the two.

*

More locally I have been simmering after boiling over on the choice of John Furlong to head up (that be head-nodding-up) the Riot Inquiry. Sweet Baby Jesus … what a ridiculous choice. Has the Mayor gone dancing round the Maypole entirely? He is a disastrous choice.

The only thing I can draw from it is to invoke the recent postal strike and state it is indeed a literal case of “Return to Sender.”

It is already a whitewash before it starts. Are they going to borrow the transcriptions from the Hutton Inquiry to ensure it delivers to the full pelt of historical white-washing. I expect the Riot Inquiry report to be less insightful than the Mr. Men.