"Those who misquote George Santayana are condemned to paraphrase him."

Yes, PEP, this is news, if not of the "breaking headline" variety. Columnist Trudy Rubin is cited as misquoting this line in a recent piece on George Bush's foreign policies. Many people misquote this saying to make political points. News has underlying context.  These facts about Santayana are not exactly common knowledge. Revelations about common misconceptions are also news. Epiphanies are news, especially in the "Cultural" category of NP. News magazines include this sort of information. You might even say that "Those who do not understand the news are condemned to misunderstand it."

I did not place this piece in the "Opinions" section because it is not in any way a matter of my own personal opinion. I think that NP should could consider a "Features" category, because -- as in news magazines -- there is a clear place for stories that delve more deeply than the headlines.

No need to be sorry -- you'll see that I had reclassified the piece within "Opinions" before your posting, for lack of a better area. But the basic message is indeed a valuable one, however stated. The exact quote is one that distinguishes "the past" from "history" -- Santayana certainly had a reason for that. It's OK for me to say that those who forget history are going to have to relive it (without quotation marks), but it does George Santayana no justice to pass a paraphrase off as his exact words. Much is lost in the transition.

And the situation with the "those who forget" quote by Santayana is that it is being overused and misquoted to the point of cliché these days, by people of all political stances. A distant "country cousin" to Santayana's quotation is the "You need to go back and read your history book" in so many letters to the editor I see in South Carolina newspapers.

People should also know the original context before arming themselves with the Santayana quote, and that framework I provided in my story as well.

P. S.: I still hope NP will create a separate "Features" category, as well as a more comprehensive range of categories to fit worthwhile, informative stories that are neither fish nor fowl under the current listings. "History News" (though at first glance an oxymoron) would also be a welcome new category.

I'll do that, Karen, though I don't know where to put it within the current NP categories. "Opinions news" just doesn't do it, because an objective treatment of the topic -- like this one -- is really not a matter of what I think or feel. The misquotes and proper contexts are just there, a matter of public record. Bringing them to light is not subjective unless I add some personal interpretation to the mix.

I'd suggest a "History News" category. This may seem an oxymoron at first glance, but there are new insights and discoveries in history that tie into current events. Breaking news is not an instance of spontaneous combustion -- news is a chain reaction from the history of its circumstances.

My most recent story  http://www.nowpublic.com/what-happened-little-bighorn-archeological-technology-sheds-light deals with how archeological technology has shed light on "Custer's Last Stand" at the Little Bighorn in Montana in 1876. I'd rather have placed it in a "History News" section, because the technology -- however interesting -- was really the means to the end (new understanding of what took place).

But, to make an over-long comment less lengthy, I'll write the piece, put my own spin on it and rightly place it in the "Opinions News" column today. I already have the material.

Thanks, Karen, and to all the other commenters who have shed their own light on the dilemma of where to place stories that just don't really fit any of the established "boxes."