What did you think of the article titled "Is God an Accident." I remember your interview with David Freudberg of the NPR program Human Kind where you talked about using GTD to "manage yourself" in the "physical world" so you could focus on your spiritual side. Do you agree with the thrust of the article that the human body and mind are part of the same entity?
I found the article particularly thought provoking and was curious how you reconciled it with your motivations for developing GTD.

I could swear I had a David Allen sighting in Ann Arbor, MI today at Weber's Inn restaurant. The person I saw appeared to be about 60, looked like David (facially), but was dressed in a dress and blonde wig, with bright red lipstick. Definitely a cross-dresser, but so much like David from the pictures and videos on the website...

Could it be? :-)

Dug the article on Kasparov in Russian politics. He's been a hero of mine, despite having been defeated by IBM's Deep Blue chess software five years ago.

David & readers,

Please read this excerpt from the Opinion page the Wall Street Journal (December 1, 2005; Page A16) for a little perspective.

"In the latest issue of the Atlantic Monthly, for example, James Fallows purports to explain "Why Iraq Has No Army." But the public affairs office of the Multinational Security Transition Command in Iraq (or "Min-sticky") says Mr. Fallows not only didn't visit but didn't even contact them while reporting the article or at anytime during at least the past nine months.

Min-sticky commander General Martin Dempsey told us from Baghdad yesterday that not a single Iraqi Army or police unit has folded in battle this year the way some did during the spring 2004 violence. He added that about 4,000 former Iraqi officers have responded to a recent recruitment drive, a sign that they see their future residing with a democratic Iraq and not their old Baathist masters. The current bottom line, however, is that about 45 Iraqi battalions of about 750 men each are able to lead combat operations on their own."

Fallows appears to be part of, in the words of this article, "a press corps that still focuses on past failures."

Fallon's Atlantic article is hardly gospel:

In the latest issue of the Atlantic Monthly, for example, James Fallows purports to explain "Why Iraq Has No Army." But the public affairs office of the Multinational Security Transition Command in Iraq (or "Min-sticky") says Mr. Fallows not only didn't visit but didn't even contact them while reporting the article or at anytime during at least the past nine months.

Getting Things Done doesn't, of course, mean getting everything right.

Richard - This isn't an overtly political blog, please pretty please don't make it that way, especially when your talking point is wrong. (4:42pm entry)

For the record: what the Wall Street Journal printed yesterday was FLATLY untrue. Here is a letter that the Atlantic's editor sent to the Journal yesterday. The Journal, it should be noted, did not take the most basic journalistic step of trying to check a report before publishing it:

>>To the editor:

Your editorial about President Bush's speech latest speech on Iraq ("Complete Victory," Dec. 1) contains a false statement about an article on the effort to train Iraqi forces by our correspondent James Fallows ("Why Iraq Has No Army," Dec. 2005). You said that according to the training organization, the Multinational Security Transition Command in Iraq, Fallows "didn't even contact them while reporting the article or at anytime during at least the past nine months."

That is untrue. Mr. Fallows had extensive email correspondence, starting last August, with the Public Affairs Officer for that organization, Lieutenant Colonel Frederick Wellman, who arranged an interview with its commander, Lieutenant General Dave Petraeus, in September. Mr. Fallows spoke with General Petraeus by phone for more than an hour, and checked quotes from that interview via LtCol. Wellman before using them in his article. He also interviewed one of Petraeus's deputies, Colonel John Martin, and had not-for-attribution discussions, via phone and email, with other members of the organization. As Mr. Fallows pointed out in his article, and as he has records to demonstrate, the Pentagon's press office turned down his requests to interview Major General Paul Eaton and others who had been involved in the training effort.

At no point before printing your false claim did you contact Mr. Fallows or me to determine whether what you intended to publish was true.

The Wall Street Journal editorial page has a correction today. And the "source" the Journal apparently relied on has apologized personally to me. J Fallows

A post I made earlier seems not to have gone through. The point is: the WSJ editorial, as parroted by "Richard" above, is FLATLY untrue. Two references for those who are interested:

http://jameswolcott.com/archives/2005/12/cornered.php

http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=3955

The point, again, is the Journal printed a slanderous falsehood that it didn't bother to check ahead of time.

Except that the WSJ editorial was incorrect about that: http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_11_27_corner-archive.asp#083698

To the Editor:
Your editorial about President Bush's speech latest speech on Iraq ("Complete Victory," Dec. 1) contains a false statement about an article on the effort to train Iraqi forces by our correspondent James Fallows ("Why Iraq Has No Army," Atlantic Monthly, December 2005). You said that according to the training organization, the Multinational Security Transition Command in Iraq, Fallows "didn't even contact them while reporting the article or at anytime during at least the past nine months."

That is untrue. Mr. Fallows had extensive email correspondence, starting last August, with the Public Affairs Officer for that organization, Lieutenant Colonel Frederick Wellman, who arranged an interview with its commander, Lieutenant General Dave Petraeus, in September. Mr. Fallows spoke with General Petraeus by phone for more than an hour, and checked quotes from that interview via Lt. Col. Wellman before using them in his article.

He also interviewed one of Petraeus's deputies, Colonel John Martin, and had not-for-attribution discussions, via phone and email, with other members of the organization. As Mr. Fallows pointed out in his article, and as he has records to demonstrate, the Pentagon's press office turned down his requests to interview Major General Paul Eaton and others who had been involved in the training effort.

At no point before printing this false statement did you contact Mr. Fallows or me to determine whether what you intended to publish was true.

Cullen Murphy
Managing Editor
The Atlantic Monthly

David's blog: even jucier than the Atlantic's "Letters To The Editor" section. Who woulda thought?

David here - Matt - re: "Is God an Accident" article. I was delighted to read it. No big surprise to me, because for anyone who has actually experienced themselves as something more than their body, it shouldn't be a shock to see that there is psycho-physiological data that validates our subliminal awareness of that truth. Of course, whatever hypothesis you start from, you'll probably wind up using to prove your original hypothesis. Which is why I abondoned Philosophy as a major in college... boring.

David here - I'm a bit surprised and a little uncomfortable with the dialog about Jim's article. Not because that shouldn't happen on my blog - just that it's a bit unfamiliar in my spheres of communication. My personal experience with the press is that much too often on pre-filtered "data" they make conclusions and express often-sarcastic and biased opinions couched as objective reporting, to gain shock value and market share. So I empathize with people's emotional responses to such, from any camp, if they think that is happening. But I happen to know Jim personally and can attest (as well as I can with anyone) to his integrity and commitment to objective and constructive reporting and analysis.