Uncategorized

Does “The Coalition of the Weeding” make a point?

DandelionPlease read this op-ed piece in today’s Washington Post and tell us if the author is trying to:  A, cleverly
trash the nuke-em response to dandelions; B, cleverly trash Bush’s conduct of war; or C, just be clever, with no concern at all for the content.

Okay, or something else altogether.

What you can’t quite see on this screen shot of the Opinions home page is the tag line: "The war on terrorism starts in my backyard."    

Posted by on June 7, 2008 at 6:52 am, in the category Uncategorized.
Comments are off for this post

12 responses to “Does “The Coalition of the Weeding” make a point?”

  1. I pick B. Seems to me he’s condemning the big-guns cowboy attitude while at the same time practicing it in his own small way in the back yard.

    Robin at Bumblebee

  2. Kate says:

    I agree- the answer is B. The author claims that the government’s reckless attitude has influenced his decision-making process in his own backyard. One more way to play the blame game.

  3. Kim says:

    I don’t know – B or C I guess, with a leaning toward C. The guy used to be a wine critic? What he really ends up doing, though, is showing his own ignorance on many counts.

  4. Pamela says:

    I thought it was an effective smack at the people who nuke their yards and Wacky. So, I vote A and B.

  5. Pamela says:

    AND I don’t imagine he did any of those things to his backyard.

  6. bev says:

    The author has lived in Washington far too long. The same goes for your friends who read the Kingsolver book and HATED (not hated, disliked, disagreed with) it.
    BTW, i couldn’t make the comment section on that post work, hence the comment on it here.

  7. saatuk says:

    I vote for the combination of both ‘A’ and ‘B’. Unfortunately they’re both such easy targets that it’s neither amusing nor insightful. The guy probably just needed to file a column and the deadline was near.

  8. I agree with Pamela and saatuk, it’s both A and B, only I’d add C as well: I think there’s an element of just seeing how far an analogy can be stretched–it analogies can stretch. Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. So I’ll risk revealing just how shallow I am and admit that I found it amusing.
    –Kate

  9. James says:

    I sometimes think we have all become too earnest and have lost the ability to respond to simple humor. Clearly this is light satire poking fun at the suburban lawn nuts who go to any lengths to have a perfectly manicured lawn, and drawing a parallel, a more serious one, to the Bush Administration’s prosecution of the war in Iraq.

  10. Barbara says:

    Seems Craig should stick to wine and…ribs (?) to write about. Read like a trite writing assignment that tried to make a connection to terrorism – like a sparkler and an atom bomb. That’s right, load your place with chemicals, poison the birds and water, then sip organic wine and hormone-free beef.

  11. Robin says:

    I’m going with “C” with a bit of “B” thrown in. The analogy isn’t solidly constructed, so the satire, if that’s what he’s really going for, doesn’t ring true. Maybe he would be better off sticking with food and wine.

  12. I agree with James above. This is satire making fun of people who do anything, even poison their ground water to get that perfect lawn. In other words, the policy doesn’t work in Iraq and it doesn’t work in suburbia. But in both case it’s part of the American way.

  • Follow Garden Rant

    Follow Me on Pinterest RSS