Would you criticize Anna Quindlen for writing "biological
self-determination" or George Will for "the nanny state"? Code-phrases
(spinsanity calls them "jargon") are the stock-in-trade of most
columnists. They are vague but suggestive cliches that most people do
understand, if imprecisely.
Besides, are you sure that you are not using code yourself when you
write "Nor do we understand the murky but pleasing phrase, 'relativizing
good and evil'"? "Nor do we understand" is frequent Op-Ed shorthand
for, "what a whacked-out idea".
Lastly, I can't resist pointing out that when you call journalists
fawning, blow-dried bubbleheads (because that's what many of them are),
you are applying an objective standard, which puts you (at least
temporarily) in the class of people do not "relativize good and evil".
Congratulations!
Sincerely,
-ME
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Somerby [XXXX]
Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2004 8:36 AM
To: ME
Subject: RE: Daily Howler comment
Actually, that was the problem with Brooks' column. Columns shouldn't be
written in code words.
>From: "
>To:
>Subject: Daily Howler comment
>Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 13:21:56 -0800
>
>
>Tuesday, November 30
>
>re: the Monday Night Football incident.
>Yes! You totally rock! Thank you!
>
>re: Brooks on John Stott
>You profess not to understand a few things:
>
> Stott "doesn't believe that truth is plural?" We don't
>really know what that means. Nor do we understand the murky but
pleasing
>phrase, "relativizing good and evil." And Stott doesn't believe "that
>truth is something humans are working toward?" We especially don't
>understand that claim.
>Stott is using codewords standard among people of faith, particularly
>Catholics. If you so request, I will try to explain them.
>
>Great site--gotta go, now,
>
>-ME
No comments:
Post a Comment