Exactly why is it, Mr. Bones, that one does not think it advisable that the New York Times Company should undertake the general supervision of the universe? It is not, after all, as if dear Aunt Nitsy's perpetual Griff nach der Weltmacht were likely to be successful any decade soon.
Often one more or less agrees with Nitsy. So even supposing the chances of her aggressions flourishing were in fact much brighter than they really are, why be displeased? The NYTC editorial persona is far less unreasonable than her customary antagonist, the Willful Coalition™, that tricephalous monstrosity of AEI and GOP and DoD. Tank-thinkers, and tank drivers, and the Fraternal Order of Sons of Atwater almost invariably dislike Nitsy. Many of their professional heroes of error are prepared to badmouth and swiftboat the NYTC at a moment's notice. If decent political adults were guided solely by the Big Management Party's knaves and fools and dupes and hangers-on, never examining the product for oneself, probably the sound portion of the holy Homeland would have installed Nitsy as chakravartin some time around 1945.
Unfortunately the nature of the Higher Fishwrap product line is such that to purchase samples of it and then not examine them makes no sense. Almost what one might expect of a militant GOP extremist, that behavior! It would therefore be fun to say something like "I always agree with the Times editorial board. That's because I never pay any attention to what they write." That game would be still more fun with a little editorial polish rubbed in to make an epigram that resembles Oscar Wilde more closely. Fun is all that is in prospect, however, [1] with or without spiff and polish. Even in the case of this morning's lead scribble, one shall get around to examining what Nitsy says eventually. Yet one need not rush headlong . . . .
The next intermediate stop is the party of Mr. Jefferson and General Jackson and the United States of America, of which Nitsy is far too often taken, at Rio Limbaugh and thereabouts, to be some kind of semiofficial spokesman. ("Semiofficial" is how the subjects of Gen. Mubárak refer to Al-’Ahrám and certain other régime-friendly journals.) It is natural that a donkey -- or a l*b*r*l fiend, for that matter -- should not care for this language or the arrangement it implies, having never conveyed any proxy or power of attorney whatsoever to the New York Times Company. Nitsy is, of course, a private-sectorian for-profit business corporation, no different from Crédit Mobilier and the Teapot Dome entities and Enron and ExxonMobilChevronGulf (may all these precious shadows be elongated!). [2] Nitsy is neither the Authorized Voice of the Donkeys nor any sort -- not even a semisort, by gum! -- of public utility. Most of the extremist neocomrades at Wingnut City are aware of this legal technicality, I believe, although they don't ever let it dampen then ardour when they sally forth in the Path of Atwater. (Rulalaw does not often dampen their Party warpath on other occasions either. Remember Impeachmentgate!)
Though it is natural enough that political good guys should be annoyed, there is not much case for being annoyed with Nitsy instead of with the Baní Atwater, is there?
To which I respond, unequivocally, No and Yes. No, Nitsy is not even semiofficial, and No, she does not pretend to be. Unfortunately her obnoxious pretensions are, so to say, superofficial ones. They also tend to be matters of tone and ambience rather than of words that can reliably used against her in court. The current pea under my own mattresses provides the title of this morning's scribble: "Make no mistake!" might do for some Dick XXXVII Nixon, or Commanderissimo XLIV McCain, not to speak of the superincumbent Yalie Lad. It does not become the New York Times Company to talk that way. [3]
But here is the specimen displayed in its actual environment, so each may decide for himself:
| The Bush administration must also encourage Pakistan’s coup-prone military to work with the new parliamentary leaders, making clear that continued military aid will in part be conditioned on their respect for democracy. Mr. Musharraf’s successor as army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, deserves credit for ensuring that the military did not interfere in the elections. We hope that he continues that sound course. MAKE NO MISTAKE, Mr. Musharraf’s support for the war on terrorism was never as unstinting as Washington claimed. Al Qaeda and the Taliban have found far too comfortable a safe haven in Pakistan’s tribal regions. Still, persuading Pakistan’s new civilian leaders to sign on to the fight is likely to prove even more difficult. |
My own ruling is in accord with the maxim, "When in doubt, leave it out." Omitting the three words does not change the sense an iota; all it does is make Nitsy sound less like one of the GOP's ever-apoplectic brain-dead white males, say Judge Baker at the Floridagate 2000 corral. Distinctly an improvement, that change seems to me to make, although I should not dream of disputing the NYTC's corporate taste, only of deploring it.
And God knows best. Happy days.
_____
[1] Strictly speaking, a little bit more than fun may be available with the physical fishwrap, though not the virtual.
A member of the Big Party base and vile might, for example, carry a copy of America's Moonpaper around with her as a sort of totem or proof of ideotribal identity. Farther up the great chain of wingnuts, ostentation of the Wall Street Jingo serves the same end still better. Rupert Presslord Murdoch is no doubt workin’ even as we keyboard to eliminate the qualitative distinction of these organs of reaction, but his project makes little difference when there is no call for the Boy and Party loyalist to actually read either Moonies or Jingos. A class distinction based on the former differences of provenance and competence will linger for a few more years, presumably. (This seems to me an ideal topic for Señorito D. Brooks to prepare one of his pseudosociological disquisitions.)
On the other hand, physical copies of either can be hard to come by outside a few centres of East Coast Elitismus, so the upwardly mobile or wannabe-noticed wingnut might be better advised to sprinkle her conversation with quaint and colourful Party bumper-stickers like "death tax" and "Islamophalangitarianism" and "Freedom Means Peace!" This second plan also requires less financial investment, which may be a consideration with such Party base and vile as are not (yet) economic OnePercenters themselves personally.
[2] A critic might criticise that Enron and WalMart and Arbusto Energy don't often vend, or even give away free, unsigned leading articles on the state of Cuba and Pakistan, or even on "the temptation for lawmakers to pander to the gun lobby."
This objection should be overruled, because they is nothin’ to prevent Daddy Warbucks from doin’ so if he decides to spend his corporation's allocated agitprop monies on customers at Succotash City rather than lobbyists at DC and Rancho Crawford. "It's still a free country, ain't it?" (I quote from memory.)
[3] The same words could, theoretically, be taken to signify "Exhibit zero tolerance for factual errors, please, ladies and gentlemen." No native rhetor of Yankee ever deploys them to mean that, however; one is invariably to understand "Make no mistake!" as purely sentimental/performative: "Look here, buddy, we really, Really!, REALLY!! mean what we are yelling at you this time." (It is also frequently an occasion for wagging the finger at Ms. Buddy, I fear.)
When the substance of the thing so earnestly meant happens to be that "Mr. Musharraf’s support for the war on terrorism was never as unstinting as Washington claimed," the effect of the tasteless table-pounding borders on the grotesque. It is no accident, I'd say, that Nitsy does not go on to provide any instances of General Musharraf's alleged lukewarmness in the War on Global Tourism™ but merely repeats the charge with a bit less hyperventilation.
No comments:
Post a Comment