It has been a very long time since I bothered to learn Maureen Dowd, however a pal despatched me a hyperlink to her present column. It is the ordinary anti-Trump screed. Dowd takes off from the resignation of Rob Porter–a narrative through which I’ve little curiosity–to insult the president in quite a lot of methods, principally associated to the remedy of ladies. There is far that might be mentioned, however I solely need to touch upon three elements of the column.
Among many, the attract of Barack Obama’s brainy nuance had given solution to a eager for a extra muscular certainty.
Anyone who can nonetheless refer with a straight face to “Obama’s brainy nuance” is writing just for true believers.
Second, the essential level of the column:
We don’t need to countenance abusive habits. And we definitely don’t need males like Rob Porter who’ve punched, kicked, choked and terrorized their wives to be in the president’s inside circle, serving to determine which insurance policies, together with those who have an effect on girls, get emphasised.
We need our president to be an ethical beacon, not a rankings-obsessed id. We need a president who understands that sexual and bodily abuse are incorrect.
We don’t need a president who bends over backward to offer the advantage of the doubt to neo-Nazis, spouse beaters, pedophiles and sexual predators — or who’s a sexual predator himself.
The humorous factor about that is, we’ve had not less than one president who–not like Donald Trump–truly was a sexual predator. We had an administration the place it wasn’t simply an obscure aide who allegedly abused a lady, years in the past, removed from the White House. Rather, it was the president himself who assaulted not less than one lady, Kathleen Willey, in the Oval Office itself. And for all the discuss abuse, respecting girls, and so on, we’ve had just one president who was, perhaps, a rapist who ought to have been serving a protracted jail time period, not working the Executive Branch.
His identify was Bill Clinton. I’m so outdated, I can keep in mind when Maureen Dowd criticized Clinton closely for his abuse of ladies. But her vitriol then was nothing in comparison with what she unleashes on Trump–not a rapist, not an abuser of ladies–right this moment. Why the double customary, Maureen? Party loyalty, I suppose.
Third, wasn’t there a time when newspaper columnists have been anticipated to be accustomed to the guidelines of grammar? And didn’t the New York Times, at one level, make use of editors whose job it was, partly, to be sure that the paper’s content material was grammatically appropriate? I’ve written earlier than that, given the apparent errors the paper so typically makes, I query whether or not the Times truly employs any editors in any respect.
And now, due to our barmy president and his employees meltdown, we’re discovering out quick who we’re and whom we don’t need to be.
Maureen, should you ship me an e mail at [email protected], I provides you with classes in each politics and grammar, at a really affordable value.