New York magazine carries a piece about management turmoil at the world's most dishonest newspaper, the New York Times. I'm not sure why I bothered to read it, except maybe Schadenfreude -- accounts of any problems, especially financial ones, at the Times and I'm over the moon.
It's fun to read about Sulzberger Junior, the Times Company's old-money retard publisher, his new Mexican cookie and his firing of a long-time sycophant named Janet Robinson. That, however, is not what we're on about today.
New York is only slightly less politically Marxist/feminist than the Times itself. The story includes this sentence:
It raises the question of what the next CEO of the Times will be running when he or she shows up, and how much authority and power he or she will have under the thumb of the family, led by Sulzberger, who, in the pretzel logic of the Times’ management structure, will be both his or her boss, as chairman, and his or her underling, as publisher—a situation that denies a leader any real authority.
This is not simply bad writing, a sentence that stitches together too many thoughts with too many transitions. It is self-mockery of the kind that only insane political correctness is capable of.
When he or she shows up. How much power he or she will have. His or her boss. His or her underling. God (he or she) help us!
Leftism and feminism, in their crusade against the good, the true, and the beautiful, cannot even leave language un-battered. The feminista death squads' reign of terror in the universities has now descended -- if it was possible to descend further -- to the popular press.
Earlier generations, who actually had a warm feeling for language, understood that in English (unlike French, Italian, German, or Spanish) possessive pronouns do not change gender depending on the noun they modify -- nouns themselves have no gender in English. They went along with the commonsense use of "his" to mean "his or her." It wasn't "sexist"; it was simply a way of avoiding the awkwardness that the New York quote displays.
The article also says, with no sign of irony:
That has led to speculation, and not for the first time, that Mayor Bloomberg, a long-fabled white knight for beleaguered Times staffers, could swoop in and save the paper from itself, a kind of best worst-case scenario for the Ochs-Sulzberger family. Here, after all, would be the decisive leader the paper yearned for, a powerful and wealthy businessman who has shown ample commitment to the city that gives its name to the greatest newspaper in the world. In theory, this benevolent dictator could afford to lose money for the greater good of journalism in America.
New York and California should secede and form their own country. The states in between should sell gas to people heading from one to the other and tax all goods moving between East Crackpotia and West Crackpotia.