An odd op-ed, seemingly about religious cures

I'm not quite sure why Mert Erogul wrote this op-ed, which appears in this morning's NY Times. It's called "Eczema and Holy Water" and it's about a non-religious American father (the author) whose nine-month-old son experienced terrible eczema while on a family trip to Israel. So of course...they consulted a priest.

The author's family members are described as being "non-practicing" Muslims. You'd think they would avoid Christian mumbo-jumbo. However, the author -- who is also a medical doctor -- was somehow bulldozed into bringing his son to a Greek Orthodox priest known for his ability to cure pesky afflictions.

I know, I know. This sounds like it might lead somewhere interesting. Alas, no. The article doesn't seem to have a point -- or perhaps I missed it. If you suspect there is a point to this rather short essay, please hit the "comment" button and enlighten me.

Here's an excerpt:

So despite my skepticism, we found ourselves inside the Hagios Demetrios, an unremarkable old church on a hill overlooking the Bosporus. The gloomy little church smelled like incense and old people, of which there were many. They were lined up and hunched over in the foyer, patiently waiting for an audience with the priest. They all seemed to have rheumatism. We waited, too, the baby growing restless.

And then the article goes...nowhere. I don't know. Maybe it's supposed to have a folksy charm, or something. All it did for me was make me shake my head and ask, "Why did he write this? And why did the Times publish it?"

NYT publishes utter nonsense

The New York Times published an idiotic essay by Nicholas Wade today, and I really don't understand their motivation. The substance of the essay is the typical brain-dead nonsense that spews from every creationist mouth at least twice daily.

Using Rubio's pandering statement about the actual age of the Earth being a "mystery", Wade suggests we offer the creationist loons a "fig leaf". And what is this fig leaf? Surprise, surprise. It's the same nonsense that creationists regurgitate every day:

By allowing that evolution is a theory, scientists would hand fundamentalists the fig leaf they need to insist, at least among themselves, that the majestic words of the first chapter of Genesis are literal, not metaphorical, truths. They in return should make no objection to the teaching of evolution in science classes as a theory, which indeed it is. 

Ah, yes. Evolution is "just a theory", as the rubes love to say. This is meant to suggest that someone was sitting on a rock by a stream one day, and suddenly came up with the idea that "maybe life evolves". Aw, maw, that cain't be true; it's just some guy's wild-eyed theory.

Of course, when the word "theory" is used in a scientific sense, it doesn't mean what the rubes think it means. I'm going to trust that my readers already understand this, but in case a reader stumbles by who doesn't grasp the difference, have a look at Wikipedia's entry for scientific theory. It ain't hay.

What I don't understand is why the New York Times, which undoubtedly grasps the distinction between the actual and the rube versions of "theory", would print such nonsense. It's irresponsible and does further harm to the fight to educate the masses. Just a theory, indeed! Disgusting.

Well-written editorial in the NYT

I'm almost copying the whole thing but I don't think the NYT will mind, since I'm praising it. As a rule, you don't see writing like this in editorials. It's about fog, of all things. There's no byline; it just says "editorial". An excerpt from "Season of Mists, if Not in Manhattan":

What’s missing in Manhattan is a seasonal fog, the kind that foretells autumn. This is the time of year when cool air begins to run downhill, gathering in the hollows and turning to ground fog. At dusk and just after, it drifts in narrow banners, head-high, across the low spots in the country north of the city. It comes out of the cattails and emanates from the hemlocks. Wherever it crosses the highway, it looks solid in the headlights — a dense silver stream — and then it turns insubstantial. Now and then it turns out not to be fog at all, but a low slip of wood-smoke from an early stove.

Surely there were ground fogs in Manhattan once, when everything north of Canal Street was still woods and meadows, when the island still kept its natural contours, the rise and fall of a rocky island. And surely there would have been wood-smoke mingling with those fogs until the breeze blew them out over the water. Sometimes, still, you can find tree-clinging fogs in Central Park. But it would be pleasant, even now, to step outdoors and see a low mist crossing Broadway or wandering down Lexington Avenue like ghostly pedestrians just before dawn, announcing the coming of autumn. 

Amazing, no?

First-sentence fail

Dead-center on the NYT's first page today is an article on Paul Ryan that begins:

After Paul D. Ryan’s father died, he began forming a self reliance that would one day capture the imagination of Mitt Romney.

Four writers were given a byline on this article. Apparently, none of them could come up with a better first sentence. I can't get over it. That is piss-poor writing.

Lifting the veil on Anthony Shadid's death

There's an interesting story at counterpunch this weekend. It's about the circumstances of journalist Anthony Shadid's death. It seems the NYT version of events may not have been accurate.

Here's an excerpt:

At this point, Dr. Shadid said, Anthony called his wife and “gave his last haunting directive: ‘If anything happens to me, I want the world to know the New York Times killed me.’”

If this is true, Anthony Shadid's last wish was that you read this story. I've read it and sadly, it seems plausible.

Homophobic wording in the New York Times

I was disappointed to see this lede in a New York Times story:

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A teacher has testified that a gay student at a Southern California junior high school paraded around in makeup and high heels in front of a classmate who is accused of killing him the next day.

Was that language necessary? It doesn't appear that the writer was quoting the teacher. If he was, there would be quotation marks surrounding the phrase, "paraded around in makeup and high heels". So why say this? Is this the writer's view? The language is incredibly homophobic. "Walked back and forth in front of the defendant" would work just as well in the article -- without bringing bigotry into it.

This kind of homophobic reportage is like something from the 1950s. New York Times, you are disgusting.

Bob Herbert's final New York Times column

In his last column at the New York Times, featured in the paper today, Bob Herbert discusses the American decline. An excerpt:

When the most powerful country ever to inhabit the earth finds it so easy to plunge into the horror of warfare but almost impossible to find adequate work for its people or to properly educate its young, it has lost its way entirely.

I hope we end up hearing more rather than less from Bob Herbert in the future. I wish him luck in his new career. He will be greatly missed, and his departure leaves a gaping hole in the Times' roster of columnists.

Article about marginalia

There's a great article in the NYT today about "marginalia" -- writing in the margins of books. It's a good read (despite me being down on the Times lately). I recommend it.