Am I being overly grumpy today?
From a recent Matier & Ross column in the SF Chronicle about an impostor security screener at San Francisco International Airport:
“The episode has raised disturbing questions about how an inebriated civilian could…pass himself off as the real thing.”
Gosh, do you think so? Isn’t this stating the obvious?
It’s the wrong statement, anyway. Events don’t raise questions, people raise questions. Try it this way: “In the wake of the episode, the TSA (or SFO management, or the Chronicle, or…) is asking Covenant security screeners how an inebriated civilian…” That tells us who is asking the questions and who needs to come up with some answers.
C’mon guys, tell us what’s going on. Don’t imply your readers are too slow to figure out that drunk financiers passing themselves off as security screens might be a trifle unnerving.