Pulitzer winning columnist Maureen Dowd wrote a clever piece (well, approaching 5th-grade cleverness), so insightful (pertaining to what the NYT deems printable), and funny (if you hate successful conservative blacks), that this blogger cannot in good conscience ignore.
Dowd writes the entire article from the fictional perspective of Clarence Thomas (clever I told you!), and proceeds to tell a tale of racial betrayal and hypocrisy, while the bestowed authority of Supreme Court Judgeship fertilizes what grows into a massive tyrannical ego. For every ounce of truth there's a pound of satire.
Seriously, I'm not very good at writing satire, but I know it's a good defense for bad opinions. The examples abound, but what disingenuousness the Daily Show can get away with, the New York Times should not. Taking minor amounts of facts and turning them into a political argument, deserves no praise. Though an opinion-piece is just that, opinion, the very purpose thereof, especially when aimed at large audiences, is not entertainment, rather it's persuasion.
Maybe it's because I'm jealous. I mean, I wish I could take cheap shots at prominent figures from behind the impenetrable shield of satire. Or maybe it's because Ms. Dowd couldn't make her implied claims of hypocrisy, racial betrayal, and corruption in an honest fashion subject to scrutiny.
Who knows, with a little work on my satirical skills, I think I'll have a chance at winning a Pulitzer prize.