One of the ways you can assess a commentator is to read something he or she wrote on a subject you are informed on. That is the ONLY reason I happened to read the recent New York Times' column of Maureen Dowd entitled, "Coffee Cups in Hell." It's about Mormons, specifically the new Book of Mormon musical.
No, I haven't seen the musical and I do not intend to, but I think I've reviewed every review written on it in the last month, especially the last few days. However, I KNOW Mormondom and politics.
It's been my personal policy to ignore Dowd, although I usually sample all The New York Times' commentators from time to time. Why? Well, I simply find her columns to be biased, rambling, emotional nonsense connected by illogical irrelevant subjects.
After reading "Coffee Cups in Hell," see if you don't agree with me. She starts out with Romney and Huntsman, mentions Big Love, Battlestar Galactica, Proposition 8 and just about everything but the kitchen sink.
I understand Dowd has been honored with some prestigious awards in the past. I don't doubt that. I just wonder if she deserves any attention now given what her writing has morphed into.
For comparison purposes, I think Glenn Beck deserved more attention as a media personality than he does now as the world's first Mormon televangelist political philosopher.
I seriously doubt anyone, initially clueless about the musical, or the Mormons, will find themselves better informed after reading her.