Pretty remarkable to watch the Times defend the virtue of publishing an op-ed about urban policing from a man who:
- has no law enforcement experience
- represents a state with no large cities
- is not a resident of an area affected
So, an unqualified opinion from a spectator.
- has no law enforcement experience
- represents a state with no large cities
- is not a resident of an area affected
So, an unqualified opinion from a spectator.
Seriously, if you applied the simplest of litmus tests - what credentials does this person have to speak on this topic? - there is nothing whatsoever in Tom Cotton’s portfolio of life experiences that qualifies him on *any* of the core issues here.
He’s a guy with an opinion.
He’s a guy with an opinion.
It’s just remarkable that out of the 317 million Americans the Times could have chosen to offer column inches, they picked a guy with an agenda but no expertise.
An inexpert advocate on an issue where there is no shortage of *expert advocates*.
A buffoon in a field of experts.
An inexpert advocate on an issue where there is no shortage of *expert advocates*.
A buffoon in a field of experts.
The bar for getting onto the New York Times opinion page should be a bit higher than having a title and an opinion.
The author should actually have to know what the fuck they’re talking about.
I know, crazy idea.
The author should actually have to know what the fuck they’re talking about.
I know, crazy idea.
