Let’s hope members of Congress, the members that Allegheny College has already honored, Vice President Joe Biden and Senator John McCain; the women of the Senate, Senators Dianne Feinstein and Lindsey Graham. Let’s hope that they and others of good will lead in restoring harmonious workways.Video at the link. Scroll to 3:49 to see and hear the quoted part. Here's a quiz to test your perception:
१२ एप्रिल, २०१७
Why did Ruth Bader Ginsburg call Lindsey Graham one of "the women of the Senate"?
She was giving a little talk at Allegheny College in Pennsylvania, where she was receiving an honor, and said:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
९५ टिप्पण्या:
I think the person that wrote the speech for her, looking for names of women in the senate, assumed Lindsay was a woman and she just read it as written.
"I think the person that wrote the speech for her, looking for names of women in the senate, assumed Lindsay was a woman and she just read it as written."
Sure: be sensible and take all the fun out of it.
I am Laslo.
Apparently she has a bad case of Old timers disease. But Left Wing Ideology is like riding a bicycle.Once learned it takes very little brain power.
Obviously she maliciously ridiculed the Trans Gender Senators. RESIGN NOW!
She had been thinking about this scene from Aliens while doing her daily push-ups that morning:
https://youtu.be/-l9Ph6y4jNY
I never bought into the 'Lindsey Graham is Gay' rumors.
I think it is obvious that the man is purely asexual.
He doesn't have any desire to have sex with men OR women.
There is nary a tingling in his loins.
He doesn't even want to fuck little boys.
As far as I can tell.
Maybe I'm wrong on that one.
I am Laslo.
I think traditionalguy named it. I'd be surprised that she hadn't heard of Lindsey Graham. So it's not some kind of commendable existing above politics. (We already know she doesn't.) To take a shot at his manhood is just a little too controversial; she might be capable of it with someone she despises, like Trump, but why with Graham? So she likely had a brain malfunction. But if that's proof of galloping dementia then I, a 41 year old, am in trouble.
I was leaning towards #3, except for the word "wisely." I do not regard Ginsberg as being wise in any way. Intelligent, yes. Wise? Not hardly. That left me between #4 and #5.
I don't think she avoids politics at all. That is the source of her popularity in some circles.
I'm with @CatherineM. RBG didn't hesitate or twinkle when she read him; she had no reaction. Actually, she looked terrible. Halting. I now believe the rumors that she hoped to retire right away under President Hillary.
I assume she skipped a sentence unintentionally.
Or, she flew United and was roughed up by Police called in after she was unable to move her seat to the upright position before takeoff.
She's referring specifically to past prize winners. Quoting from the Allegheny College website:
2013 - US Senators Dianne Feinstein And Lindsey Graham Awarded 2013 Allegheny College Prize For Civility In Public Life
2014 - The third annual Allegheny College Prize for Civility in Public Life was awarded to the “Women of the Senate” – the 20 U.S. senators who banded together to help end the 2013 government shutdown, and in so doing helped to show the way toward a more civil climate in Washington, D.C.
2016 - The fifth annual Allegheny College Prize for Civility in Public Life was awarded to Vice President Joe Biden and Senator John McCain.
* * *
The first prize, 2012, was awarded to David Brooks and Mark Shields
The fourth prize, 2015, was dedicated to "moments of extraordinary civility in American history" with the specific moment being "The winning moment, announced by Mullen today at the National Press Club: former Montgomery (AL) Police Chief Kevin Murphy taking off his badge and giving it to Congressman John Lewis (D-GA), as an act of contrition for the police department’s treatment of Lewis in 1961"
Meh, Evelyn Waugh is her favorite female author. I think Catherine is correct. 25 year-old speechwriter with an Ivy League degree and a boundless ignorance. But Ginsburg should have been alert enough to catch it on the fly. Unless she didn't give a shit, which is a distinct possibility.
The problem in the transcript is the substitution of a comma for a semi-colon. The quote should be:
Let’s hope members of Congress, the members that Allegheny College has already honored, Vice President Joe Biden and Senator John McCain; the women of the Senate ----> ; <---- Senators Dianne Feinstein and Lindsey Graham. Let’s hope that they and others of good will lead in restoring harmonious workways.
Seems to me someone wrote her speech for her, and she just read it.
A classic "I'm Ron Burgundy?" moment.
And maybe a colon after "honored"
“Let’s hope members of Congress, the members that Allegheny College has already honored, Vice President Joe Biden and Senator John McCain; the women of the Senate, Senators Dianne Feinstein and Lindsey Graham. Let’s hope that they and others of good will lead in restoring harmonious workways.”
It's difficult to believe that she chose to take a shot at Graham in the course of appealing for "harmonious workways". It's also difficult to figure how she chose those two as "the women of the Senate" when there are 21 women in the Senate and Graham is not among them. Maybe she has a list of all the people Allegheny College has "already honored", and her bizarre obsession with the sex of those in power kicked in? This is the woman who used the term "gender" instead of "sex" because she didn't like the sound of the latter. When she thinks about genitalia, even tangentially, the verbal region of her brain becomes unreliable.
"She wisely avoids paying much attention to politics, doesn't know who Graham is, and assumed Lindsey is a woman's name."
I can't vote if that's my answer. The word "wisely" hinders me. I get that SCJ's are supposed to be above all that stuff, but a little bit of attention--at least the amount a hillbilly housewife pays--should be expected.
I figure she was just doing what I do when I read aloud to my kids, and what Obama was doing when he called Michelle "Michael". Sometimes you just read what's on the page and your mind is off in a much more interesting place. You get a word wrong or don't notice a detail because you're just droning. The kids are sure to correct me, but I guess people giving speeches don't have that luxury. I'm pretty skilled at reading a story to my kids without ever hearing it myself. ;-)
Doesn't know the name of many senators, and so didn't know Lindsey was the first name of a male?
I'm with Henry on this. My first assumption, before reading the poll choices, was a bad transcript. I haven't watched the video, but it could have been added to by a poor delivery of the prepared text.
She is getting OLD and just forgot who Lindsey is, thinks of it as a woman's name.
Oscam's razor.
While Obama was President, some Democrats wanted her to retire, but she refused.
We all can rejoice that she was so selfish, stubborn and demented.
Maybe she wanted fellow woman Hillary to nominate her replacement.
Instead, our President Trump will nominate Ginsburg's replacement, and the Republican Senate will approve the nomination by a bare majority.
People, there's no mystery about the compound noun "the women of the Senate" . "The women of the Senate" won the award in 2014.
Essentially, Ginsburg said "...Allegheny College has already honored: A, B, C."
If this were the first gaffe on her part, I might chalk it up [cliche] to bad reading. But she has shown worse signs of cognitive failure in the past two years, as has been publicized. My husband suffered from dementia in his last ten years, so it makes me sad to see another bright mind on that sad journey. But she should probably be persuaded to step down from the Court.
Based on my experience with Jewish grandmothers, she knew exactly what she was saying.
I also believe, based on the same Jewish-grandma experience, that she has no interest in retiring.
And finally, that she has at least 10 good years ahead of her. This based on an established Eastern European formula; height X weight + heritage + chicken soup = 98.3 years
I've replayed the video several times and am hearing only a comma and not a semicolon after John McCain's name. There are also some dashes missing that are plain in the spoken text The mistranscription of punctuation can make anyone look like an idiot. Well played, RBG haters.
Homophobic slurs get a bad name.
Has anyone actually ever seen Lindsey Graham naked, to know whether she's right or not?
She wisely avoids paying much attention to politics,
Why limit the question so inappropriately to compliment her? She could just as easily unwisely avoid paying attention to politics. Or more likely she could dwell on politics in a general sense while not paying too much attention to the less important details of who is on the opposing team.
You are wrong! She did not call Graham a woman, she left out the Oxford comma! (Or her transcriber did.) She was briefly noting a few past honorees. The award Ginsburg was accepting has previously been presented to "the women of the U.S. Senate" in aggregate, as well as to Graham in particular.
Herwith, a quote from a news article:
Past recipients are U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. and former Vice President Joe Biden; U.S. Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; journalists David Brooks and Mark Shields and the women of the U.S. Senate. In 2015, rather than recognize individuals, the college paid tribute to a moment — when former Montgomery, Ala. Police Chief Kevin Murphy handed his badge to U.S. Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., as a symbol of contrition for his department’s treatment of Mr. Lewis and other civil rights activists in the 1960s.
Since the philosopher-queen wanted to honor women but not necessarily senators, she could honor Lindsey Graham, Resource Development Coordinator.
Henry's explanation is persuasive. I'd give her a pass on this, but if someone on the right delivered a similar malapropism, it would be career ending.
Given the anecdotes she's surprisingly lucid but clearly calling out Lindsey as a woman of the Senate. A gaffe but not enough information to know if it's hers or a speechwriters.
I'm ruling out senility.
If her intention was to mention a list of honorees... then when she said it, she said it clumsily. It's not a matter of punctuation; the sentence is horribly constructed (look at that first line!)
I'll give her the benefit of the doubt, but I can't fault anyone for reading her sentence the way it is constructed and assuming that the logical breaks mean to break a thought not to indicate a weirdly spaced out list.
I retract and am going with Henry. She's listing off past recipients, yes.
Sounds like prepared remarks. Wonder who prepared them?
"if someone on the right delivered a similar malapropism, it would be career ending."
Not for a Supreme Court Justice. Death, volition and impeachment are the only alternatives.
It's not being mistaken for a woman that should shame Lindsay Graham, it's being named as collaborator.
Will Ginsburg retire while Trump is President? Not in the first term, I bet.
Left Bank of the Charles: "I've replayed the video several times and am hearing only a comma and not a semicolon after John McCain's name. There are also some dashes missing that are plain in the spoken text The mistranscription of punctuation can make anyone look like an idiot. Well played, RBG haters"
Some folks don't require mistranscription of punctuation to look stupid.
Congrats.
William said...
Henry's explanation is persuasive. I'd give her a pass on this, but if someone on the right delivered a similar malapropism, it would be career ending.
Ah, remember when the media tried to claim Rubio's water bottle proved he wasn't ready for the show?
Good times, good times.
rehajm said...
I retract and am going with Henry. She's listing off past recipients, yes.
4/12/17, 9:11 AM
Likely correct BUT still does not rule out the option that she is losing it. Embrace the healing power of AND.
She's listing off past recipients AND losing it.
She should retire this very afternoon!
Likely correct BUT still does not rule out the option that she is losing it. Embrace the healing power of AND
She looks quite with it. I think that's wishful thinking.
Thank you, Henry. Transcript is missing a colon.
Dementia is always a possibility, especially at her age. Perhaps that is the reason she's been finding herself in the news for inappropriate statements recently. It seems to be a disturbing trend in her case.
"I'm with @CatherineM. RBG didn't hesitate or twinkle when she read him; she had no reaction. Actually, she looked terrible. Halting. I now believe the rumors that she hoped to retire right away under President Hillary."
She's had a distinct style of speech for a very long time. Look at the confirmation hearings. Don't interpret it as a decline unless you've got an individual reference point.
I did vote for "She was carelessly reading an awkwardly written text"
But there's nothing really that wrong about the grammar of the text. It's just a list. The problem is that when you follow "women of the Senate" with some names, the first one being a woman, it sounds like "women of the Senate" is a qualifier.
Alternatively, if she had said "women of the Senate, AND Senators ..." she would have avoided any confusion.
"She's referring specifically to past prize winners. Quoting from the Allegheny College website...."
Thanks for that explanation. That shows that the right answer is probably the one that says it's "awkwardly written."
Last year, my son had to do a report on one of the presidential candidates, and he brought home his assignment paper with the name Lindsay Graham written on it. I said, "Oh, Lindsay and Graham are working on the project with you? Who are they?"
Something was written badly, and somebody is responsible for putting that text in front of her. Maybe she wrote it herself, but that's unlikely, in my view. I think the pejorative "carelessly" is appropriate (in what is, in my view, the best answer), because it comes out absurdly wrong, and she ought to have noticed and corrected either beforehand or in real time.
"But there's nothing really that wrong about the grammar of the text. It's just a list. The problem is that when you follow "women of the Senate" with some names, the first one being a woman, it sounds like "women of the Senate" is a qualifier."
If you think there's nothing wrong with that writing, you should not be writing speeches!
But maybe you mean there's an excuse for writing it like that and you want to excuse the writing after the fact -- not that you'd ever write a sentence like that.
You know, there are legal cases about statutes and documents that have writing issues like that. I studying law, you learn not to let ambiguity creep into your writing. It's legally incompetent to write the sentence like that. And any decent writing teacher would demand a rewrite on that sentence.
It's not just confusing and likely to be misunderstood, it makes people laugh and laugh at a particular individual. It's the worst-written sentence I've seen in a long time.
I studying law, you learn not to let ambiguity creep into your writing.
Why bother? Some judge is going to absurdly twist your words to mean what they need to mean to allow them to bestow victory on any party the judge feels empathy with anyway.
"Alternatively, if she had said "women of the Senate, AND Senators ..." she would have avoided any confusion."
The solution is to put "women of the Senate" last or, better, to put that phrase in its own sentence, or, better, untangle the whole mess. She said:
"Let’s hope members of Congress, the members that Allegheny College has already honored, Vice President Joe Biden and Senator John McCain; the women of the Senate, Senators Dianne Feinstein and Lindsey Graham. Let’s hope that they and others of good will lead in restoring harmonious workways."
I'd suggest:
"Allegheny College has honored many individual who are or have been members of Congress — Vice President Joe Biden, Senators John McCain, Dianne Feinstein, and Lindsey Graham. And it has honored the women of the Senate as a group. Let’s hope..."
Bleh. I'm not going to rewrite the second sentence. I have too many problems with it.
"Why bother? Some judge is going to absurdly twist your words to mean what they need to mean to allow them to bestow victory on any party the judge feels empathy with anyway."
You need to think about a judge like that and fend him off as best you can. Your comment is like someone saying why should I lock my door at night when an intruder could kick in the door.
You need to think about a judge like that and fend him off as best you can
I do ..by voting Republican.
The point I'm making is that what makes it a poorly written sentence isn't the grammar* (assuming it gets transcribed correctly as a semi-colon separated list). What makes it a poorly written sentence is the fact that it can't be spoken (or even read quickly) without creating confusion. The reason I make that point is to clarify why option #4 in your poll is the most likely explanation -- as opposed to malice, stupidity, or senility.
One think that makes my eyes roll is the idea of awarding an award like this to a group (let alone "a moment"). Once you start doing that, you're just talking about a participation trophy.
---
*Granted that the comma-separated clauses that being the sentence are pretty ugly.
@Althouse:
Could you explain your opposing statements on judicial interpretation?
You have stated your opposition to judges twisting the meaning of words to achieve an outcome when interpreting statutes, but you apparently support twisting the meaning of Constitutional Amendments to achieve certain outcomes.
"If you think there's nothing wrong with that writing, you should not be writing speeches!"
But you didn't say there was something wrong with the writing -- you asked why she called Graham a woman, which she didn't, and now you're moving the goalposts. It seems obvious that Henry (8:40) has it right -- that she was referring to different people and groups that had been honored by Allegheny College, and that one of those groups was "the women of the Senate" while another was "Senators Dianne Feinstein and Lindsey Graham." You can't see a semicolon when someone is speaking. Perhaps the speechwriter should have anticipated the uncontrollable need of bloggers to create controversy when there is none, and written the sentence differently. But "Why didn't some unknown staffer write a sentence differently?" is far less likely to get page views than "Why did Ginsburg call Lindsey Graham a woman?"
Bleh. I'm not going to rewrite the second sentence. I have too many problems with it.
That's what I say to my kids when I proofread their essays.
@Gahrie: "You need to think about a judge like that and fend him off as best you can // I do ..by voting Republican." I'm with you. In fact, it's one of the main reasons I vote GOP. Of course, even that does not protect us from the Posners and Kennedys and Ginsburgs of the world, people we can ultimately only "fend off" by denying the legitimacy of unchecked judicial power, as many other countries do.
"Perhaps the speechwriter should have anticipated the uncontrollable need of bloggers to create controversy when there is none, and written the sentence differently."
-- Or the speech writer should have practiced their speech in front of people on their staff who hadn't helped write it to spot an obviously weak, confusing section.
Henry: Don't expect mere facts will persuade these commenters.
Of course, even that does not protect us from the Posners and Kennedys and Ginsburgs of the world, people we can ultimately only "fend off" by denying the legitimacy of unchecked judicial power,
Exactly. What confuses me however is Althouse appears to condemn Posner's view of judicial interpretation, but she supports the results of such interpretation.
The woman is an idiot, just like the idiot who said "Marine Corpse".
At least she didn't call him the Blanche DuBois of the Senate.
At least she didn't mention Hitler.
It looks like an awkwardly written sentence that comes off even more awkward when spoken. Basic rules of proofreading:
1. The text should be proofread by someone other than the author.
2. If the author has to do the proofreading, ideally it will be performed some time after the writing is completed. Otherwise, the author is too familiar with the text and, more importantly, what the author meant to properly see the errors.
3. If it is meant to be spoken, you need to read it out loud to see if it makes sense before the actual speech.
That said, this would not have been as bad if Lindsey Graham was, say, the governor of South Carolina or a college professor or anything besides a US Senator.
While I voted for the most appropriate choice given, I, like the very first commenter think Ginsberg was reading a speech written by one of her more ignorant aides. However, it is clear that even Ginsberg didn't realize that part was wrong.
Is this a lack of interest in politics? I don't think so based on Ms. Ginsberg's history, so I chalk it all up to a sort of ignorant, uninformed interest that is actually pretty damned common, especially on the Left.
She's been unfit to serve on the court since she was sworn in. Really off the rails recently.
"I never head that."
-- It's a common theme deployed by people on the fringe left to attempt to denigrate him. They don't say it like just a fact; they imply he is closeted and self-hating. Luckily, it is generally contained to the fever swamps of Think Progress and Reddit /politics, and is not main stream.
"'She wisely avoids paying much attention to politics' Why limit the question so inappropriately to compliment her? She could just as easily unwisely avoid paying attention to politics. Or more likely she could dwell on politics in a general sense while not paying too much attention to the less important details of who is on the opposing team."
1. The question asks which explanation is "most likely" so that gives you room to pick an option even though it's not exactly what you think.
2. I included that language in an effort to create a specific frame of mind that was more in the zone of favorability toward Ginsburg and different in attitude than the others. I wanted to capture the idea that she could fail to recognize the name and yet still be lucid and competent. That helps distinguish this answer from the others. None of the answers are my personal opinion. (The 4th one is closest to what I think.) When I do these polls I try to adopt a different frame of mind for each answer. I get into an alternate character who has a real opinion. I find this fun and easy to do.
3. A Supreme Court Justice really could choose to avoid following the political news. I have read of at least one Justice who did that. I forget who. I think a very diligent, neutral judge might behave this way and limit his/her reading to the legal briefs and only get up to speed on things that are really in the cases. I could imagine myself behaving that way if I were a judge. Maybe read history or science or other subjects if more reading is needed, but stop following current politics. Stop voting. Etc. If one adopted this approach to being a judge, one could be intellectually sharp and not know who Lindsey Graham was. It's therefore, to my mind, a plausible option, so I don't accept that it's an "inappropriate" limitation on this option.
There's another possibility--her calling out of Feinstein and Graham is in addition to the general shout out to the women of the senate.
But really, she's a senile old coot who hasn't known what she's talking about in years.
10: She knows Graham is as queer as a $3 Bill.
"But really, she's a senile old coot who hasn't known what she's talking about in years."
How many oral arguments have you listened to (or read) lately? If your insult were legit, there would be evidence that's very easy to see (unless she took the precaution of never speaking, a la Thomas).
Ann Althouse said... I [sic] studying law, you learn not to let ambiguity creep into your writing.
There's some universal law that one will commit typos or make mistakes of grammar when pointing out typos or mistakes of others. For spelling problems, too; I'm sure of it.
Why is she still here anyway. I thought she was moving to New Zealand if Trump won.
Here's a recent oral argument, and here's an example of something RGB said in real time:
"Well, maybe the Federal Circuit was wrong in not following Fourco, but the question is now before us, and you are asking us to say that venue in a patent infringement case is only where the entity is incorporated or comparable to that, and you have acknowledged that there is no other venue provision for any other kind of claim that is so limited to just the place of incorporation."
She has no idea who he is.
"There's some universal law that one will commit typos or make mistakes of grammar when pointing out typos or mistakes of others. For spelling problems, too; I'm sure of it."
I agree (except that I was not pointing out a typo or a grammar mistake, so I was not doing the exact thing I was criticizing somebody else for doing).
The manifestations of dementia do not follow a linear pattern nor are they consistent. There are good days and bad days, good weeks, bad weeks. And a person will perform more smoothly in a familiar venue. Unfamiliar settings can disrupt customary brain patterns.
Deb asks: Why is she still here anyway. I thought she was moving to New Zealand if Trump won.
One would think that New Zealand would be bulging at the seams by now! And Canada. Did all those celebrities emigrate? Even one? How disappointing.
The manifestations of dementia do not follow a linear pattern nor are they consistent.
Same goes for the manifestations of cognition.
The manifestations of dementia do not follow a linear pattern nor are they consistent.
Very True. And a diminished intellectual capability is not always the first recognizable symptom. Often it's a change in personality and judgement. It seems odd that RBG is now in the news every few months for questionable statements. Very different from her past history.
Just saw an update on this - apparently "Women of the Senate" was a named recipient of the award Ginsburg was receiving, as were the other people she mentioned, including Lindsey Graham. So she was reading a list of names, and one of the names was Women of the Senate. Or so I've read.
Ann Althouse said...I included that language in an effort to create a specific frame of mind that was more in the zone of favorability toward Ginsburg and different in attitude than the others. I wanted to capture the idea that she could fail to recognize the name and yet still be lucid and competent. That helps distinguish this answer from the others.
I don't see how the neutral claim that she doesn't pay attention to politics or know the opposition in detail conflicts with her being lucid and competent. I refer to this as inappropriate because that limitation is artificially knocking out some of the people you claim to be enticing including at least two commenters. It requires a value judgement on "paying attention to politics" which is irrelevant to the core issue.
Like much on the web your poll would have been fine if it included the words "Too good to check."
Just a missing Oxford comma.
CatherineM said: I think the person that wrote the speech for her, looking for names of women in the senate, assumed Lindsay was a woman and she just read it as written. Anyone who is writing a speech for a SCOTUS justice should be perceptive enough to pick up the distinction between "Lindsey" and "Lindsay".
Of course, the Notorious RBG may be so senile that she gave the speech assignment to a nitwit.
I think she's had a stroke and that it won't be too long now before Ted Cruz takes her place on the SC.
The Oxford comma was in there.
I think she's had a stroke and that it won't be too long now before Ted Cruz takes her place on the SC.
Such a prima donna as Ted Cruz would never give up the spectacle of videotaped filibusters reciting "Green Eggs and Ham" for the gravitas of black robes, opinions that benefit by consensus and the donning of black robes in a chamber that isn't videotaped.
Plus, judges aren't able to contest established "facts."
After Trump, there is no personality behind which a loopy, deranged Republican can hide.
It is time for her to retire before she becomes Exhibit A in every argument for some ability to force the retirement of a disabled Supreme Court Justice. She is losing it before our very eyes. So sad.
It is time for her to retire before she becomes Exhibit A in every argument for some ability to force the retirement of a disabled Supreme Court Justice
It has already happened. It is an open secret that Thurgood Marshall stayed on the Court too long and his clerks were running the show his last couple of years and he was just a figurehead. It has probably happened to others as well.
How about she just made an honest mistake? I say this as a conservative.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा