The following news item appeared on Monday, July 27, 2009, at CNSNews.com beneath the headline "Conyers Sees No Point in Members Reading 1,000-Page Health Care Bill--Unless They Have 2 Lawyers to Interpret It for Them"
During his speech at a National Press Club luncheon, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.), questioned the point of lawmakers reading the health-care bill.
“I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill,’” said Conyers.
“What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”
Yes, John Conyers, a powerful elected official, said--proudly, with hot mics a-blazin'--that there's no point in reading President Obama's health-care-reform bill before voting it into law because it's too long and to read and too complicated to understand.
Obviously, Conyers is a buffoon. But fools such as he have always existed; if they hadn't, the Book of Proverbs wouldn't have warned us about the possibility of turning into them thousands of years ago. Those with the most to explain are the Michigan residents who have voted Conyers into power. In representative republics, we get what we vote for and therefore deserve what we get.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Overlooking the Obvious: Real-Life Examples of Bad Writing No. 5
"More spelling errors plague Obama releases," reads a July 9 headline at The Hill. The article (by Michael O'Brien) goes on to provide examples of misspellings contained in recent government press releases:
The General Services Administration (what is that, by the way?) comes in for the most censure. In what's described as an "official document to reporters," the GSA misspelled the president's first name ("Barak"). The next day, it sent the press an e-mail whose subject line read "Recvoery.gov Version 2.0 $18 Million Contract Awarded."
But the White House itself has gotten in on the act, e-writing of a meeting between President Obama and the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown that "[t]he Prime Minister wlecomed the President's plans for a nuclear security conference in 2010."
On the one hand, these errors are clearly nothing more than typos. We all commit them.
On the other, one expects (perhaps foolishly, given the manifest cluelessness of many elected officials) the statements issued by the government to be proofread if not well written.
Whether such carelessness embodies the "small stuff" that the inspirational posters tell us not to "sweat" or a pervasive inattention to larger detail remains to be seen.
(For the entire article, visit http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/07/09/more-spelling-errors-plague-obama-releases/ and scroll down.)
The General Services Administration (what is that, by the way?) comes in for the most censure. In what's described as an "official document to reporters," the GSA misspelled the president's first name ("Barak"). The next day, it sent the press an e-mail whose subject line read "Recvoery.gov Version 2.0 $18 Million Contract Awarded."
But the White House itself has gotten in on the act, e-writing of a meeting between President Obama and the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown that "[t]he Prime Minister wlecomed the President's plans for a nuclear security conference in 2010."
On the one hand, these errors are clearly nothing more than typos. We all commit them.
On the other, one expects (perhaps foolishly, given the manifest cluelessness of many elected officials) the statements issued by the government to be proofread if not well written.
Whether such carelessness embodies the "small stuff" that the inspirational posters tell us not to "sweat" or a pervasive inattention to larger detail remains to be seen.
(For the entire article, visit http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/07/09/more-spelling-errors-plague-obama-releases/ and scroll down.)
....................
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Three More Cheers: Real-Life Examples of Good Writing No. 2
"Newspapers reported the attack on Fitzsimons. One said that detectives wanted to find out from her whom she drove on the night Jones died and if she was present at Jones's home at any time during the fatal evening."
That sentence appears in a July 5, 2009 article by Scott Jones in the U.K. Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1090439/Has-riddle-Rolling-Stone-Brian-Joness-death-solved-last.html). The subject of the article is the death of the Rolling Stones' founder Brian Jones--whether he died accidentally (as has long been argued) or whether he was murdered.
But this blog doesn't care about that part of the article. It cares about Scott Jones' correct use of the word whom in the second sentence quoted above.
Most writers nowadays would say "who she drove...." They would be wrong because the subject of that clause is "she," the verb is "drove," and "whom" is the direct object. A direct object should be written in what's known as the objective form, and whom is the objective form. (Who is the nominal form and is to be used when it is the subject of a clause ["Who stole the midget's bowling ball?"] or when it is the complement of a linking verb [which, come to think of it, it seldom is].)
However, as with yesterday's example of correct word usage, Jones' whom triumph is sullied somewhat by his use of if for whether: "[D]etectives wanted to find out from her whom she drove on the night Jones died and if she was present...."
If is best used to start adverb clauses--i.e., clauses that modify verbs ("We will kiss the midget if we can find him"). As used by Jones, if is starting a noun clause ("if she was present" is the direct object of the infinitive expression to find out).
Whether starts noun clauses.
That sentence appears in a July 5, 2009 article by Scott Jones in the U.K. Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1090439/Has-riddle-Rolling-Stone-Brian-Joness-death-solved-last.html). The subject of the article is the death of the Rolling Stones' founder Brian Jones--whether he died accidentally (as has long been argued) or whether he was murdered.
But this blog doesn't care about that part of the article. It cares about Scott Jones' correct use of the word whom in the second sentence quoted above.
Most writers nowadays would say "who she drove...." They would be wrong because the subject of that clause is "she," the verb is "drove," and "whom" is the direct object. A direct object should be written in what's known as the objective form, and whom is the objective form. (Who is the nominal form and is to be used when it is the subject of a clause ["Who stole the midget's bowling ball?"] or when it is the complement of a linking verb [which, come to think of it, it seldom is].)
However, as with yesterday's example of correct word usage, Jones' whom triumph is sullied somewhat by his use of if for whether: "[D]etectives wanted to find out from her whom she drove on the night Jones died and if she was present...."
If is best used to start adverb clauses--i.e., clauses that modify verbs ("We will kiss the midget if we can find him"). As used by Jones, if is starting a noun clause ("if she was present" is the direct object of the infinitive expression to find out).
Whether starts noun clauses.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Three Cheers: Real-Life Examples of Good Writing No. 1
In a July 2009 article in the U.K.'s News of the World(http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/391017/Michael-Jacksons-video-nasty.html), James Desborough correctly uses a word that has long been on the verbal endangered-species list.
Desborough is describing a video tape from 1996 in which Michael Jackson answers (and doesn't answer) questions from lawyers about whether he had sexual relations with underaged males. Desborough writes: "As the hearing drew to a close Jackson seems totally uninterested in the proceedings, grinning at his lawyers' doodles on notepads and saying: 'That's good.'"
Most writers nowadays would've written "seems totally disinterested in the proceedings...."
Uninterested is the correct word in this case because it simply means "not interested." Disinterested, on the other hand, means "not having an interest in the outcome"--in other words, "objective" or "unbiased."
Alas, Desborough does mix his verb tenses. After having written "As the hearing drew [past] to a close," he should've written "Jackson seemed [not seems] totally uninterested...."
But, for his use of uninterested, we gladly pop the cork.
Desborough is describing a video tape from 1996 in which Michael Jackson answers (and doesn't answer) questions from lawyers about whether he had sexual relations with underaged males. Desborough writes: "As the hearing drew to a close Jackson seems totally uninterested in the proceedings, grinning at his lawyers' doodles on notepads and saying: 'That's good.'"
Most writers nowadays would've written "seems totally disinterested in the proceedings...."
Uninterested is the correct word in this case because it simply means "not interested." Disinterested, on the other hand, means "not having an interest in the outcome"--in other words, "objective" or "unbiased."
Alas, Desborough does mix his verb tenses. After having written "As the hearing drew [past] to a close," he should've written "Jackson seemed [not seems] totally uninterested...."
But, for his use of uninterested, we gladly pop the cork.
....................
Friday, July 3, 2009
Real-Life Examples of Bad Writing, Nos. 3 & 4
In a film review posted at http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ dated July 2, 2009, John Nolte wrote the following:
"Katherine Bigelow's direction of The Hurt Locker is masterful and might very well place her back where she belongs, at the top of anyone’s list looking for a top-shelf action director. But that’s not enough to save the film...."
What Nolte should have written is "Katherine Bigelow's direction of The Hurt Locker is masterly," not masterful.
Here's why: Masterly means "done with the skill of a master"; masterful means "done with the domineering authority of one in charge" (like a slave master or a headmaster).
Nolte's mistake is very common--as is the one that L. Brent Bozell III makes in the following sentence to his open letter to Oliver Stone:
"Many years ago, when Bill Maher’s comedy show was hosted by Comedy Central and he was funny, his formula for success was truly unique."
The adverb truly, like most adverbs used to modify unique, is unnecessary here. If Maher's Comedy Central show was, in fact, unique (i.e., one of a kind), simply calling it unique would have been enough: No one reading Bozell's open letter would've stopped at the word to ask whether he meant "truly" unique. Also, to modify a word with "truly" implies that it can also be modified with "falsely" or some other adverb suggesting deception or error.
To Bozell's credit, his "unique" error is unique. Most writers and speakers who needlessly modify unique do so with intensifiers ("really," "very"), as if there are degrees of "one-of-a-kindness."
Bozell's error is also unique in that it's the only one in an otherwise well-written piece: http://www.mrc.org/bozellcolumns/columns/2009/20090702051952.aspx.
"Katherine Bigelow's direction of The Hurt Locker is masterful and might very well place her back where she belongs, at the top of anyone’s list looking for a top-shelf action director. But that’s not enough to save the film...."
What Nolte should have written is "Katherine Bigelow's direction of The Hurt Locker is masterly," not masterful.
Here's why: Masterly means "done with the skill of a master"; masterful means "done with the domineering authority of one in charge" (like a slave master or a headmaster).
Nolte's mistake is very common--as is the one that L. Brent Bozell III makes in the following sentence to his open letter to Oliver Stone:
"Many years ago, when Bill Maher’s comedy show was hosted by Comedy Central and he was funny, his formula for success was truly unique."
The adverb truly, like most adverbs used to modify unique, is unnecessary here. If Maher's Comedy Central show was, in fact, unique (i.e., one of a kind), simply calling it unique would have been enough: No one reading Bozell's open letter would've stopped at the word to ask whether he meant "truly" unique. Also, to modify a word with "truly" implies that it can also be modified with "falsely" or some other adverb suggesting deception or error.
To Bozell's credit, his "unique" error is unique. Most writers and speakers who needlessly modify unique do so with intensifiers ("really," "very"), as if there are degrees of "one-of-a-kindness."
Bozell's error is also unique in that it's the only one in an otherwise well-written piece: http://www.mrc.org/bozellcolumns/columns/2009/20090702051952.aspx.
......................
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
