Winning the Lottery

I find myself flabbergasted by Maureen Dowd's column today. I choose to view this column like a lottery. Even if the odds are a million to one, if you buy a million tickets, chances are you'll win once. That describes Maureen Dowd's relationship with sensible conclusions. Sooner or later, she just stumbles upon them by accident.

OF TOP HATS, TOP KILLS AND BOTTOM FEEDERS by Maureen Dowd

It’s unnerving, disorienting. 

Why do crappy writers insist on starting columns with bullshit sentences like this? No, this does not draw me deeper into the article saying “OMG!!! WHAT IS UNNERVING AND DISORIENTING?!?! AND WHY DID SHE USE A COMMA INSTEAD OF A CONJUNCTION?!?!” The ambiguity of the pronoun doesn’t make me feel like I need to know what she’s talking about. The evasion of grammatical conventions does not make me think that her opinion must be important; it just makes me think she’s a crappy writer.

Just Skip to the Crossword.

Today's Object of Ridicule and Scorn is the New York Times Editorial Board. The Times' liberal slant, particularly on the editorial board, has been well-established. When David Brooks is the conservative anchor of the operation, you know something's a little off.

Here, the Times has wandered way outside its wheelhouse and into the realm of high finance. Andrew Rosenthal & co. should stick to subjects it's more comfortable with--defending the artistic chops of fecal sculptures, supporting the socialist propaganda in middle school education, bludgeoning conservatives with White Guilt, and swooning for Hugo Chavez. Never forget: write what you know.

The clumsiness of the argument belies an unfamiliarity with the subject matter altogether. Leave the big-boy talk to the Wall Street Journal, and just skip to the crossword. Quick! What's an eight letter word for "utterly uninformed?" Damn it. Now I need a five letter word for "lacking in originality."