I'm really impressed by how witty most columnists are in international papers like The New York Times. Locally, some of the wittier columnists whom I enjoy reading are Mary Schneider's "But Then Again" (Star2, Mondays) , Marina Mahathir "Musings" (Star2, Wednesdays), and Azmi Sharom's Analysis (The Star, Wednesdays). It really isn't easy, to me at least, to write with a certain flair that switches effortelessly from amusing to sarcastic to serious in a way unique to that writer. I've to admit, my (supposedly existent) blogging style is quite influenced by what I read, and that includes those writers above.
Like one of my friends, WW, is working for The Star now. I'm always quite amazed to see her work - how on earth does she come up with articles of 2 pages in length every other week simply eludes me. Writing is certainly a skill to be acquired, and unless you were born gifted by the literary gods, it takes a lot of time,effort, and patience to develop. Efforts such as constant reading, writing, and learning.
Anyway, here's an example of witty column which I'd just read recently from NYT; thought I'd share it:***
Op-Ed Columnist
The Fat Bush Theory
By GAIL COLLINS
George W. Bush says we’re on track to meet the nation’s goals for curbing global warming.
I see some hands waving out there. Didn’t know we had any goals for
curbing global warming? Where were you in 2002 when the president put
us on the road toward reducing the growth of greenhouse gas emissions
by 18 percent by 2012?
So there.
Bush held a press conference in the Rose Garden this week to give us
a warming progress report or, in his words, “share some views on this
important issue.” He almost always refers to global warming as an
environmental “issue.” As The Times’s Andrew Revkin noted on his blog, Dot Earth, most people talk about environmental problems. But perhaps the White House regards that as overly alarmist.
“I’m pleased to say that we remain on track to meet this goal,” the
president said, in a tone that sounded rather belligerent considering
this was supposed to be good news.
Let’s back up here. I don’t know about you, but I’ve always had
trouble getting my head around goals that involve reducing the rate at
which something is growing. To appreciate the administration’s efforts
on the, um, issue, let’s try to imagine it in terms other than
greenhouse gas emissions. (As the president noted: “Climate change
involves complicated science.”)
Suppose that two years after taking office, George W. Bush
discovered that because of the stress of his job, he had gained 40
pounds and was tipping the scales at 220.
The real-world Bush would immediately barricade himself in the
White House gym, refusing all human contact or nourishment until the
issue was resolved. But imagine that he regarded getting fat as
seriously as he regards melting glaciers, rising oceans and drought and
starvation around the planet. In that case, he would set a serious,
management-type goal — of, say, an 18 percent reduction in the rate at
which he was gaining weight, to be reached within the next decade.
Cut to the Rose Garden in 2008 where partial victory is declared.
“Over the past seven years, my administration has taken a rational,
balanced approach to these serious challenges,” the 332-pound chief
executive announces. He delivers this good news sitting down.
2012: Bush hits his final goal and 400 pounds at approximately the same time.
I hope now you can appreciate just how useful the Bush
global-warming initiative is. But the president isn’t satisfied with
merely delivering on his promises. In his Rose Garden address, he upped
the ante, vowing to stop the growth of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions
entirely by 2025.
Let us forget, for a second, that this is a man who’s only going to
be in office for nine months of the 17 years in question. Furthermore,
let us skip lightly over the fact that Bush did not give any hints
whatsoever as to how this goal is supposed to be reached except to say
that “the wrong way is to raise taxes, duplicate mandates or demand
sudden and drastic emissions cuts.”
Since the president never suggests actual behavior changes on the
part of American citizens, that leaves us with what? More efficient
refrigerators?
Lots of things! There is, for instance, the ambitious new fuel
economy standard of 35 miles per gallon by 2020; we sure do have a lot
to look forward to in the future, people. There’s new federal spending
on biofuels. Much of this is for ethanol, which has the unfortunate
side effect of creating more greenhouse gases than it eliminates, and,
of course, helping to create a planetary crisis over rising food costs.
But nothing’s perfect.
The president’s real focus seemed to be on fighting the strategies
for global warming that he doesn’t like: the Kyoto Protocol, court
challenges and legislation pending in Congress. Almost all of them,
interestingly, were referred to as “problems.”
Instead of Kyoto, the administration is pushing for “a new process”
in which the countries that do most of the polluting will get together
and work on a climate agreement. That process was in fact chugging
along this very week at a gathering in Paris, where Bush’s speech was
greeted with a round of excited reviews. Germany’s environment
minister, for instance, dubbed it “losership instead of leadership.”
The Europeans have a perfect right to look down on the United States
since they’ve set much more ambitious targets for reducing global
warming. While they do not appear to be likely to meet any of them,
it’s the thought that counts.
If the Bush strategy seems a little ... little, go back to our
metaphor. Imagine it’s 2025, and you’ve got a 486-pound ex-president
being wheeled in to accept the congratulations of the world on his
excellent physical fitness program. Really, that’s big.
***
By the way, the album I just bought - One Republic's Dreaming Out Loud - has really grown on me. I've been practically playing it non-stop since I got it.
