Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

June 11 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew

Close

New on NRO . . .

The Corner

The one and only.

Print   |  Text
 

Maureen Dowd’s . . .

Pulitzer Prize–winning eye for the telling detail notices that in some religious ceremonies, people wear robes.

New on The Corner. . .


COMMENTS   12

EXPAND  

   01/17/12 04:04

I'm no fan of Dowd but I thought it odd how out of her whole screed that was the one detail you found noticeable. I'm not sure what religion you belong to but I can't think of many where the groom wears a white robe during the marriage ceremony (unlike the priest or the altar boys) which was of course the obvious oddity she was illuminating.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   01/17/12 07:08

Oddity?

I took it as it's a religious ceremony, and what's it to Dowd?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Nathan Whilk
   01/17/12 09:32

"I'm not sure what religion you belong to but I can't think of many where the groom wears a white robe during the marriage ceremony (unlike the priest"

The groom in a Mormon temple wedding *is* a priest.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   01/17/12 10:22

Never heard of a kittel?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   01/17/12 08:26

All too typical Dowdian jejune sneer/smear.

It's a pity. One has the sense that Dowd is more than intelligent enough to be far better than this, if she just had enough moral character and humility.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   01/17/12 09:37

Maureen Dowd is why we invented the term "tool bag" as an insult. Only in a wheezing degenerate republic can an old skank like Dowd get by with glib coquettish drivel.

It does show how retrograde and antiquated things have become in the cult. The aging hipsters that make up the left wing "vanguard" stopped being clever somewhere in 1972. Now they look like old vaudevillians struggling with the new talking movies.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   01/17/12 10:11

It's just anti-religious drivel ... but it isn't even clever. Any one of the 19 year old writers of the Onion could have done a much better riff on this.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
DavidThompson
   01/17/12 10:40

NR readers: read the Dowd column. Cogent though these comments be, the column is bad beyond description. But short.
Know your enemy.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
PV
   01/17/12 11:12

Her pointless and hateful column ends with a rant about some things that Romney's ancestors did that she presumably intended us to feel uncomfortable with. Wasn't the whole point of our breaking off from Britain that we wanted a country where it did not matter who one's ancestors were?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Emery
   01/17/12 12:12

I think people like Maureen Dowd have trouble understanding that a lot the people she smugly thinks are creepy weirdos, who should be isolated, catalogued, and made fun of, think that SHE is a creepy weirdo who should be isolated, catalogued and made fun of.

She insipidly thinks her personal sample of small minded parochial views naturally reflects the views of the changing pluralistic population. She can't imagine herself going out of style or her views being deemed irrelevant, anachronistic, or just irritatingly, shrill, and off kilter.

She believes that the universe has somehow evolved her into a state of useful and preeminent superiority and intuitive correctness. She assumes that now that she's there, as the cosmos intended all along, nothing will ever change.

She is a portrait of hubris and narcissism transformed into a perfect static vacuole. I suspect her article writing could be easily simulated by a source file of rarely used negative sounding nouns and adjectives and an input to denote the subject subject she appears to be commenting on. Her column could be replaced by an algorithm and a bit of post production tweaking in the editor's desk, and we would probably never know.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
 EBL
   01/17/12 14:10

External Link  Maureen Dowd is still big! It is the op-eds that got small.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   01/18/12 14:38

The worst thing I can say about the column is it's disjointed -- with the bottom half forgetting the top as it meanders into a discussion about Romney's religious background. But I'm baffled how anyone could read it as an attack on Mormonism. It's very detailed, but the tone is entirely neutral throughout, and the details are undeniably interesting.

You know, it is possible for a person of average intelligence to learn and be curious that the potential next POTUS had bigamist ancestors without getting confused and thinking Romney is a bigamist himself. Or should all this stuff be off limits to the public just because you think it's weird?

#nytimesderangementsyndrome

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact