Refreshing re-thinking

How often do you read a major newspaper’s Editorial Board stating, “We were wrong”?

After acknowledging that in their original position on the Eastbank Esplanade, “Our prose ranged from the snide to the snarky, tones, if we may say so ourselves, in which we are rather well-versed.” (too modest – exceptionally well-versed, I say), today’s Editorial in the Oregonian continues:

“Now, as the city gears up to spend yet another small fortune on yet another of these touchy-feely trails — this time along Sullivan’s Gulch — we’d like to revisit the issue and restate our position.

We were wrong.”

Exquisitely phrased. How refreshing to see the Editorial Board giving a plain-spoken reversal, with good reasons for it. The whole thing deserves to be read, marked, and inwardly digested*. Good work.

* I thought the term “read, mark, and inwardly digest” was a common quotation. In looking it up, turns out it’s used mostly by Anglicans/Episcopalians, and therefore yet another expression that if I use it in a conversation in the United States, people are going to look at me like I’m talking Greek. Nearly 30 years after immigrating, I’m still finding things that don’t translate. Even so, the principles of reading something, making notes, and thinking about it form a pattern many find helpful in learning.