Tuesday, June 14, 2005

Dear Editor, Edit THIS!

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but the New York Times has replaced retired op-ed columnist William "I Eat Jew Babies" Safire with John "Regis Philbin" Tierney:

They Said to Just Be Yourself. HEY WORLD, HERE I AM!


Anyway, you probably were thinking, like I was thinking, that no one could be a bigger choad than Safire. WRONG. Have I introduced you to my new friend, John Tierney?

He is so infuriatingly retarded that I have taken to writing the New York Times every time Tierney writes a column. I will be reposting those letters here.

From: worker3116@gmail.com
To: letters@nytimes.com
Date: May 24, 2005 11:40 AM
Subject: What Women Want


Dear Editor,

I hesitate in writing because I get the feeling Mr. Tierney selected the subject and headline of his most recent editorial in order to "stir the pot," and I'd rather not take the bait. Nevertheless, I felt compelled to contact you not so much out of outrage as disbelief. Mr. Tierney's argument is so specious as to be ridiculous, and becomes offensive when it results in thinly veiled, ultimately unquestioning cheerleading for the status-quo. In reading his column I was reminded of the recent snafu involving Harvard president Lawrence H. Summers and his raising of the question of inherent intellectual differences posing as an obstacle to women entering the sciences. Where, to the best of my understanding, Mr. Summers was posing the question in order to inspire investigation and research, Mr. Tierny takes the opposite tack of posing the question simply to provide his own answer, which is that women are by nature not competitive so why rock the boat? His mild suggestion that "you can argue that this difference is due to social influences," is quickly brushed aside by his asserted opinion that it is "largely innate." Really? Based on what evidence, Mr. Tierny? My complaint is not with the idea that women are innately less competitive. By all accounts, that could be true (despite the many examples to the opposite, Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Stewart coming readily to mind). But to simply brush aside the social construct of competition as the playing field upon which masculinity is decided is not only hackneyed, but bizarre. Considering the fact that many school systems have only recently added, and some continue to lobby for, fully-funded all-girls sports teams, or that women were admitted to the Citadel only after that institution's policies were deemed unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court in 1996, would at the very least indicate that there are some very serious social forces at work in deciding who feels comfortable in or naturally gravitates towards the thick of competition.

I would like to reiterate that the question that Mr. Tierney pretends to propose is a valid one, but the simplistic and simple-minded lengths he goes to immediately dismiss and refute the question are condescending, and seem beneath your editorial standard as one of our country's leading intellectual and journalistic institutions.

Sincerely,
Worker #3116

From: worker3116@gmail.com
To: letters@nytimes.com
Date: June 14, 2005 10:21 AM
Subject: The Old and the Rested


Dear Times,

John Tierney's columns remind me of the position papers we wrote in high-school composition class, where the thesis had to be bolded and underlined on page one, and an outline format was used to keep you on track, but rigorous research and copious footnotes backing up the paper's claims were not heavily enforced because, gee, at least we were trying hard. In Tierney's latest column, his precepts are imaginary. I know plenty of people who would love to work beyond the age of 65. His assumption that no one over that age wants to work doesn't even rise to the level of "anecdotal." I was stunned by the blatant tossing around of fantasies and big, sloppy generalizations as truth: Does a small, elite group of aged athletes prove that everyone over 65 should not only be working, but running marathons? Mr. Tierney claims that less than 10 percent of people between the ages of 65 and 75 are in ill health, but then fails to define what that means. Enforced bed rest? The sniffles? Who knows, he doesn't bother to specify. And on and on. The fatuous, almost offensive idea that Social Security is a system that "promotes greed and sloth" runs counter to reality. I would love for Mr. Tierney to name someone who is getting rich off of his or her Social Security check. They may already be rich, but if that is the case, the impetus towards greed and sloth that might cause them to withdraw their tax dollars from the system certainly doesn't lie in the paltry check they will later receive from the government. AND ARE WE SERIOUSLY LOOKING TO CHILE FOR ECONOMIC LEADERSHIP? WHAT THE FUCK, JOHN TIERNEY?

I look forward to future bafflement from your editorial page, in the form of John Tierney opinions.
Worker #3116

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home