From The Last English Prince:
Having just endured scanning the unimpressive commentary of an “anonymous senior official” in the Trump administration I feel the need to locate a bottle of wine and prepare a small plate of snacks. There is cause for celebration. If senior officials can get by with such shoddy wordcrafting, it is a great day for the blogging community. Doesn’t seem like the competition is that good.
Whilst the title is lofty, the complete work reads more like, “Words Guilded with Brass”.
So let me add a few first impressions having just scanned the op-ed a few minutes ago.
The NYTimes issues lofty proclamation: “We believe publishing this essay anonymously is the only way to deliver an important perspective to our readers.”
It would seem that “perspective” is just a kinder manner of describing the moral mucor which afflicts journalism.
“President Trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader.”
A test greater than the Cuban missile crisis? Greater than the demands of Vietnam? A test greater than 9/11 or the death of a U.S. ambassador in Benghazi?
“… many of the senior officials in his own administration…”
Many as in a large amount, countless, innumerable, multitudinous or an indubitable Mongolian horde? What, exactly, is “many”?
“I would know. I am one of them.”
Tada! It is me! Such a declarative statement! But it is certainly not a Jesus moment. (John 18:8 NIV “I told you that I am He.”) You would think concerned citizen Anonymous would be willing to sacrifice for such a noble purpose.
“That is why many Trump appointees have vowed…”
Shouldn’t it read “This is why…”? And again the “many” without a metric.
They have vowed? What about any vow which was taken to serve the current POTUS, residing under proper chain of command?
“President Trump’s impulses are generally anti-trade….”
The POTUS has firmly stated that he is a fair trade President.
“From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies…”
Copy edit: “From the White House to the executive branch departments and agencies, and please include my grandmother…”
“It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans know that there are adults in the room.”
I find the statement extremely offensive. To relegate the POTUS to a childhood status means that tens of millions of children were also in the voting booth. Lollipops were not passed out to the voters. We were adults who voted for the adult who we wanted to lead us.
“President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators….”
Preference, or capable of playing three level chess?
“Acute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is operating on another track…”
Just spit it out. Explain to the children the various tracks of governance, the differences inherent in the Executive branch management, the interface with Foggy Bottom, the tracks of the various Cabinet members and their staff, and Houses of Congress interface.
“Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet….”
Who whispered?
“There is a quiet resistance within the administration….”
Do not confuse quiet with benign. Cancer can also quietly metastasize within a body prior to overtaking the host. This senior official and his cohorts are a form of political cancer. They must be excised from the current administration.
Beyond the prior strong statement, the opinion reads like a college paper written by a sociology major submitting thoughts on cultural chaos.
4 comments:
Thus Tweeteth Peter Wehner, GOPe "journalist" in reference to Obama's speech yesterday:
You can be a conservative, as I am, and not agree with Barack Obama on policy, and still believe that what he says here is true/very well expressed. Republicans shouldn't be so partisan/tribal that they refuse to reflect on Mr. Obama's wise words.
He Tweeted something similar with regard to the NYT "opinion" piece.
Mr. Wehner pisses me off with his tribal reference. That is also the newest swipe against voters. We are tribal, uneducated, unsophisticated. Someone else needs to tell us what is best for us.
Regarding the "chaos theory" against the White House, I believe Mr. Trump fires off questions, gains a grasp, and adjusts as his learning curve for governance accelerates. He did state in one of the debates (it was a question regarding Syria) that he might make immediate opinions that he would later recant based on a greater understanding. He used the word flexibility. His understanding, a work in progress. His intellect? Unquestionable.
The Uni-party wanted either Hillary, who would maintain the power players, or Jeb, who could be led around wearing a stroke bib, as they wiped the drool from the corners of his mouth.
They wanted ownership of the Presidency. Nah. It is not supposed to work that way.
LEP....This tweet agrees ....
https://twitter.com/MightyCassandra/status/1037868805136031744
There was no Op-Ed writer or insider ready to flay open the Trump Administration. Hillary, et al. keep their tightly knit group on a short leash & it doesn’t include ‘sleeper cells.’ The Op-Ed ran through http://Turnitin.com , a program to catch student plagiarism.
Sep 5, shortly after the release of the Op-Ed, the #Anonymous essay popped on http://Turnitin.com as a 100% match to a USC student essay handed in, surprise, surprise, Sep 5. Now, lest you say, “Maybe a proactive student wrote ABOUT the Op-Ed!” No....
The Op-Ed, in its entirety as you see on the screenshot, comprises the whole essay. I clicked in the settings to delete matches that INCLUDED citation. No student- one presumes-would include an entire essay w/out citation in her own paper. Unless she’s an idiot.
IMHO... this was an essay written for a class, perhaps taken by a professor and handed to the @NYT w/ their full knowledge that it was fabricated. Hence the Op-Ed & the author being at least two steps removed from the publication process. When it’s discovered, as I hope it will be,the people who perpetrated this fraud should be used by @POTUS to demonstrate a new paradigm in legal consequences for unethical professional behavior & (some would argue) actions that fall just short of treasonous (😉 @Brennan).It’s time, @realDonaldTrump,sir. It’s past time
Bottom line? Let's put the skunk on the table.
There is no credibility attached to the opinion because it is anonymous. It is one thing to write a blog under an avatar. That is a matter of convenience, not wanting to be bothered too much for posting a few opinions on breaking news. My own site is a real snoozer. I rarely top a dozen readers on any given day.
It is entirely different to function under an editor and have a byline. I have done the same from Pakistan, to India, to the Islamic Republic of Turkey with pithy columns, a working e mail, and willingness to stand by my words.
New York Times seems like a faded and yellowed page of news. The writing was so sophomoric as to beggar belief.
Post a Comment