I was reading the Sunday paper, and in the editorials was an article written by Maureen Dowd, of the New York Times called Fashioning Deadly Fiascos. I couldn’t believe someone actually paid her to write this. It blew me away even more to think that someone actually paid to print it. I struggled through the article to find a point, other than the obvious fact that she absolutely hates President Bush and his entire administration.
Paragraph #1
“I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Men are simply not biologically suited to hold higher office. The Bush administration has proved that once and for all.â€
I know I’m not the brightest guy around, but I failed to see the point. Does she have something against men in general?
Paragraph #2
“These guys can’t be bothered to run the country. They are too obsessed with frivolous stuff, like fashion and whether they look fat. They are catty, sometimes even sabotaging their closest friends. They are deceitful minxes and malicious gossips.â€
Well, out of these four sentences, she called “them†three different names!
Paragraph #3
“And heaven knows they’re bad at math. Otherwise, W. would realize that a 60 percent disapproval rating, or worse, means that most Americans would like some fresh blood in the administration. It’s appalling to see ringleaders of the incompetent, mendacious crew who rushed into Iraq but not New Orleans getting big promotions and posh consulting jobs.â€
OK. I forgot. I know we had an election. Who got the majority vote? And there’s the name calling again.
It was in paragraph #4 that I decided this article was about former Fema director Michael Brown. She rants on for several paragraphs, criticizing his every move. Sure, he screwed up, dropped the ball, and he got fired. After several paragraphs of the rage against him, she moves on to Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and the war in Iraq.
She can’t even bring herself to recognize these men by using their names. Instead, she calls them names like “Rummy†and “Bubble headed Brownieâ€. It all goes back to what I was told as a child. “If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything.â€
This article posted 11 15 05
Andrew | 15-Nov-05 at 6:38 am | Permalink
Brad,
It took you until the fourth paragraph to figure out that the article was a response to the release of e-mails in which FEMA director Michael Brown sent out inquiries and commentaries on his self-proclaimed position as a ‘fashion god’ (as well as looking for a dogsitter) in the time immediately proceeding and following the disaster in NO and the Gulf Coast? By paragraph two there is no question, but really you should have been able to pick up on it from the headline. That said, I agree that Dowd’s style, which involves a lot of name-calling, isn’t necessarily useful. I guess she thinks it provides an entertainment element, and I have to say, I read her column — at least I used to before the Times went even more elitist with the whole TimeSelect move. I think by distilling her point, though — that many in the Bush Admin. lend themselves to stereotypes of either evil or ineptitude — she offers some good food for thought, even if she is preaching to the choir. Finally, regarding your point about the recent election: even if you accept the results as legitimate, it was a very close election and not the kind of mandate people like Cheney claimed. However, when you have the president of DieBolt (the company that manufactured the electronic voting machines… see http://www.blackboxvoting.org for more) make a statement before the election saying that he will deliver Ohio and Florida, you have to be very suspicious of the results.
Brad | 15-Nov-05 at 1:08 pm | Permalink
I guess the point I was trying to make, is that someone is paying this woman, probably a lot of money to spout off in a very unprofessional way. This is the type of “flame throwing”rhetoric that turns off voters and eventually hurts their own message.
I realize the Mauren has a right to express her opinion, I just find it odd that newspapers across the country feel there is a big enough audience to justify paying for the article.
Then again, it got us talking about it!