- Next »
- « Previous
dumb it down.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/opinion/18brooks.html?_r=1&ex=1198731600&en=3ad5368ac125db01&ei=5070&emc=eta1&oref=slogin
Response to NYT opinion article concerning Hillary C. vs Obama.
It is a month later, and for the delay in response, I apologize. However, it wasn’t until today that I was fortunate to come across Mr. Brooks article covering the “Hillary / Obama” issue. I say fortunate not because this article provided me with enlightenment into anything substantial; but because it did the opposite.
Let me begin by openly admitting that I have no clue as to what is meant by Mr. Brooks when he says, ”… the country’s future can only be shaped through a remorseless civil war between the children of light and the children of darkness.” I do not know which (of the many) Americans (republicans & democrats) feel this way. Reading this literally makes me feel as if Brooks is insinuating the idea that many Americans believe the only way to solve our countries problem would be through some sort of racial divide. I truly hope this is not what was intended, but considering the topic and juxtaposition with the language used, “…children of light and darkness.” feels like an allusion to this idea. Maybe the language is meant to allude to the American idea of good vs. evil, but considering the historical context of language in our country, I can't tell. Is there necessity in the ambiguity in Mr. Brooks' choice of words? I can't tell. Okay, last thing that struck me as odd in this opinion piece is the line where Brooks says that Obama has a “…racial predicament…” Did he really align Obama's race to a predicament? I am just not sure of the intentions of Brooks’ message. In my opinion, choosing to use the word “predicament” was unnecessary. To me it seems as if Brooks is taking subtle jabs at Obama’s expense, in essence, his exclusivist references and language only cause further confusion.
I am sure Mr. Brooks does not care; however, he should remember this, not everyone is as well versed in Reinhold Niebuhr as he may be. Mr. Brooks...dumb it down.
lol.
Comments
Simply for using extravagant words where simple would suffice.
As for his intentions, since he CHOSE to word things in that manner, he left that up to others interpretations. Not always a smart idea when speaking on such a serious nature of things. Dumb it down? Eh...I think he just needs to go ahead and say what he REALLY means. Comprehension is an art form all in itself. Those who are questioning his words have no problem reading between the lines...like yourself, my dear friend ;)
With ambiguous lines like above, you can be certain there are others "picking up what he's putting down"...he knew what he was doing when he wrote that shat.