Should old errs be forgotten

5 January 2005

Before 2005 goes stale, a last look back at 2004. Each year I review the last 12 months, recounting my errors and trying to make amends. A total of 101 columns and over 80,000 words from anyone are bound to contain a few missteps. In my case, of course, it's more like tumbling downstairs head over heels.

It started quickly, with a January feel-good piece about Boston being named one of America's fittest cities. A complicated reference to bodybuilding magnate Joe Weider and California strongman Arnold Schwarzenegger fell flat when I identified Weider as the man behind the "97-pound weakling" ads. Turns out it was really Charles Atlas kicking sand in our faces.

There were grammatical slip-ups everywhere. I'm prone to frequently split infinitives; I end too many sentences with prepositions such as "of." And, as with seemingly all of adolescent America, I unconsciously use "like" when I mean "approximately." How many times did I make that error over the year? Well, like a dozen.

Onto bigger matters: When I called the Swift Boat Veterans anti- Kerry ads "false but effective," angry partisans nationwide wrote back, challenging my assertion that they were untrue. My response? George W. Bush, in a moment of grace in a campaign that saw few such moments, had said so. A few were unpersuaded by my riposte, claiming that Bush himself must be lying. So be it.

I felt quite pleased with myself when I predicted Bush would emerge with a large positive bounce from the Republican National Convention. He did and, so emboldened, I went on to forecast a similar big bounce for John Kerry after the first presidential debate. Oh, well. Still, I did correctly predict - way back in February - that Ralph Nader would be a non-factor in the race and I never (despite obvious wishes to the contrary) deluded myself into claiming - at least in writing - that Kerry would win. On the other hand, I also thought Andrea Cabral would lose her race for sheriff; in the end, she crushed her challenger by a 20-point margin.

All of these errors are noted - frequently with glee - by letter writers who take me up on my invitation to e-mail me with their thoughts on each column. Most (especially those who agree with me) are a pleasure to read. Some challenge me or provide a perspective I hadn't considered. A few are just odd.

A light piece about the metric vs. the English system somehow began making the rounds in New Zealand, months after it first ran. I know little about the country, but judging from the passionate mail I received, these people don't have a lot to do.

My favorite, however, was a correspondent who ripped into me after a November column about the need for Democratic soul searching in the wake of Kerry's loss.

"You of all people should be able to identify what is so very wrong with the Democrat Party," he wrote, scathingly saying I was lacking in conviction and character.

I found myself thinking he was probably right.

And his proof? "Just think of your shoddy performance on the 9/ 11 Commission."

No, that would be former New Jersey Gov. Thomas KEAN, who headed up the national investigation into the terrorist attacks. My letter- writer was looking to vent, and an accident of spelling made me a fair target.

I probably deserved it.