My Opinion
By Elijah Lovejoy III
I don’t think God much likes his name being invoked on either side of an argument. So I won’t do so, despite the temptation to respond on point to local pitchman Ed Watkins’ call for a revival. What he revived via his April 13 edition of the Citizen newspaper is a campaign to quell dissent, praise his credentials, prove his commitment to family, come to the aid of cronies, butcher the English language and draw a bright line between the godly and the others. In one of his impotent innuendos, he went so far as to fear his family’s safety because of reaction to his brave statements.
It’s also unadvisable to speculate on the contents of another’s heart. If you ever could get through the skeleton-ized, calcified, calcium-ized, hardened portion of Mr. Watkins’ heart, he might actually have a very large tender area. Who knows what all has managed to worm itself in there?
Mr. Watkins’ endeavors in character assassination only hurt himself. He’s not known as the sharp-witted man. He’s not known as the muscle. The gaping crevasses between his intended text and his unintended subtext – that is, the words and their singular meanings and the underlying, hidden meanings – are wide and treacherous. Readers must take caution not to fall into Mr. Watkins’ pit of self-lauding. His prose proffers interpretative fodder akin to stream-of-conscious analysis of a psychologist’s ink blotter. Wrapped around the “come-on-Eddy-do-it-do-it-Eddy-do-it” encouragement from his cheerleading section of moneyed elites is the deep failing of a brutally insecure man. He is still the deficient boy on the playground trying to do something spectacular so the right kids like him. Evident by his abandonment of his own self-applied principles on April 13, he wants to be liked a little too much.
Yet we can unpack God and His truths from Mr. Watkins heartless, wild-eyed and rabid attack on a significant list of St. Charles city residents and officials, including the people of this weekly newspaper. Mr. Watkins departed onto the dark road of ranting from his man-made fortress of morality. Neglected in his columns is the great tenet of forgiveness and consulted by him is the troubling vice of laying judgment.
Also evident from Mr. Watkins’ Opinion and Editorial sections is a sophomoric dropping of names. We were waiting for a Lou Brock mention. He utters Lou’s name about once an hour. His awkward and self-inflating injection of resume’ line items caused confusion over his objectives. So did his rudimentary understanding of literary articulation. And because he presented his skills to us in print, we thought it only proper to offer critique. For instance, consider a survey of his butchery on p.3:
“In fact, the experts tell us that the world is now separated by only six degrees of separation.” Has separation ever been separated from itself? The verbal meandering riddles his two columns and perplexes its readers.
Or how about during Mr. Watkins’ fully elevated aggression and ire where he calls his targets “…principles, without principals…” When disburdening oneself of such an attack through the new-found skill of newspaper editor, one of the things one should do is make sure that, in the body of the attack, all the Ts are crossed and all the Is are dotted. Oh yes, a “principal” likely was to have referred to the “key players” in Mr. Watkins’ pretend, paranoia-mired fantasy world. Conversely, “principles” would reflect axioms of good decorum and ethics.
Of these three words – it’s, its and its’ – one them is not a word. It’s its’. Indeed, its’ is not a word. It’s an anomaly of the English language, but “its” is actually possessive. No apostrophe needed. By the recurrence of – its’ – in Mr. Watkins’ diatribes, he announces that he’s not using the Queen’s English.
Also, originality fails as a quality. His story is entitled “The Fleecing of St. Charles.” That’s a rip off of a TV news series title.
Plus, the use of all caps (all capital letters) means the writer is “YELLING.”
Making references to people like “just ask Mr. X, or ask Ms. Y” are nebulous smoke screens erected with little payoff.
“…I confess to being unashamedly conservative when it comes to the values that I feel shaped this country in general and shaped my life in particular.” Only the values that you hold as your own shaped this great country? Unqualified arrogance.
Either say what you’re trying to say, or don’t. When readers get past all the great things Mr. Watkins has done, and all the neat people he knows, what he intones is that there’s a good vs. bad battle in our city. Not right vs. wrong. Not better vs. best. Not differences of opinion.
Mr. Watkins’ generic brand of pandering moralist ambition is a thinly veiled attempt to manipulate St. Charles citizens into believing that Mr. Watkins and St. Charles citizens are fighting the same battles. Mr. Watkins is a man of privilege and prominence. Merely because he has wealth does not make his voice superior to others. A wise man once characterized a reformer as someone who takes a glass bottom boat through the city’s sewers. Apparently, Mr. Watkins doesn’t want a view of the odious truth in St. Charles. From his office in his half-million dollar home, Mr. Watkins would rather defend people like the mayor and her improper official actions. His truth is shrouded in holier-than-thou pontifications rooted in his right and his wrong. Great care should be taken any time one hopes to employ the word “hypocrite.” It’s like a firearm that shoots in both directions simultaneously. Time to make another petition.
Mr. Watkins should meddle in the his own enclave’s subdivision codes, doing as little damage from afar to this fair hamlet of St. Charles.
