OPINION: Distortions in the name of a noble cause Environmentalists and media subvert the facts

The cost of oil is high because our knowledge of how to combat it is low. The media has blossomed into the greatest enabler of this collective shortcoming.

To Flycatcher,

The punctuation and syntax do seem a little odd. But I’ve read many of Nathan’s columns in multiple publications and found his writings consistently strong. Editors can sometimes botch an original work. Here’s an older piece that I kept on my favorites. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/sep/18/critics-knew-petraeus-was-on-point/

Thanks for the link to the older piece. But it's not much better. Example:

Since when should the continued respect for someone's long-acknowledged veracity be contingent upon the extent to which his findings coincide with the politics of either party?

See what I mean? When a writer becomes that prolix, it's a sign he's trying too hard. That said, I may agree with his points, but he needs to express them more clearly and concisely. (And I don't think he can.)

To Flycatcher,

LOL - Great to run into another fan of the language. Admittedly however, that’s one of my favorite lines because it seems to provide an all encompassing effect. While it’s not concise, the writing is both lofty and aggressive. In context, I believe it had a perfect functionality given the paragraph that preceded it:

“So, despite having predicated the general’s confirmation on his honesty, fealty and military professionalism, many of those same politicos now characterize him as a liar, a cheat and a patsy — simply because his status report on the troop surge did not comport with their agenda.”

It’s wonderful parallelism - almost Dickensian.

And then he gives us a minor tutorial on the literary origins of the term, “suspension of disbelief” while skewering Hillary Clinton. Sorry, I liked it. But again, I agree with you on the odd syntax of the oil piece, and still find it to be out of character.

Truthfully, I only came across this column on Petraeus because of another article I read by William Safire in the NY Times. He credited Nathan as one of the “old-fashioned literati” having his day “in the political sun.” I’m a big fan of Safire. Note the below:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/magazine/07wwln-safire-t.html

Yes, I certainly enjoyed reading Safire before he retired. And, of course, no one can replace W. F. Buckley. My favorite column (in the old days) was always his Q & A on language in the National Review.

My hunch is that there are plenty of other "language lovers" out there in FReeperland.

Thanks!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.