Presidential children rarely draw the scrutiny of congressional investigators, but Trump’s adult children fill unique roles in his administration, with Ivanka Trump and her husband, Jared Kushner, carrying the title of senior advisers to the president while being heavily involved in policy decisions and Capitol Hill negotiations on criminal justice, the Middle East and paid family leave.Who uses the word "whom" in speech? You sound stuffy even if you use it correctly, but when you use it incorrectly, you're really letting it show that you're straining at — what? — aloofness, intellectualism, loftiness, distance. It's so revealing.
“Whomever falls into that net, falls into that net,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday, arguing that Trump’s children are not off limits to investigations. “They are advisers to the president. They have security clearances. This is not their children at home.”
Of course, "whomever" is wrong, because it's the subject of the phrase. The verb is "falls," and we don't say "him falls," so we don't say "whom falls." Even if you imagine a longer sentence, like, "We will go after whomever/whoever falls into that net," "whomever" is still wrong, because "whoever falls into that net" has to work as a phrase.
The "whomever" mistake evinces strain, and I think Nancy Pelosi is under terrible strain. Her party has taken over the House, and it's under pressure to perform, and one idea that could work but could fail is to investigate investigate investigate. But I don't think it's a good strategy to trawl all over in hope of finding something, anything. You look so irresponsible, and you're asking us to give you more power in the next election. Pelosi uses this metaphor of a net — but it shouldn't be a trawling net. It needs to be a net fixed in place, not wielded by aggressive Democrats. People — like Ivanka and Jared — simply fall into it.
But "whomever" reveals Ivanka and Jared as objects, not subjects. They don't fall. They are pushed.
पोस्ट्स
१५० टिप्पण्या:
This is why I come here. Althouse's fusion of literary and political analysis is the best.
I'll bet she pronounces the t in often, and shouldn't the title "president" be capitalized?
Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib, Ilhan are in the driver's seat. Pelosi in on the run, but she might not know it. We are witnessing a revolution in the Democrat Party even greater than the great realignment of the 1970's, when the McGovern wing, communist/socialist, seized control and purged moderate and conservative Democrats from the Party. No good will come of this. A truly radical party in Washington portends a Venezuelan future for Americans.
Be thankful Nancy assembled a sentence worthy of scrutiny instead of the incoherent gibberish she's wont to produce.
You make the mistake of thinking people know what the subject and verb are in that sentence. Hell, are kids even taught grammar anymore with its icky subjects and verbs and, OMG, they have to AGREE?!
Pushed, yes. Or dragged. "Ve vill find sometink!!"
Every Democrat is a piece of shit. No exceptions.
If you want to see what a fix Pelosi's in, read Here are the top 6 highest-rated comments at WaPo:
"The children of Individual-1 in question are not children. They are complicit adults: Individual-2, Individual-3 and Individual-4."
"This is a textbook example of white privilege. The Trumps are a crime family. And Dems are "torn" over going after criminals?"
"There's a reason Democrats have been called a party of wimps and here's another manifestation of that reason. If they weren't his kids they'd already be under subpoena to testify. This is nepotism on steroids. Taking a hands-off approach to them is as stark a statement as we've ever seen that the elite in this country are above the law. Whatever one might think about whether a sitting president can be indicted, his aides/staff/etc. have no such protection. Who gives a flying eff if Trump has a breakdown? He'll play the victim card to the end no matter what the Democrats do. And here we are (not for the first time) -- damping down talk of impeachment, walking on eggshells around the most corrupt administration in our history. It's crazy. We're coddling criminals, but why? Are we all so afraid of Trump & his droolers that we're supposed to ignore their crimes?"
"Three of his children have been involved in running trump criminal enterprises and have involved themselves heavily in the campaign and even in running the country.
Investigate!"
"Why should the kids' money-laundering, real estate fraud and tax cheating (Trump Foundation) or Jared's self-dealing receive immunity from prosecution? Jared and Ivanka side-stepped channels to get security clearances. They made independent decisions to step in the limelight. They deserve just punishment."
"Do your jobs you gutless wonders. No wonder the Republicans have walked all over you for the past eight years."
Whomever is in the accusative.
"Her party has taken over the House, and it's under pressure to perform, and one idea that could work but could fail is to investigate investigate investigate."
Investigation is performance. Being on offense is an end in itself.
Pelosi has children and grandchildren, too. The various governments they come into contact with in this country can start looking into them as well.
She thinks her family will be immune. They won’t be.
Chelsea is still off limits.
Why did the wife of Bill Clinton have the right to act as a co-president?
The Party of Million-Felony Hillary wants an investigation.
Lock them all up. Put a Hannibal Lecter mask on Congresswoman Donkey-Chompers, though.
"You make the mistake of thinking people know what the subject and verb are in that sentence."
No, I absolutely do not. I believe people speak and reveal something about their mind. Natural speech has subject/verb agreement. No one is stopping to think of a rule. In English, I think most speakers just don't use "whom" at all, and so any use of "whom" is either a person trying to use a rule — that is, pausing and not speaking naturally — or something strange is going on.
Many listeners hear "whom" and imagine they're listening to someone who's more educated and accurate than they are, and that's one reason for a politician to use "whom." These are listeners who, as you say, haven't learned the rules of grammar. So the con might work on them. There are some people like me who notice the rule and stop and think about the manipulation or stupidity or whatever.
In my view, the word "whom" just should never be used in speech, and I would only use it in formal writing, and even then, I'd prefer to reword the sentence than to have to use the worse-than-useless word.
"Every Democrat is a piece of shit. No exceptions."
"Every Republican, like me, is a piece of shit." There, I fixed it for you.
Persistent rumors of Ivanka's possible escape circulated after her death, fueled by the fact that the location of her burial was unknown during the decades of Progressive rule.
Funny that I first read it as "pot" a la Hansel and Gretel.
Althouse, you're making way too much out of this.
Overuse of "whom" is rampant in the English-speaking world. (So is underuse of "whom.") It's not necessarily a sign of strain. Rather, it's the result of their being lectured by their schoolmarms not to use "who" where "whom" is grammatically correct. So they overreacted, using "whom" even where it's not grammatically appropriate.
Shorter Nancy-Schiff - we are going to harass the Trump family and use CNN et al.. to harass the Trump family until the bitter end. We will find a crime! Guilty!
the word "whom" just should never be used in speech
Strangle it in the whomb.
Nets, of course, are used in fishing expeditions.
I noticed the romanov parallel you were going for.
"Whomsoever" is ever more loftier than "whomever".
Maybe Pelosi was misheard while making the point that sex doesn't matter, Jared or Ivanka, womb-ever?
I like the deliberate use of grammatical and spelling errors to fuck with the prefects.
Sweeden!
Meanwhile Kim gardners witchhunt of greietens dies with a whimper.
Not to split infinitives sounds stilted in speech, too.
I blew a job interview at a law firm by correctly answering a who/whom question on the grammar test, and explaining to the interviewer why their "correct" answer was wrong.
Don't ever do that.
If we are voting, I say Althouse has a point.
A good politician could use spelling and grammatical errors to their advantage.
"Whomever" is the word to use when you want to seem smart and sophisticated. It helps that most people do not know how to use it properly so dumping it anywhere will not get called out by most people. Those that do notice will either let it slide or sound pedantic. This is all aided by the fact that the word seems to be making an exit out of the language. Using "whoever" when "whomever" is appropriate rarely sounds awkward and most speakers will not bother.
If this was Nancy Pelosi's biggest problem with public speaking she would be doing just fine. However, she regularly sounds confused and incoherent, and when she has it together, if you will, she does not sound likeable, which is apt since she is not likeable.
Do not worry yourself too much. After yesterday she is halfway out the door. She has no power here anymore.
I noticed the romanov parallel you were going for.
That has to be your most cryptic ever.
There are certain grammar rules up with which we do not put.
"I contemn thy Threats. Come, look up, Girl:
The Persians shall lay an Ambush for 'em,
And they shall fall into the Net, they shall.
If he repent not soon, I have a Spell
Shall make him feel on Earth the Plagues of Hell."
Someone forgot to remind Trumpit to take his antipsychotics again.
Bob Boyd's, ralph
You make a strong case for avoiding "whom" even if technically correct in a given sentence. "To whom do I have the pleasure of speaking" sounds like *your not happy about it at all. *A pet peeve is the contraction "you're." I'd rather write like a redneck "your" and not be corrected, or looked at askance.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=askanse&form=EDGSPH&mkt=en-us&httpsmsn=1&refig=2681c51e580a4a95bc5d48480b094cf2&sp=-1&ghc=1&pq=askanse&sc=8-7&qs=n&sk=&cvid=2681c51e580a4a95bc5d48480b094cf2
Ann, you'd never say (in normal speech), "To whom did you speak?"
Whom is still necessary when it's the object of a fronted preposition. For whom the bell tolls.
That's actually a register rule, not a case rule. Formal and informal register can't be mixed.
As for the kids, they should just let the next generation alone. They aren’t likely to get much anyway, because most of what Ivankacand her husband have done was out of the White House, and would thus mostly be covered by Executive Privilege. Mueller and his coterie of partisan hack prosecutors made it a practice of going after the kids of their targets in order to bludgeon their targets into guilty pleas. It worked because no one knew the kids. But the public knows esp Ivanka. She is the woman that every young woman wants to be. Barbie on steroids. Beautiful. Three beautiful kids, rich successful good looking husband, successful dress line, and has the ear of the President for her pet issues. Always looking fresh in heels with the three well behaved, well dressed, kids. Jet setting around the country, making it a better place, while always maintaining her poise. The closest thing to an American princess that we have.
We have this American thing that the kids of politicians are supposed to be off limits. The Dems are threatening Trump by threatening to break this rule. They are doing it to hurt Trump, and not for any real oversight reason. It isn’t going to play at all well in Peoria, or throughout the rest of flyover country. You just don’t go after the kids to hurt the parents. The investigations being cranked up in the House are liable to make this Palsi Pelosi’s term as Speaker even shorter than the last, and I think going after Trump’ s family will backfire hugely. Stupid move on her part, but I don’t think that she is being given much choice. A lot of her freshmen’s House seats were bought by rabid leftists like Tom Steyer who won’t accept anything else besides total war with Trump.
Whom is speaking to whom?
"Her party has taken over the House..."
Yes, but Ms. Pelosi is looking more and more like SHE can not take control of her party.
For the second Russian Revolution reference today, "You show me the Republican, I will show you the crime."
This kind of thinking worked out great the last time.
"Is this the party to whom I am speaking?" Is timeless.
(eaglebeak)
Remember the Cultural Revolution, when the youth, in the form of the Red Guard, drove their elders out into the countryside to be reeducated at best, murdered at worst? It set China back decades and was a vast humanitarian disaster.
That's the Dem Party in Congress now, and left unchecked, it will get worse.
“In English, I think most speakers just don't use "whom" at all, and so any use of "whom" is either a person trying to use a rule — that is, pausing and not speaking naturally — or something strange is going on. ”
I think that you have to distinguish here between written and spoken English. I will admit that objective case pronouns used as subjects bothers me more than the opposite, but I took too many years of Latin to be happy with this trend. This sort of mismatch is jarring with me, as Palsi Pelosi’s misuse of “whomever” was jarring to Ann.
Lily Tomlin as "Ernestine" the telephone operator:
One ringy dingy... two ringy dingy.
Have I reached the party to whom I am speaking?
Yes, that funny line must be quoted exactly.
whomever the net falls on
fitfy!
rhhardin said...
Whom is still necessary when it's the object of a fronted preposition. For whom the bell tolls
But you wouldn't say, For whom tolls the bell
[Ann, you'd never say (in normal speech), "To whom did you speak?"]
I think that most say today, "Who did you speak to?" "Who was the gift for." etc., and skip the "to/for whom" stilted speech.
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/stilted
rehajm: A good politician could use spelling and grammatical errors to their advantage.
Indeed, he does.
I mean, Indeed, they could. Yes. That's what I meant.
Generally leftys go after a small, disarmed, unaware group to put an end to the rule of law and then they go after larger and larger groups. But American exceptionalism has led American leftys to openly go after the largest and best armed group in America, the white Christians, signalling their intent by dozens of sneering attacks and hundreds of attempts to disarm so as to alarm and warn. In addition, leftys usually go after a subset of the extremely wealthy, usually the Jews. But our American lefty exceptionalists have clearly explained that they will take money from all the most wealthy in America, the 1% who are worth on average more than $10 million, e.g., Bill Maher. Or the Clintons. TAKE THE CLINTONS MONEY! Kamala, Cory, Kirsten, Lizzie, Bernie, whoever - you think you are going to take money from the Clintons? Oh my. Why not try to take Maduro's money by going over to Venezuela and supporting the opposition or whomever in the streets or something safe like that?
In short, this GND-Democratic Socialism is seriously an attempt to divide the country but not seriously an attempt to introduce socialism. It's a globalist ploy just like trying to elect Hillary or stop Brexit.
"Overuse of "whom" is rampant in the English-speaking world. (So is underuse of "whom.") It's not necessarily a sign of strain. Rather, it's the result of their being lectured by their schoolmarms not to use "who" where "whom" is grammatically correct. So they overreacted, using "whom" even where it's not grammatically appropriate."
Feeling the power of your old "schoolmarm" is strain. You're trying to disagree with me, but you're supporting my point.
It may be that Pelosi's mistake came from that particular form of strain — the inner intimidated student.
I hope not!! I'd like to think she's on a higher level than that, but of course I agree with you that many people say "whom" because they're still trying to do what they were told in school, even though they are not doing it right.
Ask not for whom the net trawls, it trawls for thee.
"[Ann, you'd never say (in normal speech), "To whom did you speak?"]
I think that most say today, "Who did you speak to?" "Who was the gift for." etc., and skip the "to/for whom" stilted speech."
So, which is worse, stilted speech or dangling participle?
So it is a witch hunt, run by a real witch from San Francisco.
Crime think must be punished:
https://www.channel3000.com/news/anti-hate-leaders-denounce-conservative-supreme-court-candidate-keep-hate-out-of-our-courtrooms-/1053336125
Gradations: is Nancy being stupid or manipulative in her choice of words? Or is she being manipulatively stupid or stupidly manipulative? It's definitely a clunker of a sentence that causes the hearer to be more suspicious of Nancy than of Ivanka........Ivanka has a sympathetic persona. She might win a pr contest with Nancy. The boys look rich and smug. It might be better to go after them. Get the SDNY to nail them on some permit or tax violation and give them life in the general prison population. We'll see how much Trump enjoys being President after such a sentence is handed down.
The same mistake people make using "I" when "me" is correct. She's upselling her intelligence but displaying her ignorance.
As for Trump's 'children' being subject to scrutiny, they gave away the expectation of privacy in this sort of investigation when they took on roles in the administration. Nothing for Pelosi to explain or apologize for.
Using “whom” is hoity-toity, but only a few will hear the echo of Shakespeare in “worse-than-useless”.
The word “net” makes me think of a fishing expedition — with a factory grade trawler.
Anita Loos wrote A Girl Like I, available you-know-where.
Whomst'd've.
This is perfectly ok. They are Jews arent they?
One ringy dingy... two ringy dingy.
Gracious, good afternoon.
Well, not yet on the East Coast.
A lot of her freshmen’s House seats were bought by rabid leftists like Tom Steyer who won’t accept anything else besides total war with Trump.
And this is who is electing them.
Until now I have never figured out Crazy Bernie’s appeal, but I now think I have the answer. The people who like Bernie never took high school physics and are innumerate. At Omaha Creighton Prep I was blessed to have Mr. Ron Bruno as my physics teacher. While teaching Newtonian physics, he told us that there is no free lunch in the universe. This applies in physics, government and in life. The people who vote for Bernie don’t understand that fundamental fact. Sanders asserted several times that we are the wealthiest nation in human history. And how did we get there? Free enterprise. Bernie’s solution is to take private wealth and give out free stuff. Socialism never ends well because, as Lady Thatcher noted, “You eventually run out of other people’s money.”
I spoke with one Bernie volunteer. I cited Venezuela as an example of how socialism fails. He wasn’t familiar with what is happening there and was of the opinion that Bernie will give us the “socialist system” of Germany.
I’d say at least 80 percent of the crowd was 30 and younger. In the last election, that was his strongest demographic. Sanders is counting on them again. The crowd was large and enthusiastic.
Dave Begley at Council Bluffs Bernie event.
I've gotten "who" and "whom" mixed up too often in the past to throw shade on Pelosi here.
But, yeah. Pelosi often attempts to affect an air of cool, intellectual distance that ends up coming off as supercilious and disingenuous. So did Obama. So do a lot of other high level Dems. But John Kerry is still the real gold medalist winner of the Superiority Complex Olympics.
I'm not an English major. So I appreciate your ability to point out a big problem by using grammar without sounding like a grammar Nazi. I've been thinking about the use of tasers to get people to comply with orders. Intelligence gathering has created numerous disasters. Pelosi also recently spoke about her, too hot to handle club. A strategy to prevent resolution. It's We the People, not They the Government.
Adopts Rooseveltian voice. “Please ... pass ... the ... popcorn”
@Althouse (8:01), the witch put herself in that fix.
"it's under pressure to perform"
That's such a nice way to put it. Actually, they are under pressure to attack and persecute for the sake of exclusive prog power.
"But I don't think it's a good strategy to trawl all over in hope of finding something, anything. You look so irresponsible, and you're asking us to give you more power in the next election."
That's such a nice response. Tsk, tsk, Dems, you need to be a little nicer if you want the Althouses to vote for you.
"but it shouldn't be a trawling net. It needs to be a net fixed in place, not wielded by aggressive Democrats"
No, it shouldn't be. A trawling net is not nice. But then, we are talking about Dems, who are all "aggressive," so what do you expect?
As always, the question remains, at what point will the Althouses draw a line, realizing that the not-good strategy and the not-nice trawling net are not bugs but features? That Dems don't give a damn about the nice norms of nice midwestern women? That voting for any Dem abets the destructive insanity?
While teaching Newtonian physics, he told us that there is no free lunch in the universe. This applies in physics, government and in life.
Crystal sets.
The newsman mistake is usually "The man whom police believe is responsible for the crime..."
Curiously it would be correct with "to be" instead of "is." Subjects of non-finite verbs are in the objective case.
All lefty shits love to write the N word. Ironically of course. And Trump.
We've gone from "show me the man and I'll show you the crime" to "show me the outrage and I'll find you some criminals".
Isn't that the very definition of a witch hunt?
[@Althouse (8:01), the witch put herself in that fix.]
I won't get into the gutter with the repulsive, deplorable likes of you. Everything about Nancy Pelosi is superior to you including her grammar.
It's amazing to me the the Dems think Trump is going to stand with his hands behind his pack letting them punch him.
The ultimate counterpuncher has stood by while this all played out. Why? Because he's too meek and timid to punch back?
His SOTU was him extending the olive branch. Mueller clears him, he puts it all aside, and they all work on infrastructure together.
Hasn't Pelosi even considered that once the Mueller Report is released that AG Barr can begin investigating the investigators?
Does it not occur to her that "whomever" may fall into the net are standing in her vicinity?
Pelosi's family have received millions in kickbacks.
Mueller them all.
It started as a warlock hunt, but will progress as a witch hunt because approximately half of women are not compliant with the means and methods, and therefore not viable party members.
"I won't get into the gutter with the repulsive, deplorable - "
To jump in the gutter while righteously declaring you wouldn't.
Libtard or parody?
I won't get into the gutter with the repulsive, deplorable likes of you. Everything about Nancy Pelosi is superior to you including her grammar.
I imagine "getting into" the gutter is a challenge when Trumpit is already in the gutter, has always been in the gutter, and never left.
Oh, and Trumpit? I've been called "deplorable" by way better than you.
Remember the Cultural Revolution, when the youth, in the form of the Red Guard, drove their elders out into the countryside to be reeducated at best, murdered at worst? It set China back decades and was a vast humanitarian disaster.
That's the Dem Party in Congress now, and left unchecked, it will get worse.
That is clearly what is happening in American universities and the Dem Party is clearly moving in that direction.
It is completely amazing to me that anyone could possibly get close to a thought that Ivanka and Jared should avoid investigation because they are family members of the President. Althouse rightly acknowledges that they are senior advisors to the President. Advisors, who are the most dubiously-qualified senior White House staff in any living American's lifetime. Advisors, with the most unclear portfolios in memory. Advisors, whose security cleareances were reportedly denied but which were forcibly granted by Ivanka's father and Jared's father-in-law.
Because Althouse has the useful blogging "tags," I see that she has never addressed herself on her blog to the security clearance denials for Jared and Ivanka despite much reporting on them.
It is one of the primary problems involved in a President's choosing many close family members to serve in an administration. And it is one of the many weird things about this President.
It was always claimed that the Trump Organization was a big business and Trump himself was an important figure because he was such a successful business leader, managing a business of considerable size and scope. When in truth, Trump's business was operated as a very small shop with very few employees, and of those few employees they were almost all family, extended family, and a handful of longtime employees like the family accountant. Built more on the model of the Sopranos, than Chase Manhattan.
This situation does not feature a net.
Rather, this situation features a trap.
Many house Dems will justify the endless and broad investigations by referencing that silly poll conducted by ABC News and WaPoo back in January that appeared to indicate that most Americans want Trump investigated. "See! We're just doing what Americans want!". I don't know if they actually believe such a poll or not. Personally I wouldn't trust any poll conducted by ABC News and WaPo whatsoever, but especially a poll having anything to do with regards to Trump. Both organizations have proven themselves to be untrustworthy, bad faith actors time and time again.
There are (or used to be) signs in a lot of barber shops reading "It pays to look well." This does not mean what they think it means. It is bad enough to correct the grammar in a commonly used idiomatic phrase, but to mis-correct it is worse.
During the Kennedy Presidency, there was a controversy about the granting of a security clearance to Walt Rostow, whom President Kennedy had appointed to the position of Deputy National Security Advisor.
Rostow had come from a far-left family. His parents were prominent Socialist activists. Walt Rostow's brother Eugene Rostow had been named after Eugene Debs, the leader of the USA's socialists.
Throughout Walt Rostow's career until that appointment, he had various relationships that raised suspicions among people who conducted security-clearance investigations. However, Attorney General Robert Kennedy thought the suspicions were absurd and therefore ordered that a security clearance be granted to Rostow without the usual procedures.
Furthermore, Robert Kennedy arranged for Otto Otepka, a security-clearance official who had objected, to be subjected to a bureaucratic harassment campaign, which ruined Otepka's professional career.
This situation subsequently was reported in a book titled The Ordeal of Otto Otepka, written by William Gill and published in 1969. Gill wrote the book to inform the public about the brutal bureaucratic methods of Robert Kennedy was running for President.
at what point will the Althouses draw a line, realizing that the not-good strategy and the not-nice trawling net are not bugs but features? That Dems don't give a damn about the nice norms of nice midwestern women? That voting for any Dem abets the destructive insanity?
Yeas. Vote with your head then satisfy your id some other way.
the brutal bureaucratic methods of Robert Kennedy
A year too late. Was that to avoid a libel action?
Nick rostov who worked in the Reagan nsc in the 80s was kind of black sheep,
I know of him, because Alan Friedman, who was one of muellers witnesses against Manafort went after him regarding so called 'iraqgate'
For whom the bells toll.
“Despite the White House’s initial refusal to provide them, the House Oversight Committee now has documents related to Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump’s security clearances thanks to a source inside the White House, Axios reported.”
Leakiest Whitehouse ever.
Althouse, maybe you should have gone here.
I have been watching The Bachelor reality show for the past 17 years. On that show, the accusative case of the pronounce I is not me. Rather, the accusative case is I.
For example, any woman on the show would say, "That was a fun date for Colton and I".
No woman on the show ever would say, "That was a fun date for Colton and me".
The same goes for men, when they speak.
This grammar is caused by the experience of being on nationally-broadcast television, where you have to speak as correctly as possible. If you do not know the grammar rule for sure, it's simply safer to guess that me probably is wrong and low-class.
I have been watching The Bachelor reality show for the past 17 years.
I can't believe you admitted that publicly. You could be hounded by Drago for the rest of your internet life.
I prefer to follow it via the Daily Mail femail.
Kennedy consorted with at least one woman who was a Soviet spy. He was completely reckless with security. Not to mention the nepotism of appointing his brother AG. But Camelot!
Ellen rometsch, and in his navy years a suspected nazi spy, that's why papa Joe arranged to send him to the solomons.
This government is unique? Tell that to JFK. His brother was a cabinet official with Senate approval.
Leaks are now bad? I thought we favored transparency? Who disfavors transparency? That, and who thinks it's great that the Deep State continues to operate against the duly elected chief executive?
Weird shit some people believe.
That said, Althouse really struck a nerve. She sees the strain and feels the tactics are grotesque. Pelosi is boxed in by her own pragmatism, her San Fran donors, and freshman crazies. Pelosi is in a pickle of her own making.
It is an interesting thought- is "whom" a conscious choice, whether used correctly or not? It does look to me that Pelosi deliberately chose it as a verbal way to distance herself from the dirty, awful reality that she and her colleagues are literally shitting all over the legal system in the pursuit of a political opponents. Consider that Pelosi could have simply said, "Yes, we will pursue investigations of the President's children and other relatives in search of the crimes we think they have committed." The use of whom and the complete construct of those sentences is passive, and when I see people write passively this way, I do immediately think they are trying to hide something of which they are actually ashamed
Regarding my comment about the book The Ordeal of Otto Otepka.
A year too late [after the assassination of Robert Kennedy]. Was that to avoid a libel action?
No, it's a 505-page book. It took that long to write and publish.
I can't believe you admitted that publicly. You could be hounded by Drago for the rest of your internet life.
I think Mike explains why he watches "The Bachelor/ette" in part 46 of his analysis of "Dirty Dancing".
"the House Oversight Committee now has documents related to Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump’s security clearances"
WTF? There are documents related to security clearances? Sinister!
My 19 year-old son has a security clearance. There are documents related to it.
“My 19 year-old son has a security clearance. There are documents related to it.”
So? Does he work in the White House?
I think Mike explains why he watches "The Bachelor/ette" in part 46 of his analysis of "Dirty Dancing".
Part 46?
Today that blog of mine has 1,250 posts.
It took that long to write and publish
But what would have been the point, if RFK were already President? Needed more Pith!
Trump can legally give a security clearance to anyone he pleases. If they want to impeach him over that, have at it!
This little blog of mine, I'm gonna let it shine--if it weren't so damned Dirty.
You should do "Robocop", next.
If memory serves otepka also examined the files of recently admitted persons like Lee Harvey oswald.
Imagine going after a president for things the president is specifically authorized to do under law.
That's an attack on the institutions.
Ribert Kennedy relied on a gru cutout bolshakov, who had lied to him about the placement of missiles in Cuba
Are you people suggesting Trump get the full JFK consequences?
Explaining things to the terminally stupid seems a poor use of time.
“While teaching Newtonian physics, he told us that there is no free lunch in the universe. This applies in physics, government and in life.”
Wonder when Begley is going to show up here to see what we did to his Powerline article. What is good about his articles there is the analysis he does.
"Someone forgot to remind Trumpit to take his antipsychotics again."
Whomever was responsible must be punished!
"Myself" is also often misused and loftily so. "Whomever fails to spread the net broadly enough to catch Trump's children must be reported to Steny or myself".
Sounds so much more "above the fray" than "Steny or me", but it's just wrong.
"Whomever I am, stop myself before I bloviate again!"
It is completely amazing to me that anyone could possibly get close to a thought that Ivanka and Jared should be investigated because they are family members of the President.
FIFY.
If you think they would be exempt but for their White House jobs, I've got a winning John Kasich Presidential campaign to sell you.
Is this a thread where we can talk about AOC's political party, Democratic Socialists of America, chanting about the state of Israel being removed from the maps? Chanting in favor of genocide, I suppose.
"From the ocean to the sea, Palestine will be free."
That was the exact phrasing. There is video.
sarc
Trump is responsible, I just know it.
/sarc
‘Whomever’ has been voted the pronoun most likely to make the speaker look a fool.
"But "whomever" reveals Ivanka and Jared as objects, not subjects. They don't fall. They are pushed."
The AA vortex is really in high gear today. That's a heavy load to dump on the (mis)use of the objective case. And Pelosi is of the age when the different uses of the objective and nominative cases were drummed into students, especially at parochial schools. Perhaps she suffered through her early schooling in a public institution, or perhaps she's slipped a bit over the years. But it's doubtful that her use of 'whomever' reveals much of anything. It does make a nice launching pad for this post, however.
It’s not that hard people. Just rephrase it in your mind with “he” or “him” or “she” or “her” if you prefer, instead of “who" or “whom.” If “he” sounds right, it’s “who” and if “him” sounds right, it’s “whom.”
It soon becomes natural and you don’t have to do it anymore. Of course being able to use “who” and “whom” correctly naturally in speech is a useless skill, for reasons Althouse has explained. Still, it might keep you from using it incorrectly in written speech, where the temptation really lies. Plus you get to join the fun of being outrages when others use it incorrectly!
Howard: "Are you people suggesting Trump get the full JFK consequences?"
You want Trump to sleep with mafia kingpin mistresses and order interns to orally "service" Secret Service Agents in the White House?
Why do you suddenly want this?
“Whomever” is an offshoot of Sports Commentator Speech. Like, “between you and I”, “ that’s between he and the coach,” ad nauseam. The commentator is typically a former player, and lacks confidence in his command of English. He’s used to saying, “him and me went ...” and wants to clean things up for the listeners (think Troy Aikman). Curiously, they’d never say “between I and you”, or “between he and the coach”"…
Ribert Kennedy relied on a gru cutout bolshakov, who had lied to him about the placement of missiles in Cuba
narciso,
Are you using your thumbs to type?
I have an extra stylus if you want it.
You should do "Robocop", next.
I never have watched Robocop, but I have an anecdote to tell about it.
When I was a USAF Intelligence officer, I was an inspector during the destruction of intermediate-range ballistic missiles, in accordance with a Reagan-Gorbachev treaty.
As such, I was in the Soviet Union for several weeks-long inspections, and so I spent a lot of time talking with my counter-part Soviet officers working as interpreters. We all had a lot of time to kill.
One evening I was sitting in a restaurant with a few Soviet interpreters, and I asked for their suggestion of what we might do to kill some time. One of them suggested: "Let's watch Robocop again."
I asked him how many times he already had watched it, and he answered that he had watched it many times, but never got tired of watching it. He explained that he studies the movie's complexities endlessly.
The other Soviet interpreters agreed with him.
Unfortunately, we did not have the DVD available right then, so I never got the opportunity to watch Robocop along with these expert students of the movie.
======
For a long time, I thought about moving on to begin a new blog about the movie Moulin Rouge, but I decided against doing so.
Francisco D,
Interpretation is half the fun.
That's where the learning happens.
we did not have the DVD available right then
Possibly because they weren't available until 1995. Was the USSR VHS or Beta or 16mm?
Interpretation is half the fun.
The other half is translation and comma counting.
Well said, Ralph L.
Possibly because they [DVDs] weren't available until 1995.
Yes, you are right about that. This happened in about 1989.
The Russian interpreters must have had Robocop on video cassettes. They had a lot of bootleg stuff, because they had a lot of dealings with foreigners.
I myself gave them a lot of music cassettes, books, magazines, military patches and other stuff.
Inga...Allie Oop said...
For whom the bells toll.
“Despite the White House’s initial refusal to provide them, the House Oversight Committee now has documents related to Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump’s security clearances thanks to a source inside the White House, Axios reported.”
Leakiest Whitehouse ever.
Inga links to a perfect demonstration of how the swamp is obviously manned by Democrats and obviously trying to subvert the will of the voters.
Thinks that this reflects badly on Trump somehow making his administration leaky.
You cannot parody this level of stupid.
Satire is never going to live up to how ridiculous these people are.
I want to point out what these documents are. The sf86 has everything that identifies you for the last 10 years.
Everything.
The people that leaked this to the Democrats are not just traitors. They are leaking confidential information about people who are serving the country with the most personal information. They are also evil slimebags of the worst sort.
People like Inga that cheer this are complete and total pieces of shit.
They are so consumed with their own power over other people they are willing to do anything to their enemies.
Pelosi meant "we're gonna persecute whomever we want." But she knows that sounds thuggish and she's a classy lady. Nancy Pelosi keeping abuse of power classy.
PS the reCAPTCHA is sadistic.
One movie I did watch with some Russian officers was Rocky IV, which is about Rocky Balboa boxing against a Russian boxing champion.
The Russians thought this movie was hilarious, because it shows poor Rocky training with only primitive equipment and coaching for his match against a Captain Ivan Drago, who enjoys training in a Soviet ultra-modern, high-tech military-sports facility.
They thought the movie was hilarious also because it shows the Soviet Politburo becoming involved to help Captain Drago defeat Rocky.
Pelosi realizes her potential when wielding a novelty-sized mallet.
And 34 years later, he's back, after the disgrace,
Robocop was a dark dystopia, frank miller supposedly sketched the outline of the story, back then I thought the hyperviolence was a little over the top,
The people that leaked this to the Democrats are not just traitors. They are leaking confidential information about people who are serving the country with the most personal information. They are also evil slimebags of the worst sort.
Like the FBI people who sent those 900 Repub files to the Clinton WH. And they'll get the same punishment.
You sound stuffy even if you use it correctly, but when you use it incorrectly, you're really letting it show that you're straining at — what? — aloofness, intellectualism, loftiness, distance. It's so revealing.
Revealing? Here's what's revealed — Althouse is guilty of a first-degree violation of the law of parsimony. Not quite an angelic cotillion on a pinhead, but certainly a warrantless case of zebras rather than horses. There are many less tiresome explanations of Pelosi's ungrammatical speech than strain.
Or is the whole point to demean? - Trumpit
Congratulations, witch. You've cracked the code.
Investigating everyone who every has had contact with Trump is real banana republic stuff, but apparently the top NYT commenters are OK with that.
Regarding the grammar, one of the small benefits of learning a foreign language is seeing how to properly use who/whom and phrases like between you and me instead of between you and I.
*sigh*
Yet another missed opportunity to revive "whosoever" and "whomsoever" ...
Yet another missed opportunity to revive "whosoever" and "whomsoever" ...
The proper form is "whomsofuckingever".
“... but Trump’s adult children ....”
Is there anyone “whomever” doubted that the mediaswine at WaPo would offer up some justification for the Democrats attacks on Trump’s family? Trying to be of service to the country does seem a lame reason to become targets for Democrat swamprats.
Trump’s children except for Barron are adults and because they are his children they are not exempt from investigation. No one forced Ivanka and Jared to be high level advisors who may have broken laws, not even speaking of the crass nepotism. There is a probably a darn good reason they were not given the highest security clearances.
When did "darn good reason" come to mean Orange Man Bad and political fishing expeditions without a legal predicate?
When Harry Reid changed the Senate rules, it meant two conservative Justices on SCOTUS.
The mind boggles that such a lesson has not been learned.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा