Karl once again shows his great sense of perspective and unquestionable sanity on his blog.

That's right folks, he's drawn a comparison between The New Yorker's editorial position that the U.S. needs to in some way respond to Iran's President Ahmadinejad's 18 page letter during a nuclear standoff to The New Yorker's disinterest in (a/k/a lack of "response" to) the ULA.

No joking around, no tongue in cheek from the King. Nope, he sees clear and serious hypocrisy in The New Yorker here. A fundamentalist Shiite regime getting their hands on the bomb on one side, an American administration that shows it has no qualms about taking preemptive and unilateral action before all the facts are in on the other...is an issue on par with the New Yorker's (editorially separate) fiction section passing over ULA poems-on-napkins for Annie Proulx.

As a matter of fact, the Iran thing and the Frank-Walsh-hasn't-been-sandwiched-between-New-Yorker-cartoons thing are not equally serious. The New Yorker silence on matters ULA is actually far more serious, thereby making the hypocrisy all the more glaring.

Jesus. Karl dazzles with his stupidity once again. Do you ever step back and listen to yourself? I always thought the doctored pic on the ULA site of the anonymous Chinese student bravely standing in front of a tank in Tianamen Square being equivocated with the ULA vs. mainstream publishing was a bit much, but always kinda hoped it was some kind of tacky joke.

But, the way his majesty talks (peace be upon him) I'm not so sure. Maybe make a Darfur analogy next time Dave Eggers won't return your phone calls, Karl? That'd be a nice touch.