College newspapers are veritable decanters of potent liberalism. It runs hot and strong, like spiked apple cider.
The opinion writing in the Daily Emerald might be considered the absinthe of liberal op-ed writing: a bastardized, hallucinogenic step-cousin of the genuine article that only the truly twisted can claim to enjoy.
In that vein, I present to you Robbing From the Poor, a sad attempt at a critique of George W. Bush's 2005 budget. Let's start at the beginning:
Okay, I'll be straight with you. I haven't read one page of Bush's budget. I didn't know he had released the damn thing until I read it in the newspaper today. Look, the Emerald is giving me 10 bucks and a good-job-old-chum pat on the butt per column. What do you want from me? Investigative journalism?
Now, I'm no expert, but it seems to me that when you preface your column with a long-winded version of I have no idea what in the blue shit I'm talking about, it hurts your credibility. Moving on:
Furthermore—and I'd like to stress this point—I am not an economist. I am not good with numbers and really don't understand budgets. I can't even balance my checkbook. I am probably the last person on this campus who should be commenting on Bush's $2.4 trillion proposal.
That being said, I am absolutely outraged by this budget.
The hits just keep on coming, folks. And it's all downhill from here.
The column moves on to argue in favor of a "progressive tax structure," a good idea repeated so often by commentators that I suspect it's lost all meaning. But it would apparently force "the rich and their multinational corporations to pay a fair share."
The writing drags on, fumbling for purpose like a teenage boy who has been unwittingly led into a closet by a member of the opposite sex. All signs point to a conclusion that will be accordingly unsatisfying.
Then suddenly, a glimmer of improvent: the column cites several different places in which the budget has actually been cut: 83.4 percent of the Small Business Administration's budget, 12.7 percent from the Department of Justice. Thirty eight programs having to do with the arts and counseling in education are cut, as is the (farce of a) War on Drugs. It almost looks like the column may make some sort of final, relevant point. Then, of course, there are the final two paragraphs:
Bush seems intent on starving the beast of government by giving our tax dollars to his pals in high places. Now, if his friends were good people doing good things, that wouldn't be a problem.
Unfortunately, Bush's friends are in defense and oil. That means that while he is gleefully starving social programs, we can all look forward to endless war, which, like the war in Iraq, will serve no other purpose than to enrich those who make their living by building the tools of humanity's destruction.
Now, even if Bush's friends were doing good things, simply handing them money would still be a problem. But that's a minor point. If you're going to argue that Bush is a monster intent on constructing "the tools of humanity's destruction," you might want to substiate that with something other than cuts in the SBA's budget.
I wish that I could call this piece an inglorious aberration. But although you might actually find it a narrow cut below the Emerald's average op-ed writing, it's hardly atypical. I read the Emerald's op-ed page because I hate myself, and because I glance over it while looking for the crossword.
People, I've crapped better writing than this, and I do so regularly on this website. Hell, the Emerald ought to retain me as a columnist, and pay me ten dollars (the price this column apparently commanded) to reprint every entry over five hundred words.
That, or replace the op-ed page with a second crossword to do. After all, I have more than one lecture class some days.
Posted by slade at February 16, 2004 12:28 AM