Cut and paste, cut and paste...
Reinhard's latest piece of crap is three short mini-editorials that really have nothing to do with one another. Apparently, as Reinhard was cut and pasting from the latest RNC memo, he couldn't find enough filler to string them together into one column.
Article 1
My favorite part was when he described the "taxpayer-paid politicos law." It is reminiscent of his use of "en passant" the other day. Unfortunately this use is not contradictory, but it is incorrect. Most normal people (who understand English grammar, which would qualify them to work in the newspaper business) would have said "taxpayer-paid politician law" or "political law."
Not Reinhard. In order to make up for his 7th-grade comprehension of the English language (why fund public schools anyway?) he likes to throw in big sounding words and use them incorrectly.
"Politicos" is a plural noun for politician. The closest approxamation to what Reinhard said was "the taxpayer-paid politicians law."
The object of "taxpayer-paid" is "law," while the noun describes what kind of law it is. "Political" is a good adjective to use to describe the noun "law," while "politician" would be an adjectival use of a noun. But plurals cannot generally be used as adjectives, and especially not here.
Article 2
Using SAD as a cutesy acronym could have merit in an editorial, but it is a SEASONALLY affected disorder, implying it comes around yearly. None of the issues Reinhard tritely terms "SAD" to conservatives (Meirs' nomination, gas prices, Katrina) happen yearly, and his metaphor becomes useless and pointless. I would advise Reinhard to leave off the metaphors and stick to similes, but he wouldn't understand the grammatical terms.
Article 3
I am genuinely confused by the inclusion of the "stirring" announcement that a Catholic high school was closing its prom. I can only assume that since his article was title "Conservatives, Campaigns, and common sense" that this must be the common sense part--but he devotes less than 150 words to the subject, giving him enough time to describe the situation and praise it, but he does not bother to justify it or argue for it in any way.
This goes back to Reinhard's problem with a thesis statement. Editorials are read because the author states a premise, brings up all sorts of facts or quotes, and then uses them to defend the thesis that they have stated. This is why these are called opinion pieces.
The rest of the Opinion section is full of writers who can craft arguments to defend positions they have stated; Reinhard sticks out as the least talented writer on the staff. He is not capable of what is demanded of high school English students.
He does not state an opinion in this article. He does not craft an argument. At best, he collects dittoes from the Conservative Movement. You could get as much from flipping past Fox News a few times every day.
People don't read the newspaper to relive the joy of flipping through channels they dont want to watch. They read the newspaper (and, more importantly, the editorial section) to examine issues and to observe debate. Reinhard has no skills in this arena, and I can offer no more eloquent proof than the editorial printed under his name today.
Article 1
My favorite part was when he described the "taxpayer-paid politicos law." It is reminiscent of his use of "en passant" the other day. Unfortunately this use is not contradictory, but it is incorrect. Most normal people (who understand English grammar, which would qualify them to work in the newspaper business) would have said "taxpayer-paid politician law" or "political law."
Not Reinhard. In order to make up for his 7th-grade comprehension of the English language (why fund public schools anyway?) he likes to throw in big sounding words and use them incorrectly.
"Politicos" is a plural noun for politician. The closest approxamation to what Reinhard said was "the taxpayer-paid politicians law."
The object of "taxpayer-paid" is "law," while the noun describes what kind of law it is. "Political" is a good adjective to use to describe the noun "law," while "politician" would be an adjectival use of a noun. But plurals cannot generally be used as adjectives, and especially not here.
Article 2
Using SAD as a cutesy acronym could have merit in an editorial, but it is a SEASONALLY affected disorder, implying it comes around yearly. None of the issues Reinhard tritely terms "SAD" to conservatives (Meirs' nomination, gas prices, Katrina) happen yearly, and his metaphor becomes useless and pointless. I would advise Reinhard to leave off the metaphors and stick to similes, but he wouldn't understand the grammatical terms.
Article 3
I am genuinely confused by the inclusion of the "stirring" announcement that a Catholic high school was closing its prom. I can only assume that since his article was title "Conservatives, Campaigns, and common sense" that this must be the common sense part--but he devotes less than 150 words to the subject, giving him enough time to describe the situation and praise it, but he does not bother to justify it or argue for it in any way.
This goes back to Reinhard's problem with a thesis statement. Editorials are read because the author states a premise, brings up all sorts of facts or quotes, and then uses them to defend the thesis that they have stated. This is why these are called opinion pieces.
The rest of the Opinion section is full of writers who can craft arguments to defend positions they have stated; Reinhard sticks out as the least talented writer on the staff. He is not capable of what is demanded of high school English students.
He does not state an opinion in this article. He does not craft an argument. At best, he collects dittoes from the Conservative Movement. You could get as much from flipping past Fox News a few times every day.
People don't read the newspaper to relive the joy of flipping through channels they dont want to watch. They read the newspaper (and, more importantly, the editorial section) to examine issues and to observe debate. Reinhard has no skills in this arena, and I can offer no more eloquent proof than the editorial printed under his name today.
posted by platon at 2:24 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home