Lol -- oh dear.

While busy castigating "Miss Dowd", this pundit totally misreads yesterday's column:

The rest of the column, fittingly, was about Prince Charles and vampires.

No, no. There was nothing about Prince Charles there. It was about ... Count Dracula. Of Transylvania. Another light-skinned royal. You missed the whole point, buddy. (Didn't that Twilight/Eclipse Edward/Jacob talk culturally clue you in?)

Honestly, I don't understand why there's not a basic reading comprehension, or overall knowledge base requirement, to test out those who would spend their writing efforts battling strawmen. Maybe a way to curb your arrogance, so the stories are written truly, not superimposed by a writer with limited eyesight seeing only what his limitations allow.

Really, aren't there enough real men-, real people-issues out there, to be written about that you don't waste Internet space preaching against your own miscomprehensions? This stuff dumbs the dialogue down, and doesn't add anything but muck to the clouded national conversation we've been laboring under.

And yes, this particular post was linked by the self-proclaimed Instapundit, a bespectacled (poor eyesight?), technologically-savvy, conservative law professor operating out of Tennessee.

(Please, call him a professional linker. A new media creation. A kingmaker of blogs, if you will. Just not a serious journalist, or anybody who has anything honest to offer the country today, when he sifts/winnows/culls... and promotes work like that. Prince Charles-- lol!)

-------------------

*Sadly, it appears the author of this particular post, Don Surber, still draws his dollars from the Old Media. Traditional salary and news platform, with the new media accountabilty and ethics (I wonder if he'll correct his misread?). The worst of both worlds. Weren't we working to buy these types of guys and gals out of the profession, to open up the field to more accountable, more hungry journalists who want to fight more than strawmen?

Patience, Mary, patience...