Yes, when I was about 17, my friend David’s father took us to one of the Watergate hearings in New York. He was a real serious lawyer. As a young man, he had worked for the government at the Japanese War Crimes trials. He worked at that time for Metromedia, TV channel 9 in New York I believe. He was so excited about the trials, he was almost gleeful. We went in on the train and met him at what I assume was the Federal courthouse. He had some kind of passes, but we still had to wait in line to jockey our way in past the reporters. The name Whitney North Seymour pops out of my memory. Dave’s Dad was a great admirer of the man with the million dollar name; perhaps the story was he had worked for him or with him in the old days. I remember it was the trial of Richard Kleindienst and was a turning point because he was one in a long line of successive Attorney Generals and he was the first honest guy who was willing to talk. Infamous John Mitchell testified that day which was the real highlight of the proceedings. He was the very definition of the word “staunch” in the way that Dick Cheney might define the word “snarling.” His even more notorious wife Martha was there and at the time she was more watched by the tabloids than her doomed husband. Doesn’t Nixon seem almost innocent compared to the creepy liars we have in office now? His deceptions were almost quaint in their “I shall take over the world and do away with my enemies” simplicity. I think so.
Now even Harvard people can’t write! I feel like I am living the movie “Idiocracy.” Again, it’s not so much that people write badly. It’s that editors let it get through! They’re the ones who are supposed to be in charge! Their job is to make all that copy presentable. It’s an article about Harvard trying to expand it’s real estate holdings into residential neighborhoods. We all know they’d eventually like to swallow up the whole city of Cambridge… gets rid of all those unpleasant poor and blue-collar people. I’ll add details later. I’m too upset right now.
Here’s some details–it’s the May-June 2007 issue of Harvard Magazine. An unattributed article called “Ready for Growth? begins on page 60 in the mag section entitled “John Harvard’s Journal.” After a good lead line, the first paragraph goes all to hell with sentences like
The public first heard of the project in 2003, but as this issue went to press, a neighborhood association remained concerned about aspects of it, the job was out for bids, but Harvard had yet to secure permission from the city to proceed.
The thing that threw me off was the botched list of facts telling me 1) a neighborhood association remained concerned about aspects of it, 2) the job was out for bids, and 3) [??] There was no 3! There wasn’t even an “and.” Instead, there was a “but.” But I realize now that the comma after “aspects of it” should probably have been a semicolon or a colon or a dash. More run-on sentences, my pet peeve.
Soon enough, there’s a semicolon that should have been a period. It’s one of those long sentences beginning with “In March 2004…” There’s no reason on God’s green earth that the word “planning” should be followed by a semicolon. The next part of sentence, beginning with “after 14 public meetings,” is undeniably a complete sentence, easily able to stand on its own two feet. There’s more where that came from, but I’m tired, and it’s late…
Today’s front page has an eerie photograph of huge concrete towers atop sand dunes.
But read the caption: “A new vehicle barrier just north of San Luis Rio Colorado, Mexico.” Now if these are vehicle barriers, can’t a car just drive through what appear to be 20-foot wide gaps between the towers?
Of course not. Once again, we are misled by non-informative captions, and an article missing basic who-what-why facts. It’s a beautiful shot by award-winning photojournalist Ann Johansson, but it’s the paper’s fault for not documenting the documentation! If the gap is less than 5′-7″, the approximate width of a 2007 Mini Cooper — one of the smallest cars a poor Mexican emigrant would consider using to escape poverty and a lack of work — and certainly less than the 7′-2″ it would take to ram a Hummer H3 through, the space between the posts must be about 4′-6″. Which would indicate that their vertical height must be about 5′ or 6′. So a person standing in the picture would be about the height of the barrier.
And why do these striking objects march in alternating heights? Are there crews of American or Mexican workers who erect these things? Are they precast elements that are driven around on the backs of trucks? Do I really want all these facts? NO! It’s not the point of the article. I only want hard information if you put a giant 8 1/2″ x 5 1/2″ photograph right smack in the middle of page 1. Otherwise, don’t do it. Instead, use an image showing constructon workers building these things. Show some border patrol officials observing the work. A picture that tells the story, not art photography that I hope to see some day at an art gallery of Ann’s work! Sorry, Ann. It’s not you, it’s your disappointing employer.
Also on page 1: A horrible headline reading “Abuses Dog Paths of Young Magazine ‘Crews.'”
Of course, everyone seeing the paper this morning assumed someone was found abusing dogs. As in “Man Abuses Dog.” My first thought: Why would they put that on the front page? So, some idiot in Brooklyn smacked his mutt around the backyard and the neighbors called the cops. Oy. I’m getting weary of this. It makes it hard to eat breakfast.
It took me a few minutes. Read “abuses” with the “s” sound, not the “z” sound. Could they possibly be using “dog” as a verb? What is this, 1954? Who says “dogs” anymore? “Hounded,” maybe. But “dog?” I don’t think so. Next, we have to figure out the meaning of “Young Magazine ‘Crews.'” What in the world is a magazine crew and why would they be hounded by abuses? To make it worse, the little subhead reads “Door to Door: Long Days, Slim Rewards.” Oh, so it must be a piece about the tough job of working on a “magazine crew,” whatever that is. But wait, no, it’s about them being abused, which I think would be the main issue, not that it’s a tough way to make a living. Obviously, being beaten silly would far outweight having a long day with low pay. Many of us work a long day with low pay. But I haven’t been whipped with a USB cable lately.
So the article is confused. It’s not really clear what the point is. And while it’s a troubling issue, there must be absolutely no news coming out of Iran or Afghanistan or Korea or Cuba today for this thing to appear on Page 1. Why magazines? Why not have them sell life insurance policies? Isn’t that a little more lucrative than selling a $14 subscription to Road & Track? If you’re going to be torturing people, why not go for the high-commission stuff, like cars or Ming vases?
And here’s one more loser article: Front page of the Business section. A conference at Yale about global warming. The reporter tells us that when intellectuals get together, “you can be pretty sure things are about to get nasty.” Whoa, I can’t wait to read this article. It’s sounds crazy!
When the brainiacs meet, we learn that “the two sides went at it in the dignified, vicious way that academics do.” Here we go, let’s hear it!! We still haven’t gotten any meat yet, just appetizers, and now we have to turn the page to the inside for the pay dirt… here we go… “then came the juicy stuff: the Stern Review ‘commits cruel and unusual punishment on the English language.'”
That’s it? No, hang on, there’s more. Soon we find that “this was fairly tame compared with the comments of another Yale economist” who actually compared his opponent to “The Wizard of Oz,” adding “my job is to be Toto.” OUCH! These guys are vicious! I bet the recipient of that barb is still smarting! Whoo-wee. Wait. That makes no sense. Was Toto somehow The Wizard’s arch-rival? I don’t remember that. Oh, I guess he pulled the curtain thing aside, sort of. Oh, so smart guy #2 showed that #1 had no clothes. Or his theories didn’t. Oh. Funny. I get it now. Sorry, false alarm.
Infamous John Mitchell testified that day which was the real highlight of the proceedings. He was the very definition of the word “staunch” in the way that Dick Cheney might define the word “snarling.” His even more notorious wife Martha was there and at the time she was more watched by the tabloids than her doomed husband. Doesn’t Nixon seem almost innocent compared to the creepy liars we have in office now? His deceptions were almost quaint in their “I shall take over the world and do away with my enemies” simplicity. I think so.
