15 October 2005

Cheesy Writing

Last thursday, conservative columnist David Brooks
declared, “Of all the words written about Harriet Miers,
none are more disturbing than the ones she wrote
herself.” He proves his point quite convincingly by
sharing the following gems from Ms. Miers “President’s
Opinion” column for The Texas Bar Journal:

"More and more, the intractable problems in our
society have one answer: broad-based intolerance of
unacceptable conditions and a commitment by many to
fix problems."


"We must end collective acceptance of inappropriate
conduct and increase education in professionalism."


"An organization must also implement programs to
fulfill strategies established through its goals and
mission. Methods for evaluation of these strategies
are a necessity. With the framework of mission, goals,
strategies, programs, and methods for evaluation in
place, a meaningful budgeting process can begin."


"We have to understand and appreciate that achieving
justice for all is in jeopardy before a call to arms to
assist in obtaining support for the justice system will
be effective. Achieving the necessary understanding
and appreciation of why the challenge is so important,
we can then turn to the task of providing the much
needed support."

Not exactly Cicero, is she?

But wait, there’s more. ePluribus Media reports:

Last year, then Deputy Chief of Staff Harriet Miers
hosted four sessions of Ask the White House -- "an
online interactive forum where you can submit
questions to Administration officials and friends of the
White House."  Miers' responses suggested some
characteristics that one might not necessarily
associate with a prospective Supreme Court justice:

• She appeared to be comfortable with allowing
blocks of text borrowed from other authors to be
published under her name without any
acknowledgement or formal attribution.

• She did not seem to feel obligated to ensure that her
writings published at the official White House Web
Site were proofread to identify and correct glaring

• She appeared willing to continue to recite partisan
political talking points after they had been largely
dismissed as inaccurate or misleading to the public.

Not just a plagiarist -- a sloppy plagiarist.

The horror.