#Blizzard2016: Seven ways snow in Washington is like our governmentUm, why the scare quotes? It's not a "blizzard." It's a blizzard. There's an official blizzard warning. The word has an actual meaning -- "Officially, the National Weather Service defines a blizzard as a storm which contains large amounts of snow OR blowing snow, with winds in excess of 35 mph and visibilities of less than 1/4 mile for an extended period of time (at least 3 hours)." This storm fits those criteria. So it's a blizzard.
By Sharon Kehnemui
On Thursday, Washington, D.C., Maryland, and Virginia declared states of emergency starting Friday for the "blizzard" scheduled to hit the D.C. metropolitan area over the weekend.
Democratic D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser ... said in a press conference on Thursday that the storm is the most snowfall she can remember forecasted on record – this despite some major regional storms in 2010, 2003, and 1996.The mayor can't remember exact snow totals from twenty years ago. Typical liberal!
Sorry -- do I seem as if I'm ascribing political rancor to Kehnemui where none exists? Well I've read ahead, so I know what's coming once you get to the heart of this little essay:
So how is snow in Washington like government in Washington but more so? Here are some examples:Sorry, but 12-24 inches is a realistic prediction from everything I've heard. If there's that much snow, how was it an "empty threat"?
1. It Prevents Businesses From Operating Freely.
We will be OPEN all-day Friday and having an All-Day #HappyHour and other snow specials. #blizzard2016. Saturday will play by ear.
— DGS Delicatessen (@DGSDelicatessen) January 21, 2016
2. It Issues A Lot of Empty Threats (A lot).
"As far as snow accumulation maps are concerned," wrote CBS Baltimore on Thursday, "12-24 inches seems likely. Exact numbers remain uncertain at this time as the difference between seeing a few inches of snow or well over a foot … may be less than 100 miles."
3. It Runs Roughshod on the Free Market....Should I continue to quote this ridiculous thing? I'll just give you the bullet points:
4. It Elicits Hyperbole at the Smallest Affront....This piece is incoherent. But, of course, it doesn't have to be coherent -- it was written for Fox, so if it makes the Fox audience hate the usual enemies even more than before, it's a success.
5. It Creates Gridlock....
6. It Impacts the Ability of Our Children to Get an Education....
7. It Eventually Ends in a Government Shutdown.
But why would anyone write this? Why would anyone publish this? The author is a marketing consultant who previously worked for Fox and the American Enterprise Institute; she calls herself an "idea generator," and, well, I guess you could say this piece is based on some sort of idea.
But why publish it? I guess if you've cultivated a crack-level addiction to rage in your audience -- rage at Washington, rage at "big government," rage at liberalism -- the folks in your audience will take anything that will satisfy the craving, no matter how poor the quality. This piece is cut with incoherence, but it'll (barely) satisfy the jones. Don't worry, though -- Fox will be back with purer stuff sooner or later.
http://www.frequencypartners.com/about-sharon-kehnemui/
