The OC Disorder

So the other day I was driving around my home town and all of a sudden it hit me…

I REALLY HATE A LOT ABOUT ORANGE COUNTY!!!

Don’t get me wrong. There is a lot of redeeming values to Orange County, which is probably why I haven’t abandoned ship quite yet, but as I was sitting at a four-way-stop and almost witnessed four different accidents because of rude or just plain dumb Orange County drivers I got mad. Real Mad. And I started thinking about of the things like dumb drivers that I hate.

Well I decided to start a sort of “series” where I rant about these things and I will try to remember and update you with the things that have caught my attention.

So without further delay here is the first of many THINGS I HATE ABOUT YOU (Orange County):

#1 Insane Soccer Moms:

Now maybe this is more of a problem out here where I live in Yorba Linda, but I’m pretty sure we’ve all had the pleasure of witnessing or coming across one of these lovely ladies menacing around in their mini vans, SUVs, or ridiculously lifted trucks wreaking havoc on and off the road just so that they can get little Jimmy and Suzie to soccer practice, tae kwon do, etc.

I’m sure these ladies have a pretty hard life trying to make their children happy, but I’d rather not be disrespected or almost killed on a daily basis by them. I’m also a fond believer of adults acting like adults in situations where there may be a conflict.

You might be reading this thinking “Sean… aren’t you being a little dramatic about these women?”

To which my answer would be…  No. You are stupid and I am of course far superior and right when it comes to this subject matter.

Don’t believe me that these women suck? Well how about these little gems I found:

Lady Calls 911 Over Wrong Burger King Order (Laguna Niguel)

Woman A can’t park her SUV and Woman B confronts her about it. (Google Building, Irvine)

It’s sad to think that these women are raising the future of the world, our country, and this county…

Looks like the Mayans were right… the world is going to end very very soon.

Here is an example of a badly written op-ed by Matthew Miller: A Pre-Nup for the West Wing (Washington Post)

Do you remember that scene from the movie Big where Tom Hank’s character, Josh, is watching a presentation about a new toy robot that turns into a skyscraper?  His comment was, “I don’t get it.”  The presenter angrily retorts, “What don’t you get?”  Josh then explains that the toy isn’t effectively a toy.  There’s nothing fun about it.  It fails as a toy.  I feel like that with Miller’s op-ed piece.  There’s nothing persuasive about it.  It fails as an op-ed.

Miller’s argues that presidential staff should sign contracts that would prevent them from selling tell-all books about the inner workings of the White House.  The op-ed is a convoluted and badly written mess because nowhere in the piece does Miller explain why such an act is wrong, immoral, or unethical.  He simply assumes that everyone knows why “betrayal” by staff members is bad and never gives us a clear, logical rational to the consequences of tell-all books.

A basic rule of argumentative writing is to put the thesis–the claim–at the very beginning of an essay, which Miller does: “But if the next president really wants to transform the culture of Washington, he’ll go further and close down another revolving door: the ability of top aides to cash in by peddling tales of what they saw.”  Unfortunately, Miller never clearly explains how “peddling tales” negatively effects the culture of Washington.  He spends the rest of the essay talking about past aides that sold their stories, using words like “betrayal,” “ethics,” and “taint,” and spelling out metaphors involving mergers, marriages, and celebrities.

Maybe Miller wants us to figure out for ourselves the ethical dilemma of selling personal stories involving the president.  However, argumentative writing is not just about persuading the audience, but informing us as well.  Miller doesn’t really inform us about the ethical dilemma, but just rants about how this vague dilemma should stop.  Miller also irrationally argues that since celebrities keep their maids and housekeepers quiet with confidentiality agreements, then the president should be able to do the same.  My instant thought was that celebrities aren’t public officials.  They should be able to keep their lives private.  Presidential business is the business of an open, democratic government.  Government staff should be able to express their personal stories and thoughts about working in the White House, barring any danger to national security.  It’s part of the historical narrative.  If our history is only written by the president, it deprives us from multiple prespectives.

If Miller wants to improve his persuasiveness, he should clearly write out a logical line of reasoning about how tell-all books about presidential business is wrong.  Who does it hurt, other than the president?  Why is it an ethical breach?  Which ethical values are being violated, other than trust?  If trust is breached, why is that bad?  Are they any positive outcomes to disclosure?  What are some examples of negative outcomes to tell-all books?  These are all questions posed by Miller’s essay that are left unanswered.  In the end, Miller leaves a reader, like me, more confused than informed.