— James Taranto (@jamestaranto) May 24, 2018
It's particularly funny because Blow — in "The Elevation of Imprecision" — is trying to look down on Trump. Trump, we're told, uses "language that muddles to the point of meaninglessness, language that rejects exactitude, language that elevates imprecision as a device to avoid being discovered in his deceit."
ADDED: Much of Blow's critique of Trump's language is apt, but it's critique that would apply to most politicians. The drive to critique is extrinsic to the critique (Blow hates Trump). Trump does have his own special way of being imprecise and deceitful, so it does stand out, but that's a positive, I'd say, because: 1. It's creative, and 2. The imprecision and deceit is pretty much on the face of the text (e.g., "you look at what's happening"). It's clearly unclear. That's a plus!
पोस्ट्स
११५ टिप्पण्या:
language that muddles to the point of meaninglessness, language that rejects exactitude, language that elevates imprecision as a device to avoid being discovered in his deceit."
Oh, like the FBI, Justice and CIA to Congress and the President?
When was the start date?
For me, the use of I when me is correct always stands out and annoys. I don't know why, it is an affliction of sorts. Other errors of grammar are easily ignored or forgiven.
-sw
Must be difficult for dudes like Blow to realize that The Age of Obama was written in water.
its deceit.
"As" I. I'm old enough to remember the cigarette jingle, "Winston tastes good like a cigarette should." It should have been "as a cigarette should."
Trump certainly engenders powerful feelings, especially in those who consider themselves brilliant and erudite.
Like I do. Conjunction rather than preposition.
Unfortunately he took its sounding wrong to mean that it's formally correct, and produced a hypercorrection.
Yeah, like "spy"! What a blow job!
Blow should use the Oxford comma. He does not.
Actually, I'm not sure. Someone smarter than me needs to diagram this: language that elevates imprecision as a device to avoid being discovered in his deceit.
Imprecision is the device, but what is the thing that is avoiding being discovered? Language? Is it muddled or hiding?
Rule of correcting someone's grammar or spelling: You will make a typo.
language that muddles to the point of meaninglessness, language that rejects exactitude,
Well, maybe sometimes. But, I find that Trump mostly leans in the direction of impolitic bluntness, much like when you're talking to your buddy about politics over a beer at the club. "Comey, that asshole! Comey couldn't tell ya the truth if his life depended on it!".
Should the POTUS speak this way in public? Maybe yes, maybe no. If its just the way Trump is versus a deliberate schtick? I don't know.
But, I must say I don't find it inexact or meaningless in the least. It just isn't the common language of DC politics that's trying to look hi-falutin'.
“accepted standards of honest discourse” = what is acceptable to Blow
Like me but one can make a case ....
James Clapper:
No, they were not. They were spying on, a term I don't particularly like, but on what the Russians were doing. Trying to understand were the Russians infiltrating, trying to gain access, trying to gain leverage or influence which is what they do.
(Eaglebeak)
Charles Blow does.
Also, not "Like I do" but "As I do"
@Mike Sylvester:
If Clapper admitted to spying on the Trump campaign it was "Not Wittingly".
James Comey
The memos are actually two pieces, and the details matter because the facts matter and should matter even to the president. I sent one memo, unclassified then — still unclassified, and it's recounted in my book — to my friend Dan Richman and asked him to get the substance of it, but not the memo out to the media. ....
I gave that unclassified memo to my mind, who was also acting as my lawyer, but this wasn't a lawyer task, and asked him to give it to a reporter. That is entirely appropriate.
Blow should blow some money on a Berlitz course in how to speak in Trump. Trump speaks with great precision in Trump. Lil Kim is about to get an education in the art of speaking in Trump.
Yes. This has been pointed out time and time again. Trump is vulgar, imprecise, and often careless with his language. In many ways his speaking style is the polar opposite of the vast majority of practiced, successful politicians... like say... a Barack Obama. But I would argue that the speaking style of Trump it isn't inherently less honest.
The language of the master politician is carefully curated. It can often be oblique and misleading. Such language is designed to mask the true thoughts and intentions of the speaker. It doesn't feel honest.
In contrast, Trumps language is actually bizarrely more honest, at least in terms of its tone. You get a pretty good sense of what Trump is actually feeling when he speaks.
Charles Blow - you were expecting quality or something like that? From an AA beneficiary? Get real! Other than Blow I'd bet the farm that the NYT has NO other Grambling State (an HBC) graduate on its writing staff. Blow's a token at best, and a pathetic one at that. But he is one through-and-through racist.
Deceit=speaking truth to Narrative spell casters. Too many loosed fish are listening .and escaping their fasteners.
I call BS on the whole exercise. (Is that clear?)
To say that Trump elevates imprecision is an exercise in obfuscation.
For the most part, he speaks very clearly. Sometimes he clearly bullshits, not caring about whether what he says, clearly enough, is true or not. Even in those cases, he usually has a clear ulterior motive--setting up an adversary for a better deal, making fun of deep-state adversaries, throwing out some red meat to his base, and so on.
Taking Trump literally is the hobgoblin of little prog minds.
Looking past the correction, Blow's got a good point. I feel as he does when listening to virtually any politician, including every President since Bush 41.
Is Ann agreeing that the use of "I" in Blow's construction is incorrect? Good grief! Clearly "like I" is better because the verb that controls the clause is "have," and that requires the nominative not the accusative case. If the sentence were written "If you have a hard time listening to Trump, like I do ... ", then presumably Ann wouldn't have objected. But Ann has shown before that she struggles with first person pronouns, she couldn't figure out why "we shall overcome" is preferable to "we will overcome." Ann would prefer "me and them will overcome."
Moreover Ann snarks that Blow is looking down on her, poor addled lady. She mocks his description of the President's speech as "language that muddles to the point of meaninglessness, language that rejects exactitude..." because she regards the President as an straight talker, an honest man, and a decent human being. As has often been noted, you can tell the quality of a person's character by assessing that of his friends.
I'm not going to focus on grammar but on "accepted standards of honest discourse".
The left's attacks on honesty long predate Trump with far more serious impact. They have advanced that 1 in 5 (sometimes 1 in 4) women on campus are sexually assaulted and that half of all personal bankruptcies in this country are due to medical bills. Neither of these assertions is anywhere close to true yet both have been used as hooks to enact policy changes which they could not otherwise achieve. Using these lies to advance policy makes them far worse than whatever nonsense Blow is focusing on. Yet essentially no one on the left criticizes those who create or repeat these lies.
So when Blow references "accepted standards of honest discourse" he's asserting that the left should be able to lie as long as People with Important Certifications (henceforth PICs) support the outcome of the lies.
Of course this doesn't even address the radical left's position that honesty is a denial of their "lived experience" and other outright assertions that their fantasies must be taken as if true.
If Blow cared about honesty at some point in the last 30 years he would have criticized those who oppose it.
Mr. Language Person remains silent on this issue, fortunately.
If you, like I, raise a pinkie when sipping morning tea....
I find it easy to believe that Blow has s hard time listening to Trump speak. I have a hard time believing low would know honest discourse if it grabbed him by the gonads and squeezed hard.
John Pickering said...
'But Ann has shown before that she struggles with first person pronouns, she couldn't figure out why "we shall overcome" is preferable to "we will overcome." '
Would you like to try to explain what the difference between "will" and "shall" has to do with first-person pronouns? Here, I'll hold your beer.
exactitude:
"If you like the plan you have, you can keep it. If you like the doctor you have, you can keep your doctor, too."
Invert-o-tude:
“But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy.”
Identi-tude:
"If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon"
Jokey-tude:
“What? Like with a cloth or something?”
Hardin is wrong again. Do as I do and notice his error if you, like me, are pedantic.
I believe that Blow's point is more that Trump violates accepted standards of dishonest discourse.
It depends on what the meaning of i is.
He surely knows why Trump was elected. Russia!
Nice, Walter.
Jupiter, put down the beer -- unless you're going out to play golf later -- and go to Ann's Amazon portal and buy Writer's Guide and Index to English: Fourth Edition Hardcover by Porter G. Perrin.
You can get a copy for less than five bucks and it will illuminate any questions you have about grammar. For example, it will show that "we" is a first person pronoun that demands certain different auxiliary verbs than second and third-person pronouns.
I like I. My handlers think this is a healthy attitude, so I go with it.
How is the 'like I' incorrect here? Put in the missing phrase:
If you have a hard time listening to Trump speak like I have a hard time listening to Trump speak, ...
(I agree that as would be better than like, but that's another post)
Explain, please.
There's a lawyerly way of speaking among many politicians -- calculated & precise, but weasely -- that conveys very little to anyone who is actually listening. It is, in other words, sophisticated deception. Trump speaks extemporaneously and imprecisely. He spitballs ideas, he uses hyperbole, he parries attacks and punches hard. He's so easy to fact-check because very little of what he says is prepared and researched. He doesn't have the politician's gift for embedding seemingly factual statements with strategic ambiguity and self-serving caveats and off-ramps.
Trump is actually more honest and transparent than any other POTUS in my lifetime, even if his comments are imprecise or he just gets his facts wrong. There's honesty in his bullshit.
Charlie Blow has many opinions. And, he's found a nice perch on some high-priced journalistic real estate (The august NYTimes) from which to express those opinions.
The problem is that nobody gives a fuck about Charlie Blow, nor his opinions.
The Left prefers outright lies told with perfect English. I prefer Trump's blunt, informal style and in fact find it immensely refreshing. I wish we could clone him.
Sorry, Charles, and every other language nerd who thinks the point of political language is to impress rather than persuade. You're doing it wrong.
Trump's language is more emotionally resonant than a standard politician.
For example, that "animals" comment that the anti-Trump crowd had a conniption fit over the other day. Some like Obama would obviously never describe MS13 members like that (assuming he'd describe them at all). He would instead use much more anodyne, passionless descriptors like "criminals" or "gang members". In fact the only time Obama would use more colorful language would be when he was talking about Republicans, especially when he was constructing strawmen.
A less charitable person might describe Trump's language as demagogic.
Not surprising some are shocked after Obama's extensive use of "I".
I am Canadian and what I like best about President Trump is that he doesn't dissemble, unlike all professional pols, you pretty much know what going through his brain whenever he talks or takes to twitter. Career pols can be quite oily, politics needs more people from outside.
Trump is the biggest blowhard; EVER!
Trump thinks that there are 57 states!
Trump does even know how to pronounce the word corpsman
HELL! Trump thinks that in Austria they speak Austrian
Shit! Trump thought that just by being nominated, the sea levels would slow their rise
Madison Man
Commas. Your example would be better with as not like, but the important difference is the the comma. Blow did not write “if you have trouble like (as) I have trouble”. He wrote “ if you, like I, have trouble” and that is incorrect.
He would be on firmer ground had he written “ if you, as I, have” because then there is an implicit do: “as I do”. But he didn’t.
None of this is significant except as Ann notes, Blow was being condescending, and he was being it to readers like her and me. It's funny when the snooty screw up whilst snooting.
What jwl wrote.
I always say that part of being a smart ass is being smart.
“as do I,”
Some like Obama would obviously never describe MS13 members like that
They're just folks.
"like I" strikes the perfect note of condescension. The whole point of being a NYTimes writer or reader is captured.
There is no end to the ways in which the Deplorables can be deplored. Blow's pieces can almost write themselves for the next 7 years. The only problem is sustaining the level of outrage, when you've blown through so many evil metaphors in Year One. HItler, Stalin.... OK, there's Genghiz Khan (and his brother Don), but how will Blow keep on keeping on after that?
I am applying the "Trump Adoration Syndrome" tag to this post.
Kasich is much more precise.(His dad worked for the post office, by the way)
chuck, like I, is not impressed with this post.
What really bothers them is that they are imagining all kinds of nefarious things he MUST BE saying, but they can’t pin him down precisely, mostly, on account of he’s not saying what they imagine he is saying. Most of us have little problem understanding Trump, but you have to have a lot of shared beliefs, for example, a gang like MS-13 is a collection of brutal animals.
Last I checked, BTW, Homo Sapiens is a member in good standing of the animal kingdom.
I used to spend summers in New York City in the 70's and early 80s. It was hot and humid, there were black-outs, "Son of Sam" terrified the town, and Billy Martin managed the Yankees.
My uncle was an undercover NYPD officer who, I kid you not, drove a cab in Times Square, looking to catch muggers, rapists, drug dealers and pimps. According to him, 50% of the time you got a "collar," and 50% of the time the circumstances required a little street justice. I'm not defending it, just describing it.
This was before the wave of Starbucks baristas, metrosexuals, whiners, feminist lawyers, snowflakes, Beta Males, gay rights, etc, etc. So, it was pretty neanderthal back then, but it was exciting, and still pretty easy to get an apartment -- even in Manhattan for $200 - $300/month.
During this era, New York was a tough town. And guess what?
The people there talked like Trump! "Youse" and "fugedaboutit" and all those New York linguistic expressions, with hand gestures and a tendency to exaggerate. It was straight out of "Bonfire of the Vanities"
I have 4 NY uncles and they run the gamut from retired cops to Madison Ave ad guys. And they still, today, in their late 70s and early 80s, talk like Trump. (For the record, 2 like Trump, 2 hate him.)
So, Yes, I can sympathize with folks who can't stand listening to Trump. He often strikes a discordant note. He's certainly not a Shakesperian thespian in Central Park, that's for sure.
To paraphrase the Nixon White House, though: "Don't listen to what we say, just watch what we do," would be sound advice to some folks.
There is an even worse grammatical error in the quote from Blow than "like I".
My favorite comeuppance in this sort of thing was when a commenter on Megan McCardle's blog was berating and belittling someone for having used "improper grammer".
Regarding politicians preference for obfuscation, how about the titles they place on the bills they pass.
> No Child Left Behind comes to mind. We're doing it for the children (gag me).
> Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. My health insurance went from $9K to 15K annually.
Fundamentally, I get back to the question -- why do pundits care so much about what politicians say? What do they think they're hearing?
Comment of the day quote below:
Two-eyed Jack said...
"I believe that Blow's point is more that Trump violates accepted standards of dishonest discourse."
Target destroyed.
Ann here returns to her theme that the President is just being clever and funny when he tells lies. Such a sense of humor! Here are some things that Ann finds comically funny:
False statements about wiretaps at Trump Tower.
False statements about unmasking.
False statements about a political spy in the Trump campaign.
False statements about the Mueller investigation that has indicted the President’s top staff.
It's a laff-riot!
I read the column. He makes some staggering claims for Trump's language skills. Trump's rhetoric not only debases language beyond comprehension, but it destroys any possibility of communicating the truth. Trump, all by himself and just off the cuff, has created an Orwellian nightmare of falseness and malevolence to our public discourse that had made any type of decency or honesty impossible.......Whether good or bad, you've got to admit that's an impressive achievement for just one year in office. Big Brother couldn't do that in decades.
Putting it a different way than Bay Area Guy, I'll simply say that Blow blows chunks.
John Pickering, in another recent thread you made a statement that Donald Trump is being blackmailed by the Russians.
What do you consider to be the best evidence that your statement is true?
"John Pickering said...
Ann here returns to her theme that the President is just being clever and funny when he tells lies. Such a sense of humor! Here are some things that Ann finds comically funny:
False statements about wiretaps at Trump Tower.
False statements about unmasking.
False statements about a political spy in the Trump campaign.
False statements about the Mueller investigation that has indicted the President’s top staff."
I'm here a lot and I don't ever remember Ann commenting that she found any of that funny. So we have a false statement supported by four lies.
Why are lefties always like this?
If you haven't read Trump's love note to the NORK leader, it's worth a read. Trump Adoration Syndrome ...... he's like a god edition.
Curious George
Because 4 lies is usually enough, but 3 is sometimes too few.
Pickering lists four facts and calls them'False statements."
Is this a language problem or an IQ problem?
John Pickering said...
"For example, it will show that "we" is a first person pronoun that demands certain different auxiliary verbs than second and third-person pronouns."
I'll be damned. He's right! There are people out there who believe "I will" is improper English. Come to think of it, MacArthur did say, "I shall return". I thought he was just being pompous.
Of the four "lies" John Pickering attributes to the president, we know that the first three are true, and that the Democrat party members and their media whores were lying when they denied them. John Pickering is a good little Nazi to defend the truth as the party defines it.
By "lie" Pickering means contradictory of Democrat talking points.
Since that's his standard, he sees no need to discuss it further. How's that working for Democrats?
This whole thread is dumb.
Obama and Clinton were the last two democrat presidents.
And Charles Blow talks about threats to honest discourse. It is pathetic. There is no point even talking to these people.
They are only worthy of mockery.
Moar Stormy! More Jordan Peterson bashing! Tell us how Democrats plan to bring down gas prices by ending fracking and killing pipelines!
Charles Blow? Any relation to Joe?
I wonder how many of the people who believe that Trump debases the language got behind teaching inner city black children Ebonics a couple of decades back?
John Pickering has decided to revert to March 2017 "reality" because it makes him feel better about everything that has been exposed about the East German Stasi-approach used by the dems to attack domestic political opponents.
Can you imagine how shocked Pickering will be when he eventually makes his way all the way up to Dec 2017 and finds out what has been happening?
LOL
I shan't ever use shall for first person pronouns!
Under the guise of the FISA warrant on Carter Page, the FBI was electronically monitoring contacts Page had with Trump Campaign officials in Trump Tower. Pickering can quibble with the word "wiretap" like certain LLRs have also done, but that will just reveal him for the fool he is.
It is a matter of record- also know as fact- that the Obama Administration set records for unmasking specifically everyone they could during and after the campaign. I mean, this isn't disputed- Susan Rice herself admitted doing it, and people like Samantha Power, when confronted with the number of times she did it, even tried to sell the story that someone was doing it under her name without her knowledge- not that it didn't occur.
Is Halper a spy? Was he in the Trump Campaign? Was he paid by the Obama Administration to interact with Trump Campaign officials? Is it spying to be paid by the Obama Administration to interact with Trump Campaign officials and report back to said administration? James Clapper has more or less admitted that Halper was a spy, even though he doesn't like the fact that the word is pejorative and would prefer to use "informant". If I paid someone to get defense department officials drunk, is that guy a spy or an informant? So, yes, Halper was a spy, was directed at the Trump Campaign by the FBI, and is probably not going to be the last one revealed, but we will see.
On only the last point is Pickering even 10% correct. Only Flynn really qualifies here as the President's top staff to be indicted- Manafort was fired before the election, and only indicted on stuff he did before he was part of the campaign. Flynn plead to lying about something that wasn't even a crime, and increasingly looks like the accusation of lying wasn't even on solid ground, and that the guilty plea was coerced by going after his son. I think it about 50% likely that the plea is withdrawn and all charges are dismissed. Even Manafort might eventually get the indictments dropped.
To MadisonMan re "like" and "as":
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/like-vs-as/
Pettifogger,
Exactly. Blow's mistake is the use of like instead of as. Someone above mentioned that it was a hyper-correction to that mistake that led to the use of "I", and that sounds about right to me- I often catch myself making mistakes that way.
As for shall and will- proper British English is clear with the rule, but then most of us writing here don't live in Great Britain, nor are we lawyers. I always use will for first person pronouns because that is the way I learned the language. Indeed, as I pointed out above- the contraction of shall not just grates on my ear because of that.
Good language usage.
https://www.steynonline.com/8667/tinker-tailor-clapper-carter-downer-halper-spy
Yancey, no. Blow is correct in using like here, not as, because like is a preposition that shows how the noun in the sentence (I) is doing whatever it may be doing (having a hard time listening). As is a conjunction that properly used links two clauses -- tastes good as a cigarette should. Of course people use colloquial language and there's little purpose in quibbling when the meaning is clear. Still, though Ann is typically vague on this point, I understood her retweet to show that she would have said "like me", not "like I". And that's worth a small quibble, since Ann herself likes to go ahead and parse little vagaries of language for some pointless or trivial reason or another. I agree, few Americans use "shall" for the first person, but those that do shouldn't have to endure taunts that they are not normal for so doing.
Trump only claims to be a very stable genius, not a scholar.
I shan't ever use shall for first person pronouns!
I would that you should.
There’s nothing new about politicians using “language that muddles to the point of meaninglessness, language that rejects exactitude, language that elevates imprecision.”
H.L. Mencken writing about the rhetoric of Warren G. Harding:
https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/comedy/hl-mencken-balder-and-dash
“It reminds me of a string of wet sponges; it reminds me of tattered washing on the line; it reminds me of stale bean soup, of college yells, of dogs barking idiotically through endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it. It drags itself out of the dark abysm (I was about to write abscess!) of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash.”
The "Get Trump" Squad has hired several linguistic experts to find oratorical malfeasance on the part of the President.
Next up, we'lldiagram Clapper's statement to show he didn't mean spying when he said spying.
Yancey Ward said...
Under the guise of the FISA warrant on Carter Page, the FBI was electronically monitoring contacts Page had with Trump Campaign officials in Trump Tower.
This was true when Page was a level VII resource.
When Page was upgraded to a level I source by Rosenstein, i.e. an active foreign agent, the NSA was allowed to spy on all people he talked to and all people those people talked to.
Before this is done it will come out that Obama was listening to every communication of every person in the Trump campaign and the Page FISA warrant was just meant to cover this up and make it "legal."
Is it your contention that Trump speaks clear and grammatical English? That he is precise in his references to events and times, and makes promises and predictions that have clear references and can be monitored for truth and accuracy? That he does not engage in impenetrable vagueness as a way of avoiding accountability for what he says? That he is *as clear, precise, and truthful* as other politicians, and is not remarkable in his fatuousness, dishonesty, and garbled speech? None of those claims seem at all believable.
I have no problem understanding him, and am rarely disappointed in his actions as time goes by. You hate what he says and hate what he does, so I am not seeing the problem, unless all you are interested in is gotchas. It’s a complicated world, we move in general directions and do our best to muddle through.
Did the Obama lies bother you very much? “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”, “Not a smidgen of corruption”, illegal aliens won’t benefit under Obamacare” <<- Joe Wilson was right when he said “You lie.”
They were very precise lies. And not the only ones. Red line in Syria? Driving Syria into Putin’s waiting arms? I could go on. Let’s not even get into the Bill Clinton lies that likely never bothered you either.
Not only is it clear that they “wiretapped” Trump towers, news stories based on the transcripts of those intercepts were all over the media at the time until it became pretty clear that they ran counter to the narrative that nobody was listening in on Trump’s conversations.
Of course if you define “wiretap” so narrowly that it literally means sent men dressed like Ninjas to tap phone lines with aligator clips, then you win. But when you say you “drive” a car, does that mean you use a buggy whip and reins to drive the horses forward? What does “drive” mean, anyway? We can’t allow any updated meanings!
Drive: “To push, propel, or press onward forcibly; urge forward"
Until the Trump era, all politicians were honest, wise, clear spoken and kept their promises. I swear that is the truth.
That is the implicit assumption of lefty media writers trying to make a living off of the Resistance.
Once again, a great example of history beginning when Trump won the election. Is this an example of the Gell-Mann effect?
John Pickering: I agree, few Americans use "shall" for the first person, but those that do shouldn't have to endure taunts that they are not normal for so doing.
Oh, the humanity.
The first-person shall/will distinction is very rarely observed in the spoken or written language of even literate, educated Americans, so it isn't, as a matter of fact, normal. I'd go as far to say that in most cases it's an affectation, in which case any American's less than natural and fluent usage richly deserves taunting. People like the glorious old bat who taught English in my elementary school would get a pass, but they've all long since passed into the grammar nazi Elysium.
(Someone please tell me that John "a girl like I" Pickering is, at most, no older than college age. I'm always dismayed to discover that the person behind this kind of pettish, whining voice is a man or woman past early adulthood.)
Anyone who still believes in the galimaurfry* of snake-oil economics, pseudo-scientific Marxian sociology and State-cultism that goes by the name of "liberalism" these days, is in no position to look down on either Trump's intelligence or his grammar.
*My tribute to the late Jean Shepherd.
Kevin T. Keith: That he is *as clear, precise, and truthful* as other politicians, and is not remarkable in his fatuousness, dishonesty, and garbled speech? None of those claims seem at all believable.
If you sincerely believe that Trump is remarkable among politicians for fatuousness and dishonesty, then your level of gullibility and naïveté regarding other politicians is downright frightening, and you probably shouldn't be allowed out in public without adult supervision, let alone into a voting booth.
False statements about the Mueller investigation that has indicted the President’s top staff.
The only member of Trump’s “top staff” indicted so far is Michael Flynn, and that was clearly a made-up “crime” designed to be payback for his taking the side of a female counter terrorism expert in her sex discrimination case against sleazebag McCabe. Note that the actual agents to whom Flynn is said to have lied claim that he was actually truthful in his testimony.
The corpse... men have it.
So, Obama spied, Clinton colluded, the DNC denied, and the press covered it up. But the babies... I mean, fetuses... offspring, whatever... and global wars... the grammar.
@Pettifogger, that 'the way' subbing in for 'as' is a good tip to help me remember this. (I think it's a struggle, though, to expand out the sentence by Blow to figure out where 'the way' fits in for 'as' vs. like)
In real life, I would probably not write such a tangled sentence. Clarity in writing is a good thing.
Never mind Blow, I miss Taranto.
I'm not a grammar ace, but why is that wrong? Isn't that construction a rearrangement of the thought "If you have a hard time listening to Trump speak like I have a hard time listening to Trump speak.."? You wouldn't put me in for I in that case.
more grounds for impeachment
From the Trump letter to North Korea....
You talk about your nuclear capabilities, but ours are so massive and powerful that I pray to God they will never have to be used.
"Do you feel lucky punk?" - Clint Eastwood
If he had said “Like I have” it would have been fine, but he didn’t so your excuse for the Trump hater who therefore cannot possibly be wrong fails.
Clarity in writing is a good thing.
Britney Spears, and Charles Blow are writing for the same demographic. They write in cliches, and well worn phrases.
Blow blows. Me, I blow Blow off.
Charles Blow Job.
Go suck some cock Charlie.
Isn't it bizarre how we're forced to care about some anti-american left-wing freak because some powerful editor or news exec gives them a job?
It reminds me of other people For example, why is some Left-wing, bubble head like Michelle Goldberg on the NYT's Op-ed page? Her views are conventional and she's dumb - Althouse destroyed her on BhTV.
Why isn't Althouse on the NYT Op-ed page?
Why is whiny, whitebread, uber-nerd Matt Yglesis a big deal on Aixos or where ever? He's an idiot.
But always gainfully employed.
If he is using it as a preposition, Pickering, then "me" is correct, not "I". However, the sentence construction really suggests using a conjunction since the verb seems to be omitted they way you are reading it. So Blow is doubly wrong.
Snark asked:
"I'm not a grammar ace, but why is that wrong? Isn't that construction a rearrangement of the thought "If you have a hard time listening to Trump speak like I have a hard time listening to Trump speak."
"Like" is a preposition- as is the correct word in your construction. His error is using "like" instead of "as", in which case "I" is then correct. So, your construction should be "If you have a hard time listening to Trump speak as I have a hard time listening....."
It is a minor mistake, and a common one- it is why most people don't understand it. I had Conan the Grammarian in early grade school for one of my teachers. I don't follow the rules myself for a lot of the more nit-picking ones- I definitely use like incorrectly all the time like other people:-)
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा