Ditto, dittohead
Not feeling that his article last Thursday properly conveyed his complete lack of ability to prove a point, Reinhard has returned to the editorial pages of the Oregonian with another contradictory article.
The headline: "How doth thou disappoint me, Miss Miers?"
The opening paragraphs: a veritable thesaurus, a waste of space using dozens of adjectives for disappointment.
The body: Get over it, Conservatives. Bush made a good pick.
The conclusion: The Right is sounding as wimpy as the Left.
Got that?
Most editorials (at least professional ones, where newspapers pay people to print their opinions) involve a statement of position, and then arguments supporting that position. Many times, a headline is used to convey the position that will be argued. Reinhard's editorial does not bother with anything so trite; he rants on both sides of the issue, never taking the time to argue for either.
As I asked one week ago today, the last time he printed an article on harriet Meiers, how does Reinhard feel about her? This article seems to be another draft of his Thursday article, offering nothing new, and is just as flawed: it has no functional thesis, and does not bother attempting to craft or defend one. This guy is a joke.
Writing Flaw #1
Reinhard uses 9 synonyms for two words in the first paragraph, without any attempt to have repetition serve his point. It is merely a way to inflate his word count.
Writing Flaw #2
The third paragraph switches point of view 7 times. Is this a neutral article about what conservatives think? or is this about what Reinhard thinks? Comparing the two needs separate paragraphs. Situating them in alternating sentences is jarring and juvenile.
(Did you see that? Proper synonym usage. Both "Jarring" and "Juvenile" added to my point. Make note, Reinhard.)
Doublethink Attempt #1
Reinhard describes the "conservative commentariat" as "whining and narcissism. There's an unbecoming air of 'we know better' superiority and arrogance. There's the snarky snideness and condescension when it comes to Bush. And, finally, there's a failure to offer viable alternatives."
Surprisingly, I found myself agreeing with Reinhard. This is what I see anytime I turn on Fox News, or read Reinhard's editorials. But he follows this up with, "It's all so very Air America."
This is nothing new. Conservatives have been whiny, narcissistic pricks since Reagan was inaugurated, and refusal to listen to viable alternatives is a hallmark of the Bush Administration.
Cataloguing well documented (but often ignored) Conservative flaws in order to chalk them up to the faults of Liberals is a bald-faced attempt at doublethink.
Doublethink Attempt #2
"One of conservatism's attractions has always been its adult acceptance of the world we find ourselves in rather than a juvenile insistence on the world of our fantasies."
Greedy bastards like Reinhard fantasize about a world where no one pays taxes, the rich keep all of their money, and they don't have to pay wages to the lower classes that they live off of. They have been fantasizing about this for decades.
Now that this sick fantasy is coming true, they are deriding anyone who wants "wages they can live on without starving" or "schools to educate their children" or "health care so they don't die" as liberal fantasists.
The truth is that conservatives are the fantasizers, and its attraction was never about taking the world as they found it. It is attractive to greedy, rich bastards because they want to keep as much of their own money as possible, humanity be damned.
Writing Flaw #3
"Sorry, but Bush has earned the right to want his pick to have a good shot at confirmation."
Another one of those sentences that has to be read a few times to understand, because Reinhard has difficulty in constructing "subject-object" pairs.
So, Bush has earned the right...to want something. He has not earned the right to have something, but he has earned...the desire. No one can begrudge him this desire; after all, he has earned it.
Conclusion
I will now bring all of my points together, and relate them to my thesis statement, visible at the beginning of this article. (Take note, Reinhard--basic article writing skills.)
Reinhard's laughable attempt at an editorial is a waste of space on the Oregonian's pages. They could have explored another issue, or the Meiers appointment from a new perspective. Reinhard merely offers another confusing ramble on two sides of the issue, without arguing any specific point.
Why does such an intellectually vibrant city as Portland have such an idiot on the pages of its newspaper?
The headline: "How doth thou disappoint me, Miss Miers?"
The opening paragraphs: a veritable thesaurus, a waste of space using dozens of adjectives for disappointment.
The body: Get over it, Conservatives. Bush made a good pick.
The conclusion: The Right is sounding as wimpy as the Left.
Got that?
Most editorials (at least professional ones, where newspapers pay people to print their opinions) involve a statement of position, and then arguments supporting that position. Many times, a headline is used to convey the position that will be argued. Reinhard's editorial does not bother with anything so trite; he rants on both sides of the issue, never taking the time to argue for either.
As I asked one week ago today, the last time he printed an article on harriet Meiers, how does Reinhard feel about her? This article seems to be another draft of his Thursday article, offering nothing new, and is just as flawed: it has no functional thesis, and does not bother attempting to craft or defend one. This guy is a joke.
Writing Flaw #1
Reinhard uses 9 synonyms for two words in the first paragraph, without any attempt to have repetition serve his point. It is merely a way to inflate his word count.
Writing Flaw #2
The third paragraph switches point of view 7 times. Is this a neutral article about what conservatives think? or is this about what Reinhard thinks? Comparing the two needs separate paragraphs. Situating them in alternating sentences is jarring and juvenile.
(Did you see that? Proper synonym usage. Both "Jarring" and "Juvenile" added to my point. Make note, Reinhard.)
Doublethink Attempt #1
Reinhard describes the "conservative commentariat" as "whining and narcissism. There's an unbecoming air of 'we know better' superiority and arrogance. There's the snarky snideness and condescension when it comes to Bush. And, finally, there's a failure to offer viable alternatives."
Surprisingly, I found myself agreeing with Reinhard. This is what I see anytime I turn on Fox News, or read Reinhard's editorials. But he follows this up with, "It's all so very Air America."
This is nothing new. Conservatives have been whiny, narcissistic pricks since Reagan was inaugurated, and refusal to listen to viable alternatives is a hallmark of the Bush Administration.
Cataloguing well documented (but often ignored) Conservative flaws in order to chalk them up to the faults of Liberals is a bald-faced attempt at doublethink.
Doublethink Attempt #2
"One of conservatism's attractions has always been its adult acceptance of the world we find ourselves in rather than a juvenile insistence on the world of our fantasies."
Greedy bastards like Reinhard fantasize about a world where no one pays taxes, the rich keep all of their money, and they don't have to pay wages to the lower classes that they live off of. They have been fantasizing about this for decades.
Now that this sick fantasy is coming true, they are deriding anyone who wants "wages they can live on without starving" or "schools to educate their children" or "health care so they don't die" as liberal fantasists.
The truth is that conservatives are the fantasizers, and its attraction was never about taking the world as they found it. It is attractive to greedy, rich bastards because they want to keep as much of their own money as possible, humanity be damned.
Writing Flaw #3
"Sorry, but Bush has earned the right to want his pick to have a good shot at confirmation."
Another one of those sentences that has to be read a few times to understand, because Reinhard has difficulty in constructing "subject-object" pairs.
So, Bush has earned the right...to want something. He has not earned the right to have something, but he has earned...the desire. No one can begrudge him this desire; after all, he has earned it.
Conclusion
I will now bring all of my points together, and relate them to my thesis statement, visible at the beginning of this article. (Take note, Reinhard--basic article writing skills.)
Reinhard's laughable attempt at an editorial is a waste of space on the Oregonian's pages. They could have explored another issue, or the Meiers appointment from a new perspective. Reinhard merely offers another confusing ramble on two sides of the issue, without arguing any specific point.
Why does such an intellectually vibrant city as Portland have such an idiot on the pages of its newspaper?
posted by platon at 7:57 AM
2 Comments:
Webby Awards accepting entries
The 10th Annual Webby Awards is now accepting entries. The 10th Annual Webby Awards marks the debut of three new blog categories - Business Blog, Political Blog, and Personal/Cultural Blog - and the first-ever ...
Hi, I was just blog surfing and found you! If you are interested, go see my home and garden related site. It isnt anything special but you may still find something of interest.
been meaning to check out Caelan's response to this ludicrous column.
my favorite section:
"One of conservatism's attractions has always been its adult acceptance of the world we find ourselves in rather than a juvenile insistence on the world of our fantasies."
when I read this, choclate milk squirted out my nose- and i haven't drinken choclate milk in years.
adult accpetance? it appears that Reinhard's adult acceptance has resulted in an all but ignorance of the following:
the illegal election of 2000 where Dade county of Miami votes were not counted? flying Bin Laden's family out of the country during the no fly period after 9/11? not capturing Bin Laden in Afganistan when he was spotted. Why is there no mention of that any more? What about WMD? What about Haliburton? What about Bush's disappearance when called to go to Viet Nam? What about the poorly thought out NCLB? What about no medical prescription help for the elderly? What about the reduction of veteran's pensions? What about calling teachers who ascribe to NCLB as "terrorists"? What about his very poor record on environmnet even leaving early from the World Environment conference in Brazil? Setting a record for most executions by any governor in our history? What about becoming president with a surplus and now has the biggest deficit in history and then cuts taxes? What about his economy strategy causing the second largest drop in the stock market (2001)? What about being the first to become president with a criminal record? (his wife also) What about two million Americans losing thier jobs in the first two years in office? What about cutting unemployment benefits for out-of-work Americans? Why have there been more business foreclosures in his administration than compared to any other? Why have convicted criminals been appointed to his administration? Why didn't he intervene in the energy scandal and crisis of 2001? Why has he dissolved more international treaties than any other president? Why did he declare war without the vote of Congress as stated in the Constitution? Why did he support the Patriot Act when it violates the first amendment? Why did Bush have the UN remove the US from the Human Rights Commission? Why did Bush remove the US from the World Court? Why did Bush allow torture in prisons in Iraq knowing that it was against Geneva Convention? Why did Bush appoint the person responsible for the torture decrees as Attorney General of the US? Why did Bush attack Iraq against the will of the UN and every nation in the world except Britain? Why has Bush made the US a diplomatic failure with other nations in the world? Why is it that the people of Europe see Bush as the number one threat to world peace? Why has Bush allowed convicted criminals to be given government contracts? Why has he failed in his pledge to get Osama Bin Laden "dead or alive"? Why do our borders have so few agents responsible for patrolling and guarding our borders? Do terrorists not know about this yet? Why are his personal records not available for public record such as his drunk driving ticket in Maine; AWOL from National Guard during Viet Nam; refusal to take drug test when caught with cocaine? Why are his records as governor been sealed and made unavailable for public viewing? Why are the records to his SEC investigations into insider trading and history of bankrupt companies sealed in secret? Why did he not see promise in a young athlete named Sammy Sosa and trade him to Chicago Cubs when Bush was part owner of the Rangers? Why can't he talk like an educated person?
yeah, David. adult acceptance, indeed.
Post a Comment
<< Home