Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Pretzel syntax

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.



Ghost of VW said...

This is OT, Rick, but I was wondering if you could help me understand breedists.

There are 7 billion people in the world. What would life be like if there were only 6 billion? Would it be an unlivable hell?

What number will make the breedists happy? 10 billion? 15 billion? Why not 50 billion?

I've also noticed that breedists get very vague when it comes to the nuts and bolts of their argument. They seem to want some sort of breeding competition with brown people, but they never specify the victory conditions (perhaps a country of 500 million with 10% more Caucasians than there are now?). They also assume that their competitors will remain nonviolent for the duration, and they're not even doing that now. And we haven't yet addressed the fact that whites are essentially paying their competitors to outbreed them, or that most of the breeding nowadays results in more 3rd worlders, who, far from magically generating prosperity due to increased numbers, look to us for food, medicine, and ultimately sanctuary.

Anyway, I just needed to get that off my chest. Humans have nothing to gain by living like sardines in a can.

Rick Darby said...

Ghost of VW,

You've made the case so well I have nothing to add.

Breedists are either dead stupid or, like Lawrence Auster's correspondent, want their group to breed for political advantage.

YIH said...

I too noted the ''breedist'' thread over at Auster. Frankly I've read pretty much the same as Jeanette V. several times before (and it always seems to be from a female writer) this idea that Whites can and should ''outbreed'' non-Whites. That she went to the ''doomsayer nonsense'' argument was also predictable. Recently, I came across an entry on Wikipedia that fascinated me, it was an experiment involving mice. Mickey and pals had it great, the only thing that wasn't unlimited was space. Towards the end of the experiment the behavior of the mice changed radically, they quit reproducing.
After reading that I thought ''that's pretty much Japan today!'' Urban Japan is much more crowded than even New York City. Complete with the same effects as those mice. Young male Japanese who are so obsessed with entertainment who have no interest in sex (they refer to it as ''otaku culture'').
That's why I consider the ''technology and better means of food production will compensate!'' idea misguided.
Sure, natural ''carrying capacity'' for cattle can be exceeded with ''feedlots'' but the side effects are already becoming obvious (antibiotic feed).
And what happens when energy stops being relatively cheap and plentiful? That word ''unsustainable'' rears it's ugly head again.
Soylent Green anyone?

YIH said...

Mr. Darby, this is a rant but I have to get it off my chest. You might be thinking ''why did he bring this here and not to Auster?''
I'll tell you, I use a pseudonym, and he 'broke' it.
That's unforgivable, period. He doesn't get a second chance.
I realize it matters not to you, that's your actual name (as far as I know) but it matters to me.
If he (and you) can survive and make a living using your real name GREAT!!!
I envy you, that you can you can post using what is apparently your real name,
But at least you can call yourself ''Reflecting Light'' or ''RL'' if it becomes necessary.
You at least have the option.

Rick Darby said...


Did you ask LA to use your screen name and he published your real name anyway? I'll give you space here to describe what happened if you want, but it's only fair to offer him the chance for rebuttal.

Rick Darby is my real name. There have been times when I wished I had chosen a pseudonym when I started the blog. But while I write things that can offend some people, I don't believe I've ever strayed beyond reasonable discourse and what should be protected under the First Amendment. I don't advocate anything illegal and I'm on record as against violence in our anti-Leftist cause.

If we reach a point in this country where what I say here provokes retribution by the state, then this blog will be the least of my worries.