By Luke Knipe
Columnist's writing, arguments are unconvincing
Rachel Alexander's commentary on the Symington trial seemed of typical form for a young, freshly fermented republican mind. Her ability to write, however, is hardly typical of a law student: "One bit of irony that has not gone unnoticed is how dilligently the U.S. Attorney and press have pursued Symington when, in another failed real estate deal involving a high government official and his wife, there seems to be less enthusiasm and zeal in the search for the truth." Proper use of "irony," aside, Alexander should have learned not to switch tense in the middle of a sentence in writing 101.
Law and writing are both intellectual disciplines where, in a contest for establishing truth, the adept prevail. If Alexander's retrospective rhuminations about the media's unfair portrayal of our governor-turned- felon are to be convincing, her writing needs to be more effective than Symington's ability to lie.