Today's New York Times website features seven letters purporting to put the Mark Foley scandal in perspective. If brains were dynamite, these people couldn't blow their noses. The amazing thing is that each either makes a point so obvious it is stupefying, or is completely incomprehensible. Among the former, here are some purely pedestrian observations:
We must remember that pedophiles are not necessarily gay, nor are all alcoholics gay. They can be straight, too.
Well, duh-huh? Do ya think?
Also, it is important to remember that being gay and being in the government should be no different from being straight in the government.
Wait a minute, I thought being gay was a lifestyle, a culture, an identity. Wouldn't being gay in government be different than being straight by definition?
Mark Foley, a congressman, had a certain amount of power, and many of the pages were responding to that power.
One wonders if the author of that priceless analysis noticed any power differential between the President and 20-something girl a few years ago. I imagine not.
The real good stuff, though, is evident when the author believes he or she has made some inciteful analysis, but the prose is so twisted and florid that the idea behind it becomes completely obscured:
If so, then Mr. Brooks is asking for the ostensible rectitude of propaganda.
Oh-Kay! I am sure that will come as a surprise to Mr. Brooks.
Do we expect the same reactions to “The Sopranos” and real-life criminality, or to “Where the Wild Things Are” and real childhood horrors?
Brilliant! Just brilliant analysis I tell you. And I don't even want to talk about how much "A Wrinkle in Time" scared me in elementary school.
The risk is that deception becomes normalized, artifice takes the place of reality, and the ability to discern legitimacy is compromised.
Ya know, I have always said that exact same thing. That risk is fucking huge. I started to normalize deception several years ago, but managed to catch myself before compromising my legitimacy discerning skills. Close call for me, but now I am so careful to keep my artifice away from my reality.
We must remember that pedophiles are not necessarily gay, nor are all alcoholics gay. They can be straight, too.
Well, duh-huh? Do ya think?
Also, it is important to remember that being gay and being in the government should be no different from being straight in the government.
Wait a minute, I thought being gay was a lifestyle, a culture, an identity. Wouldn't being gay in government be different than being straight by definition?
Mark Foley, a congressman, had a certain amount of power, and many of the pages were responding to that power.
One wonders if the author of that priceless analysis noticed any power differential between the President and 20-something girl a few years ago. I imagine not.
The real good stuff, though, is evident when the author believes he or she has made some inciteful analysis, but the prose is so twisted and florid that the idea behind it becomes completely obscured:
If so, then Mr. Brooks is asking for the ostensible rectitude of propaganda.
Oh-Kay! I am sure that will come as a surprise to Mr. Brooks.
Do we expect the same reactions to “The Sopranos” and real-life criminality, or to “Where the Wild Things Are” and real childhood horrors?
Brilliant! Just brilliant analysis I tell you. And I don't even want to talk about how much "A Wrinkle in Time" scared me in elementary school.
The risk is that deception becomes normalized, artifice takes the place of reality, and the ability to discern legitimacy is compromised.
Ya know, I have always said that exact same thing. That risk is fucking huge. I started to normalize deception several years ago, but managed to catch myself before compromising my legitimacy discerning skills. Close call for me, but now I am so careful to keep my artifice away from my reality.
posted by Kurt at
7:26 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home